Can a 16-bit TIFF be edited like a RAW file, or does RAW still retain more information?
Asked 11/20/2023
2 views
2 answers
0
I understand why RAW is usually preferred over JPEG, but I’m wondering how it compares to high-bit-depth non-RAW formats such as 16-bit TIFF.
If I start with the same capture, is a 14-bit RAW file effectively equivalent to a 16-bit uncompressed or losslessly compressed TIFF for exposure, color, and tonal adjustments? Or does RAW still preserve information and editing flexibility that a TIFF no longer has?
Aside from demosaicing, what changes can still be made to a RAW file with less quality loss than to a 16-bit TIFF derived from that same image? Are there any non-RAW formats that truly offer the same flexibility as RAW?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
2y ago
2 Answers
3
Doing some digging on the Interwebs, it all comes down to purpose and what each one is.
A RAW file is a record of sensor data, all of it.
A TIFF file is a processed image that no longer contains all the RAW data.
Bit depth reflects the tonal range a pixel can reproduce.
Let's say you took a photo of a fairly contrasty, somewhat overexposed scene in RAW, did some post processing, and exported a TIFF that looked pretty good. The photo editor sees the photo, but knows the most important part was in one of the shadow areas. You can't edit the TIFF because you chose a specific tonal range for those shadows, leaving image data behind in the RAW file. Trying to brighten up the shadows in the TIFF yields not much usable at all because a lot of image data was left behind when you decided on the final tonal range in that shadow area when exporting to TIFF.
The RAW file is a different story. The RAW file still has all the image information for that shadow area. It's really quite amazing what kind of quality can be pulled from a RAW file.
Another way to think about this is printing a film negative. If you make a print and burn in an area that actually looks okay in the negative, the final print won't have the detail in the shadow area that the negative has. You wouldn't take a photo of the print and try to recover the shadow area. That information is no longer in the print. You would re-print the negative because it has more tonal range than you chose to put into the final print.
It is important to understand that a RAW file cannot be used for display or production. Most camera manufacturers have their own proprietary RAW format. And RAW files don't look that good unprocessed. They have to be processed and saved into a display format of some kind, and the final format is chosen based on what the final need is i.e. print, video still, web, publishing in a book, or newspaper (they're still around).
There is a difference between compression and processing. All file types that are not RAW imply processing. All files that are not RAW are processed, meaning that it was made to look good for some final medium. During processing, tonal ranges for dark and light areas of the photo were chosen and the data from the RAW file was used to optimize the look of each area using some of the sensor data that best represented the desired look, leaving data to make the area lighter or darker out of the final image as it is no longer needed. The final export of the edited RAW file is either compressed or not compressed depending on the final format chosen for the image.
Originally by user113526. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user113526
2y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
No. A 16-bit TIFF can preserve a lot of quality, but it is still usually a processed image, while RAW is sensor data plus metadata about how to turn that data into an image.
That difference matters more than bit depth alone. When you convert RAW to TIFF, you typically commit to choices such as demosaicing, white balance, tone curve, black point, color rendering, sharpening, noise reduction, highlight handling, and lens/optical corrections. Some original sensor information is discarded or baked in, so those decisions cannot be fully undone later.
RAW therefore usually gives more latitude for:
- white balance changes
- highlight/shadow recovery
- exposure and tonal adjustments
- choosing better demosaicing and noise-reduction methods later
- avoiding in-camera processing decisions
A 16-bit TIFF is far better than JPEG for heavy editing because it is high bit depth and lossless, but it does not usually retain all the original capture information that RAW does.
As for non-RAW formats with the same flexibility: generally no processed image format truly matches RAW. Some DNG files are effectively RAW, but that’s because they are still RAW-type data, not because they are simply TIFF-like image files.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI2y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why are image formats different if an image is just pixel values?
What information is lost when converting a RAW file to 16-bit TIFF?
How can I export undemosaiced RAW sensor data to a 16-bit TIFF?
What does 'non-destructive editing' mean in photo post-processing?
Why does a 16-bit TIFF/PSD from RAW lose highlight recovery compared with the original RAW?