Why do most DSLRs offer RAW and JPEG, but not TIFF?
Asked 5/10/2012
3 views
2 answers
0
Many cameras can save either RAW or JPEG, but relatively few DSLRs offer TIFF output. Since TIFF can be lossless, why isn’t it more common as a middle ground between RAW and JPEG? Is it mainly because TIFF files are much larger, or are there other technical reasons camera makers avoid it?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
14
Noting other answers, and having had a bridge camera that did TIFFs, I'd suggest that for DSLRs TIFF is pointless except as an add on if it can be managed.
TIFF is a lossless way of saving an image, once an image is generated, BUT the image that it saves is an interpretation of what the sensor records.
RAW gives you the maximum possible flexibility in dealing with the available data. Software to convert to TIFF or JPG is provided by the camera maker plus the various commercial RAW converters are a small fraction of a good DSLR price.
JPG gives you user usable images at a compression level that suits the user.
RAW + JPG gives you all the advantages of RAW plus some of the advantages of JPG (as it usually does not allow selection of JPG compression level and the JPG provided may be not be the highest quality JPG the camera provides in pure JPG mode.
eg in a Sony A700, straight JPG comes in Extra Fine, Fine, Standard.
But with RAW + JPG, the provided JPG is "fine" and not "Extra Fine".
TIFF loses data relative to RAW and is far larger than any sensible JPG and has no great quality improvement over the best JPG. Once it is "not RAW" then it is subject to manufacturers decisions.
Useful where available is Compressed-RAW and Compressed RAW + JPG.
Available eg on Sony A700 but not on the newer A77 where it would be useful due to largr file sizes.
Compressed-RAW provides a lossless compression of the RAW file at the expense of processing time and a somewhat non-stanard format.
Originally by user6263. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user6263
14y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
TIFF is uncommon in cameras because it offers few practical advantages over the RAW + JPEG options most DSLRs already provide.
RAW stores the sensor data with maximum editing flexibility. TIFF, by contrast, is not sensor data — it’s an already processed interpretation of that data, like a finished image. Once the camera converts RAW to TIFF, some processing decisions are baked in, so you lose much of RAW’s flexibility.
JPEG already fills the “ready-to-use image” role with much smaller files. TIFF can be lossless and support higher bit depth, but in-camera TIFFs are typically much larger than RAW files and can slow down shooting and buffer clearing significantly. Historically, that poor speed/size tradeoff made TIFF unpopular in cameras.
Some cameras have offered TIFF, but it never became common because most photographers are better served by either:
- RAW for maximum quality and editing latitude
- JPEG for convenience and smaller files
- RAW+JPEG for both
If you want a TIFF, camera makers generally expect you to create it later from the RAW file using conversion software.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Why do most DSLRs offer JPEG as the only processed format instead of a lossless RGB format?
Why don’t cameras usually offer PNG as a capture format?
Why don't more compact cameras and DSLRs include built-in GPS for geotagging?
Why are kit bundles common on entry-level cameras but rare on pro bodies and lenses?
Should I export a RAW photo as PNG instead of JPEG for large prints?