[Leica] Now RAW vs JPEG

[pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein)]

Tina:  As I understand it, a 16-bit TIFF file contains pretty much the same 
information as the RAW file.  If work in a 16-bit capable image editor, 
really the only two things you need to tweak in the RAW converter are white 
balance, and highlight level (if you have highlights in that "twilight 
zone" where  they are just about blown but you can recover them).

This is what I do with my digital photos.  I get the white balance accurate 
or reasonably close to what I want, and leave all other settings at 
off/zero/minimum.  Then I tweak the 16-bit TIFF in Picture Window Pro, 
where I can work on the other parameters in the same tool I use for film.

Jonathan Sachs, who is the author of PWP and knows the mathematics 
involved, says that except for white balance, there is really no advantage 
in working on things in RAW as opposed to 16-bit TIFF.  Use whichever tool 
is more comfortable for you.

Now of course, it's different if we're talking 8-bit TIFF or JPEG, or 
earlier versions of Photoshop that could only do a few limited operations 
on 16-bit files.

I do save my "keeper" RAWs, but I also save a TIFF or a very high-quality 
JPEG after most of the work has been done, but before any sharpening.

--Peter

At 06:58 PM 5/22/2005 -0700, Tina wrote:
>But in order to store the image as a tiff, you are converting it.  You lose
>the ability to change anything in the conversion process.  Raw contains all
>of the information available.  Converting to tiff you are making choices
>about white balance, exposure, contrast, sharpening, and many, many
>more.  Those can't be changed once you convert to tiff.  With raw you have
>the ability to change those every time you convert.  Raw images also take
>up much less space than tiffs.  Why wouldn't you save raws?