Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
RAW to RAW.... RAW to JPEG.... RAW to TIFF to JPEG....... What's lost?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BackdoorArts" data-source="post: 596470" data-attributes="member: 9240"><p>To be clear, work flow #1 is only valid if the processing is limited to Camera Raw/Lightroom or a similar Raw processor that stores adjustments with the Raw image (as a sidecar or extension to the file) as opposed to changing the base file information in any way. </p><p></p><p>Otherwise #1 and #3 are the same thing, though you can replace TIFF with PSD or whatever proprietary file type the software might use (my use of TIFF moving forward assumes any of these image types). Essentially they all provide access to 100% of the light information available in the Raw file. A Raw file can only be extended and not necessarily "changed" by post processing which is why the conversion is necessary.</p><p></p><p>At this point what must be considered is <strong><em>how</em></strong> you process the file in the editor. If you limit your processing to adjustment layers then you are essentially editing in a non-destructive manner since all the light information exists in the base layer and can be recalled. However once you perform any alteration to the base layer you have changed data irreversibly (outside of what can be undone thru saved history). This includes flattening the layers. Still, while editing a TIFF you have access to far more light information even after modification.</p><p></p><p>Simply put, a JPEG is a single interpretation of available light information. Think of it as a snapshot of what the TIFF/Raw image looks like at the moment. In the TIFF/Raw file each pixel has a wide range of light information (assuming it's not completely black or white) and while processing you have access to all of it. When converting to JPEG you essentially hard code every pixel, throwing away all the "extra" information. Once you've done that all you can do is tweak the pixel values, which may or may not result in a pleasing effect. Even if you have a "hi-resolution" JPEG you're still missing real light information that you had in the Raw or TIFF file. For this reason I would posit that Workflow #2 is ridiculous as it assumes no adjustment of the Raw file before conversion, or worse yet an improper adjustment by the conversion software (i.e. applying a different profile to the Raw file than what you shot with). If you're going to process JPEG then you should just be shooting in JPEG in the first place</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BackdoorArts, post: 596470, member: 9240"] To be clear, work flow #1 is only valid if the processing is limited to Camera Raw/Lightroom or a similar Raw processor that stores adjustments with the Raw image (as a sidecar or extension to the file) as opposed to changing the base file information in any way. Otherwise #1 and #3 are the same thing, though you can replace TIFF with PSD or whatever proprietary file type the software might use (my use of TIFF moving forward assumes any of these image types). Essentially they all provide access to 100% of the light information available in the Raw file. A Raw file can only be extended and not necessarily "changed" by post processing which is why the conversion is necessary. At this point what must be considered is [B][I]how[/I][/B] you process the file in the editor. If you limit your processing to adjustment layers then you are essentially editing in a non-destructive manner since all the light information exists in the base layer and can be recalled. However once you perform any alteration to the base layer you have changed data irreversibly (outside of what can be undone thru saved history). This includes flattening the layers. Still, while editing a TIFF you have access to far more light information even after modification. Simply put, a JPEG is a single interpretation of available light information. Think of it as a snapshot of what the TIFF/Raw image looks like at the moment. In the TIFF/Raw file each pixel has a wide range of light information (assuming it's not completely black or white) and while processing you have access to all of it. When converting to JPEG you essentially hard code every pixel, throwing away all the "extra" information. Once you've done that all you can do is tweak the pixel values, which may or may not result in a pleasing effect. Even if you have a "hi-resolution" JPEG you're still missing real light information that you had in the Raw or TIFF file. For this reason I would posit that Workflow #2 is ridiculous as it assumes no adjustment of the Raw file before conversion, or worse yet an improper adjustment by the conversion software (i.e. applying a different profile to the Raw file than what you shot with). If you're going to process JPEG then you should just be shooting in JPEG in the first place [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Learning
Photography Q&A
RAW to RAW.... RAW to JPEG.... RAW to TIFF to JPEG....... What's lost?
Top
