Question about TIFF format

[melissa5704]

Hi everyone. I started a beginning photography class at our local college last week and the instructor wants us to shoot in TIFF format. I've never done this before. Is there any difference?

[EOSThree]

Tiff=tagged image file format.
Non compressed, lossless, huge files. I don't think too many cameras record in .tif, the file sizes are just too large for efficient storage. I would guess your instructor means he would like your files converted to .tif for editing.

[melissa5704]

Unfortunately, he wants us to set our camera to TIFF! This class was meant for film cameras but he'll let us use digital if we don't use photoshop to edit.

[Ron Kruger]

Yes, I would guess he means shoot it in RAW and then convert to TIFF in your software.

[Ron Kruger]

Huh! Something's wrong, Melissa. TIFF is a digital format. I've never heard of a film camera that can be set to TIFF. It's two totally different things.
Back when I was shooting film, I occasionally scanned slides as TIFFs, but you need a really good scanner. Even then, it takes forever, and the files are enormous.
I suggest you talk with your instructor again.

[opus]

If your camera can be set to TIFF format, then follow your instructor's instructions and do so, and have a couple of fairly large cards. TIFF will never be larger than RAW.

If your camera can't be set to TIFF, then talk to him and see what you can work out.

[melissa5704]

Thanks for the tips. There are a few of us using digital and I think that's why he mentioned the TIFF thing. I'll ask him again if it's necessary. He's of the mind set that quality is very different between 35mm and digital.

I do have a D300 so I know my camera will do this if necessary.

Thanks,
Melissa

[OldClicker]

Thanks for the tips. There are a few of us using digital and I think that's why he mentioned the TIFF thing. I'll ask him again if it's necessary. He's of the mind set that quality is very different between 35mm and digital.

I do have a D300 so I know my camera will do this if necessary.

Thanks,
Melissa

"...quality is very different between 35mm and digital" As long as he sticks with different and not better. I would be in deep trouble in this guy's class. Not that I'm pro-digital, I just can't tolerate anyone that knows the Right Way. - TF

[freygr]

Thanks for the tips. There are a few of us using digital and I think that's why he mentioned the TIFF thing. I'll ask him again if it's necessary. He's of the mind set that quality is very different between 35mm and digital.

I do have a D300 so I know my camera will do this if necessary.

Thanks,
Melissa

You will have to shoot in the Nikon NEF format (RAW) then convert the NEF format to TIFF. I use an all in one catalog/viewing program called "Thumbs Plus" plus their DigiCam plug-in. Be a were that when you save the file size is going to be very large as the my 6 mega pixel photo TIFF file size is 36 meg! (12 bit color depth - uses 2 bytes per color (16 bits)) with out any lose less compression! If the program you use has compression options be careful as many programs will not open compressed TIFF files.

[EOSThree]

If your camera can be set to TIFF format, then follow your instructor's instructions and do so, and have a couple of fairly large cards. TIFF will never be larger than RAW.

If your camera can't be set to TIFF, then talk to him and see what you can work out.

Canon's RAW files are losslessly compressed. My RAW files are always of a much smaller files size than the file size when I convert to a tiff. I just converted a file:

The RAW file was 14.1 mb on the disk, the same file converted to TIFF was 68.7 mb.

[Ron Kruger]

I'm with Clicker. For years I resisted going digital because film had more quality for repoduction purposes, but with the demise of special films, such as low-ISO Kodachrome, and advancements in digital technology, I decided to make the plunge in June of last year.
I'm still learning about the technology, but from what I've figured out, high-megapixel digital (properly handled) is every bit as good, if not better, than the best films, and the ability to manipulate the image (though admittedly overdone a lot), makes digital infinately more versatile than film.
To me, shooting digital compared to film is similar to writing on a word processor compared to an old, manual typewriter.
I suspect your instructor is behind the digital curve, and the fact he told you to shoot in TIFF, indicates that.

[another view]

I suspect your instructor is behind the digital curve, and the fact he told you to shoot in TIFF, indicates that.

First thing I thought... I'd also be worried that he has an "anti-digital" bias. If you're talking about composition, the basics of technique or lighting then the medium is somewhat irrelevant so I wouldn't really push the issue. But if you're getting into what it takes to make a really good print etc and the instructor thinks TIFF capture is state of the art, then you might not be getting the best advice. IMHO, of course.

[blazing fire]

I'm with Clicker. For years I resisted going digital because film had more quality for repoduction purposes, but with the demise of special films, such as low-ISO Kodachrome, and advancements in digital technology, I decided to make the plunge in June of last year.
I'm still learning about the technology, but from what I've figured out, high-megapixel digital (properly handled) is every bit as good, if not better, than the best films, and the ability to manipulate the image (though admittedly overdone a lot), makes digital infinately more versatile than film.
To me, shooting digital compared to film is similar to writing on a word processor compared to an old, manual typewriter.
I suspect your instructor is behind the digital curve, and the fact he told you to shoot in TIFF, indicates that.

kenrockwell mentioned that film cameras shoots better landscape photos than any dSLR. How true is that?

