Seb
Leading Member
Surely RAW's better? Quicker to process and takes up less space. What does TIFF add?
- seb
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What's the point of TIFF?
- Thread starter Seb
- Start date
Paul Chase Dempsey
Well-known member
The only advantage to TIFF is that the format is directly supported by virtually all the other imaging software you have. RAW requires special support, or a conversion step.
Myself, I shoot exclusively RAW, and wrote my own conversion software which takes it to TIFF for use in the other programs.
You always have many more options for working with the file in RAW, since the TIFF data has already suffered some processing.
--- Paul
Myself, I shoot exclusively RAW, and wrote my own conversion software which takes it to TIFF for use in the other programs.
You always have many more options for working with the file in RAW, since the TIFF data has already suffered some processing.
--- Paul
Seb
Leading Member
My E10 has a raw mode right? I think I might go and time how long it takes for a TIFF and a RAW to be output to memory. A RAW should require NO processing time so should be significantly quicker (even factoring in the slightly reduced file size)
- seb
Paul Chase Dempsey
Well-known member
It's really not the processing time that's the limiting factor -- it's the storage writing speed. RAW is significantly faster because the files are significantly smaller.
--- Paul
--- Paul
Dan L49736
New member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Seb
You've asked many insightful questions in this forum. Thanks - helps the rest of us. I'm going to try your suggestion right now.
You've asked many insightful questions in this forum. Thanks - helps the rest of us. I'm going to try your suggestion right now.
Seb
Leading Member
I disagree Paul. My 2MB JPEGs certainly don't get written to disk 6 times quicker than a TIFF. A TIFF is about 24seconds and a JPEG about 6 seconds.
- seb
Seb
Leading Member
Richard Goulden
Senior Member
Hi Seb,
I don't know why I am still up and about as I have a job tomorrow but here goes.
When you realise how much hassle it is to open raw files after you have shot them you might just steer clear. With the Olympus plugin you can only open them one at a time and you will find that they require a lot more attention in Photoshop to get a good image.
I would guess over the coming weeks that you will settle on jpeg 2.7 like most of us at about 2.7 mb when you are shooting outside. In a studio I use tiff but the difference is so negligible I'm not sure why I bother. Raw seems to give a slightly smoother result in skin tones - again it is negligible and jpegs will give me 20x16s on my Epson 3000. I hardly ever have to alter jpegs at all apart from the occasional tweak in curves and a little usm. Raw is a very different proposition.
Hope this helps,
Richard
I don't know why I am still up and about as I have a job tomorrow but here goes.
When you realise how much hassle it is to open raw files after you have shot them you might just steer clear. With the Olympus plugin you can only open them one at a time and you will find that they require a lot more attention in Photoshop to get a good image.
I would guess over the coming weeks that you will settle on jpeg 2.7 like most of us at about 2.7 mb when you are shooting outside. In a studio I use tiff but the difference is so negligible I'm not sure why I bother. Raw seems to give a slightly smoother result in skin tones - again it is negligible and jpegs will give me 20x16s on my Epson 3000. I hardly ever have to alter jpegs at all apart from the occasional tweak in curves and a little usm. Raw is a very different proposition.
Hope this helps,
Richard
Dan L49736
New member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 0
Paul, Seb -
Just took duplicate shots - one in TFF and another in RAW.
TIFF write = 25sec
RAW write = 15 sec
That's a real difference! Going to try sequence shots to see how fast the stack can clear.
Just took duplicate shots - one in TFF and another in RAW.
TIFF write = 25sec
RAW write = 15 sec
That's a real difference! Going to try sequence shots to see how fast the stack can clear.
Seb
Leading Member
Yes richard, I have no intention of shooting regularly using RAW. The plugin thing isn't a huge problem, should be relatively easy to write a c++ thing to convert a whole directory or whatever to TIFF, I'm sure I could get a paper on Olympus' RAW format from the web somewhere.
- seb
Seb
Leading Member
Garry Schaefer
Senior Member
That job has already been done. Check ou the post by Paul Chase Dempsey which I've copied here from further down on this very forum.
Garry
*****************
I've just released version 1.13 of my ORF Raw File Tool suite. ORF is still FREE. The biggest advance in 1.13 is Unsharp Mask, which can really make an image POP! Also, I find the White Balance menu button very handy at times.
The ORF Suite includes ORF2TIFF for command-line batch conversion of ORF to TIFF, and ORFDump for Exif and thumbnail extraction.
Read more about ORF from here:
http://communities.msn.com/PaulChaseDempsey&naventryid=112
You can download ORFSuite.zip from here:
http://communities.msn.com/PaulChaseDempsey/files.msnw
Note: You need an MSN passport to download from here, and you may have trouble if you're using Netscape.
If you have trouble on MSN, Dave Nicholls also generously hosts ORF on his web site.
http://www.dcnicholls.com/plugins
Enjoy!
--- Paul Chase Dempsey
************************************
Garry
*****************
I've just released version 1.13 of my ORF Raw File Tool suite. ORF is still FREE. The biggest advance in 1.13 is Unsharp Mask, which can really make an image POP! Also, I find the White Balance menu button very handy at times.
The ORF Suite includes ORF2TIFF for command-line batch conversion of ORF to TIFF, and ORFDump for Exif and thumbnail extraction.
Read more about ORF from here:
http://communities.msn.com/PaulChaseDempsey&naventryid=112
You can download ORFSuite.zip from here:
http://communities.msn.com/PaulChaseDempsey/files.msnw
Note: You need an MSN passport to download from here, and you may have trouble if you're using Netscape.
If you have trouble on MSN, Dave Nicholls also generously hosts ORF on his web site.
http://www.dcnicholls.com/plugins
Enjoy!
--- Paul Chase Dempsey
************************************
Paul Hurditch
Well-known member
As already mentioned in other relpies TIFF is supported by the various image manipulation software. Other than that it adds nothing.
The bad news is that a lot of publishers large/small nearly always ask for a TIFF format picture at 300 dpi (usually forgetting to mention the size A5,A4 etc). They do not accept JPeg with minimum compression is just as good. They are slowly (very slowly) begining to accept JPeg or other formats (sometimes even RAW)
Paul Hurditch
Paul Chase Dempsey
Well-known member
My site has both software to convert RAW to TIFF (interactive AND batch), and it also has the paper on the RAW format -- see the page "ORF Decoded": http://communities.msn.com/PaulChaseDempsey&naventryid=111
It's fairly easy to write a quickie conversion from RAW to TIFF. It's a lot harder to write one that gets as good results as the Oly software or close to the other products that support Oly RAW, such as QImage.
Regards,
-- Paul
It's fairly easy to write a quickie conversion from RAW to TIFF. It's a lot harder to write one that gets as good results as the Oly software or close to the other products that support Oly RAW, such as QImage.
Regards,
-- Paul
Richard Goulden
Senior Member
Hi Paul,
This is because it is possible to stuff up a jpeg by using too much compression.
Tiff being lossless is obviously a better proposition and if any corruption occurs in a jpeg the image will be impossible to open. Once again I have had tiffs supplied to me that have been corrupted that will still open with just some scrambled pixels which I was able to retouch or crop out on a job with an extreme deadline.
Regards,
Richard
This is because it is possible to stuff up a jpeg by using too much compression.
Tiff being lossless is obviously a better proposition and if any corruption occurs in a jpeg the image will be impossible to open. Once again I have had tiffs supplied to me that have been corrupted that will still open with just some scrambled pixels which I was able to retouch or crop out on a job with an extreme deadline.
Regards,
Richard
Paul Hurditch
Well-known member
This is true on higher levels of compression, but with minimum compression, it is far less likely. Using the E-10 on minimum compression JPEG gives a picture almost indistinguishable from the TIFF format
I have seen corruption in Tiffs due to the large file sizes used (50 meg plus ones). Not minor either, as the pictures have been unrecoverable.
They are also completely unwieldy for emailing for a deadline. For emailing JPEG is used by newspapers etc. especially when the reporters are using mobile phones to send the pics (sports events etc).
Both formats have their uses, but I find JPEG with minimal compression on the E-10 to be far more useful. RAW format can be useful for keeping the odd really special photo.
Still, each to his own.
Paul
I have seen corruption in Tiffs due to the large file sizes used (50 meg plus ones). Not minor either, as the pictures have been unrecoverable.
They are also completely unwieldy for emailing for a deadline. For emailing JPEG is used by newspapers etc. especially when the reporters are using mobile phones to send the pics (sports events etc).
Both formats have their uses, but I find JPEG with minimal compression on the E-10 to be far more useful. RAW format can be useful for keeping the odd really special photo.
Still, each to his own.
Paul
Richard Goulden
Senior Member
Hi Paul,
I use jpeg 2.7 for all my shots on the E10. I started using tiff and raw when I first bought it but graduated to jpeg because I can see almost no difference on a 20x16 printed on my Epson 3000.
Regards,
Richard
I use jpeg 2.7 for all my shots on the E10. I started using tiff and raw when I first bought it but graduated to jpeg because I can see almost no difference on a 20x16 printed on my Epson 3000.
Regards,
Richard
The big diifference is that software converters, like your ORF to TIFF conversion, can be refined over time and RE-RUN as needed... whereas letting the camera decide how to convert it means being stuck with the 1st conversion forever.
Keep up the work!
Keep up the work!
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum