Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneF" data-source="post: 452428" data-attributes="member: 12496">TIFF is just a file format, a system of tags describing the data.&nbsp; A particularly versatile one.&nbsp; Yes, one use of TIFF tags is to store raw data, called NEF in our case. TIFF can have about anything in it, remember the old Kodak PhotoCD format?&nbsp;&nbsp; But file extension .TIF&nbsp; is normally RGB.&nbsp; (can be grayscale or CMYK, or Indexed).&nbsp; But for color photos, normally just plain RGB. The main distinction and pride of TIF is that it does not have JPG artifacts in it.&nbsp; <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; (actually Adobe has one option where it does).I don't think it is even semantics...&nbsp;&nbsp; RGB is not lossless.&nbsp; Crop it and that trimmed part is gone.&nbsp; Make it be blue, and it's blue now, any other choice has to undo the blue before it can be not blue (involving two large shifts up and down the gamma curve). It does have gamma in it.OK, TIF and JPG if in raw editors like Lightroom can be lossless FROM THAT POINT ON&nbsp; (not related to 16 bits). That is due to Lightroom,&nbsp; TIF had no part in it. And that's good for compact camera JPG with no other choice, but in our case, we still cannot go back to the original raw and/or its edits (not without discarding the TIF or JPG, and starting over).&nbsp; It's giving up too much, unnecessarily. Other than special effects, Lightroom and raw, according to very many opinions, can do anything we might want in regular photo processing.&nbsp; No need of TIF.&nbsp; IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 452428, member: 12496"] TIFF is just a file format, a system of tags describing the data. A particularly versatile one. Yes, one use of TIFF tags is to store raw data, called NEF in our case. TIFF can have about anything in it, remember the old Kodak PhotoCD format? But file extension .TIF is normally RGB. (can be grayscale or CMYK, or Indexed). But for color photos, normally just plain RGB. The main distinction and pride of TIF is that it does not have JPG artifacts in it. :) (actually Adobe has one option where it does). I don't think it is even semantics... RGB is not lossless. Crop it and that trimmed part is gone. Make it be blue, and it's blue now, any other choice has to undo the blue before it can be not blue (involving two large shifts up and down the gamma curve). It does have gamma in it. OK, TIF and JPG if in raw editors like Lightroom can be lossless FROM THAT POINT ON (not related to 16 bits). That is due to Lightroom, TIF had no part in it. And that's good for compact camera JPG with no other choice, but in our case, we still cannot go back to the original raw and/or its edits (not without discarding the TIF or JPG, and starting over). It's giving up too much, unnecessarily. Other than special effects, Lightroom and raw, according to very many opinions, can do anything we might want in regular photo processing. No need of TIF. IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification