Image formats for digital photography

On Dec 14, 2005, at 4:17 PM, John Faughnan wrote:

> Thank you for an extraordinary presentation. I do wonder, however,
> why we don't have a third choice other than RAW and JPEG. RAW isn't
> really a sensor dump, it's post-processed in the camera anyway. Why
> can't we get TIFF or PNG or JPEG2000 on the camera; options that
> would preserve more of the image data without introducing the
> workflow issues of RAW? A middle way for middling photographers ..

Most of the cameras that do raw also do uncompressed TIFF files,
however, in My Fuji, for example, the TIFF file is around 35 megs (3
times the size of the RAW file) and takes a noticeable time to
process in camera, and, if you are shooting all day, serious amounts
of drive space.

My (admittedly limited) understanding of RAW files is that they are
greyscale captures from each colour range of sensor pixels, with EXIF
data added to allow final processing - hardly the same in camera post-
processing as TIFF or JPEG.

For most purposes (including commercial press output), I have found a
high level JPEG to be more than adequate in both Fuji and Nikon D-SLR
cameras. I think the author's point was that RAW give you access to
the maximum quality and flexibility.

YMMV,

Roger

John Faughnan wrote:

I do wonder, however, why we don't have a third choice other than RAW and JPEG. RAW isn't really a sensor dump, it's post-processed in the camera anyway. Why can't we get TIFF or PNG or JPEG2000 on the camera; options that would preserve more of the image data without introducing the workflow issues of RAW?

John, Before you start asking for a "middle way" you need to take a look at the extraordinary capabilities of Camera Raw in the latest version of PhotoShop. Bruce Fraser makes an excellent job of explaining all this in his latest book on the subject. Sure, not everyone wants to purchase PS just so that they can take advantage of these capabilities but . . . from my experiences over the last year, I'd have to say that this has been my best ever investment in terms of getting the pictures I need from digital photography.

And . . . given the predominance of PhotoShop in the market, I struggle to see how anyone can come up with a competing and viable alternative.

Just my opinion,

John Wolff Hamilton, New Zealand

On Dec 15, 2005, at 4:37 PM, dtopcomp wrote:

> And . . . given the predominance of PhotoShop in the market, I
> struggle to see how anyone can come up with a competing and viable
> alternative.

I agree with you in general, but there is an alternative to Photoshop
(which I use) - Phase Capture 1. Unfortunately, while it was superior
to Photoshop CS, it may not be to CS2, and it costs almost as much on
it's own...

http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Software/LESoftware.aspx

Roger
Roger Henriques
rdh at rhen dot com

[There appear to be several versions of this software. -Andrew ]

On Dec 19, 2005, at 12:56 AM, Roger Henriques wrote, and Andrew noted:

> I agree with you in general, but there is an alternative to Photoshop
> (which I use) - Phase Capture 1. Unfortunately, while it was superior
> to Photoshop CS, it may not be to CS2, and it costs almost as much on
> it's own...
>
>> http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Software/LESoftware.aspx
>>
>> [There appear to be several versions of this software. -Andrew ]

Quite right Andrew, and thanks for adding the link - I had only had
experience with the full version, which originated to manage the
Phase digital camera backs, but will also allow tethered shooting
with several pro level DSLR cameras - probably overkill for most
tidbits-talk readers.

I have tested it, but since I own Photoshop CS2, it seemed like an
unnecessary expense for my needs, although it certainly produces
wonderful files, and is arguably the 'industry standard' for digital
workflow among studio photographers.

Roger