Become a part of the community. Register and take part in all the features the site has to offer.

Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Northriding / Randburg
    Age
    74
    Posts
    68

    Default Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    I have heard that some photographers store their images as TIFF files.
    By playing around with TIFF I have noticed that these files are much larger than RAW files.
    What advantages are there - if any -to store images in TIFF ?

  2. #2
    Administrator SimonDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Centurion RSA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    23,481

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    Nothing really. Yes they take up more space, the development you have done is final, although you can redevelop them further if required. RAW means you can redo them from scratch with new software and should you want to.
    Simon Du Plessis

    www.actionimage.co.za simondp@actionimage.co.za

    (I'll keep on shooting, and one of these days I'll get it right!)
    Contact me for training in Beginners, Macro, Wildlife or Sport & Action photography
    Please e-mail or PM me should you wish to have my comments on a specific image, or to comment/ask questions on my crits)

  3. #3
    Frequent Member elsahoffmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    12,026

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    I also never use TIFF. No benefit for me

    I always have my original images in RAW. If I want to keep an image with layers in photoshop - so I could maybe change a layer later - especially if it is an image which I spent hours on editing - I will keep a .psd. Otherwise - I finish the image off and save a jpg.
    Nudity is the most Avant Garde form of dress

    www.elsahoffmann.co.za
    www.intimateimages.co.za

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Northriding / Randburg
    Age
    74
    Posts
    68

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    Many thanks Elsa and Simon for confirming what I already "assumed"......RAW it is and will remain for storage .....

  5. #5
    Frequent Member elsahoffmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    12,026

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    Quote Originally Posted by Gerd View Post
    Many thanks Elsa and Simon for confirming what I already "assumed"......RAW it is and will remain for storage .....
    Enjoy
    Nudity is the most Avant Garde form of dress

    www.elsahoffmann.co.za
    www.intimateimages.co.za

  6. #6
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    616

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    That's fine as long as your camera manufacturer sticks around since their formats are all proprietary.

    I suppose you could go through the effort of converting your raw (<-- see that, it's raw, not RAW) files to a more open format like DNG.

  7. #7
    Frequent Member ganna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Estcourt KZN midlands
    Age
    66
    Posts
    276

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    Here's an interesting article concerning RAW, JPEG and TIFF - What they are and when to use them http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/raw.html
    Martin Kirstein

  8. #8
    Administrator SimonDP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Centurion RSA
    Age
    59
    Posts
    23,481

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    That Bob Atkins article is nice, but a little dated. We all know jpg 2000 died before it was born.... The basics still apply however. Lets look at this from a more practical and real world point of view. In-camera processing has come a long way in the last few years, but so has software for your PC. Your camera has limited processing capabilities - small processor, (which also has to do many many other weird and wonderful things when you're pressing the shutter button, such as tripping the shutter, doing AF, calculating AF tracking (if in that mode), writing the previous image to the card, determine remaining memory space etc etc etc.....all whilst generating the new RAW file which it has to convert in-camera to jpg. Your camera always captures a raw file, then converts to jpg afterwards if required. So that itty bitty processor (in comparison to the one in your PC) is very busy indeed, and with minimum RAM to assist to boot (compared to your PC). Yet it does that in about 1.5 sec flat (creating your wonderful jpg in-camera) which takes my PC with many many more times the processing power and RAM available, about 5-8 sec to do. Why is that? because the camera algorithms take shortcuts.....the software on your PC doesn't.

    A simple test - set your camera to largest jpg setting and shoot a colourful scene, flower bed etc. In-camera parameters to neutral. Then without changing anything except file type, set to RAW and repeat the shot. Now download to your PC, and using proper software like Lightroom etc, convert the RAW to largest jpg as is, no changes. (We'll assume you're one heck of a photographer and get it right in-camera first time) Now compare the two "large" jpgs, typically from a 16 MP sensor you should see the in-camera jpg about 3.5-4.2 MB, and the LR converted raw to jpg about 6-7 MB. Now you guess which one contains more data, and which one will display better in pixel peeing and colour screening, especially reds, and handle the boost of shadows/highlights/ colour saturation etc better. Develop in LR and export again, bigger jpg still...... Viva RAW power!

    As for camera proprietary raw files - I can still process raw files from my ancient Canon D30 - 18 years old now....using modern software
    Simon Du Plessis

    www.actionimage.co.za simondp@actionimage.co.za

    (I'll keep on shooting, and one of these days I'll get it right!)
    Contact me for training in Beginners, Macro, Wildlife or Sport & Action photography
    Please e-mail or PM me should you wish to have my comments on a specific image, or to comment/ask questions on my crits)

  9. #9
    Frequent Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    616

    Default Re: Image storage TIFF vs RAW

    Yet it does that in about 1.5 sec flat (creating your wonderful jpg in-camera) which takes my PC with many many more times the processing power and RAM available, about 5-8 sec to do. Why is that?
    For one thing the PC is using software, whilst the in-camera processors are doing it via hardware. Software is slower, slower still when you involve a HDD/SSD because JPG conversion doesn't happen until you export it.

    For another those in-camera processors are a lot less taxed by other events. My computer currently has 330 processes happening, using 1325 threads. One of them is checking the time, another is checking my email, another is checking to see if my phone has wondered in or out of range... somewhere in there is the process that is converting my raw file.

    Now compare the two "large" jpgs, typically from a 16 MP sensor you should see the in-camera jpg about 3.5-4.2 MB, and the LR converted raw to jpg about 6-7 MB.
    At your suggestion I tried a test using DPP to process the raw file:

    Name:  Screen Shot 2018-06-01 at 13.15.49.jpg
Views: 35
Size:  43.2 KB

    The difference in file size between the two jpgs isn't nearly as significant as you suggested it would be.

    Anyway, weren't we discussing image storage?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •