What editing flexibility is lost when converting RAW files to 16-bit TIFF?
Asked 6/5/2012
63 views
2 answers
0
I archive my Canon RAW files and usually edit them directly in Aperture before exporting JPEGs. I’d like to add DxO Optics Pro to my workflow for its lens corrections, but that means processing the RAW in DxO first and then moving the result into another editor. Since I can’t pass the original RAW through both apps as RAW, I’m considering exporting from DxO as TIFF. If I use 16-bit TIFF, what editing latitude do I lose compared with keeping the file as RAW? For example, will I still have the same ability to recover highlights/shadows or push exposure by a few stops? Are there any subtler limitations I should expect?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
6
Provided the TIFF is 16 bits then you wont lose much editing latitude compared to the RAW file. What you want to do in DxO pro is develop the RAW for further editing, by reducing contrast to ensure that neither highlights or shadows are clipped. If you do it right the image should look really dull. Don't worry though - you'll be viewing the image on an 8bit device, there will be plenty of detail there to be developed when you finally process the image in lightroom.
You want to also aim for a neutral colour balance in DxO to avoid clipping any colour channels, giving yourself the maximum tonal range possible. Obviously having DxO sharpen you images will limit your editing options with regards to sharpening / noise reduction.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
A 16-bit TIFF preserves a lot of tonal/color information, so for normal editing you won’t lose much latitude compared with an 8-bit format. But it is still not the same as RAW.
What you lose is mainly the RAW-specific flexibility:
- RAW-only processing choices are baked in once you export, especially demosaicing.
- That means you can no longer change how the image was interpreted from the sensor data, which affects sharpness, noise, and false color/moiré handling.
- Large exposure recovery is usually worse from TIFF than from the original RAW, because the TIFF contains already-rendered RGB pixels rather than untouched sensor data.
If you use this workflow, export a 16-bit TIFF and keep the DxO rendering as neutral as possible: avoid clipping highlights/shadows, keep contrast low, and avoid aggressive color balance changes. Also note that sharpening/noise reduction applied in DxO limits what you can do later.
So: 16-bit TIFF is a good intermediate format, but it does sacrifice some of the extra recovery and interpretive flexibility that only the original RAW retains.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Can a 16-bit TIFF be edited like a RAW file, or does RAW still retain more information?
Is it worth paying extra for TIFF scans instead of JPEG when scanning 35mm negatives?
Is 12-bit-per-channel a sensible archival compromise for scanned 35mm negatives?
Why does a 16-bit TIFF/PSD from RAW lose highlight recovery compared with the original RAW?
Why is a 16-bit TIFF much larger than the original RAW file?