Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Browncoat" data-source="post: 7631" data-attributes="member: 1061">Here's an interesting tidbit:&nbsp; RAW image files are 3 to 4 times more compressed than TIFF!What you're talking about really has nothing to do with color space preferences, though...it's more about storage and archiving.&nbsp; Yes, you should absolutely edit in RAW or TIFF, then convert to JPG for photographs used on the web.&nbsp;&nbsp; Both RAW and TIFF formats are loss-less, and each has its perks and quirks:RAW<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Smaller file size</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Loss-less</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Uses proprietary software.&nbsp; Will those saved RAW files be readable 5 years from now?&nbsp; 10?</li>
</ul>TIFF<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">HUGE file size</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Loss-less</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Great for archiving...but buy an external drive!</li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 7631, member: 1061"] Here's an interesting tidbit: RAW image files are 3 to 4 times more compressed than TIFF! What you're talking about really has nothing to do with color space preferences, though...it's more about storage and archiving. Yes, you should absolutely edit in RAW or TIFF, then convert to JPG for photographs used on the web. Both RAW and TIFF formats are loss-less, and each has its perks and quirks: [B]RAW[/B] [LIST] [*]Smaller file size [*]Loss-less [*]Uses proprietary software. Will those saved RAW files be readable 5 years from now? 10? [/LIST] [B]TIFF[/B] [LIST] [*]HUGE file size [*]Loss-less [*]Great for archiving...but buy an external drive! [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification