RAW to Tiff, or Low compression Jpeg?

  Simon_P 16:57 03 Nov 2003

I am using a Canon 10D Digital SLR camera

The file options available are:

Jpeg small-large, large being 6.3MP fine (aprox 2.5-3.2 MB file)

RAW approx 6 MB that is then converted to Tiff (18 MB file) and or jpeg

My use is web publication so this needs to be jpeg, and also high quality printing. With a view to be able to have professional prints done for sale.

My question is, is there any advantage to using Tiff for printing? As there doesn?t seem to be any quality loss printing from a max size low compression Jpeg. I don?t expect to need to print larger than A4/12x10 size.

I understand that Jpeg is a lossy file and that RAW is a loss less compression.
And that using Tiff will enable to do multiple edits and saves.

I may have already answered my own question, but would like to here your opinions please.



  Diemmess 17:11 03 Nov 2003

The quality of your camera is to say the least -adequate. Gross overkill for web pics!

Suggest you save the originals in the highest resolution you feel comfortable with and have space to store them. this will give you a second chance if you want to go for wall posters sometime.

Jaypegs depend on your editing program I am probably one of the few who stays with Photopaint.v.9 I do this because I am happy with what I know, and in jpg format this software doesn't compress anything unless I wish it.....The Photoshop wallahs will differ with me on versatility.

In other words - perhaps shoot in top whack save like that, and use save-as for whatever you want at the time, you can always go back to the master pic.

  Simon_P 18:12 03 Nov 2003

I agree that the 10D is over kill for web pix.

I have that camera as I am used to SLR's and don?t feel that the Digi compacts come anywhere close for features and versatility, especially when it comes to shutter and aperture priority modes, not too mention long exposures and not being able to change the lens.
For the amount I shoot it will pay its way no more film or processing needed, or wasted money experimental mishaps.

I always shoot at the max setting (there?s no point in having 6mp and shooting at 2.8) and back up before editing, I use PSP8 but it is all a matter of taste as to what software you prefer.

I was just interested as to whether using RAW ?Tiff would produce better quality prints, as I have only ever used Film or Jpeg.

  Pesala 18:48 03 Nov 2003

Professional photographers seem to prefer TIFF and disdain JPG lossy compression. Unless the compression ratio is high it is hard to see any diffence with most photos. In Irfan View I found that a quality setting of 50 gave results that were hard to tell apart from TIFFs even after multiple saves.

However, the story changes dramatically if the picture contains sharply contrasting outlines like text. Scanned documents and screenshots look blurred even with a quality setting of 75.

If you only photograph people or nature you might be happy with JPG as it will save loads of disk space, will open faster, and can be emailed easily. However, if your photographs often include buildings or machines, you might notice a significant loss of sharpness.

With hard disk space so cheap, and time so expensive, I would say "Save all your photos as TIFFs."

  Simon_P 19:05 03 Nov 2003

Thank you

I shoot nature, landscapes, and buildings (Historical mainly)but with a lot of detail.

So I think that the Tiff is probably a better way to go.

The RAW file has an embeded jpeg which can be extracted at the same time as converting to Tiff

I would rather have quality rather than quantity.

And like you say HHD space is cheap enough these days as are blank CD,s for archiving.

I have ample drive space at the moment about 120 Gig, I'm sure that will vanish quick enough.

Thanks again for your input

Diemmess and Pesala


I wish the "question marks would go away" :-)

  hssutton 19:33 03 Nov 2003

Simon. In the past when using my Minolta I always saved as Tiffs, Since changing to the Canon, with as you say 18Mb Tiffs, I have now changed my procedure, and save in the camera's native format in this case Raw, this, cuts down on H/drive space from 18Mb to 6Mb. Although in my case I save to DVD-Ram. If at a later date you want a high resolution image, it is a simple matter to run it through whatever software you want to proccess the raw image. Just as a point of interest, I use Capture One to do my raw conversions, as it's far superior to Canon, it is also said that PS raw plug-in is also excellent.


  Simon_P 22:57 03 Nov 2003

Thank you

I have thought about storing the RAW images, as there is a imbedded Jpeg to use/view, but wasn?t sure about their integrity for long term storage.

I am using breezbrouser to convert raw to Tiff, it is very good.

I will keep in mind capture one too, I haven?t come across that before.

Considering a DVDRW for long term storage, as CD's don?t hold too much by today?s standards.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Motorola Moto G6 review: Hands-on

The best smart speaker: Apple HomePod vs Google Home vs Amazon Echo

Les meilleurs jeux gratuits pour Mac (2018)