Hot answers tagged

23

You explicitly mentioned PNG-24 - that has eight bits per channel, whereas a TIFF file can have 16. That would be one reason the quality could be higher, from a RAW conversion especially but also if you are doing a lot of editing. The PNG standard also supports 16-bits per channel (PNG-48) but I don't know how many applications support that, whereas pretty ...


14

Noting other answers, and having had a bridge camera that did TIFFs, I'd suggest that for DSLRs TIFF is pointless except as an add on if it can be managed. TIFF is a lossless way of saving an image, once an image is generated, BUT the image that it saves is an interpretation of what the sensor records. RAW gives you the maximum possible flexibility ...


11

Take a look at Why don't most cameras support PNG format? for some other answers. Often cited reason is that the usual metadata (IPTC and EXIF of TIFF and JPG) is not very well supported by PNG and the software. PNG does support color profiles now, but it does not offer CMYK as TIFF does, because it is focused on web-usage. Anecdotal: I used to store ...


11

TIFF is a container format which supports a collection of other standards and like any container what's in it will be entirely down to what you (or whoever wrote the TIFF export you're using) has decided to put in it. At a guess from the file size your converter has gone to 16bpc/RGB uncompressed. If so then that file size looks about right. If it is ...


9

Setting a minimum filesize whilst fixing the image width and height is silly. If you don't use compression then the filesize is determined by the image dimensions. And if you do use compression then the filesize is determined by the level of entropy (disorder) in the image. Some images have higher entropy because there is more going on, more detail etc. in ...


8

Question 1: Does it look good at that size? Your image will look good because most people will only look at it from afar. If it is at a trade show and depending on where exactly it is, no one may be able to get close to the image. Much more about this can be read here: How do I generate high quality prints with an ink jet printer? Using Patrick Hurley's ...


7

You are not losing any quality. It is mostly a habit, I am guessing. Lots of books on digital imaging still suggest TIFF as the highest quality format. For non-technical people, that is all they need to know. Note both TIFF and PNG have higher bit-depths as well. Most people who still save in TIFF use 16-bits per-pixel, so the equivalent of PNG-48. If they ...


7

The question here really resolves around what you mean by "quality", followed closely by needing to understand what RAW really is and how it relates to other image formats. On the first TIFF is generally not compressed in a lossy way, so artifacts weren't introduced. By that measure, quality isn't degraded in the same way it might be with JPEG (and ...


6

Since you say you are a beginner and getting discouraged by having to deal with the tool chain for processing raw images, I suggest you don't for now. There is lots to learn, and some things will have to come before some others. Focus on what is fun and interesting at this point. Getting used to exposure, shutter speed versus f-stop versus depth of field ...


6

If you are asking about "print shops" in the sense of printing brochures, and other primary text-based material, then yes, I can understand that they only accept PDF: they want the most precise layout possible for text-based layouts (so-called "camera-ready": they can feed your PDF straight into their workflow, generating offset plates from the pages you ...


6

Well, first, the image will be demosaiced, white and black levels set, white balance adjusted, and a tone curve applied. With 16 bits to play with, most of this can be adjusted later without much problem — but it is lossy. The demosaicing is irreversible. None of this is metadata, but it is important to know. See more at What is lost when RAW is exported to ...


6

The only two viable options in the list are JPEG and TIFF. JPEG is fine for lossy compression, 8-bit/channel color, and smaller file sizes. I would use JPEG for paper originals that will not be heavily edited. TIFF supports 16-bit/channel images with lossless compression that can hold up better against extensive editing, but files tend to be very large. I ...


5

They do actually but not all of them. Even some bridge cameras can save as TIFF. Unfortunately, TIFF was given a bad name because its files were huge. Early on, compression was not used for TIFF files by digital cameras and so that gave rise to the files being huge which also slowed down the camera considerably. One of my first cameras used to take 24s to ...


5

The comments have really answered the question here: The behaviour you're seeing is as you should expect. The settings for adjustment layers alone have no equivalence in any of the TIFF content standards. TIFF does allow for vendor specific extensions and this would be an example of one but saving to a nonstandard TIFF would be pointless if nobody could ...


5

The only advantages to saving your RAW files as 8-bit is for memory conservation or if certain tools only work with 8-bit images. There is no advantage from a quality point of view, if you're going to do a lot of editing especially in a wide colour space then you may get posterisation when working with only 8 bits. Regarding colour spaces, it is advisable ...


5

The reasons why 8 bit TIFF is acceptable are: raw files are typically linear and most used profiles (including AdobeRGB, sRGB, ProPhoto and whatnot) use gamma-encoding. Read more about it here. 8 bit gamma 2.2 encoding is roughly same as 16 bit linear when taking human vision as a reference debayered/demosaiced image is having redundant information compared ...


5

I don't know how you added the exif data, but it could very well be that the application you used for this recompressed the file, and not with jpeg compression. Windows explorer recompresses a jpeg-tiff as LZW if you edit the metadata, you can see that in the file properties/details tab. Anyway, if you don't like the size of a jpeg exported from a raw file, ...


4

From personal experience with art prints, there are special cases in which using JPEG, even at highest quality can ruin the print. That happens mostly when you have smooth gradients and/or dark regions such as in this one: http://fav.me/d55guh4 . Smooth gradients are ruined even by the best JPEG format - you get banding and it can show really badly on a ...


4

I would take a look at SmugMug and their SmugVault option. Details can be found at this link. With SmugVault you can upload RAW, TIFF, PDF, PSD, or even video files, at any size(up to 3GB each file). It is pretty reasonably priced, but it all depends on how much data you have, and how often you access it. Another option would be looking at something that ...


4

If the TIFF files are only 8bit and the resolution is the same then there will be very little (unless the JPEG compression is set very high). The only difference will be slight artefacts in high frequency areas and potentially lower colour resolution if chroma sub-sampling is used on the JPEGs. Additionally if the scan resolution itself is high compared to ...


4

It is possible and even trivial but I am not aware of any application to do that task specifically. There reason why the file size changes when rotated is that TIFF files are encoded losslessly as one would compress a stream of pixels components from one corner of the image to the opposite one. If you consider Run-Length-Encoding (RLE) which a common TIFF ...


4

Basically, a RAW file stores data directly from the sensor of your camera. Most DSLR are using what is called a Bayer filter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter) to retrieve information about color. Usually, for 4 "pixels" (sensitive elements), 2 are used to get information about green, 1 for red and 1 for blue. However, keep in mind that this sensor ...


4

DPI is meaningless in an electronic image, it's a print specific value, see What does DPI mean? In an electronic image, DPI is just metadata, a "hint" for the print. Specifically, changing that value has no effect on file size, only representation on paper or in a WYSIWYG page editing software. What you care for for an email newsletter or website are the ...


4

sRGB is the STANDARD So stick with sRGB, it is the STANDARD for web content. I fail to see any reasons to not use Adobe RGB when it comes to JPEG files whatever you are posting them on web sites or simply looking at them in your PC... The REASON is as stated: sRGB is the DEFAULT STANDARD for all web content, not AdobeRGB. Don't use AdobeRGB for web ...


3

Provided the TIFF is 16 bits then you wont lose much editing latitude compared to the RAW file. What you want to do in DxO pro is develop the RAW for further editing, by reducing contrast to ensure that neither highlights or shadows are clipped. If you do it right the image should look really dull. Don't worry though - you'll be viewing the image on an 8bit ...


3

RAW files are better than TIFFs in almost every respect: RAW files are smaller (as only one colour component per pixel is stored) RAW files capture more data RAW can be totally lossless (TIFFs don't lose data in compression but do in demosaicing) The only disadvantage is the need to demosaic and process the images before they can be viewed. Which is where ...


3

Difference of file size between a lossless TIFF and RAW is not huge. More time is needed to save a tiff than a raw, so to avoid delay in shots. Jpg will also take more time due to the processing, but will have a significant file size reduction, hence jpg was used.


3

I own an Olympus Camera that has the three options you mention. Tiff files generated by the camera where somehow more than twice as big as the raw files. My speculation here is that the RAW file, as it holds almost exclusively the information from the sensor has by nature less information to compress. That is, if the sensor where, say 10 bits per photosite,...


3

Compression is something you can see yourself, so I'll focus on interoperability and long-term preservation. The EU's Succeed 2014 Recommendations for metadata and data formats for online availability and long-term preservation recommend "Uncompressed or LZW compression" for TIFF masters (p. 68) and note that «If files are actively managed in a digital ...


3

You could use ImageMagick to convert the tiff to multiple files then they will open fine in Lightroom convert multipage.tif single%d.tif


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible