RAW or TIFF?

[redsquarephoto.com]

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion, only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

 

[Jim Mountford]

I've never shot in TIFF, because the files are huge. Currently I have enough room to do 20 raw shots on my microdrive, (empty drive leaves me with 80) when I changed it to TIFF it went down to 7. The RAW files are about 4.5mb, the TIFF files, would be around 13.5 or so. Other then that, I don't know if your buying a thing shooting in TIFF over RAW.

When I convert, it changes my raw file into a 35mb TIFF. More information means more detail, right. Not sure if it matters a hill of beans in the whole relm of things. All I know is it works and I'm satisfied shooting in raw, then converting. Never had the kind of control I have with digital that I had with film. To me, any improvement is a huge blessing. Its, without doubt, the reason I am so jazzed about digital. I now have control, I don't have to depend on a lab.

Peace
Jim

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--

I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

 

[Zephalephelah]

If you shoot RAW, then you have to add another step to your work. If you have the RAW convertor LE, then you don't have all that much control over your RAW conversions.

I like to keep it simple. I shoot JPG or TIFF. I'm really not interested in messing around with yet another program just to see if I have a printable image or not. That's why I bought this camera! It has EXCELLENT out of the camera ability.

RAW can be better, but you know ... I'm not going to spend time with it. I think it's bad enough that I have to wait for the images to load at all. It's a microdrive after all isnt' it? Act like one!

My answer is, the less work I spend changing lenses & processing pictures, the more I'll be out taking them.

Less is more.

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary & those that don't.

 

[Mike Russell]

I am not sure if shooting Raw will bring any higher quality to you images, but it brings lots more options... Being able to change White Balance, colour settings, sharpness all after the fact give some flexabilty to the work flow. Just a few less things you need to worry about while you clicking the shutter button.

Personally I shoot jpg for my day to day activities, and RAW for the money shots.. Not that I am a pro.. But the shots I know I will not get a second chance to try again..

Just my opinion..

Mike

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--------

Mike Russell
Family Photo Contest vote here: http://vote.bedpan.org
Selection of photo's: http://pics.bedpan.org
Living in Singapore Homepage: http://www.bedpan.org

 

[Jim Mountford]

If you use the LE, then yea, you could say its evil, after all, it is a light version of a raw file converter.

I use adobe camera raw, and it is anything but evil. Gives me control TIFF will not give me, for instance, change the exposure and color temp.

Peace,
Jim

I like to keep it simple. I shoot JPG or TIFF. I'm really not
interested in messing around with yet another program just to see
if I have a printable image or not. That's why I bought this
camera! It has EXCELLENT out of the camera ability.

RAW can be better, but you know ... I'm not going to spend time
with it. I think it's bad enough that I have to wait for the images
to load at all. It's a microdrive after all isnt' it? Act like one!

My answer is, the less work I spend changing lenses & processing
pictures, the more I'll be out taking them.

Less is more.

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand
binary & those that don't.

--

I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

 

[Zephalephelah]

That's a very good opinion. I may use your viewpoint & call it my own.

Personally I shoot jpg for my day to day activities, and RAW for
the money shots.. Not that I am a pro.. But the shots I know I will
not get a second chance to try again..

Just my opinion..

Mike

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--------

Mike Russell
Family Photo Contest vote here: http://vote.bedpan.org
Selection of photo's: http://pics.bedpan.org
Living in Singapore Homepage: http://www.bedpan.org

--
--

There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand binary & those that don't.

 

[Mark127996]

Well, I shoot .jpg and used to shoot raw (Geez, sounds like Mahesh's signature line) but here is something to think about.

One of the main reasons I prefer .jpg over RAW ( I know there are many reasons why people shoot RAW) is that the camera does a great job of processing the image, colors etc.

Therefor, an upshot of .tiff for you would be light processing afterwards. I found that sometimes it is difficult to get great colors working from RAW.

I suggest you shoot both, process a few and the answer will become apparent to you. That answer could go either way for you, its all a matter of personal preference.

That said, there are a few times I go with RAW, and thats when I know the lighting is trick. RAW gives you much greater lattitude to repair bad shots.

Try it!
Mark

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--

Change is the paint brush of time and our lives are the canvas which its strokes are cast upon.

Thanks!
Mark

 

[Mike Russell]

Glad to know you don't think Raw is still evil ;-)

Cheers..

Mike

Personally I shoot jpg for my day to day activities, and RAW for
the money shots.. Not that I am a pro.. But the shots I know I will
not get a second chance to try again..

Just my opinion..

Mike

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--------

Mike Russell
Family Photo Contest vote here: http://vote.bedpan.org
Selection of photo's: http://pics.bedpan.org
Living in Singapore Homepage: http://www.bedpan.org

--
--
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand
binary & those that don't.

--
--------

Mike Russell
Family Photo Contest vote here: http://vote.bedpan.org
Selection of photo's: http://pics.bedpan.org
Living in Singapore Homepage: http://www.bedpan.org

 

[graphius]

a tiff file has a lot of "packaging" around the image. a Raw file will give you more picture data (and with a good converter you can tweak the image after the fact). I think of a RAW file as a negative. you have a lot more control after the fact than with other file formats. I don't think there is too much practical diference between an out of camera high quality jpeg and an out of camera tif, except the tiff takes longer to write, and you can take less of them on a card.

I use adobe camera raw, and it is anything but evil. Gives me
control TIFF will not give me, for instance, change the exposure
and color temp.

Peace,
Jim

I like to keep it simple. I shoot JPG or TIFF. I'm really not
interested in messing around with yet another program just to see
if I have a printable image or not. That's why I bought this
camera! It has EXCELLENT out of the camera ability.

RAW can be better, but you know ... I'm not going to spend time
with it. I think it's bad enough that I have to wait for the images
to load at all. It's a microdrive after all isnt' it? Act like one!

My answer is, the less work I spend changing lenses & processing
pictures, the more I'll be out taking them.

Less is more.

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--
There are 10 types of people in this world. Those that understand
binary & those that don't.

--
I believe in the KISS principle, 'Keep It Simple Stupid' The more
junk you carry, the less effective you'll be because you're always
worried about the mechanics, instead of focusing on the subject.
See my gallery at:
http://www.pbase.com/sailingjim/galleries

 

[Ferenc]

...At least, the following improvements:

1. 12Mp RAW-to-RGB files are naturally crisper, they sensibly hold better high spatial frequencies (finely surfaced textures, fine hair, etc.)

2. 12Mp RAW-to-RGB files are less prone to expose high Tonal frequencies halos around dark/fine edges, or places where an abrubt change of contrast is involved.

3. Literally minimum or non-existence color moire, where 12.12 JPGs present them (even though it is very easy to clean)

4. Dynamic range is simply great, coupled with all the amenities that you previously mentioned.

Now, in regards to the not-so-good stuff about Fuji's RAW-to-RGB files:

1. In the 12.12 MP mode, images do exhibit some sort of "interpolation aliasing" or "artifacts", particularly around details that exhibit very high spatial frequency on the diagonal axis of the image (e.g. hair strands that go up-down, gradually changing direction to the left or right to go from a vertical plane to a horizontal one.) This is my main complain, which shows up ocassionally, in a noticeable way. These are not present in the JPG outputs or diminished to a much lesser extent in 6MP RAW output.

2. In gereral terms, REDs are less brighter, less intense with EX conversion, when compared to the on-board's imaging engine. They are not that truthful, in my opinion.

3. In some areas of 12Mp output, similar to those described in #1 above, fine edges may appear slightly jagged or interrupted, even though I find this issue not to be frequent and-or visibile to represent a problem.

Well, just a few observations after pushing the S2 to its limits many times, already.

Kind regardsm,

Ferenc

Personally I shoot jpg for my day to day activities, and RAW for
the money shots.. Not that I am a pro.. But the shots I know I will
not get a second chance to try again..

Just my opinion..

Mike

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
--------

Mike Russell
Family Photo Contest vote here: http://vote.bedpan.org
Selection of photo's: http://pics.bedpan.org
Living in Singapore Homepage: http://www.bedpan.org

 

[redsquarephoto.com]

Please forgive me, but I can only find the TIFF or RAW option on the camera (S2). How do you shoot JPG? (By the way, I saw the difference between TIFF and RAW and RAW is incredibly better). But, I guess if I shoot JPGs, I can go directly to PhotoShop and pass the converter, right?

Thanks for all the help!

Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

One of the main reasons I prefer .jpg over RAW ( I know there are
many reasons why people shoot RAW) is that the camera does a great
job of processing the image, colors etc.

Therefor, an upshot of .tiff for you would be light processing
afterwards. I found that sometimes it is difficult to get great
colors working from RAW.

I suggest you shoot both, process a few and the answer will become
apparent to you. That answer could go either way for you, its all
a matter of personal preference.

That said, there are a few times I go with RAW, and thats when I
know the lighting is trick. RAW gives you much greater lattitude
to repair bad shots.

Try it!
Mark

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
Change is the paint brush of time and our lives are the canvas
which its strokes are cast upon.

Thanks!
Mark

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

 

[Pete Wong]

Thanks for all the help!

Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

One of the main reasons I prefer .jpg over RAW ( I know there are
many reasons why people shoot RAW) is that the camera does a great
job of processing the image, colors etc.

Therefor, an upshot of .tiff for you would be light processing
afterwards. I found that sometimes it is difficult to get great
colors working from RAW.

I suggest you shoot both, process a few and the answer will become
apparent to you. That answer could go either way for you, its all
a matter of personal preference.

That said, there are a few times I go with RAW, and thats when I
know the lighting is trick. RAW gives you much greater lattitude
to repair bad shots.

Try it!
Mark

What are the best settings for the highest quality (without regard
for memory, time, etc.)? I am shooting the S2 currently with TIFF
and everything else normal. Can it get better with RAW or is it
just a waste of time to dump it into the software for conversion,
only to make a TIFF in the end?

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
Change is the paint brush of time and our lives are the canvas
which its strokes are cast upon.

Thanks!
Mark

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

 

[Mike Russell]

I am not the type of person who would usually answer a question with "RTFM" (read the F... Manual), but I think its might be a good idea in your case Corey. (no insult intended).

The S2 is a pretty complex camera, although fairly easy to use. I personaly read through the manual a couple of times after I purchased it... Not with the intention of memorizing everything, but just to get familiar with the features... Suggest you do the same.. If yo are still having problems drop another note...

Ok.. Ok Fine I will tell... But you should still read the manual ;-)

Power on the camera
Hit the function button on the back

Move to the right from the function to the second to last button (second from the right) above it you should see a 'N', 'F' or 'H' (in you case should be an H). Tap the button and it will change.. In N and F modes you will be recording JPG's...

read the manual ;-)

And enjoy the great camera!

--------

Mike Russell
Family Photo Contest vote here: http://vote.bedpan.org
Selection of photo's: http://pics.bedpan.org
Living in Singapore Homepage: http://www.bedpan.org

 

[redsquarephoto.com]

Thanks for everyone's input. I have now experimented with shooting TIFF, RAW and JPG on the S2 and have done a small comparison. Please let me know if you dissagree or have more input with the following:

RAW: Once the greyish haze has been eliminated with curves, it can be a nice image. Colors will still be a bit muted and need saturation. Excellent for hi-contrast situations.

JPG: Has a nice, immediate "pop" of color and sharpness (not exactly Velvia but definitely nicer than RAW mode). But, JPGs cannot handle the same amount of tweaking the curves. Whites blow out easier.

TIFF: Everything I have shot in this mode produces muddy, lower-quality images when compared to RAW and JPG. Am I doing something wrong?

Thanks!

Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

 

[Tom Nolle]

What did you do your conversion from RAW with, and what were the image settings? You should be able to produce an image that matches the JPG output of the camera if you use the Fuji EX converter and set the white balance, sensitivity, sharpening, and color options.

I tried TIFF only once and saw no value in it given the large file size. JPG, as you found, doesn't hold up to tweaking as well as RAW.

Tom

Thanks for everyone's input. I have now experimented with shooting
TIFF, RAW and JPG on the S2 and have done a small comparison.
Please let me know if you dissagree or have more input with the
following:

RAW: Once the greyish haze has been eliminated with curves, it can
be a nice image. Colors will still be a bit muted and need
saturation. Excellent for hi-contrast situations.

JPG: Has a nice, immediate "pop" of color and sharpness (not
exactly Velvia but definitely nicer than RAW mode). But, JPGs
cannot handle the same amount of tweaking the curves. Whites blow
out easier.

TIFF: Everything I have shot in this mode produces muddy,
lower-quality images when compared to RAW and JPG. Am I doing
something wrong?

Thanks!

Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

 

[redsquarephoto.com]

Everything is ORG and FINE with no sharpening until PhotoShop. RAW conversions are done in EX. Are the other RAW converters (Adobe, etc.) producing better-looking files?

Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

I tried TIFF only once and saw no value in it given the large file
size. JPG, as you found, doesn't hold up to tweaking as well as
RAW.

Tom

Thanks for everyone's input. I have now experimented with shooting
TIFF, RAW and JPG on the S2 and have done a small comparison.
Please let me know if you dissagree or have more input with the
following:

RAW: Once the greyish haze has been eliminated with curves, it can
be a nice image. Colors will still be a bit muted and need
saturation. Excellent for hi-contrast situations.

JPG: Has a nice, immediate "pop" of color and sharpness (not
exactly Velvia but definitely nicer than RAW mode). But, JPGs
cannot handle the same amount of tweaking the curves. Whites blow
out easier.

TIFF: Everything I have shot in this mode produces muddy,
lower-quality images when compared to RAW and JPG. Am I doing
something wrong?

Thanks!

Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

--
Corey
http://redsquarephoto.com

 

[Stephen Joseph]

Everything is ORG and FINE with no sharpening until PhotoShop. RAW
conversions are done in EX. Are the other RAW converters (Adobe,
etc.) producing better-looking files?

In the last 5 weeks I have shot 8500 images all in raw format. I have been using the Adobe raw converter and am getting great results. I do landscape panoramic images of 8-10 shots that will be stiched together. The Adobe works well for this workflow. I'm making 21x80 inch prints. I finally tried out the EX converter this week, after reading that it will do a better job converting the raw files. There is no dought that on the screen the EX conversion looks smoother with less jaggies then the Adobe,but in the prints they look just about the same. I'm sure if I worked with the EX more I could get better with it. But considering how great my prints look, with the adobe ,it seems to work for me.
Stephen

 

[Artichoke]

Fuji did a fine job with its jpg alogrithms but RAW with EX is superior, though needs a bit of tweaking
I muchly prefer RAW with EX, having tried Qimage

didn't shell out the money for the Adobe converter which by consensus of users in this forum is less able to pull out resolution and dynamic range, though is much faster
time is not an issue for me

I shoot about 90% RAW, though I do admire the quality of Fuji's jpg, I always like to sharpen in PS & the RAW files seem worth the difference in time and size for me
--
pbase & dpreview supporter
Fuji forum member since 5/2001
http://www.pbase.com/artichoke

 

[Tom Nolle]

I use the Fuji EX converter exclusively and I don't get a gray cast on the shots. What I'd do is to jiggle the settings on the converter till you get something that matches your expectations, then save the setting for reuse.

Tom

Everything is ORG and FINE with no sharpening until PhotoShop. RAW
conversions are done in EX. Are the other RAW converters (Adobe,
etc.) producing better-looking files?

In the last 5 weeks I have shot 8500 images all in raw format. I
have been using the Adobe raw converter and am getting great
results. I do landscape panoramic images of 8-10 shots that will be
stiched together. The Adobe works well for this workflow. I'm
making 21x80 inch prints. I finally tried out the EX converter this
week, after reading that it will do a better job converting the raw
files. There is no dought that on the screen the EX conversion
looks smoother with less jaggies then the Adobe,but in the prints
they look just about the same. I'm sure if I worked with the EX
more I could get better with it. But considering how great my
prints look, with the adobe ,it seems to work for me.
Stephen

 

[carl m]

Hi,

What type printer do you use to get 21" wide prints I know they have 24" but I don't see 21" paper, just curious.
Thanks.............Carl

Everything is ORG and FINE with no sharpening until PhotoShop. RAW
conversions are done in EX. Are the other RAW converters (Adobe,
etc.) producing better-looking files?

In the last 5 weeks I have shot 8500 images all in raw format. I
have been using the Adobe raw converter and am getting great
results. I do landscape panoramic images of 8-10 shots that will be
stiched together. The Adobe works well for this workflow. I'm
making 21x80 inch prints. I finally tried out the EX converter this
week, after reading that it will do a better job converting the raw
files. There is no dought that on the screen the EX conversion
looks smoother with less jaggies then the Adobe,but in the prints
they look just about the same. I'm sure if I worked with the EX
more I could get better with it. But considering how great my
prints look, with the adobe ,it seems to work for me.
Stephen