Tiff Vs. Raw Vs. Jpeg (cameras)

[rayzoredge 2]

I have no idea what to decide on here.After reading extensive articles on comparing TIFFs, RAWs, and JPEGs, I'm sold in trying to keep taking photos in either TIFF or RAW format.However, JPEG has many levels of quality. The problem is knowing how lossy the data will be when a camera processes the picture into JPEG format.How would you know what level of compression a camera saves JPEGs at?Even if it saves at the highest quality possible, JPEG is a lossy format, so TIFF and RAW files win with lossless data storage.However, at least with my camera, TIFFs take 15-21 seconds to process AFTER taking a shot, which is an unforgivable delay, especially when you want to be able to take sequential shots, one after another with minimal delay. I'm sure RAW may be the same.Does anyone know if RAW is better than TIFF? (I can't tell because RAW supposedly keeps ALL of the data for the image - including the hardware used to take the picture, etc. - but somehow TIFF has a larger file size.)Also, does anyone know of a camera that actually takes RAWs and/or TIFFs with minimal delay? One of the few compelling reasons why I want to snag a newer, better camera is because of the stinkin' delay on my Olympus C-765. I'm looking at the Canon Rebel XT but jumping into the dSLR category already makes my wallet whimper a bit.

[Tetraca 0]

ONLY use JPEG as a conversion from RAW or TIFF for the web. JPEG is certain to lower the quality of the image no matter what you use due to how it compresses images. I've never had a perfect JPEG compression even at 100% quality. JPEG smears colors, particularily bright red (or so I see most of the time). RAW formats will probably give you the best quality while TIFFs will be more accessible for computers, and I would suggest that (TIFF) to be used zipped in emails and archives. Either one is good for archiving but NEVER save pictures only as jpeg unless you want to do a real quick one. I don't think you should mind the minor processing time if you really want a good picture (it might be inconvienient for small children if they don't smile the first try, though). I've waited for downloads longer than that, and I feel that that shouldn't be a terribly long time.

[benzkids 0]

all photots are in JPEG format, but everytime i save a photoafterworking on it in photoshop i always go high quality. would this make a difference???

[rayzoredge 2]

all photots are in JPEG format, but everytime i save a photoafterworking on it in photoshop i always go high quality. would this make a difference???

From what I understand, saving a JPEG over and over again will degrade it, even if you set it to its highest quality setting. So yes, it would make a difference in making it worse. Just not as much though.

This doesn't happen with TIFF or RAW.

ONLY use JPEG as a conversion from RAW or TIFF for the web. JPEG is certain to lower the quality of the image no matter what you use due to how it compresses images. I've never had a perfect JPEG compression even at 100% quality. JPEG smears colors, particularily bright red (or so I see most of the time). RAW formats will probably give you the best quality while TIFFs will be more accessible for computers, and I would suggest that (TIFF) to be used zipped in emails and archives. Either one is good for archiving but NEVER save pictures only as jpeg unless you want to do a real quick one.
I don't think you should mind the minor processing time if you really want a good picture (it might be inconvienient for small children if they don't smile the first try, though). I've waited for downloads longer than that, and I feel that that shouldn't be a terribly long time.

Crystal clear on the whole deal with saving JPEGs, using them just for displaying purposes, and storing my pictures in a lossless format (RAW and TIFF).

It does seem like an eternity though when you're sitting there waiting for your camera to process and then store the TIFF file. I like being able to take pictures at JPEG speed, which is why I'm wondering if there are cameras that can take TIFFs/RAWs in a more efficient manner. Or even have some sort of a buffer so that the camera will process a picture in the background and still enable you to take up to like four more pictures in that period of time before the buffer becomes full.

Like I said, I'm looking at the Rebel XT. Anyone have experience with taking RAW pictures? Does it take a wicked long time, or is it a little more or less of a second for each picture to process?

Notice from BuffaloHELP:

Merging double posts.

[Tetraca 0]

all photots are in JPEG format, but everytime i save a photoafterworking on it in photoshop i always go high quality. would this make a difference???

That's sort of like drawing?a?picture in jagged edge pencil, then scanning it in to your computer, and printing it out on high quality paper expecting that it will have a better picture. It's not going to happen. You can blur it in an attempt to kill artifacts, but you end up making it poorer quality to curve poorer quality. JPEG2000 would fix this issue but no! Browser developers won't even touch the format so web designers and camera companies can slowly phase out JPEG for it's superiour successor.

