Why TIFF?

[Sabaki]

Hey everybody

Can someone advise why it's best to convert CR2 files to .tiff and not JPEG please?

My current work flow for single images:
• Shoot in RAW
• Open in Camera RAW
• Process and save as a .jpeg

My current work flow for HDR images:
• Shoot RAW
• Open 3 bracketed images as 32bit files in Camera RAW
• Process
• Convert to 16bit image then save as .jpeg
• Open .jpeg in Camera RAW for final edit

What should I do differently?

 

[neuroanatomist]

JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.

 

[Sabaki]

JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.

Thanks Neuro

So basically if there's further editing to be done, save in tiff. If the edit is 100% satisfactory, save in .jpeg?

 

[Zeidora]

JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.

Thanks Neuro

So basically if there's further editing to be done, save in tiff. If the edit is 100% satisfactory, save in .jpeg?

Always work in .tif and only save-as jpeg when you need to have a smaller files (e.g. web-posts) as a second version. With .tifs, also think about flexible processing options such as adjustment layers. Storage space is of no concern these days with cheap hard-drives.

 

[neuroanatomist]

JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.

Thanks Neuro

So basically if there's further editing to be done, save in tiff. If the edit is 100% satisfactory, save in .jpeg?

Personally, I'd keep the TIF copy in case I decided to re-edit later. I keep .CR2 files for the same reason.

 

[Don Haines]

When I render Panoramas, I take the RAW files, render the Panorama, Save as TIFF, and then worry about processing them in Lightroom or Photoshop.... Whenever I had saved as a JPG, I cursed the decision as it ruined future ability to edit.....

 

[AlanF]

I keep the original .cr2 files for future re-editing. The tiffs are huge and clog up my hard drives.

 

[Coz]

+1 on keeping the raw files. As software improves (i.e. better sharpening & noise reduction), you can go back and reprocess the raw files with a better end result.

 

[scyrene]

Can I ask, why are tiffs bigger (at least sometimes) than the raw files they're made from? I just chose a random photo and exported as a tiff in Lightroom with the default settings, and it's 133MB versus 28MB for the raw :/ What does the extra data represent?

 

[rpt]

Can I ask, why are tiffs bigger (at least sometimes) than the raw files they're made from? I just chose a random photo and exported as a tiff in Lightroom with the default settings, and it's 133MB versus 28MB for the raw :/ What does the extra data represent?

TIFF is encoded in text. CR2 is encoded in binary. CR2 encoding is more efficient and hence the smaller size. For kicks you could open a TIFF file in a text editor and see what is in it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I would not recommend converting cr2 files to tiff. Leave them as cr2. Most editing software allows non destructive editing of cr2 files (Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).

If you want to convert files for some reason, convert to DNG. DNG files are basically TIFF files but are smaller.

 

[9VIII]

Why TIFF?

Because Adobe.

If your software can work with CR2 then converting to anything else is probably a waste of time.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Why TIFF?

Because Adobe.

If your software can work with CR2 then converting to anything else is probably a waste of time.

Be aware that Adobe owns the TIFF standard!! You are not getting away from Adobe by using TIFF, but you are getting into a basically inactive standard that has not been maintained for many years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format

 

[niels123]

(Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).

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

 

[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?

 

[LDS]

Can someone advise why it's best to convert CR2 files to .tiff and not JPEG please?

TIFFs are the right choice when you need to exchange (or store) high quality "end" images (images already processed as you wish) with people/software/services who can't open RAW files and may not be processed further but for specific needs (i.e. high quality printing or publishing electronically, specific editing in Photoshop or the like) - although TIFFs can still be processed better than JPEGs.

JPEG is the choice when you need smaller files (with some quality loss, depending on JPEG export settings) for less demanding display, printing or publishing needs. Because of its smaller bit color depth, and lossy compression, JPEG may not allow more processing without noticeable loss in quality. But JPEG support is more ubiquitous than TIFF - every device or software can usually display/open JPEG files, unlike TIFF.

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.

DNG, as other poster said, is a better option to move RAW files to a common file format (it can also embedd the original RAW file, at expense of size) without losing this "reprocess" capability - although it still converts the file and may lose some original informations (if the original RAW is not saved)

Then everything depends on what your aims are. If you will never reprocess a photo again, you could convert to some "standard" image format, TIFF for very high quality, JPEG for less demanding needs. There's not "best" way to do it, you should do what it is best for you.

I usually store the RAW files, export (processed) TIFFs of the best images, and also export JPEGs of many images for different display needs.

[Update to specify that TIFF are also a good choice for further processing in applications that can't open RAW]

 

[LDS]

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

AFAIK DPP adds data at the end of the file, starting from a "canon optional" string or something alike. Data should look like the "recipes" DPP can save. CR2 is somewhat like a TIFF file, but this optional section was not tagged properly and led to problems with some other software, it's one of the reason I quit using DPP years ago, don't know if they fixed it, or tools got smarter at reading CR2 files.

Information can be found from some open source products that does process CR2 files, and their forums.

 

[Sabaki]

Can someone advise why it's best to convert CR2 files to .tiff and not JPEG please?

TIFFs are the right choice when you need to exchange (or store) high quality "end" images (images already processed as you wish) with people/services who can't open RAW files and should not process them further but for specific needs (i.e. high quality printing or publishing electronically) - although TIFFs can still be processed better than JPEGs.

JPEG is the choice when you need smaller files (with some quality loss, depending on JPEG export settings) for less demanding display, printing or publishing needs. Because of its smaller bit color depth, and lossy compression, JPEG may not allow more processing without noticeable loss in quality. But JPEG support is more ubiquitous than TIFF - every device or software can usually display/open JPEG files, unlike TIFF.

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.

DNG, as other poster said, is a better option to move RAW files to a common file format (it can also embedd the original RAW file, at expense of size) without losing this "reprocess" capability - although it still converts the file and may lose some original informations (if the original RAW is not saved)

Then everything depends on what your aims are. If you will never reprocess a photo again, you could convert to some "standard" image format, TIFF for very high quality, JPEG for less demanding needs. There's not "best" way to do it, you should do what it is best for you.

I usually store the RAW files, export (processed) TIFFs of the best images, and also export JPEGs of many images for different display needs.

Thank you very much for this feedback.

Here's what I've decided to do.

● I will save and backup all my RAW files for my keepers
● I will convert to .tiff if I intend to process an image further (32bit HDR images created in Photoshop)
● My final output will be .jpeg

What you think?

 

[Ladislav]

CR2 + XMP for storage

CR2 as source data
XMP as description of processing you did in Camera RAW - when you open the CR2 again it will have that processing applied

Lightroom will make this even simpler as processing of all images will be stored in its database (and optionally in XMP files). I also use DNG for HDR and Panoramas created in Lightroom.

I have all my images stored that way and I generate JPEGs (usually with resizing) only when I'm going to share particular image or TIFF when I'm going to send it for printing.

 

[LDS]

What you think?

You have to find the workflow that fits best your needs - if it works fine for you it's OK.

Something depends on the tools you use in your workflow. For example Photoshop can easily "import" RAW processed in Lightroom and apply all the processing (LR and Photoshop share Camera RAW code, as long the version match) - in this case you might avoid going through an intermediate TIFF file for further processing.

Otherwise exporting to TIFF is a good idea. Also, you should select the "correct" color space for the image file. Some tools support the very large ProPhoto RGB, which is ideal if the file need a lot of further processing.

AdobeRGB is a good choice for compatibility with most tools (and good display/printing devices), while sRGB is the smaller of them all, and good for JPEG displayed on common screens, and software/devices which don't understand and manage color spaces.

Remember the in-camera setting is valid only for camera processed JPEGs. RAW files encode color data in a different way - it depends on the sensor, each camera type has a "camera profile" used to convert the raw data into a standard space - and usually RAW data may easily exceed AdobeRGB - that's why tools like Lightroom work in ProPhoto RGB (or something alike) to keep as much color data as possible.