saving to RAW?

[sharky60]

The purest digital shot I can get with my camera is a .TIFF, it does not shoot in .RAW.

If I shoot in the uncompressed mode, (TIFF) would it do any good to save those files in Photoshop to a RAW file before editing? would it open up any depth to the pixels or would making sure I'm editing in 16bit mode with the .TIFF's be the better way to go.

 

[gert7to3]

As I understand it Tiff images are derived from RAW images. I don't think you would even be able to convert Tiff images to RAW. Working from Tiff images is the next best approach for you, since your camera won't capture RAW images. Always remember to preserve your original images. Never overwrite them with a processed image.

Here is an excerpt from a discussion on dpreview.com:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1033&message=15657173

1. RAW is raw, unprocessed Bayer colour space data straight from the imaging sensor - 12 bits per pixel.

2. TIFF is the raw sensor data transformed into a 24bit RGB (or equivalent) colour space. TIFF is larger than RAW because it stores 24 bits of data per pixel compared to 12 bits.

3. JPEG is the raw sensor data transformed into a 24bit RGB (or equivalent) colour space, then compressed using a lossy colour space reduction process - the TIFF data with lossy colour compression.

 

[hvulin]

Unfortunately raw is not a format so you cannot convert to it... RAW holds all data CCD captured (including errors - CCDs are not perfect), TIFF only has it's processed version! You loose a lot of data during conversion from RAW to TIFF so reversing the process would have no meaning...

 

[sharky60]

thanks guys, I'm getting a grip on it now. the thing that brought up the question was I was saving and renaming another file, but using saveas, and I noticed one of the options was RAW.

working with the TIFF files will get me where I want,
thanks again!

 

[alcina]

I think, and I don't know for sure, that if you save to something like psd or Adobe's digital negative format you can work with a smaller file versus the TIFF. That will make things faster on your computer. This might not be an issue for you at all, but thought I'd throw it out there

Not sure if there are any downsides (or upsides for that matter)...jeesh, can you tell it's raining here today

 

[sharky60]

I think, and I don't know for sure, that if you save to something like psd or Adobe's digital negative format you can work with a smaller file versus the TIFF. That will make things faster on your computer. This might not be an issue for you at all, but thought I'd throw it out there

Not sure if there are any downsides (or upsides for that matter)...jeesh, can you tell it's raining here today

I'll give it a try if I run into speed issues with the computer. So far it hasn't been, but it's nice to know an alternative.

thanks!!

 

[sharky60]

Ok, did some experimental shots at work. the .TIFF files out of the camera were 9.6(ish)Megs and the shots I get when I shoot at the next setting down come out at around 1.8M.

when I open the TIFF files in the software that came with the camera and resave it, so it will open in Photoshop 7, it jumps to 14.4M. Still really no problem, my computer can handle it, I opened it up in Photoshop and everything was cool, (we'll see when it comes to editing)

I took virtually the same pic in both modes to compare them and even with the naked eye you can see better color depth in the TIFF. I zoomed in on both pics at 600% using the "navagator" in photo shop and you can really see the differance in the pixels!!

Anyway, a lot of this is becomming very clear now, thanks again for the advise y'all.