Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF

Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

And what about JPEG?

Dunno for sure m8

But if the stuff I have gleamed is robust then
RAW - is really sensor data with minimal signal processing, is sensor and
camera brand dependent

TIFF - not quite as spot on as RAW as it has (obviously to get into format)
some signal processing

JPEG - the most highly signal processed of the bunch (look for superfine,
fine, medium and low quality declarations in the camera spec)

Aerticeus

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

And what about JPEG?

Dunno for sure m8

But if the stuff I have gleamed is robust then
RAW - is really sensor data with minimal signal processing, is sensor and
camera brand dependent

TIFF - not quite as spot on as RAW as it has (obviously to get into format)
some signal processing

JPEG - the most highly signal processed of the bunch (look for superfine,
fine, medium and low quality declarations in the camera spec)

Aerticeus

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

And what about JPEG?

Nope. Process a RAW and see all the options. Some a you can adjust white
balance, 16-bit, Size, lots more. Raw gives you more stops of
information....so you are less likely to block up the highlights and
shadows.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

And what about JPEG?

Nope. Process a RAW and see all the options. Some a you can adjust white
balance, 16-bit, Size, lots more. Raw gives you more stops of
information....so you are less likely to block up the highlights and
shadows.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

And what about JPEG?

Nope. Process a RAW and see all the options. Some a you can adjust white
balance, 16-bit, Size, lots more. Raw gives you more stops of
information....so you are less likely to block up the highlights and
shadows.

"Mike Henley" wrote in message
om...
Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

And what about JPEG?

In message ,
(Mike Henley) wrote:

Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

16-bit TIFF will posterize the levels in the highlights. This is not
visible immediately, but may become visible with some processing.

8-bit TIFF will posterize the highlights much more than 16-bit, and will
posterize the midtones and brighter shadows as well.

And what about JPEG?

JPEG has the same issues as 8-bit TIFF, plus the issues of compression
artifacts, which may be exaggerated after some processing, even if
compression is low.

As luck would have it, programs don't work with the RAW data directly,
so you usually have to settle for a 16-bit TIFF or PSD format if you
want to save your work for optimum future editing.
--


John P Sheehy

In message ,
(Mike Henley) wrote:

Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

16-bit TIFF will posterize the levels in the highlights. This is not
visible immediately, but may become visible with some processing.

8-bit TIFF will posterize the highlights much more than 16-bit, and will
posterize the midtones and brighter shadows as well.

And what about JPEG?

JPEG has the same issues as 8-bit TIFF, plus the issues of compression
artifacts, which may be exaggerated after some processing, even if
compression is low.

As luck would have it, programs don't work with the RAW data directly,
so you usually have to settle for a 16-bit TIFF or PSD format if you
want to save your work for optimum future editing.
--


John P Sheehy

In message , I,
wrote:

In message ,
(Mike Henley) wrote:

Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

16-bit TIFF will posterize the levels in the highlights. This is not
visible immediately, but may become visible with some processing.

8-bit TIFF will posterize the highlights much more than 16-bit, and will
posterize the midtones and brighter shadows as well.

And what about JPEG?

JPEG has the same issues as 8-bit TIFF, plus the issues of compression
artifacts, which may be exaggerated after some processing, even if
compression is low.

As luck would have it, programs don't work with the RAW data directly,
so you usually have to settle for a 16-bit TIFF or PSD format if you
want to save your work for optimum future editing.

I forgot to mention; all of these conversion formats are also capable of
losing highlights captured in the RAW file.
--


John P Sheehy

In message , I,
wrote:

In message ,
(Mike Henley) wrote:

Can you get similar results from post-processing TIFF to those you'd
get from PPing RAW?

16-bit TIFF will posterize the levels in the highlights. This is not
visible immediately, but may become visible with some processing.

8-bit TIFF will posterize the highlights much more than 16-bit, and will
posterize the midtones and brighter shadows as well.

And what about JPEG?

JPEG has the same issues as 8-bit TIFF, plus the issues of compression
artifacts, which may be exaggerated after some processing, even if
compression is low.

As luck would have it, programs don't work with the RAW data directly,
so you usually have to settle for a 16-bit TIFF or PSD format if you
want to save your work for optimum future editing.

I forgot to mention; all of these conversion formats are also capable of
losing highlights captured in the RAW file.
--


John P Sheehy