[Wombat]

Being new to digital, I'm still trying to get my head around the reason for editing RAW files. If I understand correctly, most people using RAW format do a bit of basic editing in a RAW conversion program, save as a TIFF file, then tinker some more with TIFF in PS or some other editor before printing or saving as a JPEG. My question is, since TIFF is a lossless format, why wouldn't you simply save your RAW file as a TIFF immediately and go straight to PS for all the editing? Why do some editing of the RAW file in one program and some in TIFF in another? I've read Ron Bigelow's excellent articles, but I'm obviously missing something.
Can someone please clarify this for me? Ta.

[alohadave]

Because TIFF files are a PITA to work with.

Modern RAW converters can do much of the editing work that most people need most of the time. If I do have to use Photoshop to do further editing, the RAW converter can open it directly for me so I don't need to save the file and reopen it.

[Venturi]

Once you've converted from RAW to TIFF don't you also lose (or permanently apply) any camera settings that are stored in the meta of the DNG or PEF file?

[rfortson]

I never use TIFF. I guess that's a good long term storage format, but I figure I'll get plenty of warning if I need to switch from PEF to something else (DNG?).

I edit my PEF raw files and then save the output as a jpeg. I use the Pentax software.

[axl]

I have to say I'm different to others above. I do use TIFF. Main reason, I don't like Adobe RAW codec. But I do very little before converting PEF to TIFF. Maybe WB and if needs be then bit of EV otherwise straight to TIFF, open in CS3 and then all the tinkering and save as JPG. Very long process but for me it works the best...

[StarDust]

I open the pef in CS3 and do some quick editing before I press the Open File button. I'm not exactly sure what CS3 converts the file to then but afterwards I do the editing from there and save it as a jpg. I always keep the PEF for storage so I can edit the file again if I'm not satisfied with the jpg.

[jeffkrol]

Once you've converted from RAW to TIFF don't you also lose (or permanently apply) any camera settings that are stored in the meta of the DNG or PEF file?

Yes and no (actually many parts involved)
Your not supposed to lose all (or at least it's not necessarily the case) but it is program dependent. Lens data ect. can be preserved
As to the camera settings, i'm pretty sure you lose things like the white balance tag, saturation, ect. but they become really unneccasary as they are ,sort of , just the default processing parameters which the camera would use to create an in-camera jpg. Since your intent is to edit anyways, they become pointless. Base RAW data is changed on a save to TIFF ect. The TIFF is lossless and bit for bit conversion of the RAW file after editing.
Other things are the debayering and tone curve/gamma correction built into(or tagged) in the RAW file.
USUALLY nobody throws away the RAW, regardless of conversion, so all original data/tags/side information are saved regardless.
TIFFs, jpgs are just the "prints" of your negative but both could/should preserve the side data in the RAW file but this should never be assumed. Each camera maker puts things in different parts of the data file. One of the problems w/ propriotory RAW files.
RAW files, in many cases are just like subset of the TIFF standards. Pentax RAW was once said to be as closer to TIFF standards (or closely based on the TIFF standards) then most other manufacturers who changed whatever they wanted.
no sense re-inventing the wheel sort of.
TIFF:
The Unofficial TIFF Home Page
Nice graphic/tutorial on the formats:
Learn about RAW, JPEG, and TIFF with the digital photography experts at Photo.net.
Throw in "color space" and things get even more interesting.
wikipeadia quote:
Normally, the image will be processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to an RGB file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation.
Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 06-04-2008 at 11:56 AM.

[Mark Castleman]

Many folks, myself included, use either Photoshop Lightroom or Apple's Aperture to do it all. Both of these programs will let you edit almost any sort of image file in addition to helping you organize your photos. Neither program is cheap, Lightroom is US$289 and Aperture is US$189, but either of them will simplify your life a lot.

[Wheatfield]

Being new to digital, I'm still trying to get my head around the reason for editing RAW files. If I understand correctly, most people using RAW format do a bit of basic editing in a RAW conversion program, save as a TIFF file, then tinker some more with TIFF in PS or some other editor before printing or saving as a JPEG. My question is, since TIFF is a lossless format, why wouldn't you simply save your RAW file as a TIFF immediately and go straight to PS for all the editing? Why do some editing of the RAW file in one program and some in TIFF in another? I've read Ron Bigelow's excellent articles, but I'm obviously missing something.
Can someone please clarify this for me? Ta.

For myself, I shoot RAW, and then do as much post processing as possible in the RAW converter. I then do what I can't do in ACR with Photoshop and save either as a PSD for later work or as a jpeg for offsite printing. The reason why I wouldn't safe directly as a tiff is because there isn't much point in doing so for my workflow, although for all practical purposes, a PSD and a Tiff are pretty much of a muchness.

[SpecialK]

I edit my PEF raw files and then save the output as a jpeg. I use the Pentax software.

Me too. I think the original assumption (most people save as TIFF) is not accurate.

[Entropy]

Me too. I think the original assumption (most people save as TIFF) is not accurate.

