Convert Raw to Tiff?

I heard from someone that after making the necessary adjustments in Raw it is best to save as a Tiff and then only to Jpeg when the image is ready for print or web use.

Is this correct and is it even necessary to work in Tiff, what are the benefits?

Thanks

That is considered "best practice" because the tiff retains all the image data where as a jpeg conversion compresses data, meaning at least some gets discarded depending on the quality level.

Also, there are two levels of tiff, 16 bits per channel and 8 bits per channel. Again, 8 bits per channel involves "compressing" (all jpegs are 8 bit images). People who are doing "serious" editing in an app such as Photoshop often want to convert to a 16 bit tiff to keep from tossing anything away needlessly.

Another important feature about a tiff (or an Adobe psd file) is that it can used and be saved with layers, which is a key feature of Photoshop and other similar apps (including Elements and Gimp). This is important -- once you convert a file to a jpeg, all layers and the associated editing history are gone and the changes can't be reversed. So, again, it is considered "best practice" to keep a tiff/psd on hand as a "project file" with layers intact that you can open and return to until, well, whenever. And, as you noted, save a jpeg in the end as a "final output" file, not a "work in progress" file, because everytime you re-save a jpeg it will not only lose the editing layers and history but it will re-compress that file which sooner or later will produce jpeg compression "artifacts".

Now, the downside: tiffs/psds are larger than jpegs because they haven't undergone jpeg compression. They will be even larger once you have layers in them, and they will be very large if you use 16 bit ones. For people with adequate disk space and know how to process reasonably efficiently that's OK. But it is a consideration for plenty of people -- some people choose the compromise of working with 8 bit tiffs rather than 16, for example.

And, many of us have very heavily migrated into a Raw workflow, doing much, most, or for a lot of our work all of our processing in our Raw processor of choice and as much as possible directly converting to our final output jpegs from out Raw processor, with the result that our systems/libraries aren't occupied with nearly as many of those tiffs!

Ahhh, I see. So I checked, and once I open a RAW in CS5 after making my adjustments and I save in TIFF, it saves it as an 8bit TIFF, how can I change this into a 16bit TIFF?

In LR3 it seems pretty straight forward. Press export and it lays out all the options. The more I use LR3, the more I'm starting to like it... I guess I'm just scared of jumping ship and onto something I'm not that familiar with. lol

Not going to lie, I feel like 16bit TIFF just opened a whole lot of new doors for me. The reason I love shooting in RAW was because of all the light information I get, and as soon as I saved to a TIFF (8bit), I lost a lot of that information. I didn't realize that there was 16bit and 8bit. I guess that's why I didn't really see the benefit of using TIFF unless like you were saying using and being able to save multiple layers. All makes sense to me now! (for the most part).

You set the bit depth in the Raw conversion/export -- in Camera Raw you do it in the conversion specs you open by clicking the link below the image preview that specifies the color type. In DPP you use the pull-down file type list and choose tiff 16-bit in the Convert and Save dialog.

It's best practice, but the benefits for most people are negligible. If I lined up 5 12x18 prints from a 5DII, with four printed from a JPG at max quality, and one from a 16-bit TIFF, I would take bets all day long that most people couldn't pick out the TIFF image.

If you've got the space, and the patience or cpu power to handle editing 16-bit TIFF's, go for it.

Some people are serious about not wasting drive space and being efficient, others would prefer to have the non-compressed TIFF, even if they never use it. Neither is right or wrong, it's just personal preference.

BrandonSi wrote in post #12075640
It's best practice, but the benefits for most people are negligible. If I lined up 5 12x18 prints from a 5DII, with four printed from a JPG at max quality, and one from a 16-bit TIFF, I would take bets all day long that most people couldn't pick out the TIFF image.

16 bit TIFF is typically a working file format exported from a raw converter for further processing, not a final image format. Those JPEGs to which you refer could have been shot and stored as JPEGs in-camera or generated from raw files, converted to 16 bit TIFF and then saved as JPEG.

Typically, 16 bit TIFFs are exported when there is more processing to do and you need the precision and bit depth for particular corrections or post production. So while it is true that a 16 bit TIFF and an 8 bit JPEG image may be indistinguishable in printed form, this assumes that the files were able to be compared directly - that is, the image itself probably did not need to exist as a 16 bit TIFF because the 8 bit version contained all of the tonal and color information to the satisfaction of the photographer. However, if you shoot a raw+JPEG of an outdoor scene and export the raw file to a 16 bit TIFF, you can recover sky detail and shadow detail that will be blown or blocked in the 8 bit JPEG. Print those two seemingly identical files and there will be a huge difference. That's why 16 bit TIFF may be useful.

In summary - if the shot itself is perfectly fine as an 8 bit JPEG, then there is no need to export to 16 bit TIFF and jump through hoops. THere is nothing really gained. However, if the image requires the full precision data and edits that are not achievable entirely in a raw converter (or, you have workflow tools that make the necessary edits outside of the raw converter) then 16 bit TIFF will give you the maximum data with which to work.

It would be nice if camera companies built in the option to have their raw data converted directly to more efficient linear, 32 bit data, like EXR, as an option, given that 32bit workflows are becoming increasingly more popular.

Kirk

Why save as Tiff? when you have the RAW file? A Raw File 20mb (example). Tiff or PSD with few layers can go up to 40-100mb each picture. If you have a raw file and edited Tiff? You will run out of HDD space fast. I have about 1.5TB full of RAW files. Imagine if there are also copy of Tiff in there?

czynot wrote in post #12075896
Why save as Tiff?

How else are you going to get raw data from your camera to a pixel editor like photoshop? You can convert to an 8bit JPEG and then try to edit that, but that simply begs the question "Why shoot raw in the first place?" You can export a DNG, but that will require conversion into a working file format at some point.

You don't have to KEEP the TIFF around, that is why I stated it is a WORKING file format. In fact, if you use ACR within Photoshop to do you raw conversion, you can bring the converted data into Photoshop and save it to a 16 bit PSD. However, until JPEGs become 16 bit, TIFF is what you have if you need to convert your raw data into a format that preserves as much of the raw data as possible for edits outside of the raw converter. So if you use Lightroom, DXO, C1, Bibble, etc. and then include Photoshop, or another pixel editor that accepts 16 bit images, in your workflow chain, you need to convert your raw data to an image. TIFF 16 bit preserves as much of the raw data as possible, especially compared to an 8 bit JPEG. Open that 16 bit image in your external editor, save as whatever you want, and then throw the 16 bit TIFF away if that's how you roll. There, your disk space hogging TIFF is gone!

The choice to go down the 16 bit TIFF road typically dictates whether or not you need to generate a 16 bit TIFF. If you shoot raw, make edits in your raw converter and print from your raw converter (or export for the web) then you will never need to make a 16 bit TIFF for anything. If you need to edit outside of your raw converter, you may find that, for certain images, 16 bit TIFF is the way to go.

Disk space is cheap. Some people do a considerable amount of image editing and preparation in Photoshop, where their file may have multiple layers, etc. They will save a full-resolution, multiple layer file as a "master" file and then make flattened duplicates of this master to repurpose it for print, CMYK press, web, etc. Not every mage may require this kind of storage and handling, but you can see why simply having the raw file around, with a sidecar file of settings, may not work for everyone's needs. If you have adopted the raw workflow, you need to understand that its demands on storage and processing are different than JPEG photography.

kirk

Also TIFF is the file format used when your sending files to a commercial printer or color lab. I use PSD when I want to keep my layers intact for future use. BTW PSD files are compressed but it's lossless so your image quality won't be affected. If it's something I'm going to use for the web or email and doesn't have any work done out of ACR I save as jpeg and keep the converted RAW file for other uses in the future.

Steve Ruddy wrote in post #12076194
Also TIFF is the file format used when your sending files to a commercial printer or color lab.

I use jpg for that & it's perfectly fine...

Steve Ruddy wrote in post #12076194
I use PSD when I want to keep my layers intact for future use.

Same here. Makes it easier to distinguish "layered" from "flattened" files in the Finder.

Steve Ruddy wrote in post #12076194
BTW PSD files are compressed but it's lossless so your image quality won't be affected.

Same option exists for tif files.

Let me re word that. For Commercial offset printing.

Steve Ruddy wrote in post #12077100
Let me re word that. For Commercial offset printing.

Yeah, I know some do require a tiff. Another reason why using and saving a tiff project file can be a very good thing.

Regarding 8-bit & 16 bit files, I use the following compromise. I use ACR for basic raw processing, then open in CS5 at 16 bits. I then add layers, convert to smart object for print sharpening, etc. Once I have finished all of that in 16 bits, I make a print. If I am happy with the print, I then convert to 8-bits and save in psd with all layers, etc. Converting to 8 bits cuts the file size in half while preserving all layers. As my current printer is 8-bit, any further prints I make will be identical to the first. If I decide to make a few additional edits at a later date, they are generally modest enough so that they work very well at 8-bits. If I have to do something really dramatic, I can always go back to my processed raw file and start at 16 bits again. This approach may not suit everyone, but it works for me and saves 50% of psd file storage space.

For special shots I would suggest always saving the 16 bit non compressed tiffs.

I save straight from RAW to jpeg for printing. I only save as tiff/psd if there are significant edits made in Photoshop. I almost never use 16 bit, i've only found a difference on a handful of images where I make significant changes to the color. If you do most of the work in RAW 8 bit is generally fine.