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

Main reason I prefer to save in TIFF is I on occasion share image files with friends or others who may show an interest in a particular subject that may come up. I can just slap a CD-R in the drive, put a blank in the burner and rip a copy, close the session and give it to them. Archiving in PSD would involve another step in that process as many people I share them with don't have PS on thier machines in order to view them (or another compatible program like ACDSee).

Plus, I almost always do my final editing before archiving, so I have no real need to save in PSD in order to preserve layers and keep an image unflattened or whatnot. There's no other real benefit to saving in that format.

So, yes, I'm lazy. That's why I hate RAW too. I keep it cheap and easy. I like most things cheap and easy. I'm cheap and easy.

gagefx said:

Rembvrijn 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

Click to expand...

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

but three things have really not been brought home:

• JPEG is a lossy format, meaning that each time you save you will re-compress and lose data and output quality. save more than two or three times and you start to see artifacts.

• TIFF is the print industry standard for receiving files, and is a lossless format. work and save all you want with no loss in image quality.

• RAW gives you a pure "digital negative" for saving and later conversion and manipulation. proprietery and third party RAW conversion software has improved dramatically over the past year, and I can't imagine that the simple incamera processing chip and software can compete with larger stand alone software programs and computers.

GageFx,

I don't think so. One definition of a technically perfect shot might be one that needs no editing, that is, no levels, curves, color or sat or contrast adjustment. I don't shoot those type of shots very often as 1) I'm not that technically proficient (trying) and 2) most of my shots are pictures of my kids and family and by definition, in uncontrolled and variable settings.

Raw format gives much more editing leeway due to expanded dynamic range. You can see this easily in the density of pre and post levels or curves histograms of underexposed shots. The reduced noise in many shots is a bonus, although as you and others have pointed out, may not be visable in todays prints.

Anyway, personal choice. Single file conversion (in PS) is a problem.

Regards,

John

gagefx said:

Rembvrijn 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

Rembvrijn 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

Click to expand...

Yes, definately agree. Some things to add:

JPEG will show some artifacting due to its compression. At 1:2.7 it is minimal but if you post process your images heavily (curves, noise reduction, sharpening) it will raise its ugly head.

JPEG files are pretty close to an sRGB color space, but a RAW file has a much larger color space.

RAW allows for much more effective post processing in 16bit mode. Yes, you can load in a JPG, convert it to 16bit RGB, edit it, then save it to TIFF, but you wont get the same results because you started with a file that had less color information (and some compression artifacts) to begin with.

With RAW files you can define somewhat the baseline of your image before you even start your post processing.(depending on your RAW to TIFF converter/conversion options you choose).

All that said, if you are not familiar with conversions, color spaces, curves, color balance, sharpening..., if you require minimum post-processing to complete a shoot (weddings and the like), if you are storage capacity limited, you are better off just shooting JPG. The benefits of RAW can be outweighed by many other factors.

When I started I always used 1:2.7 JPG, but now I almost always use RAW. I have more than one JPG that I really wish I would have shot in RAW. It requires a learning curve to use it effectively, and you have to make some concessions like not being able to review you pictures on the LCD very well (unless you like those small/cropped .THM files that are displayed), but I am very glad the option was built into the camera in a useable fashion. Many of the other prosumer digital cameras either do not have a RAW option or make it not worth using (30-50 seconds to process one image, no other camera functions possible during that time, no 16bit conversion, no larger color space). Kudos to Oly for at least an acceptable implimentation.

Paul

RI said:

but three things have really not been brought home:

• JPEG is a lossy format, meaning that each time you save you
will re-compress and lose data and output quality. save more than
two or three times and you start to see artifacts.

• TIFF is the print industry standard for receiving files,
and is a lossless format. work and save all you want with no loss
in image quality.

• RAW gives you a pure "digital negative" for saving and
later conversion and manipulation. proprietery and third party RAW
conversion software has improved dramatically over the past year,
and I can't imagine that the simple incamera processing chip and
software can compete with larger stand alone software programs and
computers.

Click to expand...

But if you 'save as' and rename your file, you are keeping the original as your negative untouched. Very IMPORTANT!
Beth

RI said:

but three things have really not been brought home:

• JPEG is a lossy format, meaning that each time you save you
will re-compress and lose data and output quality. save more than
two or three times and you start to see artifacts.

• TIFF is the print industry standard for receiving files,
and is a lossless format. work and save all you want with no loss
in image quality.

• RAW gives you a pure "digital negative" for saving and
later conversion and manipulation. proprietery and third party RAW
conversion software has improved dramatically over the past year,
and I can't imagine that the simple incamera processing chip and
software can compete with larger stand alone software programs and
computers.

Click to expand...

--
Olympus E-10, TCON, MCON, WCON and Fl-40
Gallery: http://www.pbase.com/galleries/cokids

I don't have nearly enough time. When are they going to invent a 28 hour day and a 8 day week?

I have gotten to the point where it doesn’t take me that much longer to use RAW than jpg. I do less editing, so the extra time is spent in the opening of the files. The time added is minimal unless I took a lot of shots. Then I’ll go through with Camedia and pick a few that stand out to work with before going back through all of them.

Also, I don’t work under a deadline. If I spend a few days, or weeks or months, digging through photos, who cares? I don’t have a client or customer breathing down my neck.

Though it’s subtle, I do notice the difference in print. I’ll grant you it’s not much of a difference, but enough for a few extra seconds a picture.

David M. said:

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+

Click to expand...

...See it for yourself (JPG left, RAW right):



NO OTHER image format produced by the E10's imaging engine produces better results than Oly's RAW PlugIn for Photoshop, Option 3, run under your own control, with the precision that your PC's processor provides. This has been tested, re-tested and tested again.

Dynamic Range improves just a little bit, but it does improve. Noise wise, RAW is paradise all the way from ISO 80 (shadows) and ISO 160 and above (entire picture).

Best regards,

Ferenc

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...

Well, I've been wondering about this for a long time. I have always known that JPEG mean compounded loss with repeated saves. However sometime back when the "quality" setting in Photoshop's Save dialog added 11 and 12 to the scale, I assumed (wrongly) that 12 must mean "no compression" therefore no loss over time. I have in fact archived a lot of my work by saving the finally corrected files as JPEGs with the 12 setting.

But I always wondered. So today I ran a little test. I wanted something reflective of the real world, so I didn't make a B&W checkerboard or something like that - I simply took an image that had a broad range of tonality as well as some good detail, and sliced a 500 px width out of it. I did a default auto-levels and and slight USM to it and saved it as "gen2.jpg" with quality setting 12. I then opened that file, added a "3" text layer, re-saved as "gen3.jpg", and closed the gen2 file without saving it. Opened gen3, etc - all the way up to gen12.

The results: There is loss across repeated saves, even at setting 12. The good news is that for the first several generations this loss was incredibly hard, if not impossible to see, even @ 200%. A good way to objectively compare images is to paste one over the other, putting the top layer in "difference" mode. Where the upper and lower pixels have identical values, the resulting pixel is black. When they're not, and the resulting value is displayed. (The stuff in the angle brackets is my guess as to how this works, but I'm not certain. It is close, at least in theory.)

Finally, I created a new document, and pasted gen2, gen12 and the difference between the two into adjacent frames. The resulting difference shot showed ONLY the text against a "black" background - I couldn't see ANY noise in it at all. But - to be completely fair, I selected a region of that black part and did an "auto-levels" on it to greatly amplify the "differences". As you can see - there are indeed differences!

So - the image below shows the results, HOWEVER:

1) Obviously I had to save the results file before posting it here - therefore it is really the 13th generation.

2) The image you see here is the result of resampling down to 500 px wide. So it is not only resampled, it is 14th generation. If you have a high bandwidth connection, you can download the actual 13th generation (3.3Mb) at http://www.heumann.com/images/loss_test_result.jpg



My conclusion - for amateur work and if disk storage is a factor, saving a couple of times as JPEG with quality setting 12 will introduce so little degradation as to be unoticeable (except perhaps to a professional perfectionist.) However, there is indeed loss - and disk space (and CD-ROMSs) is incredibly cheap. I, for one, am going to mend my ways and begin saving as TIFF, or as PSD.

Greg Heumann said:

2) The image you see here is the result of resampling down to 500
px wide...

Click to expand...

AND SAVING @ PS JPEG QUALITY SETTING 5. (The high res image was saved @ 12.)

David,

I was beginning to think I was the only one that felt that way, until I read your response. Glad to know I'm not alone!

Bart

David M. said:

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+

Click to expand...