DSLRUsers.com

Hi! All,

Now that I have a camera that can take images in "TIF" format, I was wondering if other members used this format in preference to RAW?

If not, why not?

From what I have researched (and can understand) even though both file formats are lossless, more information is captured when using RAW, hence the larger file size in comparison. I ask because at the moment memory space is limited for me, and I can store more images using the TIF format without discernable difference on the monitor.

Regards, Andyt

Tif is usually a lot slower than Raw from my experience.

RAW all the way.

Much more latitude in post processing and much smaller file sizes (I'm pretty sure anyway)

Andy

More to the point - the D2x offers TWO raw formats. My choice was to go with compressed raw which, while not lossless, is bloody close and much smaller file sizes than either uncompressed raw or tiff.

Go the RAW! Actually I always save the raw file and have a file saved as tiff after PPing for printing. Raw so that some time down the track, when fancy suits and/or more experience and knowledge of PS allows, I get stuck into the raw again and create another image TIFF however are memory hungry
cheers
marco

stubbsy wrote:Andy

More to the point - the D2x offers TWO raw formats. My choice was to go with compressed raw which, while not lossless, is bloody close and much smaller file sizes than either uncompressed raw or tiff.

Thanks for that Stubbsy, found it on page 50 of the owners manual, note 4

......will try that and see how I go Have to read the fine print!

I had the thought though, why make the D2x TIF capable, when its considered inferior to RAW (NEF)?..

There is very little point to TIF on a camera. It provides the same processed 8bit image as the JPEG without the compression and barely noticeable JPEG artifacts. However, RAW files are smaller than TIF and contain all the sensor information (12-16bit, depending on the camera). If you want higher quality and more control use raw, if you want minimum fuss use JPEG.

TIF is still useful tho', I prefer sending TIFs to the lab for printing over JPEG..

xorl wrote:There is very little point to TIF on a camera. It provides the same processed 8bit image as the JPEG

You sure? That sounds profoundly stupid to me (nearly as bad as using uncompressed TIFFs), wouldn't it make more sense to save 16 bit TIFFs? I mean, it's bigger than RAW for no gain in quality, but if you're going to do it surely you'd not want to throw away data? Otherwise you're doubling your file size *and* losing information... worst of both worlds.

Thinking... 12 bits/pixel RAW, 48 bits/pixel TIFF... same information in each... Hmm. But then I'm used to Canon's, where you can run the same RAW conversion software on the camera of the home computer. Nikon may be different there too?

RAW is a variable that the inexperienced may find frustrating when attempting to PP. TIFF has for a very long time been recognised as the main multi platform format and as such has no comparison to JPEG at all. TIFF is uncompressed unless you decide to compress in either LZW, Zip or JPEG. TIFF also supports layers and is used by many graphic artists as the preferred file format for printing (litho). When using the D1 I used TIFF all the time but must admit with the advent of RAW this is now my preferred format.

moz wrote:You sure? That sounds profoundly stupid to me

Indeed . Ever camera I've seen/read about with TIFF support only does 8bit.

As an in camera format, TIFF is near useless.

AndyT,
Long time owner of D2x.
My experience: RAW. (Non or uncompressed)/ No TIFF.
I don't see much saving space with compressed and uncompressed in RAW, and I can do all in PS or NC later.

AndyT, from my experience and using the D2x raw uncompressed is the best way to go. I found that compressed Raw can loose some shadow detail.....my opinion is to try not compress when possible...compression always comes at an expense somewhere and I know I most likely will not have an opportunity to make the exact same capture again

Memory is cheap

LostDingo wrote:Memory is cheap

Yes, it's cheap as chip! why should we use compression on RAW?