It does seem like an eternity though when you're sitting there waiting for your camera to process and then store the TIFF file. I like being able to take pictures at JPEG speed, which is why I'm wondering if there are cameras that can take TIFFs/RAWs in a more efficient manner. Or even have some sort of a buffer so that the camera will process a picture in the background and still enable you to take up to like four more pictures in that period of time before the buffer becomes full.

Even though I don't usually reccomend this, if you can't find anyone you might need to ask the salesperson. If nobody in this forum can help you there's a freelance programmer with experience in taking photos named Glen Campbell responsible for the creation of SiteFrame. I don't know if he can help you, or is willing to help you. You can contact him at broadpool.com?or?even?siteframe.org, possibly.

[BuffaloHelp 24]

Does anyone know if RAW is better than TIFF? (I can't tell because RAW supposedly keeps ALL of the data for the image - including the hardware used to take the picture, etc. - but somehow TIFF has a larger file size.)

This process is called EXIF and it's used by any product if they are programmed to use it, either in JPEG or RAW or even with TIFF. On the side note on EXIF, Nikon and Sony are now featuring EXIF with GPS coordinates thereby when viewed under their propriety software the picture information (EXIF) will now show the location, lens used, aperture, focus, etc.

TIFF and RAW are still compressed except the image quality is not compromised. TIFF is longer standing universal format in publishing illustrations. RAW still needs to be processed to be viewed or printed. Consider RAW as your "negative" stage and the software, i.e. Photoshop, is your "dark-room."

Both TIFF and RAW can be used for taking high quality scenic, still life photographs. RAW tends to have a bit smaller file size after saving. However, as you might know already, the file size depends on the color pallet and the brightness of the "scene"--daylight shots are usually larger in file size compare to night shots. And as mentioned earlier since TIFF is universal format in both PC and MAC world, you can read/view the photograph without the 3rd party's software/decoder. RAW may require a 3rd software/decoder to process the image.

Since RAW needs to be processed even after you download it to your computer/processor, you can set DPI to whatever the resolution you want. This is highly important if you are going to publish it for a magazine. Some magazines require that your DPI is set to no lower than 300DPI. I've worked with one advertising agency which they requested that I develop my images to 600DPI always. Boy my computer never had a workout like that! TIFF is usually preset to 72~240DPI pending you modify the default setting prior to your shooting. DPI does not note that it is compressed or lesser quality. DPI is only important when publishing a print. As mentioned above, for a website DPI is usually on 72 and compression rating of 60 or lower (100 being no additional compression from a formate already in JPEG).

So, the question is where would you be using your image? If it's not for an article, newspaper or something else, you may need to shoot in RAW or TIFF. But with these settings you cannot do continues shots. Continues shots are for action, press coverage or paparazzi style shots that require multiple shoots and select the one which fits best illustration. In which case Rebel XT is not the camera you should be considering. Canon 1D series were designed especially for this kind of environment. Rebel may do 12 shots before the next 15 seconds delay under high quality JPEG, it only presents 3 shots before 30 seconds delay. 1D Mark III can shoot 10 pictures per second. Under RAW format 1D Mark III can produce 15 continues shots under 3 seconds with 20 seconds of delay until the next ready* (these are not your typical laboratory experimented numbers. I have field tested them out and the numbers were from my own personal notes during my test drive ).

You can speed up your file saving time by switching to Sandisk Ultra III. Canon cameras were responding very highly to the new Sandisk technology. I have been a long time Sandisk Ultra II (the earlier generation to Ultra III) user and I was very impressed with my D-60, 10D and 20D by Canon. (Side note: the difference between Ultra and Extreme is the environment operating temperature)

JPEG Super Fine mode on most cameras 6.x megapixels or higher are acceptable enough for all newspaper prints and poster illustrations. But this statement is made in understanding that we're still talking about DSLR and not your typical point and click digital cameras. Because as we all know that 3.x megapixel camera with 77mm filter (size) takes better photograph than 7.x megapixel camera with button lens. The only professional environment that really gives a fuss is the magazine prints--they demand the best of the best, and still they end up digitally airbrushing touch ups at the end.

[bluedragon 0]

Does anybody know the exact difference between TIFF and RAW ?As far as I know , every camera manufacturer has its own RAW format but the TIFF is a universal format that remains same on all the cameras. and Both are lossless but TIFF has LZW compression.Are there any more differences ?