So I am doing something I almost never do..reading the manual for a new piece of gear
I had always ASSumed that the best/largest/most complete data for a picture was the NEF uncompressed 14 bit data option.
But I stumbled across a table showing file size for the different options. It shows:
NEF uncompressed 14 bit= 50.6 mb
TIFF =73.5mb
So the TIFF is bigger..by a lot.. and there for better/more file info/ect?
Gary

http://www.betterphoto.com/article.asp?id=44


A goggle search on Raw vs Tiff ...

Hope they help ... ....

My understanding, and I am not an expert on the subject, is that a TIFF has to use a different amount of metadata as compared to a specific camera RAW (NEF) file. As the RAW file will be opened specifically by a program that has the metadata to decode and understand the picture data. A TIFF is almost like a BMP in that it is an open standard and as a result carries much metadata to explain itself to any program that wants to open it.

Thanks for the reply's.
Gary

Nikon's offering of the TIF format is mostly just a throwback, and an indication that the camera is a high-end pro camera. Honestly there are practically zero reasons to use the TIF format as opposed to the NEF format; you'll get far better image quality out of a properly processed NEF file in a cutting edge RAW program such as Lightroom 4...

TIF is like the PSD format- The only reason the filesize is so huge is because it can be saved an infinite number of times with zero loss of quality due to compression. A NEF file, on the other hand, simply cannot be re-saved. (Unless you use Nikon's proprietary programs, in which case you're still not even affecting the original file, just re-arranging the EXIF data that relates to the representation of the preview image...)

Bottom line- Shoot un-compressed (or lossless) 14-bit NEF when you need as much quality as you possibly can get, and shoot compressed 12-bit NEF's when you're just goofing off or shooting high-volume. (Nikon 12-bit compressed NEF's are roughly the same size as the highest quality JPG's, so there is almost zero reason to shoot in JPG on a Nikon!)

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Nikon 12-bit compressed NEF's are roughly the same size as the highest quality JPG's, so there is almost zero reason to shoot in JPG on a Nikon!=Matt=

...except perhaps that the jpeg would have been "styled" in cam?

Neil

Originally Posted by NeilL ...except perhaps that the jpeg would have been "styled" in cam? Neil

... As are the TIF files. Both TIF and JPG files should reflect the camera settings as far as white balance, contrast, hue, sharpness, etc.

TIF files do not contain the same data as RAW files.

Nikon RAW/NEF files are 12bit or 14 bit, and contain the closest you can come to data straight from the imager itself.

Nikon TIF and JPG files contain 8bit data, and the data has been fully processed by the camera before saving.

Now this is the kind of info I was looking for
I had never paid attention to TIFF before reading the manual, and was surprised that the file size was so much bigger than Raw.
Just goes to show you should read the manual for new stuff after all Lots of fun.
Gary

Originally Posted by NeilL ...except perhaps that the jpeg would have been "styled" in cam? Neil

...Which is exactly the same as NEF images when viewed and exported via Nikon View NX 2...

I used to shoot JPG sometimes when I needed the in-camera processing or to save a bit on file compression, but now that I have a decent enough computer that View NX 2 runs super-smooth, I LOVE doing my culling and quick editing with that instead of Lightroom. No waiting around for 1:1 previews to generate, just instant previews and easy, quick export-to-JPG options!


=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville ...Which is exactly the same as NEF images when viewed and exported via Nikon View NX 2... I used to shoot JPG sometimes when I needed the in-camera processing or to save a bit on file compression, but now that I have a decent enough computer that View NX 2 runs super-smooth, I LOVE doing my culling and quick editing with that instead of Lightroom. No waiting around for 1:1 previews to generate, just instant previews and easy, quick export-to-JPG options! =Matt=

Yes, I understand, Matt. And what Ziggy says too. Both the tiff and the jpeg are 8bit and preserve the camera setting.

However, I thought that the jpeg has additional in cam style filters applied, which can be default or chosen from a menu. So that a jpeg version is likely to look different to a tiff version even though both have the same basic settings.