Yeah. 90% of my images go RAW->JPEG with only exposure and WB tweaking.

If I want to print something or PP it, then it gets loaded directly into GIMP with ufraw.

Unfortunately, GIMP has yet to support 16 bits/channel, so it is critical to get some of the major adjustments (white balance, exposure) done in the RAW converter. Really, these are usually the only adjustments that people make in a RAW converter, so it's not really "editing". It happens that these adjustments are the ones where an extended bit depth helps a LOT. 16 bpp isn't always as important later in the postprocessing workflow if the RAW conversion was done right.

[PDL]

Being new to digital, I'm still trying to get my head around the reason for editing RAW files. If I understand correctly, most people using RAW format do a bit of basic editing in a RAW conversion program, save as a TIFF file, then tinker some more with TIFF in PS or some other editor before printing or saving as a JPEG. My question is, since TIFF is a lossless format, why wouldn't you simply save your RAW file as a TIFF immediately and go straight to PS for all the editing? Why do some editing of the RAW file in one program and some in TIFF in another? I've read Ron Bigelow's excellent articles, but I'm obviously missing something.
Can someone please clarify this for me? Ta.

You do not really edit a RAW file. Most, if not all, RAW capable programs will not save a RAW format file. The Adobe series of software stores editing information in a "sidecar" file - the original RAW file is never modified. Some people - such as my self - will convert a RAW image in PPL to TIFF because the non-adobe software I have, that I am used to using, habituated on - and I hate elements 5.0 - does not read RAW. It will read 16bit TIFF - so if I need to do some PP that I can not do in either Lightroom or PPL - or do not know how to do in Lightroom or PPL - I need to convert. Converting from PEF to TIFF gives me the advantage of the "bit space", over head, head room - to work in a 16 bit world before converting to the 8 bit JPEG for output to the web or to Costco for printing.

I do these conversions very rarely now, but I still can not get Lightroom to put the copyright notice on the image like I want it, so convert here I come. I would suggest that you forgo the expensive lens or other goodie you have your eye on, and get a editor/workflow system that will let you work directly with the RAW image. There are plenty of non-distructive pieces of software out there, but they do cost some change.

Why edit the RAW file? - To crop, because I forget to shoot the image as I really should. Straighten the thing out since my horizons tend to dip to the right. Do subtle WB corrections - because I forget to change back to daylight from tungsten. Sharpening and in Lightroom "Clarity".

It is much easier to be subtle with a 12 bit image than it is with a 8 bit image. And subtly is the name of the game here, big changes mean you are not paying attention.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[MJB DIGITAL]

You do not really edit a RAW file. Most, if not all, RAW capable programs will not save a RAW format file. The Adobe series of software stores editing information in a "sidecar" file - the original RAW file is never modified. Some people - such as my self - will convert a RAW image in PPL to TIFF because the non-adobe software I have, that I am used to using, habituated on - and I hate elements 5.0 - does not read RAW. It will read 16bit TIFF - so if I need to do some PP that I can not do in either Lightroom or PPL - or do not know how to do in Lightroom or PPL - I need to convert. Converting from PEF to TIFF gives me the advantage of the "bit space", over head, head room - to work in a 16 bit world before converting to the 8 bit JPEG for output to the web or to Costco for printing.

I do these conversions very rarely now, but I still can not get Lightroom to put the copyright notice on the image like I want it, so convert here I come. I would suggest that you forgo the expensive lens or other goodie you have your eye on, and get a editor/workflow system that will let you work directly with the RAW image. There are plenty of non-distructive pieces of software out there, but they do cost some change.

Why edit the RAW file? - To crop, because I forget to shoot the image as I really should. Straighten the thing out since my horizons tend to dip to the right. Do subtle WB corrections - because I forget to change back to daylight from tungsten. Sharpening and in Lightroom "Clarity".

It is much easier to be subtle with a 12 bit image than it is with a 8 bit image. And subtly is the name of the game here, big changes mean you are not paying attention.

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

damn that was eloquent

[Wombat]

damn that was eloquent

It has all been very eloquent indeed. There's so much deep knowledge on this forum, it's a real joy to hang out here. Thank you all for enlightening me, especially with regard to TIFF. I feel I have a much better handle on it now. Having done a lot of audio recording and editing over the years there are interesting parallels vis-a-vis bitrates, compression and various file formats, eg jpeg seems to be the equivalent of mp3 and RAW would be like the original recorded wav file.
PDL I take your point about choosing one's software carefully (thought I do have my eye on another lens. Or two or three..What the hell, the mortgage was paid off years ago). I'll look into Lightroom, which seems to do everything. I like Gimp, but it doesn't handle RAW, is only 8 bits and I find its companion UFRAW really unfriendly.
So thanks again, everyone. I'm converted.

[cupic]

All I can say about Raw is that when I took photos of a presentation of my kids the hall had bad lightning and me as a novice took some shockers.
I thought all was lost but PS CS2(I am no wizard) came to the rescue and the shockers turn into gems(well at least for me)

RAW (digital neg)is what it is perfect to save the unsaveable

cheers