Tiff conversion from RAW losing quality?

Hi all, not sure if I posted in the correct spot, but anyway I have found a weird thing with one photo I am playing with. It is of my baby daughter and when viewing the image of her hair in DPP and then when I convert to 16 bit tiiff and open in PS, I get a lot of data loss (or it appears to be to me?)

Here are the two 100% views. I used the snipping tool to capture. Note the tiff shows artifacts in the hair than the one snipped from within DPP. The DPP image is on the left, but it's fairly obv.

Now before I get accused as a pixel peeper, I just want to say that the hair data IS in the image in DPP, but it goes when I export it.

Is this normal,? I thought Tiff were supposed to be lossless. Looks to me I'm losing a lot of detail here.

Just one thing. The snipping tool has smashed the quality badly it's almost not worth posting them, so sorry about that, but please note the differences between the two. If there were no differences in the original DPP viewed RAW to the PS viewed Tiff then there should be no differences in the saved snips is my argument. The difference you see here is in a similar amount, just not as bad of course

Trust me, in the original there are no artifacts when viewed in dpp, I just don't know how to post the original without losing detail? Admittedly the hair is in the shadow, but once again my argument is about the differences between the raw viewed in DPP and the tiff viewed in PS.

Edit: I just viewed the tiff in DPP and it appears it's better than when viewed in PS.........what's that all about? It almost tells me it's PS that's not showing all the detail? Am I making any sense here?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Well, the quality of those JPG's is way too coarse to look at what you're trying to describe. At least I couldn't see any differences aside of jpeg artifacts and a different color profile.

TIFF 16bit is as lossless as you're going to get. I believe there is an anti-aliasing filter which is applied on export, which can remove some detail, but I don't see a difference in those shots apart from color tone.

Yes, I can see some difference - especially in the zone where the skin goes from lighter to darker. Just as if there is some noise coming up.
Did you check that all your applications are set to the same color space?
Did you check that all applications use the same bit depth (8 or 16 bits)?

They look very very similar to me. You don't even need 16 bit TIFF, except as an intermediate step, jpeg's fine for printing.

kostka wrote in post #9306366
Well, the quality of those JPG's is way too coarse to look at what you're trying to describe. At least I couldn't see any differences aside of jpeg artifacts and a different color profile.

TIFF 16bit is as lossless as you're going to get. I believe there is an anti-aliasing filter which is applied on export, which can remove some detail, but I don't see a difference in those shots apart from color tone.

As I said, don't look at the quality as such, I have no other way of showing you this. Look at the differences in artifacts between each of them in the hair. I am viewing the SAME file in two different programs. The one with more artifacts is from PS.
Not sure what sort of monitor you have, but it is obvious enough from here. The AA filter you speak of sounds interesting enough to find out more of though. I assume you mean what DPP applies? As far as color tone goes, it's the same image, but if I am correct PS deals with WB different to DPP, meaning if I set a WB in DPP it oesn't look the same in PS. But that isn't in question here though at the moment. It's no killer, I'm just curious as to why PS shows a loss of image quality in the darker areas that DPP had no trouble showing.

vk2gwk wrote in post #9306384
Yes, I can see some difference - especially in the zone where the skin goes from lighter to darker. Just as if there is some noise coming up.
Did you check that all your applications are set to the same color space?
Did you check that all applications use the same bit depth (8 or 16 bits)?

Yup, that's where I'm talking about, and that is what has my attention, given I would have assumed the exported tiff to have not lost any detail over the RAW. Both applications are sRGB, as is the camera. The tiff gets exported from DPP as 16 bit, and is being treated as 16 bit in PS.

tim wrote in post #9307083
They look very very similar to me. You don't even need 16 bit TIFF, except as an intermediate step, jpeg's fine for printing.

eh? printing? not worried about that at the moment, this is a pause in my normal editing as it really stood out in this photo. I have never noticed it before and made me wonder. Yes they look "similar", but as I said, they aint showing the same detail which made me think about why not. Then when I viewed the SAME tiff back in DPP the noise wasn't there?? What is PS doing to lose data that DPP isn't when viewing the same tiff file?

pixelbasher,

Yes, I can see what you mean.

I've not come across any reduction in quality between DPP and the same image once it has been "exported" to PS. Have you tried directly exporting the same shot rather than the "Convert & Save" route?

I definitely see a change in colour saturation between the two programmes in my own workflow, DPP displays a more colour saturated image than the PS interpretation of the same shot. I have discussed it here in the past and the conclusion was that DPP uses different colour algorythms, if you like, different methods to describe what should be the same colour space but in fact are not.

colour profile?

Lowner

I just tried that for the first time and I got the same result. But I do normally do the whole convert thing in DPP. Either way though, when it's viewed in PS it's horrible! It honestly looks like some compressed jpg, even as a full size 16 bit tiff.

Bobster, unless I'm missing something you may be thinking of, this isn't about color profile, which as I said just before it's all in sRGB, it's about artifacts in the shadows that Dpp isn't showing, but PS is.

I'd like someone who uses DPP an PS to really see what I'm talking about. I'll email the Raw to someone if they want

I clearly see a difference...

My guess is a bad monitor profile. (And an incorrectly set up DPP)

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'application/xml'

So this artifact issue all stems from a color issue Rene?

Bad monitor profile? I don't even have a monitor profile........
If I take a look in the browser there is a profile in there that is I assume from my monitor manufacturer, (dell 2209WA) set it to that I assume?

My default work color space in DPP is set to sRGB, the setting option on CMYK is what you have, but of course my top setting isn't Adobe RGB. Should it be?

Just to restate, DPP displays it much better than PS.

I appreciate you chiming in here Rene.

Ok I just loaded the 2209 profile into DPP and all that did was make it look as bad as PS is. But it showed exactly the horribleness (maybe even worse) I'm seeing in PS.

Maybe that's the answer. Is there a dodgy profile (same one) in PS?

I'll be back..........

Ok, I'm back.
Here is how PS is set up. There is an option to set it to the monitor color, but after the DPP "experiment", I won't try it until I run it past you guys first.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Well, that confirms your monitor profile is bad

Either get a new one (download or create) or set the monitor profile to sRGB (in the system prefs). That won't be accurate, but at least it will be consistent. And you're not accurate now either


On the sRGB vs. AdobeRGB: sRGB is fine. If you want to know more: Have a read in the link(s) from my sig.

But nothing was using the dell profile Rene, it was originally set to sRGB, in both DPP and PS. I only just set the dell profile then after you pointed it out in DPP

pixelbasher wrote in post #9307593
But nothing was using the dell profile Rene, it was originally set to sRGB, in both DPP and PS. I only just set the dell profile then after you pointed it out in DPP

PS automatically sets whatever the OS is using without being told. By doing the change that René showed you, you put DPP and PS on the same (broken) page.

Pixelbasher,

Sounds like its time to investigate some monitor profiling equipment. But remember DPP has to be told about it once its been created and saved, while PS automatically applies it. I've forgotten that basic fact several times.

Of the two changes I'd like in DPP, that's one.