should i convert my old jpeg files to RAW or is TIFF files better?

Question

im using lightroom and when i convert files that are 5mb-7mb in converted raw it comes to about 13mb-17mb while the converted Tiff files are usually 60-70mb. any reason for such a big difference in file size? which one would be better to use when editing in lightroom.

Anyway thanks in advance. :)

Answer 1

Jeroen is right, shoot in Raw and convert to other formats as required.



Jpeg is only an 8bit format as your camera saves any data that won't fit inside the 8bit file is dumped. Jpeg tries to compress more data than it should be able to hold, the problem is it's a 'lossy' compression and can add compression artefact's.



By comparison any Raw file is at least a 12bit format (often 14bit these days), every bit you add from 8 to 12 doubles the amount of space for data in the file (note it may not be filled, it depends on the subject, but this space is available for editing into). Raw files contan ALL the data from the sensor.



Tiff files come in both 8bit and 16bit formats, 8bit has the same restrictions as Jpeg, but it handles the compression losslessly. 16bit can be thought of as 'infinite' for a single image.



You may get 'improvements' in a Jpeg processed in a larger bit depth file, as the edited data can move and be saved in the larger format, but the data won't be original as saving in Jpeg 'dumped' that.



Chris

Answer 2

You can't convert a jpeg to a raw file. The raw format is a proprietary format for files coming out of the camera. If you could convert, there would be no benefit. Raw files are typically 12 or 14 bits per color channel, while jpegs are 8. You can't recover the missing 4 or 6 bits. The TIFF file format does not compress the data. That's why they're so big. Files can be saved as jpegs. You will lose data in going from raw to jpeg (those extra 4 or 6 bits). However, if you save at the highest quality jpeg, you won't lose any data from that point on. However, if you use any but the highest quality, you will lose data and it will get worse from generation to generation.

Answer 3

Answers to questions : 1) Why use Adobe to read your NEF images; if you have NEF images that presumes you have a Nikon camera therefore why not use the Nikon View / Nikon Capture software that comes with the camera. Angood reason for using Nikon software is that company has guanteed that when the software is upgraded it will still handle earlier generations of images that used previous generations of the Nikon software thus removing the need to constantly upgrade other editing software. 2) Many people use DNG because their editing software can't handle the NEF format images therefore they convert them to DNG format in order to access / use a wider range of editing software. 3) If your original images are NEF then retain them in that format thus - essentially - treating them as NEGATIVES / TRANSPARENCIES ( in film environments) When you wiesh to produce prints then simply copy the required NEF images to a print folder where you can then edit for the specific requirerement. The benefit of this procedure is that (a) you should be storing your NEF images on a separate hard drive (e.g. Western Digital // Buffalo) (b) once images are printed from the print folder then these files can be deleted

Answer 4

jpg to raw is pointless, you're not getting anything back. Same goes for tiff.



Start raw, convert to tiff as an intermediate format if you need to do further editing. jpg should always be the end of the road because it's a lossy file format.

Answer 5

No, RAW files are only available before you save to .jpg!

The difference in file size is due to the compression ratio of the prograde.

You will certainly regret trying to convert to Tiff

If you want to save apace on your hard drive, try to put the images you want to keep on to a CD ROM.

Then delete the originals.

Handle the CD with great care!

When you want to use an image on the ROM, put it into the read drive, and access it with an image handling software.