Neil

Originally Posted by NeilL Yes, I understand, Matt. And what Ziggy says too. Both the tiff and the jpeg are 8bit and preserve the camera setting. However, I thought that the jpeg has additional in cam style filters applied, which can be default or chosen from a menu. So that a jpeg version is likely to look different to a tiff version even though both have the same basic settings. Neil

If this is factual information, please share the source of this information.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 If this is factual information, please share the source of this information.

No, for Nikon, I don't really know, Ziggy.

Neil

Originally Posted by ziggy53 ... As are the TIF files. Both TIF and JPG files should reflect the camera settings as far as white balance, contrast, hue, sharpness, etc. TIF files do not contain the same data as RAW files. Nikon RAW/NEF files are 12bit or 14 bit, and contain the closest you can come to data straight from the imager itself. Nikon TIF and JPG files contain 8bit data, and the data has been fully processed by the camera before saving.

Although Nikon might choose to use only 8 bits per channel, this is not a restriction in the tiff specification itself. TIFF can use up to 16 bits per channel. Photoshop uses 16 bits per channel with TIFF if you select that option.

TIFF is a "tagged" file specification and meant to be used by many different cameras and software products. The tags specify each peace of data so that the file can be readily used by anyone with the specification. Since it is general purpose and not restricted to a particular manufacturer, such as a NEF file from Nikon, it contains quite a bit of meta data that is not in the NEF file. None of this data will improve picture quality, so the extra size only buys portability at the expense of file size.

Originally Posted by NeilL Yes, I understand, Matt. And what Ziggy says too. Both the tiff and the jpeg are 8bit and preserve the camera setting. However, I thought that the jpeg has additional in cam style filters applied, which can be default or chosen from a menu. So that a jpeg version is likely to look different to a tiff version even though both have the same basic settings. Neil

If I recall from tests I've performed a while ago, there is really no difference between a JPG and a TIFF file, as far as the in-camera processing is concerned. The TIF file simply responds slightly better to editing, but it still maintains the nasty noise and poor quality sharpening of the in-camera parameters. I by far prefer the noise reduction and sharpening of ACR, at least for high-end production. I don't hesitate to export JPG images straight from the in-camera processing... (either via View NX or using the in-camera post-processing tools) I especially love the in-camera curves customizations, which I highly recommend checking out for anyone who used to be into the whole "polaroid" or faded processing craze.

Here's a sample image, COMPLETELY un-edited after the image was clicked. (Of course much "editing" went into the camera processing parameters BEFORE the image was clicked...)

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville I don't hesitate to export JPG images straight from the in-camera processing... (either via View NX or using the in-camera post-processing tools) I especially love the in-camera curves customizations

Matt, do I understand you correctly that these in-camera processing options are not available to the in-camera formatted tiff?

Neil

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville ...Which is exactly the same as NEF images when viewed and exported via Nikon View NX 2... I used to shoot JPG sometimes when I needed the in-camera processing or to save a bit on file compression, but now that I have a decent enough computer that View NX 2 runs super-smooth, I LOVE doing my culling and quick editing with that instead of Lightroom. No waiting around for 1:1 previews to generate, just instant previews and easy, quick export-to-JPG options! =Matt=

Do all of your keepers find their way to Lightroom? If so, in what format?

I wish Nikon would just license the NX2 algorithms to Adobe and Apple so we could get the same raw conversion that NX2 provides without interfering with a Lightroom or Aperture workflow.

Originally Posted by T. Bombadil Do all of your keepers find their way to Lightroom? If so, in what format? I wish Nikon would just license the NX2 algorithms to Adobe and Apple so we could get the same raw conversion that NX2 provides without interfering with a Lightroom or Aperture workflow.

It depends on the shoot. Sometimes for casual personal shoots, I never even bother creating a Lightroom catalog; I just export JPG's from View NEX and call it a day...

For 99.9% of my work-related shoots however, yes every keeper does get into a Lightroom catalog. If the job specifically states that I'm just shooting for originals, of course, then they get NEF's and that's it. But those types of clients are rare...

I REALLY was wishing that Lightroom 4 would gain Photomechanic-like capabilities, and could read the JPG preview files from the in-camera processing. Aside from Photomechanic, there are a few other programs out there that can quickly extract JPG previews from RAW files, though I don't remember their names.

Either way, suffice it to say that if Adobe wanted to, I bet they could figure it out. Hey, they gotta save features for Lightroom 5 so we'll be forced to upgrade, right?

Originally Posted by NeilL Matt, do I understand you correctly that these in-camera processing options are not available to the in-camera formatted tiff? Neil

Actually, Neil, anything that you can do pre-click to a NEF / JPG file, you can do to a TIF file. The pre-capture "processing" is universal. The only difference is in the compression of that preview file, with JPG being a polaroid-like compressed preview and TIF being a PSD-like un-compressed file.

You can also apply SOME post-processing in-camera to TIF files, though I'm not sure if 100% of the options are available. They're quite limited as it is; just D-lighting, color balance, simple B&W, and that's about it.

Bottom line: If shooting JPG is like shooting polaroid, shooting TIF is like shooting slide film. Both are a compromise in one way or another, even though they serve a purpose. Shooting in RAW, however, will ALWAYS give you the absolute best post-processing lattitude. I don't care how un-compressed a TIF file is, the shadow and highlight recovery will never even come close to the magic that is a RAW file in ACR's 2012 version.

If dynamic range and tonal subtleties are what you desire, shoot 14-bit un-compressed or lossless NEF. If you want a gorgeous image without any post-production work whatsoever, just pay very close to your in-camera processing, and either shoot JPG and print with minimal processing, or shoot RAW and export straight from View NX. BTW if you want a good compromise in the middle, by the way, try 12-bit compressed NEF's. They're GREAT for high-volume photojournalism where your tonal purity and post-production needs are minimal yet you still want access to easy white balance and dynamic range manipulation...

=Matt=

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville Actually, Neil, anything that you can do pre-click to a NEF / JPG file, you can do to a TIF file. The pre-capture "processing" is universal. The only difference is in the compression of that preview file, with JPG being a polaroid-like compressed preview and TIF being a PSD-like un-compressed file. You can also apply SOME post-processing in-camera to TIF files, though I'm not sure if 100% of the options are available. They're quite limited as it is; just D-lighting, color balance, simple B&W, and that's about it. Bottom line: If shooting JPG is like shooting polaroid, shooting TIF is like shooting slide film. Both are a compromise in one way or another, even though they serve a purpose. Shooting in RAW, however, will ALWAYS give you the absolute best post-processing lattitude. I don't care how un-compressed a TIF file is, the shadow and highlight recovery will never even come close to the magic that is a RAW file in ACR's 2012 version. If dynamic range and tonal subtleties are what you desire, shoot 14-bit un-compressed or lossless NEF. If you want a gorgeous image without any post-production work whatsoever, just pay very close to your in-camera processing, and either shoot JPG and print with minimal processing, or shoot RAW and export straight from View NX. BTW if you want a good compromise in the middle, by the way, try 12-bit compressed NEF's. They're GREAT for high-volume photojournalism where your tonal purity and post-production needs are minimal yet you still want access to easy white balance and dynamic range manipulation... =Matt=

Neil

Originally Posted by Matthew Saville I REALLY was wishing that Lightroom 4 would gain Photomechanic-like capabilities, and could read the JPG preview files from the in-camera processing. Aside from Photomechanic, there are a few other programs out there that can quickly extract JPG previews from RAW files, though I don't remember their names. Either way, suffice it to say that if Adobe wanted to, I bet they could figure it out. Hey, they gotta save features for Lightroom 5 so we'll be forced to upgrade, right? =Matt=

Aperture's most recent point update includes the ability to use the embedded JPG, a la Photomechanic.

Still, I would rather have the conversion algorithms available in post processing - and that requires Nikon to agree.

Originally Posted by T. Bombadil Aperture's most recent point update includes the ability to use the embedded JPG, a la Photomechanic. Still, I would rather have the conversion algorithms available in post processing - and that requires Nikon to agree.

Are you absolutely positive that this new feature in Aperture is the same as what I'm talking about? I understand that it can't tweak the in-camera processing, but can it at least view 100% previews instantly without any batch rendering time, and maybe even export JPG's from those "straight out of camera" previews?

=Matt=