For those of you shooting in RAW format, I have a couple of questions. 1. does your cam also have the option to shoot in TIFF? 2. if so, what do you see as the advantage in shooting in RAW as opposed to TIFF? My cam has the option of shooting in JPEG, TIFF or RAW. But really, for me, i don't see any advantage to shooting in RAW. advantages of TIFF over RAW 1. you don't have to convert the images when you upload them on your computer since PSP & Photoshop can read TIFF directly. 2. on my cam, TIFF images process faster because it's recording just 3 colors instead of 4. 3. our monitor only shows RGB, so shooting in RAW doesn't give the added benefit of that 4th color. my manual does NOT describe any reason why shooting in RAW would be better than TIFF. Image quality doesn't deteriorate with either. I used TIFF mode tonight when i was making some sunset images. i shot this one thru glass. (it was sooooo cold, i had to get in the car to warm up. took this one thru the front window.)

I was reading a sort of humorouos column on that other day.
I find I am only shooting RAW now as I am much happier with 12 million colours and how I can print them.On a huge size for print changing to jpg just plain looks better IMO.
This article may make you see things differently.
Twiddle Piddle...
See here

Message edited on: 03/01/2005 22:00

Hmmm....Interesting read. First time I have read an article that suggested shooting jpg instead of RAW. I have shot both and prefer RAW simply because, if the WB is off I can correct it.

ahhh... well... i didn't want to sound like a doofus but for me i'm perfectly happy with shooting lots & lots of .jpgs... & this article pretty much mirrors my way of thinking... i luv my cam for what it can do & do not consider myself a pro... my computer processing is slow & i'm not the most patient person in the world...
maybe someday i can afford a more high end cam & PC but for now .jpg works for me, .tiff when i do my magic & print & that's about it... doofus that i am... lol :] (edit)p.s. thanks sheila for a great question & doug for a great article! :]

Message edited on: 03/01/2005 22:58

Doug, thanks for that link. it's a good article! and funny about that "toilet humor!" that was great! i've just heard so many people talk about shooting in RAW, and just didn't get what the fuss was all about. i couldn't see the advantages. Since i don't like to twiddle, RAW is definitely not for me. I was, however, under the impression that the quality of JPEG images were not as good as TIFF. what do you and the rest of ya'all think about the quality of JPEG images vs. TIFF or RAW? Interesting that JPEGs look better printed. randy, i was reading this article earlier today and saw where they were talking about how you can adjust the white balance & exposure on RAW images. Click Here! i guess what i need to do is do some experimenting...take the same picture twice...once in JPEG and once in TIFF...then see if can notice any differences in quality.

we crossed, cindy! silly girl, you definitely do NOT sound like a doofus! I'm happy shooting JPEGs too, but so many people around here keep talking about shooting in RAW. i just didn't see what the fuss was all about. for me, JPEG is just fine by me too. As for TIFF...it sucks that it's so slow. i will experiment and see if i can see a difference between the quality of the images. If i don't, i'm just gonna keep shooting in JPEG. i'll post my experiment results here so ya'all can also help me judge!

my pics straight out of the cam are .jpg but once i work on them (as a copy!!) i save as a .tif in case i want to do more because every time you "save" an image as a .jpg it gets compressed & loses quality

i think i will go out & shoot in the raw though, sounds very freeing! hehe

Message edited on: 03/01/2005 23:32

LOL! I'm the dufus! i can't upload TIFF images here! what am i talking about? i just got done transferring my images (which took FOREVER, BTW). I looked at both the JPEG and TIFF and couldn't see a difference. i'm gonna just keep shooting in JPEG! Cindy, thanks for telling me that! i save as TIFF when i'm in painter, but for some reason i've never thought to do it with my photos!! I'll have to think about that. LOL about going out and shooting in the raw!! well, gf...you wouldn't do that here today!!! freeing, but not worth freezing your ***** off!!! :)

well that would mean i have 3 copies... the original, the post worked .tif, then the .tif resized & saved for the web .jpg shoot in the raw! rah! rah! rah! hahaha :D

