Welcome to Motorhomefacts, we are a thriving motorhome community (Largest in Europe). Why Not JOIN NOW and get instant access to more of the website. It costs nothing to join and only takes a few minutes. We have 200,000 different people visiting our site monthly and this amount of motorhomers in one place guarantees a fast response to any questions you may have. We also have unique facilities not found elsewhere such as our Online Logbook, stopover tracker, Motorhome directory with Ebay type feedback and the largest repository of motorhome campsites reviews found anywhere
Hi I have been shooting in TIF and RAW (for the first time) recently but have come up with an anomaly. When I load these into my apple there is always a JPG saved as well as each RAW or TIF and at least viewed on my 20" colour corrected screen the JPGs always seen to look better.
Is there any simple reason for this?
______________________________________________________________ Regards Frank - - please follow me on twitter @FrankieBryant
Denn wir haben nichts in die Welt gebracht; darum offenbar ist, wir werden auch nichts hinausbringen.
RIP Peter and Fiona Our thoughts are with you Chris and Graham. Fighting with Mavis and Ray
Plusnet, Safari 5, G5 PowerPC iMac running OSX 10.5.8, Salisbury UK : Get behind early - it gives you more time to catch up.
Hi I have been shooting in TIF and RAW (for the first time) recently but have come up with an anomaly. When I load these into my apple there is always a JPG saved as well as each RAW or TIF and at least viewed on my 20" colour corrected screen the JPGs always seen to look better.
Is there any simple reason for this?
Not too sure Frank, but is it because JPEG is a lossy form of compression therefore there is less information in the file for a monitor to display?
Can you tell us what program you are using to view the images?
If your camera produces RAW+JPG then the JPG has been processed with in camera settings and might have produced an sRGB image. These tend to look good on most displays and with most printers without the need for colour management.
RAW images need to be processed in the PC/MAC and it's possible to produce an image in a much wider colour space, which unless you have a colour managed program will not look correct. However, typical RAW viewers will render the image correctly on screen at least.
I would stick to JPEG images. They are in a compressed form and will take up less memory than a TIFF image. I'm not familiar with RAW images but I think they are a format which can work if the original picture has been produced by an otherwise than 'normal' source. RAW seems to have issues with the way the colour and pixels are recorded and are not so easily converted.
TIFF images are generally used where the image is being reproduced for printing or similar. It retains all the original information and therefore will produce a good quality image. It will normally take a considerable amount more memory but from your point of view is pointless if all you wish to do is view on screen or print out on ink-jet. There is a compression system for TIFF images (LZW) which makes the file size smaller but loses none of the quality.
JPEG images can easily be converted to TIFF images in Photoshop if required. They are universally recognised by many programmes so have the advantage of being able to be opened by most other recipients.
To view images on screen successfully only requires a low resolution of either 72dpi or96 dpi depending on monitor (PC or MAC).
Of course it depends on what your objectives are but in terms of image quality then RAW is better than JPEG and personally it's all I ever shoot.
It is though an age old discussion about whether or not you could tell the difference between a RAW image and good JPEG image. However, starting with RAW is going to give the highest image quality at the beginning. You also have control how the image is processed rather than what the camera thinks it should be and there are some things you can do with RAW that you just can't with JPEGs since you have more data to play with.
One key fact about RAW images is that processing them is non-destructive. It's like always having your negative to go back to which you can then print/view in many different ways.
By the way Digital Images don't have a resolution in DPI or PPI - they are just a number of Pixels.
I would stick to JPEG images. They are in a compressed form and will take up less memory than a TIFF image. I'm not familiar with RAW images but I think they are a format which can work if the original picture has been produced by an otherwise than 'normal' source. RAW seems to have issues with the way the colour and pixels are recorded and are not so easily converted.
TIFF images are generally used where the image is being reproduced for printing or similar. It retains all the original information and therefore will produce a good quality image. It will normally take a considerable amount more memory but from your point of view is pointless if all you wish to do is view on screen or print out on ink-jet. There is a compression system for TIFF images (LZW) which makes the file size smaller but loses none of the quality.
JPEG images can easily be converted to TIFF images in Photoshop if required. They are universally recognised by many programmes so have the advantage of being able to be opened by most other recipients.
To view images on screen successfully only requires a low resolution of either 72dpi or96 dpi depending on monitor (PC or MAC).
JohnW
RAW images are just what the name implies, raw data recorded as the camera catches it, unprocessed. The benefit of this is that every detail is retained for manipulation in post processing, usually with a computer program, this being the modern day equivalent of the darkroom. The JPEG image which is also recorded will have been processed in-camera with a basic set of parameters and thus can look better initially but will give you much less scope for improving the image later on because the compression used will lose some of the detail. I would compare it to someone who wants to control every aspect of the finished product to someone who is just happy to take the photos and collect their prints from Boots. There's no snobbery there by the way, either choice is equally valid, it's horses for courses. TIFF files are a bit of an in-between option in that they utilise a much less 'lossy' compression algorithm than JPEG so you retain more detail but the down side is that they are still large files, sometimes as big as RAW files.
Where I would take issue with you John is that, yes you can save a JPEG file as a TIFF file in Photoshop but the data has already been compressed so you gain nothing unless someone you want to send it to wants it in that format. You effectively have a JPG file with a TIF extension, you will never get any more detail than was in the original JPEG.
Basically, if you don't want to do any post-processing with your images, stick with JPEG. There should be a setting on your camera to change from RAW to JPEG and if you're not using the RAW files anyway you are wasting a huge amount of space on your memory card. If you switch it to JPEG as default you will find you will be able to take a huge amount more picture before your card is full up.
Can you tell us what program you are using to view the images?
If your camera produces RAW+JPG then the JPG has been processed with in camera settings and might have produced an sRGB image. These tend to look good on most displays and with most printers without the need for colour management.
RAW images need to be processed in the PC/MAC and it's possible to produce an image in a much wider colour space, which unless you have a colour managed program will not look correct. However, typical RAW viewers will render the image correctly on screen at least.
Colin
Colin
Iphoto and photoshop elements
The Raw camera was a borrowed EOS400D, it is probable that the RAW images were not so good as I was unfamiliar with the camera
My camera is a Sony F717 I have been playing this morning and notice that if I edit using the histogram in iPhoto I can by moving the cursor on the LHS of the display immediately remove the washed out look I was getting in the TIFs compared with the jpegs. Its a big ask to show this in an attachment but I've added two just to make it clear which bit I was adjusting.
I have a colour calibrated screen.
Oh and thanks everybody
______________________________________________________________ Regards Frank - - please follow me on twitter @FrankieBryant
Denn wir haben nichts in die Welt gebracht; darum offenbar ist, wir werden auch nichts hinausbringen.
RIP Peter and Fiona Our thoughts are with you Chris and Graham. Fighting with Mavis and Ray
Plusnet, Safari 5, G5 PowerPC iMac running OSX 10.5.8, Salisbury UK : Get behind early - it gives you more time to catch up.
Just a comment:-
The info I gather from the various image sites I frequent is generally that Pro's use RAW because of the amount of data it contains.
Most amateurs who buy the latest dSLR's with a RAW ability tend to shoot RAW at first because it's 'better'!
After a short and normally frustrating period of time they then revert to JPEG because even with the correct manipulation they coudn't tell the difference in all normal situations!
______________________________________________________________ Ted.
I try and state simple facts in a nice way.
I'm a PC person so I'm not at all familiar with iPhoto but I do know Elements and that it doesn't come with the Organiser function on the Mac - using iPhoto instead. And that's exhausted my Mac knowledge.
Within Elements you should set it to manage colours, so go into Edit > Colour Settings and choose either Optimise for Screen or Print. Earlier versions had some different wording but the key thing is NOT to choose the NO Colour Management option.
I don't know if iPhoto has anything similar.
Washed out or flat looking images often result from not having Colour Management turned on and a colour space other than sRGB - I can't say for sure that, that's what you have though.
Can you indicate the colour space your images are in?
What are you using to process the RAW images?
Where I would take issue with you John is that, yes you can save a JPEG file as a TIFF file in Photoshop but the data has already been compressed so you gain nothing unless someone you want to send it to wants it in that format. You effectively have a JPG file with a TIF extension, you will never get any more detail than was in the original JPEG.
Thanks ronin56. I didn't mean to imply that it would be any better converted to a TIFF and I agree that you are correct in that you won't get any more detail than was in the original JPEG, I just didn't express myself very clearly.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
All times are GMT + 1 Hour Page 1 of 4Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4Next
UK
Our thoughts are with you Chris and Graham. Fighting with Mavis and Ray 
