jpeg or TIFF from RAW editor to finish editor ???

I use mostly DxO Photolab II Prime for converting our RAW files.

I have always saved the converted RAW as best quality jpegs and then finish them in PS Elements 7.

This method has always been okay.

Will I see a dramatic improvement if I convert the RAW files to TIFF instead ? Am I losing anything by converting to jpeg instead of TIFF for the short ride between DxO and Elements ?

It really depends on what you are doing after conversion from RAW.

I used to always convert to 16 bit tiff because I used to do some pretty heavy editing when RAW converters did so little. These days most converters allow much more adjustment before outputting a file.
FYI the older Canon DSLR were creating 10 bit per channel RAW files. With the 1D3 in 2007 they upped it to (12 or 14 bit? Can;t recall) per channel. So when you converted to 8 bit you were loosing a LOT of editing leeway.

If you expect to use levels, curves, shadow/highlight recovery, and any major color adjustment, 16 bit tiff is your go to. If not, then jpeg will be fine.
IMHO there is NO real discernible benefit to using TIFF if you are staying 8 bit. The advantage to 16 bit is avoiding truncation of color while editing. 16 bit allows you to maintain all of the RAW data's color info right up to the end of editing.

This VERY old tutorial has some explanation of the benefits of 16 bit output;
https://photography-on-the.net …thread.php?t=34​934&page=1

The fact is that once all editing is done, one can then convert to 8bit jpeg. The "damage" is done when editing in 8 bit. Not in converting to 8 bit.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19228902
The advantage to 16 bit is avoiding truncation of color while editing. 16 bit allows you to maintain all of the RAW data's color info right up to the end of editing.

I hope I can explain this --- sometimes, when I attempt to "rescue" a sky, especially a clear sky, I will end up with distinct delineations of the color from darker to lighter, instead of a smooth gradient.

Is this a situation where 16-bit would benefit ?

Of course, sometimes, I get it in the RAW editor before conversion.

My general rule is to always work with the highest bit depth possible only reducing when creating the final output.

BuckSkin wrote in post #19228918
I hope I can explain this --- sometimes, when I attempt to "rescue" a sky, especially a clear sky, I will end up with distinct delineations of the color from darker to lighter, instead of a smooth gradient.

Is this a situation where 16-bit would benefit ?

Of course, sometimes, I get it in the RAW editor before conversion.

This 'banding' can be attributed to storing JPG files with too low of a Quality setting. I usually store my own JPG files with Quality setting of 8-9; if I set a low value like Quality 3-4, I can see the banding.
The Quality setting controls the file size by determining what color area are 'the same' and binning them all together more compactly, making for a smaller file size...it is the agressive binning which makes swaths of sky become banded in appearance.

Wilt wrote in post #19228955
This 'banding' can be attributed to storing JPG files with too low of a Quality setting. I usually store my own JPG files with Quality setting of 8-9; if I set a low value like Quality 3-4, I can see the banding.
The Quality setting controls the file size by determining what color area are 'the same' and binning them all together more compactly, making for a smaller file size...it is the agressive binning which makes swaths of sky become banded in appearance.

I always save the highest quality jpegs and still sometimes get the "banding"

BuckSkin wrote in post #19228966
I always save the highest quality jpegs and still sometimes get the "banding"

OK, we ruled out JPG Quality as a culprit. This article may give other insight about banding...

https://photographylif​e.com …banding-and-how-to-fix-it

BuckSkin wrote in post #19228918
I hope I can explain this --- sometimes, when I attempt to "rescue" a sky, especially a clear sky, I will end up with distinct delineations of the color from darker to lighter, instead of a smooth gradient.

Is this a situation where 16-bit would benefit ?

Of course, sometimes, I get it in the RAW editor before conversion.

Is this a problem you only see with your monitor and not with prints? If you don't have a monitor/video card that supports 10 bits per channel (few do) you can sometimes see color banding, especially with nice blue skys. If your images are mainly to be viewed by others on-line (because it's unlikely they will be 10 bpc capable) then this may help:

https://photographylif​e.com …banding-and-how-to-fix-it

Wilt wrote in post #19228977
This article may give other insight about banding...

https://photographylif​e.com …banding-and-how-to-fix-it

Bob_A wrote in post #19229054
this may help:

https://photographylif​e.com …banding-and-how-to-fix-it

Thanks; that is a good article with solutions to try.

BuckSkin wrote in post #19228918
I hope I can explain this --- sometimes, when I attempt to "rescue" a sky, especially a clear sky, I will end up with distinct delineations of the color from darker to lighter, instead of a smooth gradient.

Is this a situation where 16-bit would benefit ?

Of course, sometimes, I get it in the RAW editor before conversion.

That "banding" is exactly the problem with working 8 bit files. The more bit's per channel of color, the more gradients in between. I beg to differ with Wilt on this one, I don't think jpeg quality will help here. This is EXACTLY the reason why we work in 16 Tiff. Increasing jpeg quality will not increase the bit depth, and the banding will still occur.

EDIT: Ahh, i just read ahead and saw the follow up with link.

Bob_A wrote in post #19229054
Is this a problem you only see with your monitor and not with prints? If you don't have a monitor/video card that supports 10 bits per channel (few do) you can sometimes see color banding, especially with nice blue skys. If your images are mainly to be viewed by others on-line (because it's unlikely they will be 10 bpc capable) then this may help:

https://photographylif​e.com …banding-and-how-to-fix-it

But even Trucolor cards and monitors use the same 24 bits (8 per color) as SVGA...8 more bits used for translucency.
What graphic cards use more than 8 bits per color, to support monitors with 10 bits per channel?

I always shoot RAW.

I have always kept our cameras set for sRGB colors.

Should I set them for Adobe instead ?

BuckSkin wrote in post #19229237
I always shoot RAW.

I have always kept our cameras set for sRGB colors.

Should I set them for Adobe instead ?

Only if you want to send an aRGB file to your printer or to a commercial printer (and they DO NOT CONVERT the aRGB to sRGB to make the print!)

aRGB vs. sRGB does not change the nature of the signal going to your monitor (or printer)...same number of display bits per color are used for both! and same number of displayable hues for both color spaces!
If your monitor bands while displaying the wide internal workspace of your photo software (for example LR ProPhoto workspace), the choice of RGB workspace does not inherently fix the problem.

Wilt wrote in post #19229244
aRGB vs. sRGB does not change the nature of the signal going to your monitor (or printer)...same number of display bits per color are used for both! and same number of displayable hues for both color spaces!

Thanks.

https://photography-on-the.net …thread.php?t=34​934&page=1

In the article linked above, 2nd sentence:
"Number of Colors: Image... Mode... 16-bits/channel
- Always should be the first step - more colors to use so less damage when pushing, pulling, and moving colors."

Then, 3rd sentence:
"Color Space: Image... Mode... Convert to Profile... Adobe RGB
- Always step 2 - gives larger color space so less color damage."

He is doing this in the finish editor.

I am confused as to why, if one is going to convert to Adobe RGB in the finish editor, why not just do so in the camera ? or in the RAW converter ?

If one is not going to be able to see the difference on the monitor, how does anyone know there is any benefit to using aRGB ?

All of this color business keeps me confused; it may be due to the #1 Diamond Toe & Heel that struck my head when the horse I was riding was struggling to get up after rolling with me; it may have knocked loose that part of my brain (I stayed in the saddle and came up with him) .