| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/10/2005 08:55:36 PM · #1 |
| Sorry for being n00b, but I know JPEG is the worse quality and has only 8bit info on the RGB channels. What about RAW and TIFF? 24bit? |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 09:12:46 PM · #2 |
RAW stores 16 bits per channel, but the actual usable range from most cams is 12 bits or a little less. The real beauty of RAW lies in the ability to pull or push exposure a little without risking posterization (because of the finer gradation).
TIFF can be either 8 bits per channel or 16 bits per channel.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 09:41:21 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
RAW stores 16 bits per channel, but the actual usable range from most cams is 12 bits or a little less. The real beauty of RAW lies in the ability to pull or push exposure a little without risking posterization (because of the finer gradation).
TIFF can be either 8 bits per channel or 16 bits per channel. |
Kirbic, very clear explanation. Thank you.
However, how do we see in a camera's specification whether the TIFF is 8 bits or 16 bits per channel? All is mentioned is that it has RAW and TIFF output. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 09:43:34 PM · #4 |
TIFF files written directly by cmaeras will always (I'm not AWARE of any exceptions, LOL) be 8-bit. The only advantage they offer over JPG is the lack of lossy compression (or any compression for that matter). They are usually larger and slower to write than RAW files, so there is really almost no advantage to shooting TIFF.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:20:22 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
...there is really almost no advantage to shooting TIFF. |
Kirbic, So if the camera supports both RAW and TIFF, I should just forget about TIFF? no advantages whatsoever? |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:25:01 PM · #6 |
TIFF has the (small) advantage of being both uncompressed and ready-to-use. A TIFF file can be opened or placed in almost any program. A RAW file requires processing and conversion with proprietary software before it can be used for anything.
However, you're pretty much correct except for special circumstances. TIFF mainly existed (in cameras) as an uncompressed alternative to JPEG before the RAW format was developed and sensors/files got so big. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:26:06 PM · #7 |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:33:00 PM · #8 |
RAW can do edit using Photoshop CS2?
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 22:33:47. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 10:41:58 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by akina:
RAW can do edit using Photoshop CS2? |
Depends on the camera. CS2 supports a lot of common cameras, certainly not all though. If your cam supports RAW, conversion software probably was shipped with it.
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 12:57:22 AM · #10 |
You may need a plugin to make Photoshop compatible with the RAW that a particular camera uses, each brand (and even model) has its own type of RAw.
Originally posted by akina:
RAW can do edit using Photoshop CS2? |
|
|
|
|
11/11/2005 03:19:02 AM · #11 |
| Photoshop CS2 can open my 20D Raw files without any plugins. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 08:46:02 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by samanwar:
Photoshop CS2 can open my 20D Raw files without any plugins. |
Doesn't it open with Adobe Camera RAW plugin? |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 09:07:27 AM · #13 |
A RAW file is the original, unprocessed pixels that your camera captured. No sharpening, compression, etc. has been applied, and the white balance is only tagged (so it's changeable). RAW files are usually 16 bit, so you have a lot more information to work with to get a final image. Many settings can be changed after the fact, and it will be as if you went back in time and changed them on the camera.
A JPEG locks in all your camera's settings and compresses the image for convenience. A TIFF is essentially a JPEG without the compression. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:24:26 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
RAW stores 16 bits per channel, but the actual usable range from most cams is 12 bits or a little less. The real beauty of RAW lies in the ability to pull or push exposure a little without risking posterization (because of the finer gradation).
|
And I seem to be able to better adjust white balance in RAW (when I need to adjust it.) |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:31:57 AM · #15 |
JPG has two advantages:
1. you can fit more photos on your memory card.
2. you can take more photos in a given time because less data has to be written to the memory card for each photo.
So if you're shooting sports/action photos, you may want to use JPG.
JPG can be a lossy compression. The more you compress, the more you lose. However, the compression is designed to (hopefully) lose the parts of the picture you don't care about first. So you can do some significant compression and not change the apparent "goodness" of your image.
However, sometimes its better to lower the resolution of the saved images than to increase the JPG compression. For example, all the blue-ribbon shots on DPC are at most 640 pixels in the largest dimension . |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 11:57:29 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by hankk:
JPG has two advantages:
1. you can fit more photos on your memory card.
2. you can take more photos in a given time because less data has to be written to the memory card for each photo.
So if you're shooting sports/action photos, you may want to use JPG.
JPG can be a lossy compression. The more you compress, the more you lose. However, the compression is designed to (hopefully) lose the parts of the picture you don't care about first. So you can do some significant compression and not change the apparent "goodness" of your image.
However, sometimes its better to lower the resolution of the saved images than to increase the JPG compression. For example, all the blue-ribbon shots on DPC are at most 640 pixels in the largest dimension . |
JPG is lossy...tons of info is thrown away.
Memory cards are getting cheaper and cheaper every day
Camera buffers are getting larger and larger
Shooting sports in RAW is NOT a problem with the right equipment
Major "problem" with RAW is it takes longer to process and that's all. |
|
|
|
11/11/2005 12:46:26 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by hankk:
JPG has two advantages:
1. you can fit more photos on your memory card.
2. you can take more photos in a given time because less data has to be written to the memory card for each photo.
So if you're shooting sports/action photos, you may want to use JPG.
JPG can be a lossy compression. The more you compress, the more you lose. However, the compression is designed to (hopefully) lose the parts of the picture you don't care about first. So you can do some significant compression and not change the apparent "goodness" of your image.
However, sometimes its better to lower the resolution of the saved images than to increase the JPG compression. For example, all the blue-ribbon shots on DPC are at most 640 pixels in the largest dimension . |
JPG is lossy...tons of info is thrown away.
Memory cards are getting cheaper and cheaper every day
Camera buffers are getting larger and larger
Shooting sports in RAW is NOT a problem with the right equipment
Major "problem" with RAW is it takes longer to process and that's all. |
I think he meant if you are shooting sports without a mark II. ;-)
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 05:31:18 PM EDT.
