# Why TIFF?



## Sabaki (Nov 23, 2015)

Hey everybody 

Can someone advise why it's best to convert CR2 files to .tiff and not JPEG please?

My current work flow for single images:
• Shoot in RAW
• Open in Camera RAW
• Process and save as a .jpeg

My current work flow for HDR images:
• Shoot RAW
• Open 3 bracketed images as 32bit files in Camera RAW
• Process
• Convert to 16bit image then save as .jpeg
• Open .jpeg in Camera RAW for final edit

What should I do differently?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2015)

JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.


----------



## Sabaki (Nov 23, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.



Thanks Neuro

So basically if there's further editing to be done, save in tiff. If the edit is 100% satisfactory, save in .jpeg?


----------



## Zeidora (Nov 23, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.
> ...


Always work in .tif and only save-as jpeg when you need to have a smaller files (e.g. web-posts) as a second version. With .tifs, also think about flexible processing options such as adjustment layers. Storage space is of no concern these days with cheap hard-drives.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 23, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > JPG is lossy 8-bit and should ideally be the final step - and editing should be complete first, TIF is a lossless way to go from one software platform to another and supports full bit depth.
> ...



Personally, I'd keep the TIF copy in case I decided to re-edit later. I keep .CR2 files for the same reason.


----------



## Don Haines (Nov 23, 2015)

When I render Panoramas, I take the RAW files, render the Panorama, Save as TIFF, and then worry about processing them in Lightroom or Photoshop.... Whenever I had saved as a JPG, I cursed the decision as it ruined future ability to edit.....


----------



## AlanF (Nov 23, 2015)

I keep the original .cr2 files for future re-editing. The tiffs are huge and clog up my hard drives.


----------



## Coz (Nov 23, 2015)

+1 on keeping the raw files. As software improves (i.e. better sharpening & noise reduction), you can go back and reprocess the raw files with a better end result.


----------



## scyrene (Nov 23, 2015)

Can I ask, why are tiffs bigger (at least sometimes) than the raw files they're made from? I just chose a random photo and exported as a tiff in Lightroom with the default settings, and it's 133MB versus 28MB for the raw :/ What does the extra data represent?


----------



## rpt (Nov 24, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Can I ask, why are tiffs bigger (at least sometimes) than the raw files they're made from? I just chose a random photo and exported as a tiff in Lightroom with the default settings, and it's 133MB versus 28MB for the raw :/ What does the extra data represent?


TIFF is encoded in text. CR2 is encoded in binary. CR2 encoding is more efficient and hence the smaller size. For kicks you could open a TIFF file in a text editor and see what is in it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 24, 2015)

I would not recommend converting cr2 files to tiff. Leave them as cr2. Most editing software allows non destructive editing of cr2 files (Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).

If you want to convert files for some reason, convert to DNG. DNG files are basically TIFF files but are smaller.


----------



## 9VIII (Nov 24, 2015)

Why TIFF?

Because Adobe.

If your software can work with CR2 then converting to anything else is probably a waste of time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 24, 2015)

9VIII said:


> Why TIFF?
> 
> Because Adobe.
> 
> If your software can work with CR2 then converting to anything else is probably a waste of time.



Be aware that Adobe owns the TIFF standard!! You are not getting away from Adobe by using TIFF, but you are getting into a basically inactive standard that has not been maintained for many years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format


----------



## niels123 (Dec 2, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> (Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).



I did not know this, but can you really actively write to a CR2 file using Canon DPP?


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 2, 2015)

niels123 said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > (Canon DPP changes the CR2 file).
> ...


I'm interested in this info, too. 

Where can I find more about this and how is the file modified?


----------



## LDS (Dec 2, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> Can someone advise why it's best to convert CR2 files to .tiff and not JPEG please?



TIFFs are the right choice when you need to exchange (or store) high quality "end" images (images already processed as you wish) with people/software/services who can't open RAW files and may not be processed further but for specific needs (i.e. high quality printing or publishing electronically, specific editing in Photoshop or the like) - although TIFFs can still be processed better than JPEGs.

JPEG is the choice when you need smaller files (with some quality loss, depending on JPEG export settings) for less demanding display, printing or publishing needs. Because of its smaller bit color depth, and lossy compression, JPEG may not allow more processing without noticeable loss in quality. But JPEG support is more ubiquitous than TIFF - every device or software can usually display/open JPEG files, unlike TIFF.

RAW files are your (undeveloped) "digital negative". They contain all the original image info without any processing, from demosaicing onwards. They can be "redeveloped" with new, improved or different tools (and skils...) whenever you wish or need. Image processing tools improve, sometimes a lot - and our skills also -, being able to "redevelop" older RAW files to achieve better result is a plus which is lost if you ditch them.

DNG, as other poster said, is a better option to move RAW files to a common file format (it can also embedd the original RAW file, at expense of size) without losing this "reprocess" capability - although it still converts the file and may lose some original informations (if the original RAW is not saved)

Then everything depends on what your aims are. If you will never reprocess a photo again, you could convert to some "standard" image format, TIFF for very high quality, JPEG for less demanding needs. There's not "best" way to do it, you should do what it is best for you.

I usually store the RAW files, export (processed) TIFFs of the best images, and also export JPEGs of many images for different display needs.

[Update to specify that TIFF are also a good choice for further processing in applications that can't open RAW]


----------



## LDS (Dec 2, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> Where can I find more about this and how is the file modified?



AFAIK DPP adds data at the end of the file, starting from a "canon optional" string or something alike. Data should look like the "recipes" DPP can save. CR2 is somewhat like a TIFF file, but this optional section was not tagged properly and led to problems with some other software, it's one of the reason I quit using DPP years ago, don't know if they fixed it, or tools got smarter at reading CR2 files.

Information can be found from some open source products that does process CR2 files, and their forums.


----------



## Sabaki (Dec 2, 2015)

LDS said:


> Sabaki said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone advise why it's best to convert CR2 files to .tiff and not JPEG please?
> ...



Thank you very much for this feedback.

Here's what I've decided to do.

● I will save and backup all my RAW files for my keepers
● I will convert to .tiff if I intend to process an image further (32bit HDR images created in Photoshop)
● My final output will be .jpeg

What you think?


----------



## Ladislav (Dec 2, 2015)

CR2 + XMP for storage

CR2 as source data
XMP as description of processing you did in Camera RAW - when you open the CR2 again it will have that processing applied

Lightroom will make this even simpler as processing of all images will be stored in its database (and optionally in XMP files). I also use DNG for HDR and Panoramas created in Lightroom.

I have all my images stored that way and I generate JPEGs (usually with resizing) only when I'm going to share particular image or TIFF when I'm going to send it for printing.


----------



## LDS (Dec 2, 2015)

Sabaki said:


> What you think?



You have to find the workflow that fits best your needs - if it works fine for you it's OK. 

Something depends on the tools you use in your workflow. For example Photoshop can easily "import" RAW processed in Lightroom and apply all the processing (LR and Photoshop share Camera RAW code, as long the version match) - in this case you might avoid going through an intermediate TIFF file for further processing.

Otherwise exporting to TIFF is a good idea. Also, you should select the "correct" color space for the image file. Some tools support the very large ProPhoto RGB, which is ideal if the file need a lot of further processing. 

AdobeRGB is a good choice for compatibility with most tools (and good display/printing devices), while sRGB is the smaller of them all, and good for JPEG displayed on common screens, and software/devices which don't understand and manage color spaces.

Remember the in-camera setting is valid only for camera processed JPEGs. RAW files encode color data in a different way - it depends on the sensor, each camera type has a "camera profile" used to convert the raw data into a standard space - and usually RAW data may easily exceed AdobeRGB - that's why tools like Lightroom work in ProPhoto RGB (or something alike) to keep as much color data as possible.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Dec 2, 2015)

"RAW files are your (undeveloped) "digital negative". They contain all the original image info without any processing, from demosaicing onwards. They can be "redeveloped" with new, improved or different tools (and skils...) whenever you wish or need. Image processing tools improve, sometimes a lot - and our skills also -, being able to "redevelop" older RAW files to achieve better result is a plus which is lost if you ditch them."

Boy, you got that right. Fortunately I realized only a few weeks after getting my new Canon gear and it's been all RAW ever since. And, I will/must go back and rework some of the previous shots in particular due to my ability to judge exposure improving (I think?). Not to mention subject placement, over-sharpening and .....

Anyone know of a good source/resource for learning the aspects of getting exposure right?

Jack


----------



## JonAustin (Dec 2, 2015)

I don't do "extreme" editing, but I do have a lot of experience exporting to TIFF and JPEG. It's not unusual for me to deliver images to clients in both formats.

I'm able to do most of the image processing I want to do in Lightroom. In these instances, I don't export the images to any intermediate format for later reprocessing, as Lightroom keeps track of all the changes, while of course retaining the original RAW file.

If I need to do more extensive editing than possible in Lightroom (with my skill set, at least), I'll move over to Photoshop. Your mileage may vary, but in my experience, it's less disk cost to save intermediate versions in Photoshop's native format rather than in TIFFs, particularly when multiple layers are involved.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 2, 2015)

Maximilian said:


> niels123 said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



The image data in the .CR2 container are not modified. Most edits you make in DPP (exposure, WB, cropping, etc.) are recorded in the metadata saved inside the file container, and applied if/when you re-open the RAW image. Other RAW converters that can handle .CR2 files do not re-write the .CR2 file, but generally provide the option to save the edits as a separate 'sidecar' file, so the settings can be re-imported. 

The exception in DPP to saving changes as metadata is when you use the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) for supported lenses. In that case, the DLO is applied to the RAW image data and written into the same .CR2 container as a _second_ (modified) copy of the RAW data, preserving the original (unmodified) RAW image in the same file – that's why a DLO'd RAW file doubles in size.


----------



## Sporgon (Dec 2, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> The exception in DPP to saving changes as metadata is when you use the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) for supported lenses. In that case, the DLO is applied to the RAW image data and written into the same .CR2 container as a _second_ (modified) copy of the RAW data, preserving the original (unmodified) RAW image in the same file – that's why a DLO'd RAW file doubles in size.



Owah  

And I thought it was because it was making it twice as good.


----------



## Maximilian (Dec 3, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Maximilian said:
> 
> 
> > niels123 said:
> ...


Thanks neuro, for this clarification!

This meets my expectation and experience, so now I'm fine again. 

Of course adding edits to the metadata in the file container is somehow "changing" and the file.
I read the post of Mt Spokane as if the image data would be changed. 

Now my image  of the world is fine again.


----------



## romanr74 (Dec 3, 2015)

I never really understood the "TIFF thing", except for sharing high quality files. I might be a lost sould but I really very much like the Photoshop/Lightroom enviroment and workflow, where I work with my RAW files and LR saves the processing data as an additional data set to the untouched RAWs. To me the RAW file is the holy data that for keepers I would never wanna loose. I guess it also depends when you developed your workflows and what you got used to to figure our what works best for you.


----------



## Zv (Dec 3, 2015)

All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing. 

I sometimes forget that Photoshop creates a new file when you edit from Lightroom into Photoshop and then later on I do some HD cleaning and accidentally erase that file thinking the folder is backed up, which it is was but on import only. Lost a few TIFFs that way in the past though I can recover them now via cloud backup.

Is there a way for Photoshop to automatically make a copy of that file in say an external drive as well as your hard drive?


----------



## fish_shooter (Dec 3, 2015)

Zv said:


> All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.


I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 4, 2015)

fish_shooter said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.
> ...



My 1995 Kodak DCS460, raw files were saved as TIF Version3, in a proprietary TIF format. Lightroom and Photoshop still read those old files, but many other photo editors will not. The data inside is pretty much the same, it just does not have some of the later enhancements. Kodak still has the supporting files online for those cameras, and they will likely be saved in archives for many more years.


Tiff has been around since the mid 1980's, so its about 40 years old. Jpg files have not been around that long, but I'd have no qualm at predicting that they can be easily read 100 years from now, even though they will or should be replaced. There are literally billions of them, and that alone will keep readers in demand.

Gif files maybe not, they have fallen out of favor and may become anachronisms before too many years.


----------



## Maiaibing (Dec 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> fish_shooter said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.
> ...



JPG is truly the one and only file format we can trust will "never" go away as long as the Internet works like it does today.

Since reading different formats on the web is very - extremely - low bandwidth, I expect most formats generally on the web today will continue to be readable through web interfaces.


----------



## Zv (Dec 4, 2015)

fish_shooter said:


> Zv said:
> 
> 
> > All this talk of TIFFs is making me want to convert all my PSD and TIFF files into DNGs or at least make a copy of them into DNG and place it in a back up for future proofing.
> ...



Ah yes, of course you're right but what I meant is short term future for editing files, particularly PSD files. I might want to edit them in other programs in the future. Right now I have a mix of TIFF and PSD, just wanna tidy up and that was why I was thinking to convert them to DNG. Then again I am very lazy when it comes to file organization so I'll probably just leave it and then curse myself later!


----------



## LDS (Dec 4, 2015)

fish_shooter said:


> I wonder if any current file format is truly future proof?? Who knows what folks will be using for photography in 50 years.



None. But a well-documented, broadly used format has better chances to be somehow readable in the future that some fully proprietary, badly documented and little used one.

Now national and commercial archives has a large collection of digital images, audio and video they are preserving for historical reasons. It would be interesting to know which formats they prefer to store them into.


----------