In my gallery there is only about 3 images done in RAW. So I do not have a prob with jpg. I am just experimenting now. There is many better things I can say about the quality,until I have to resize and compress for here. makes not much dif. One thing I have found ,but will not make too harsh a decision yet that with my 8mp nikon 8700 it has real good images for stills and nature. Macros and the sort. But now with this D70 and 6.1 mp I do see a dif on the large size. Thing is I would not trade the speed now for anything. And the sound of the shutter I missed that. rapid fire again. RAW with the 8700 I could take a shot then wait 20 secs for next one. This D70 is like take it right away now. So I don't miss action. OK getting off topic....back to TIFF and jpg.. While you are experimenting Sheila....keep to jpg, you will get many more shots on a card and learn way more!

good to experiment, Doug! That's exactly what i've been doing. I'm the same...love the sound of the shutter and enjoy the rapid fire. that waiting sucks! i shot ducks today and then some landscapes. i only shot in TIFF when doing the landscapes. i agree...my time is better spent getting in more shots than waiting around!!! and if i have problems with lighting, i prefer to fix it in postwork. raw rah raw*, Cindy!!! LOL!

Attached Link: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

Have a look at this article. I allways shoot in RAW and store my photos as RAW. I feel they are more like digtal negatives.

I shoot in RAW format also. ( I am thinking about designing a T-shirt with the logo: Digital Photographers shoot in the RAW then have (format) in very small print) I think having unprocessed images, is as close to a negative as you can get as azy states. Nothing wrong with shooting in jpgs, but it is a compressed format, while working with RAW then Tiff no compression is done, so I get the highest quality image possible. Not saying I can tell the difference, it is just I know that I am working with the highest quality that I can.

From a quick survey, when the camera stores as TIFF it is using 8 bits/color. The sensor, (and RAW mode), provides (the equivalent of) 12 bits per color. So, by storing as TIFF you are still throwing away some of the available information. This normally would not matter if everything was exposed correctly when you take the shot. However, if your metering is off, or if the scene has an extreme brightness range, the extra RAW bits can enable finer adjustments in post processing. [In a way, you can think of it as automatically bracketing the exposure.] But, again, normally such bracketing isn't needed, so TIFF works fine. [Folks, of course, will point out other advantages of RAW, but I think this catches it pretty well.] JPEG is a "lossy" compresion technique. So, there are small imperfections in the stored image. For just viewing the "straight" images, or for printing, these imperfections are normally invisible. However, if you do any post processing they cumulatively get worse. Here, by post processing, I mean even simple things like cropping, rotating, resizing, sharpening, adjusting contrast. Still, for most occasions, even with a little post processing you will not see any significant problems. Here is an original, and a SEVERELY tortured jpeg. A moderate amount of postwork on a jpeg really does not cause much of a problem. But the effect is visible, so it is best whenever possible to start with a lossless original, like RAW or TIFF.

thanks for that link, Azy! it was a good article. Misha, thanks for showing...i do see the difference there. despite the loss in compression when shooting in JPEG, for now, i think i will continue shooting in that mode for the reasons i talked above above. then i will as TIFF as Cindy suggested. perhaps in the future i will find shooting in RAW more to my liking, but not now. i really appreciate all your input here guys! thanks a bunch!

yep... good article for shooting raw azy, ty for the link :]...
will experiment a bit with my cam & see how the process works
as it does have a raw mode but already painfully slow
...wonder how much bigger the files are?
& i'll certainly keep it in mind when i can afford a real DSLR... sigh
excellent thread of info!!! :]

For what it's worth (keeping in mind I'm a rookie, or maybe that should be Doufous Jr.) the bottom line is the end result. I've read about it, tried it and concluded: 1. I don't do sophiscated enough postwork to require the extra info. 2. My basic impatient nature is riled while waiting for the longer processing of the image in the camera and uploads to the computer plus filling up cards so quickly. 3. I do backup frequently and don't want to be using a truck load of DVD's to hold my photos. 4. I have taken identical shots in all modes and saw no perceptible difference on the screen or when printed on my Epson 2200, 2880dpi at 13"x19". But then, I do wear glasses. So I guess it's good to be a rookie, content with my 8mp jpg's, and not worry about such things. I especially like the link DBGRAFIX provided... made sense to me.

cindy...i agree...next cam i buy will be a DSLR...just couldn't do it this time. well, we could have, but we wanted a vacation too! :) jim...gotta say i pretty much feel the same way. oh, that great that you've printed them out & saw no difference. i swear, i just couldn't see ANY difference beween the JPEG and TIFF. then again...i wear glasses too!

I always Shoot in the RAW...and I have Breakfast at Tiffany's

Tedzzzzzzzzzzzzz... ROFL!! i luv you! :D

Why don't You hop in...You can hold My Zoooooooooooooooom sigh

hehe... so much for the discussion... don't mind if i do! *splaaaaaaaaaaaaaash!!!* :] *flutter, flutter*

Good topic and thread...however, another valid point is: With JPG, TIFF, the camera does ALL in camera PROCESSING, ie, sharpness, brightness, contrast, colour sat etc. With RAW, it is as you see it...NO IN CAM PROCESSING...NO sharpness, NO brightness, No contrast etc... You have FAR more control over RAW imo. ma 2 cents :)

One question Sheila asked was:

1. does your cam also have the option to shoot in TIFF?

No..!!! Surprised...lol
BUT, it allows me these:

1)RAW alone
2)RAW with JPG (with diff degrees of size)
3)JPG

yes...I use RAW alone :)

Message edited on: 03/02/2005 14:51

My Cam doesn't support TIFF AFAIK. Even if it did I would use RAW for the reasons jimry mentioned. Albeit that I shoot raw in situations where I'm not sure of the whitebalance to just want the maximum amount of editability, esp in low light situations.

Or Zooooooon as we call it in FL. ;P My take on it is if I were a professional with the best equipement, I'd shoot in RAW or TIFF. But I don't have a DSLR and limited card storage space. I post mainly on the web and the pictures I do print don't go in any real world galleries (yet). My concession is I shoot with the highest possible quality JPEG and immeadiately save as a Photoshop file when I start working with it. It only becomes a JPEG again when I "save for web." That's my method and I'm sticking to it, for now. --Kort

And NO, I'm not trying to compensate for anything, so don't bother asking! ;oP

1. I can't shoot in TIFF 2 I always shoot RAW for most of the reasons that Misha and others have mentioned. 3 I do shoot Jpeg if away and storage gets desperate (not often. Good Link Doug, but I'm not convinced that just Jpeg is sufficient for me. 4 Lol Tedz I think I will pass on the zooooooooooooom though!

Attached Link: http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/RAW_01.htm

This may explain it better Sheila

Message edited on: 03/02/2005 14:59

One other advantage for RAW is when you shot a photo with a bright sky and dark foreground. Normally one would use a ND filter on the lens, but if you don't have one, or forgot to bring one, then you can take the RAW image and process it twice. One for the correct exposure for the sky, then again for the foreground and combine them in PS or PSP. Photo mags suggest this technique all the time, but suggest taking 2 shots. With RAW you do not need 2 shots, as you can adjust the exposure when processing the RAW file. Tedz - I just knew you where a RAW shooter.

http://www.alltheweb.com/search?cat=web&cs=cp1252&q=jpeg http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/ http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/ http://www.xat.com/

thanks so much everybody for your all your responses and links!!!! Sylvaine!!! hi girl!!! good to see you again!!!! Cindy...all your rah raw shoot in the raw cheers really got Tedz a goin'!!!!! kort...that's one helluva a ZOON you got there!!!

That's nothing, check out the ZOON I use when I really want to get up close and personal in the rah rah raw! ;oP

Like Jim, I only shoot raw..... but there are reasons for that:

1. I'm a control freak..... and I like to have control of all aspects of my images from start to finish. With a raw, I can edit and re-edit, and still retain the orginal unprocessed data the way it was shot in camera.

2. I need the quality that one gets from 12 bit raw files, because I'm printing for my work to be seen by the public.

3. I print large.... in other words, not 4x6 snapshots. I want/need the best quality I can get.

4. I don't have lag times between the camera writing to the disc, so I can afford to shoot raw with the D70. This WAS a major drawback with my Dimage 7, and still is for many non-dslr digitals.

Tiff files are not bad, and much of my earlier work was shot as tiff, but the size rivals that of a raw, there really isn't much difference in that regard, at least there wasn't on my Dimage 7.

It's all depends on the individual, and what their needs are. Whatever you do is great if it works for you. :~)

And for what it's worth.... that Ken Rockwell guy.... doesn't really have a good reputation in certain photographic circles. Not sure it matters much here, but thought I'd mention it anyway. shrug

Message edited on: 03/03/2005 16:36

Zoon zoon zoon!!! dang that's one helluva a zoon!!! michelle, it certainly does sound like RAW is certainly the best way for you to go!!!