Raw To Tiff

[tragic hero]

If its the final edit and you are not gonna change it why not save it as jpeg? You allways have your back up of the raw file and a much easier tranferable jpeg file.

[billbunton]

Originally Posted by tragic hero

If its the final edit and you are not gonna change it why not save it as jpeg? You allways have your back up of the raw file and a much easier tranferable jpeg file.

Not sure who you're asking, but...

For one thing, if I decide I want to print on a different paper, one I didn't add an adjustment layer for, I don't want to load and resave a jpeg. I don't want to redo the adjustments each time I go to print. I want to be able to save with layers so that I can easily turn on adjustments for a different paper. A year from now I may decide it needs more editing. Two years from now there may be a printer that can actually take advantage of having a 16-bit image. Disk space is cheap :-)

[kuhnewer]

This question is for anyone. Why does everyone save in tiff? I have been processing RAW thru Nikon Capture, then converting to .psd thru Photoshop 7. Am I missing something by not going to tiff. And maybe I don't know my acronyms very well, but what is ACR?

[AndrewCCM]

Interesting tidbit that was passed along to me by someone that attended Fran's workshop. The Canon rep that was there highly suggested that for (LARGE) prints that the RAW conversion to PSD/TIFF be done within Canon's DPP vs. ACR in Photoshop. He stated that Adobe barely consulted with them at all on the RAW specs and that there is a significant difference in detail level (mainly noticeable in very large prints). After conversion, PS can be used for manipulation. It's just the Raw conversion that they suggested DPP instead.

Obviously, this is Canon rep speak...but apparently side by side comparisons in print show the difference.

On the Nikon side there was a discussion over on the Digital Wedding Forum about the conversion of D2X files using Capture NX vs. ACR and that there was a significant difference there as well.. Particularly with higher ISO images (NX being much cleaner).

Just passing on what was relayed to me. Nothing that I have concrete proof on...

[TXhummer2]

Even my Lite version of Fuji RAW to TIFF converter delivers a better punch than PS and ACR.

[maccis]

I tend to agree with the Canon rep. i have not used the Canon software, however the Photoshop RAW photos that are converted to JPG are very grainy and the color is off compared to the same photo saved as JPG when shooting RAW and JPG.

Does anyone else notice this.

[AndrewCCM]

Originally Posted by maccis

I tend to agree with the Canon rep. i have not used the Canon software, however the Photoshop RAW photos that are converted to JPG are very grainy and the color is off compared to the same photo saved as JPG when shooting RAW and JPG.

Does anyone else notice this.

That would be because RAW is RAW. The JPG shot with the camera is an interpreted 8bit file with WB, Contrast, Color saturation, etc.. applied within camera to the file. RAW is RAW data. The RAW conversion app will bring it in and apply whatever settings you choose non-distructively. Each RAW converter has its own quirks and interpretations...

[TXhummer2]

Update: ACR 3.6 in PS works well for converting my Fuji raw files. Depending upon the exposure settings I test between s7(fuji only) and the new Fuji Finepix Studio 5.300E which has "Image Intelligence" as they call it, to see which of the three conversions to 16bit TIFF looks best. I have barely touched Adobe DNG, which I think uses the exif info to do just what the camera settings for jpegs does, but it does allow the file to keep the raw file attached to it. Adobe DNG is a standalone raw converter that has the same camera info built in to ACR 3.6. So if you are not using a Fuji, try both ACR and DNG.

[Twilight Imaging.net]

(Gaga eyed) boy oh boy do I need a class in this...ugh

[TXhummer2]

Just try, and never ever "Save changes to (raw) file?", just save as something else. Experience is still the best teacher here.

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by dsjsws

Hal,

For archival purposes I always archive my RAW files. That way as technology changes, styles change and my expertise grows, I can always go back to the RAW file and start over if I wish.
I would prefer to work in a 16 bit tiff most of the time, however technology has not caught up, so I end up working in 8 bit tiffs most of the time so that my plug-ins will work.
I can always go back and use the raw file when technology catches up to convert to a 16 bit tiff for future modifications.
Maybe someday techology will just let me work with the RAW files without converting.
I know I use a lot of hard drive space and DVD's just archiving the RAW and 8-bit tiffs.
If you are also archiving the 16 bit tiffs you are eating a even more hard drive space.
Good luck.

Donna

I would never consider anything other than a 16bit tiff with LZW compression. Why throw away data and dynamic range?

Disks are cheap. But I archive RAW/DNG and PSD and skip Tiff when at all possible.

[arunap]

Photoshop should help you convert your RAW to 16 bit TIFF, convering to 8 bit TIFF only degrades the pictures. For general printing it dosent matter as almost all (99%) printers print in 8 bit mode, so a 16 bit tiff dosent make sence there. The genuine reason why we covert to 16 bit TIFF is for archival purpose and better image correction at 16 bit level.