Raw, Tiff, or Jpeg...which one?

Hello Everyone...

I'm new to this forum and also just got my e20 last thurs....

been using shq jpeg setting since i got the camera, but was wondering
what the advantages of using either raw or tiff ....

what would be the best as i never now when i'm going to want to blow that perfect sunset i took with my e20 up to 11x14 or may larger...

and now that i'm thinking of it what would be the largest i could print an image and would either of the two other formats (raw, tiff) enable me to print larger?

please let me thank all of you in advance

Michael

Your best bet is to do a search on the entire forum. There has been
lots of discussion about these topics.

-T

Hello Micheal,

First off...Welcome to the E-xx Club !

Now, down to brass tacks.

Tiff .. not really worth the amount of space it takes up, you might as well just shoot RAW.

RAW is good if you want the absolutely best possible image the camera can produce, and you have enough storage to accomodate it.

Otherwise, shoot SHQ. That's what my E10 stays on a majority of the time, and I have no problems getting excellent 11x14 prints.

I would say, play with both, or all three, and see what you prefer. Ultimately, you're the one that has to be happy. )

--
Vance.

http://users.ev1.net/~txcowboy

http://pub57.ezboard.com/bthedigitaldinguscommunity
now with live chat!

will compress CCD data to enable smaller files. you will lose information that cannot be retreived later. I don't use JPEG unless I'm absolutely sure of the required output and feel that there will be minimal if any post processing required, usually just sizing and sharpening.

TIFF will retain all the original information in an uncompressed format with the cameras firmware determining white balance, etc. this format is good if you want to do some post processing but don't want to fool around with converting RAW files. downside is large file sizes but upside is you can work on these files post camera and continue to save as TIFF without any compression and loss of information.

RAW is the information as recorded by the CCD and requires a conversion to another file type usually TIFF for post processing and/or printing. file sizes are smaller than TIFF and you retain complete control over the conversion process. RAW will give you the most options but more effort is required to convert the RAW files to TIFF.

so for that perfect sunset shot, shoot RAW .... you can always convert to TIFF or JPEG later as the output requires. you can't print RAW files, but after converting to TIFF the files will contain more information for printing at higher dpi and larger print sizes than a JPEG.

RI,

Totally agree.

Raw recording gives you better signal to noise due to increased dynamic range. Is that important? It depends on the shot, the subject, the range you need. Why not take advantage of that? Thel drawbacks are slower writes than jpeg and the conversion time in PS or where ever, a pretty good trade-off.

Regards,

John

RI said:

will compress CCD data to enable smaller files. you will lose
information that cannot be retreived later. I don't use JPEG unless
I'm absolutely sure of the required output and feel that there will
be minimal if any post processing required, usually just sizing and
sharpening.

TIFF will retain all the original information in an uncompressed
format with the cameras firmware determining white balance, etc.
this format is good if you want to do some post processing but
don't want to fool around with converting RAW files. downside is
large file sizes but upside is you can work on these files post
camera and continue to save as TIFF without any compression and
loss of information.

RAW is the information as recorded by the CCD and requires a
conversion to another file type usually TIFF for post processing
and/or printing. file sizes are smaller than TIFF and you retain
complete control over the conversion process. RAW will give you the
most options but more effort is required to convert the RAW files
to TIFF.

so for that perfect sunset shot, shoot RAW .... you can always
convert to TIFF or JPEG later as the output requires. you can't
print RAW files, but after converting to TIFF the files will
contain more information for printing at higher dpi and larger
print sizes than a JPEG.

Click to expand...

I wants to thank everyone that replied back to me on this....

you guys are great....i thinks i'm really gonna like it here

Michael

It's right there in the subject line - NO TEXT!

fusionarts said:

Hello Everyone...

I'm new to this forum and also just got my e20 last thurs....

been using shq jpeg setting since i got the camera, but was wondering
what the advantages of using either raw or tiff ....

what would be the best as i never now when i'm going to want to
blow that perfect sunset i took with my e20 up to 11x14 or may
larger...

and now that i'm thinking of it what would be the largest i could
print an image and would either of the two other formats (raw,
tiff) enable me to print larger?

please let me thank all of you in advance

Michael

Click to expand...

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

I like RAW but I don't mind playing with the pictures. It took me a while to get used to using it, but now that I am, I actually do less work with RAW than I did with jpg - the images are sharper so I do less USM and the colors are better so I do less curves and levels. The conversion in PS, on the other hand, takes forever.

jpg is good. In print it's hard to tell the difference.

Don't use tiff. RAW is better and takes less space.

John G said:

RI,

Totally agree.

Raw recording gives you better signal to noise due to increased
dynamic range. Is that important? It depends on the shot, the
subject, the range you need. Why not take advantage of that?

Click to expand...

I guess i would only agree IF:

a) you are a professional and you have to compete in selling your work

b) you have a large budget and can afford a BUNCH or memory cards (or you shoot in a studio where you can download immediately)

c) you are so sure of your composition, exposure, settings, etc. that you know you're going to get the perfect shot the first time.

Otherwise - I'm with Gage - SHQ, with settings for full pixel resolution and JPEG of 1/2.7 (You know you CAN pick from a number of pixel res and compression settings as the default for SHQ, right?) I get a lot of good shots, but I'm not so confident (or rich) that I don't care about being able to take a lot of shots before being able to get them out of the camera!

I have blown E-10 photos shot up to 13x19 taken this way and they are marvelously sharp. Your E-20 has even more resolution to start with.

Suggestion: Why not just go shoot some test subjects (in a range of the kind of shots you take) in each mode. Then zoom in to 1:1 on your computer and compare. Draw your own conclusion.

Hi Greg,

Least compression JPEG shots from the E20 are very good, no question, and if the shot is perfect, raw probably won't buy you much.

If you are not a pro (me) you take a lot of shots where you may want the editing leeway that raw gives. That leeway allows more data recovery in the shadows particularly as you have more dynamic range. JPEG is an 8 bit "lossy" compressed format. Raw is 10, and when coverted to tiff or PSD, "lossless".

I have an IBM 1gig microdrive which holds 107 pictures in raw, a lot of pictures for normal weekend use. so this works pretty well for me.

Do a search on Ferenc in this forum. He has posted several direct comparisons of raw vs jpeg.

Anyway, different strokes...

Regards,

John

Greg Heumann said:

John G said:

RI,

Totally agree.

Raw recording gives you better signal to noise due to increased
dynamic range. Is that important? It depends on the shot, the
subject, the range you need. Why not take advantage of that?

Click to expand...

I guess i would only agree IF:

a) you are a professional and you have to compete in selling your work
b) you have a large budget and can afford a BUNCH or memory cards
(or you shoot in a studio where you can download immediately)
c) you are so sure of your composition, exposure, settings, etc.
that you know you're going to get the perfect shot the first time.

Otherwise - I'm with Gage - SHQ, with settings for full pixel
resolution and JPEG of 1/2.7 (You know you CAN pick from a number
of pixel res and compression settings as the default for SHQ,
right?) I get a lot of good shots, but I'm not so confident (or
rich) that I don't care about being able to take a lot of shots
before being able to get them out of the camera!

I have blown E-10 photos shot up to 13x19 taken this way and they
are marvelously sharp. Your E-20 has even more resolution to start
with.

Suggestion: Why not just go shoot some test subjects (in a range of
the kind of shots you take) in each mode. Then zoom in to 1:1 on
your computer and compare. Draw your own conclusion.

Click to expand...

I understand the benefits of using RAW (higher dynamic range, etc) but really you guys must have alot of time to kill. I can't imagine processing a large wedding or portrait session shoot in RAW. I would lose my mind after I came down with carpal tunnel, and that's after I fell asleep waiting for the conversion and processing.

I really don't see the benefits in print over using SHQ JPEG. And using anything but the third and maybe second option in the ORF conversion is an exercize in futility unless you know EXACTLY what you are doing and have lots of time to tweak the files. And if you do use the third option, it's still applying most of the cam processing that would be applied anyway to a TIFF or JPEG. Yeah, you get the dynamic range, blah blah. You get a little less noise and blah blah. Big deal. I can't see it in my prints unless I take a magnifying glass to them. It's nice to use RAW to feel like you are actually accomplishing something cool and geeky with your images but that's about it IMO!!

I just don't have the time nor inclination to use RAW very much. And I have never found a way to truly tweak the first option acceptably in anything resembling a reasonable amount of time and effort. SHQ JPEG produces great results and the files can be tweaked to your heart's content after converting to a TIFF in PS. I'm sorry, but RAW is rather a waste of time for my needs.

TrentMcD said:

I like RAW but I don't mind playing with the pictures. It took me
a while to get used to using it, but now that I am, I actually do
less work with RAW than I did with jpg - the images are sharper so
I do less USM and the colors are better so I do less curves and
levels. The conversion in PS, on the other hand, takes forever.

jpg is good. In print it's hard to tell the difference.

Don't use tiff. RAW is better and takes less space.

Click to expand...

--
Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, Canon GL1, ZR25, Minolta HTsi+

John G said:

Hi Greg,

Least compression JPEG shots from the E20 are very good, no
question, and if the shot is perfect, raw probably won't buy you
much.

If you are not a pro (me) you take a lot of shots where you may
want the editing leeway that raw gives. That leeway allows more
data recovery in the shadows particularly as you have more dynamic
range. JPEG is an 8 bit "lossy" compressed format. Raw is 10, and
when coverted to tiff or PSD, "lossless".

