View Single Post
  #23  
Old 17th April 2012
Footloose1949 Footloose1949 is offline
Full member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK
Posts: 86
Thanks: 0
Thanked 9 Times in 7 Posts
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 2 Posts
Re: shooting .tif files

I have an E-1, don't think I'll ever sell it, because of build quality, layout of the controls and takes Tiffs. Regarding this file format, it has (and still may be) the format preferred by quality publications, magazines etc, because it's by default 16-bit, doesn't degrade every time you make a compressed copy of the file (Lossless) unlike a JPeg, even when on the lowest level (1) of compression. Adobe's DNG format, is the Raw equivalent, inasmuch that it is a 'Universal' Raw file format. Some cameras now offer the DNG format as well as the manufacturer's own Raw file format. (This means the file isn't just 'tied' to a particular manufacturer's in-house Raw software.)

Tiff files are often bigger than Raw ones, because the compression logarithm used, 'stores' the data which is stripped out during compression, to reconstruct the file as it was, when opened up. A Jpeg, when it compresses a file, 'throws away' the data a Tiff keeps, and every time you save a copy/duplicate of a Jpeg, even more compression is applied ... You can see this happening by just getting a Jpeg, noting how big it is, then save the file again, and then look at the size of the resulting file ... you will find it is smaller! Tiffs were never designed to be web-friendly (size wise) although you can use them this way, its just that people will get seriously 'Peed off' with down loading a 10+ Mb file instead of one which is maybe 500k!

Many publishing houses and commercial printers because of the printing presses they use, still demand Tiffs because their machines can process Tiff files, but not DNGs or Raws. I don't think it's a file format that's going to 'die off' or be abandoned for a few decades yet!
Reply With Quote