ICEINSPACE
Most Read Articles
Moon Phase
CURRENT MOON Waxing Crescent
26.4%
The Sun Now
Time Zones
Sydney*
2:58 pm
Perth
11:58 am
Auckland*
4:58 pm
New York
10:58 pm
Paris
4:58 am
GMT
3:58 am




  #1  
Old 14-11-2017, 11:34 AM
langman78 (Ben)
Registered User

langman78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 32
TIFF vs RAW (CR2)

A question I've mean meaning to ask for years.
Is there a significant advantage over processing RAW files over TIFF?
My cracked version of photoshop 6 (plz spare me the lectures of using an illegal copy folks) won't open my CR2 files. I've always just converted to a 16 bit TIFF file and gone from there.
Reluctant to try a plugin as it may stop my photoshop from working.
TIFF probably ok for general photography but when it comes to AP.....as most of you are aware, it's an entirely different ball game.
And to save me from posting another thread, just curious about what format is it best to save your completed processed image? I know the golden rule of thumb is to always keep your RAW for future tweaking (of course assuming you can open RAW in photoshop) but I guess let's just say your 100% happy and you know no future processing will occur....are you best just to save as a jpeg or TIFF?
Tutorials I've seen and read have had folks save in TIFF format after processing. If you ditch the original RAW and keep the TIFF....can you achieve the same processing adjustments of that compared to a RAW if you choose to process again? I'm also lead to believe and correct me if I'm wrong that printed TIFF images are superior to that of jpeg visually, especially when it comes to cropped images.
Thanks for reading folks and any feed back would be appreciated.
Ben
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 15-11-2017, 04:37 AM
skysurfer's Avatar
skysurfer
Dark sky rules !

skysurfer is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 52N 6E (EU)
Posts: 680
You can use Adobe Raw Converter (free download from adobe), which converts .cr2 to .dng pictures, which can be preprocessed as a raw image in Photoshop.
I did this successfully with psd 6 but now I upgraded to PSD CC 2018.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 15-11-2017, 07:55 AM
rcheshire's Avatar
rcheshire (Rowland)
Registered User

rcheshire is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Geelong
Posts: 2,408
16 bit tiff is fine for astrophotography, as a rule, unless you have special requirements. The converted tiffs will be OK to use over again. Hang on to the raw files anyway...



Don't know about printing...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 15-11-2017, 10:23 AM
ZeroID's Avatar
ZeroID (Brent)
Lost in Space ....

ZeroID is offline
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Auckland, NZ
Posts: 4,585
DSS creates TIFF files as normal output. Rest of processing is done as TIFF.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 15-11-2017, 11:18 AM
luka
Unregistered User

luka is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Perth, Australia
Posts: 810
TIFF uses lossless compression and it also supports 16- and 32-bit colour depth. Converting from RAW to TIFF may lead to loss of shooting metadata (camera info, lense info etc) but you should not lose any of the image data. So it should not matter if you use RAW or TIFF, assuming a proper conversion is done, i.e. to 16-bit TIFF.

Regarding the printing, JPG compression is lossy, i.e. the quality is degraded to reduce the image size. The compression/loss factor is adjustable but some image detail is always lost. TIFF on the other side has a larger file size but always retains the detail. Hence it will look and print better.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 15-11-2017, 05:53 PM
Regulus's Avatar
Regulus (Trevor)
Regulus - Couer de Leon

Regulus is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Devonport, Tasmania
Posts: 2,198
Skysurfer's tip on converting to DNG is good, but really, TIFF is fine.
But search for the latest Adobe Camera RAW, or at least Adobe Camera RAW 9.12, this may fix the problem.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 15-11-2017, 06:08 PM
Atmos's Avatar
Atmos (Colin)
Ultimate Noob

Atmos is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,540
As has been mentioned, TIFF is fine as it can record accurately in 16-bit lossless. TIFF records all 16-bits in the RGB colour channels which is why the files are so damned big. RAW files save in monochrome and contain the EXIF data and the interpolation information which is why they are so much smaller than TIFFs but contain as much information.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 15-11-2017, 08:57 PM
langman78 (Ben)
Registered User

langman78 is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 32
Thanks for the intel folks.
Haven't done any processing for a long time. I actually forgot DSS saved as a TIFF after stacking.
I'll have a crack at trying the RAW plug in but I guess only really necessary for general photography. I'll be sure to have a look st DNG also
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time is now 01:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.7 | Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Advertisement
NexDome Observatories
Advertisement
Lunatico Astronomical
Advertisement
OzScopes Authorised Dealer
Advertisement
Tasco Australia
Advertisement
SkyWatcher Star Discovery
Advertisement
Meade Instruments
Advertisement
Atik 16200
Advertisement
Bintel
Advertisement
FLI Cameras and Imaging Accessories
Advertisement
Astronomy and Electronics Centre
Advertisement