[readingr]

kenrockwell mentioned that film cameras shoots better landscape photos than any dSLR. How true is that?

That really depends on the camera being used.

For landscapes its the same old thing as it was in film days. In landscapes you want detail which meant in film days you used the larger format negatives to capture the detail in the scene. The same thing goes for digital. If you want to capture the detail in the scene then you need a large format sensor.

Hasselbad and the other large format camera's have moved over to digital backs and they capture a lot more detail than the Canon 5D with a 35mm sensor which will capture more detail than the Canon 50D with the APC sensor.

As for quality of the sensor's - Personally I believe that Digital is now as good or better than film.

Roger R.

[Ron Kruger]

My RAW files range just over 10 MB. When I convert them to 8-bit TIFFs, they are 40.5 MB, and 16-bit TIFFs are 80 MB and larger. One I converted showed up at over 150 MB.
Maybe the range is different if the camera itself shoots in TIFF, but mine doesn't do that.

[opus]

my bad. I never did experiments, so I apologize for passing on wrong information.

[Frog]

Is he looking at what you have on your computer or at the prints you get.
If he's looking at the prints, how's he to know what format was printed?

[Ron Kruger]

Good point, Frog. I once printed the same shot that I had converted from RAW to both a TIFF and a JPEG file, and I could see no difference in an 8X10 print.

[Skyman]

I wouldn't be worrying. I would be shooting in whatever format you want. I am assuming that he has asked the film camera people to use slide film so that there is no chance the lab has adjusted the exposure? if he has the really all you have to agree to is showing an anprocessed image no matter what the file format. That is why slide film is preferable, If he hasn't made that distinction then he is just being a bit anti digital which sounds more like ignorance than anything else. Especially given that JPEG files save extra information about the camera settings that were used. This information can be very very helpful when learning, as it will tell you not only what aperture and shutterspeed you used, but what lens, iso, focusing mode and light metering pattern the camera used to name just a few. again if you are sharing prints really all he is interested in is the fact that they have not been corrected electronically first. As frog said if he isn't looking at them on a computer shoot whatever you want and as long as you don't make any changes in the printing process then you should be fine. As an aside a lot of photo labs are set up to automatically correct images these days both film and digital. You will need to develop a relationship with your lab and explain to them that you don't want any corrections made to your prints.

[another view]

This whole thing reminds me of when I was in high school (dating myself) and someone wrote an English term paper on a word processor. They got an "F" because the teacher assumed the computer automatically wrote it... (true story)

One thing to realize is that more file size doesn't equal higher quality. I was thinking that TIFF captures tipped the scales heavier than RAW but doubted myself so I didn't bring it up. I tried it a couple of times and realized I could get substantially better results with RAW so I never found a need for TIFF. If I didn't need the capability of RAW or want to spend the time in PP, then I'd just shoot jpeg in those few situations.

[mn shutterbug]

I think you should find a different photo class. This instructor sounds way behind the times.

[Jenn_B]

Hi everyone. I started a beginning photography class at our local college last week and the instructor wants us to shoot in TIFF format. I've never done this before. Is there any difference?

TIFF is like your camera's best quality JPEG, only five times bigger.

It is useless as an in-camera format.

[freygr]

TIFF is like your camera's best quality JPEG, only five times bigger.

It is useless as an in-camera format.

There is a large difference between RAW, TIFF, BMP, and JPEG files. JPEG is a lossy compressed file. RAW, TIFF, and BMP you can insert a exe file and open and save as many times as you like, and as long as you do not edit or change any photo settings you can extract the exe and it will run just fine, its not possible using a JPEG. In just copy a photo, and open and save at least 10 times and then compare the original to the saved file side by side.

[melissa5704]

Ok, now he says that we can choose how we shoot. I think I'll just stick with RAW!
Thanks for everyone's advice

[Jenn_B]

There is a large difference between RAW, TIFF, BMP, and JPEG files. JPEG is a lossy compressed file. RAW, TIFF, and BMP you can insert a exe file and open and save as many times as you like, and as long as you do not edit or change any photo settings you can extract the exe and it will run just fine, its not possible using a JPEG. In just copy a photo, and open and save at least 10 times and then compare the original to the saved file side by side.

Sure it's possible with JPEG. Just because a photo starts out as a JPEG doesn't mean you have to keep it that way forever. When you get it onto your computer, and edit it, save it in a lossless format.