I have an IBM 1gig microdrive which holds 107 pictures in raw, a
lot of pictures for normal weekend use. so this works pretty well
for me.

Do a search on Ferenc in this forum. He has posted several direct
comparisons of raw vs jpeg.

Anyway, different strokes...

Regards,

John

Click to expand...

hi, John -

Good info - and with that microdrive I can see why you'd use RAW!

I know when I bought my E-10 there were some compatibility problems with the IBM drive which are addressed in the E-20. Question though - how does the microdrive compare to a solid state card in terms of battery life? Also - I know it is great for studio work - but does the drive hold up to rugged use?

P.S. - I am impressed with how much detail lurks in the shadows of our shots (even with mild JPEG) - thanks to this board I am now routinely setting the camera to low contrast mode and underexposing by 0.7 or 1 stop when I shoot in direct sunlight. It is good to know that TIFF or RAW could improve this even further.

My own very limited and admittedly non-scientific comparisons of RAW to "best" JPG have convinced me of two things.

1) There is no question that the RAW files have more data and are richer and sharper right out of the camera.
....and

2) I can't imagine putting up with the added hassles of dealing with RAW files.

Having said that, I'm very anxious to see if the future RAW conversion plug-in from Adobe will make it as easy for us to take advantage of RAW image files as my friends using the Nikons say the Nikon RAW conversion software facilitates the process for them.

Greg,

At a children's concert indoors - 160 4 meg jpegs using some flash and no LCD. These were pretty new topped off 1700's. Shooting in Salt Lake City at night last month with temp in the low 40's, lots of LCD use, no flash, raw format - about 25 shots per set. No problems so far with the microdrive, but it is mechanical so will fail eventually.

Lots of stuff written about NiMH losing 10 to 20% of charge in 1st week + 1% per day. Not sure how true this is or not but the problem I had in SL doing long exposures using the LCD (as a monitor in man mode) convinced me to get the DPS9000 battery. It is lithium so should do better in cold weather, and is good for 400 to 500 shots according to some posters. It attaches to the bottom of the Exx and is pretty non-obtrusive.

Curious about low contrast. I shoot soft sharp but have not tried low contrast. Will shoot some controlled tests. How does this affect your post processing flow?

Regards,

John

Greg Heumann said:

John G said:

Hi Greg,

Least compression JPEG shots from the E20 are very good, no
question, and if the shot is perfect, raw probably won't buy you
much.

If you are not a pro (me) you take a lot of shots where you may
want the editing leeway that raw gives. That leeway allows more
data recovery in the shadows particularly as you have more dynamic
range. JPEG is an 8 bit "lossy" compressed format. Raw is 10, and
when coverted to tiff or PSD, "lossless".

I have an IBM 1gig microdrive which holds 107 pictures in raw, a
lot of pictures for normal weekend use. so this works pretty well
for me.

Do a search on Ferenc in this forum. He has posted several direct
comparisons of raw vs jpeg.

Anyway, different strokes...

Regards,

John

Click to expand...

hi, John -

Good info - and with that microdrive I can see why you'd use RAW!

I know when I bought my E-10 there were some compatibility problems
with the IBM drive which are addressed in the E-20. Question though

• how does the microdrive compare to a solid state card in terms of

battery life? Also - I know it is great for studio work - but does
the drive hold up to rugged use?

P.S. - I am impressed with how much detail lurks in the shadows of
our shots (even with mild JPEG) - thanks to this board I am now
routinely setting the camera to low contrast mode and underexposing
by 0.7 or 1 stop when I shoot in direct sunlight. It is good to
know that TIFF or RAW could improve this even further.

Click to expand...

John F85021 said:

Anyway, different strokes...

Click to expand...

I just wanted to start by repeating that as I think it is entirely up to each individual but I find it strange that you say JPG is okay for pros but if you aren't (a pro) than you may want the extra quality of RAW. Isnt that backwards?

GageFX

John F85021 said:

John G wrote:
Hi Greg,

Least compression JPEG shots from the E20 are very good, no
question, and if the shot is perfect, raw probably won't buy you
much.

If you are not a pro (me) you take a lot of shots where you may
want the editing leeway that raw gives. That leeway allows more
data recovery in the shadows particularly as you have more dynamic
range. JPEG is an 8 bit "lossy" compressed format. Raw is 10, and
when coverted to tiff or PSD, "lossless".

I have an IBM 1gig microdrive which holds 107 pictures in raw, a
lot of pictures for normal weekend use. so this works pretty well
for me.

Do a search on Ferenc in this forum. He has posted several direct
comparisons of raw vs jpeg.

Anyway, different strokes...

Regards,

John

Greg Heumann said:

John G said:

RI,

Totally agree.

Raw recording gives you better signal to noise due to increased
dynamic range. Is that important? It depends on the shot, the
subject, the range you need. Why not take advantage of that?

Click to expand...

I guess i would only agree IF:

a) you are a professional and you have to compete in selling your work
b) you have a large budget and can afford a BUNCH or memory cards
(or you shoot in a studio where you can download immediately)
c) you are so sure of your composition, exposure, settings, etc.
that you know you're going to get the perfect shot the first time.

Otherwise - I'm with Gage - SHQ, with settings for full pixel
resolution and JPEG of 1/2.7 (You know you CAN pick from a number
of pixel res and compression settings as the default for SHQ,
right?) I get a lot of good shots, but I'm not so confident (or
rich) that I don't care about being able to take a lot of shots
before being able to get them out of the camera!

I have blown E-10 photos shot up to 13x19 taken this way and they
are marvelously sharp. Your E-20 has even more resolution to start
with.

Suggestion: Why not just go shoot some test subjects (in a range of
the kind of shots you take) in each mode. Then zoom in to 1:1 on
your computer and compare. Draw your own conclusion.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

When shooting in raw, then converting to jpeg to print. would that be the same as just shooting SHQ mode. Would you lose the benifit of raw when you convert to jpeg??

Before you convert a RAW file straight to a JPEG you will first have to reduce it from a 16 bit/channel file (actually 10) in Photoshop to a 8 bit/channel. This in itself will automatically lose some of the dynamic range. Very simply put, you will still reatin some of the sharpness, contrast and color gamut you edited in within the JPEG file, but the compression and reduced bits per channel of the JPEG conversion will indeed lose some of it. It is really best to save RAW files as TIFF for archiving.

Another reason I really sometimes don't see the point. But I'm not an extreme quality nitpick either and my needs for print are'nt as well.

Frank said:

When shooting in raw, then converting to jpeg to print. would that
be the same as just shooting SHQ mode. Would you lose the benifit
of raw when you convert to jpeg??

Click to expand...

--
Oly E20, Kodak DC4800's, Canon GL1, ZR25, Minolta HTsi+

David M. said:

It is
really best to save RAW files as TIFF for archiving.

Click to expand...

Or PSD. TIFFs never make it onto my hard drive. A single TIFF made it onto my computer once. All the PSDs and JPGs kicked the cr@p out of it. TIFFs know better than to come around here.

GageFX

--

E-10, LiPo, FL-40, Stroboframe 120 QF, Lumiquest Softbox, Speedotron Force 10s, AlienBees, HP P1100, Epson 777, Epson 1280

John G said:

Curious about low contrast. I shoot soft sharp but have not tried
low contrast. Will shoot some controlled tests. How does this
affect your post processing flow?

Click to expand...

John - try a search here for a discussion a month or so ago about "blown highlights". There was a lot of good discussion around it.

I'll tell you what I either know, or believe to be true: We all know that if the shot's exposure range is too broad due to harsh light, you basically have to choose (or let the camera choose for you) an exposure that will necessarily over- or under-expose some portions. The files from our cameras (and I imagine most digitals) tend to have much more data in dark areas than the light ones - levels or curves can bring an amazing amount of detail out of the shadows with minimal degradation of image quality. The highlights however lose a huge amount of detail at anywhere close to "white" (and of course seriously overexposed bits are just plain white. ) SO - underexposure plus PS re-leveling works really well for me in hard light.

The "soft contrast" basically compresses the entire dynamic range of the shot in towards the center of the histogram. If you look at it on the camera or in PS, you'll see nothing toward both the black and the white end. Funny - As I describe this I'm saying to myself "then it must lose some detail - why not just underexpose." Well, I might be right, but it is also highly likely I don't fully understand how the soft setting works. I can say that using it in brightly lit, harsh contrast settings has produced shots I didn't expect to work, such as the example below. I don't claim it has any artistic merit, but it does show a very broad range of exposure values from bright sunlit white to oak leaves in shadow. As you can see the detail in the daisy is still quite good.



Now - you asked "how does it affect my workflow" - you give me far too much credit! I don't have a workflow! OK - I guess I do - but certainly nothing cast in stone or even semi-automated. The first thing I usually do is auto-color (new in PS7). It is "usually" right or close, and it will re-stretch the levels historgram if you shot in soft mode - so a new step really isn't required in my workflow. Auto-color (for those of you who don't have it) applies not only levels but color correction that helps if I've used a polarizer, or if white balance is off. It is similar to auto-levels but better. Sometimes it goes overboard so my next step is to "fade" it if necc. I work from there as needed. I frequently add 10% saturation - my E-10 shots often seem a bit flat out of the camera. Then I'll use additional levels or even curves if I can't solve it in levels - these on adjustment layers with masks to address problem areas.

With all that said - when it comes to critically judging photos for technical merit I am a rank amateur. I would love to know what you learn from your tests, and welcome others' comments!

Rembvrijn said:

TIFFs know better than to come around here.

Click to expand...

?