Why TIFF?

[Jack Douglas]

"RAW files are your (undeveloped) "digital negative". They contain all the original image info without any processing, from demosaicing onwards. They can be "redeveloped" with new, improved or different tools (and skils...) whenever you wish or need. Image processing tools improve, sometimes a lot - and our skills also -, being able to "redevelop" older RAW files to achieve better result is a plus which is lost if you ditch them."

Boy, you got that right. Fortunately I realized only a few weeks after getting my new Canon gear and it's been all RAW ever since. And, I will/must go back and rework some of the previous shots in particular due to my ability to judge exposure improving (I think?). Not to mention subject placement, over-sharpening and .....

Anyone know of a good source/resource for learning the aspects of getting exposure right?

Jack

 

[JonAustin]

I don't do "extreme" editing, but I do have a lot of experience exporting to TIFF and JPEG. It's not unusual for me to deliver images to clients in both formats.

I'm able to do most of the image processing I want to do in Lightroom. In these instances, I don't export the images to any intermediate format for later reprocessing, as Lightroom keeps track of all the changes, while of course retaining the original RAW file.

If I need to do more extensive editing than possible in Lightroom (with my skill set, at least), I'll move over to Photoshop. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience, it's less disk cost to save intermediate versions in Photoshop's native format rather than in TIFFs, particularly when multiple layers are involved.

 

[neuroanatomist]

(Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).

I did not know this, but can you really actively write to a CR2 file using Canon DPP?

I'm interested in this info, too.

Where can I find more about this and how is the file modified?

The image data in the .CR2 container are not modified. Most edits you make in DPP (exposure, WB, cropping, etc.) are recorded in the metadata saved inside the file container, and applied if/when you re-open the RAW image. Other RAW converters that can handle .CR2 files do not re-write the .CR2 file, but generally provide the option to save the edits as a separate 'sidecar' file, so the settings can be re-imported.

The exception in DPP to saving changes as metadata is when you use the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) for supported lenses. In that case, the DLO is applied to the RAW image data and written into the same .CR2 container as a second (modified) copy of the RAW data, preserving the original (unmodified) RAW image in the same file – that's why a DLO'd RAW file doubles in size.

 

[Sporgon]

The exception in DPP to saving changes as metadata is when you use the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) for supported lenses. In that case, the DLO is applied to the RAW image data and written into the same .CR2 container as a second (modified) copy of the RAW data, preserving the original (unmodified) RAW image in the same file – that's why a DLO'd RAW file doubles in size.

Owah

And I thought it was because it was making it twice as good.

 

[Maximilian]

(Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).

I did not know this, but can you really actively write to a CR2 file using Canon DPP?

I'm interested in this info, too.

Where can I find more about this and how is the file modified?

The image data in the .CR2 container are not modified. Most edits you make in DPP (exposure, WB, cropping, etc.) are recorded in the metadata saved inside the file container, and applied if/when you re-open the RAW image. Other RAW converters that can handle .CR2 files do not re-write the .CR2 file, but generally provide the option to save the edits as a separate 'sidecar' file, so the settings can be re-imported.

The exception in DPP to saving changes as metadata is when you use the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) for supported lenses. In that case, the DLO is applied to the RAW image data and written into the same .CR2 container as a second (modified) copy of the RAW data, preserving the original (unmodified) RAW image in the same file – that's why a DLO'd RAW file doubles in size.

Thanks neuro, for this clarification!

This meets my expectation and experience, so now I'm fine again.

Of course adding edits to the metadata in the file container is somehow "changing" and the file.
I read the post of Mt Spokane as if the image data would be changed.

Now my image of the world is fine again.

 

[romanr74]

I never really understood the "TIFF thing", except for sharing high quality files. I might be a lost sould but I really very much like the Photoshop/Lightroom enviroment and workflow, where I work with my RAW files and LR saves the processing data as an additional data set to the untouched RAWs. To me the RAW file is the holy data that for keepers I would never wanna loose. I guess it also depends when you developed your workflows and what you got used to to figure our what works best for you.

 

[Zv]

All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.

I sometimes forget that Photoshop creates a new file when you edit from Lightroom into Photoshop and then later on I do some HD cleaning and accidentally erase that file thinking the folder is backed up, which it is was but on import only. Lost a few TIFFs that way in the past though I can recover them now via cloud backup.

Is there a way for Photoshop to automatically make a copy of that file in say an external drive as well as your hard drive?

 

[fish_shooter]

All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.

I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.

I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.

My 1995 Kodak DCS460, raw files were saved as TIF Version3, in a proprietary TIF format. Lightroom and Photoshop still read those old files, but many other photo editors will not. The data inside is pretty much the same, it just does not have some of the later enhancements. Kodak still has the supporting files online for those cameras, and they will likely be saved in archives for many more years.


Tiff has been around since the mid 1980's, so its about 40 years old. Jpg files have not been around that long, but I'd have no qualm at predicting that they can be easily read 100 years from now, even though they will or should be replaced. There are literally billions of them, and that alone will keep readers in demand.

Gif files maybe not, they have fallen out of favor and may become anachronisms before too many years.

 

[Maiaibing]

I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.

Tiff has been around since the mid 1980's, so its about 40 years old. Jpg files have not been around that long, but I'd have no qualm at predicting that they can be easily read 100 years from now, even though they will or should be replaced. There are literally billions of them, and that alone will keep readers in demand.

JPG is truly the one and only file format we can trust will "never" go away as long as the Internet works like it does today.

Since reading different formats on the web is very - extremely - low bandwidth, I expect most formats generally on the web today will continue to be readable through web interfaces.

 

[Zv]

All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.

I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.

Ah yes, of course you're right but what I meant is short term future for editing files, particularly PSD files. I might want to edit them in other programs in the future. Right now I have a mix of TIFF and PSD, just wanna tidy up and that was why I was thinking to convert them to DNG. Then again I am very lazy when it comes to file organization so I'll probably just leave it and then curse myself later!

 

[LDS]

I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.

None. But a well-documented, broadly used format has better chances to be somehow readable in the future that some fully proprietary, badly documented and little used one.

Now national and commercial archives has a large collection of digital images, audio and video they are preserving for historical reasons. It would be interesting to know which formats they prefer to store them into.