What are the uses of TIFF format? (Nikon cameras)


Yes, offset printing demands TIFF. Hence, if you can shoot your images without any corrections, it would be "good-to-go" with a Illustrator file/ In Design / Freehand that can be directly sent to the printer for printing. For the printing industry, TIFF is considered as "RAW" as it can get... So, that's probably why there is the TIFF option available... Eg, you shoot products, pass the TIFF images to brochure designer who can use it right away without conversion...

Tiff cannot be considered as RAW. The closest to RAW is DNG.

Adobe programs can read NEFs too.

NX2 is seriously lacking and limiting IMHO.
 

Tiff cannot be considered as RAW. The closest to RAW is DNG.

Adobe programs can read NEFs too.

NX2 is seriously lacking and limiting IMHO.

Well that's why I added quote marks, and I'm not sure if all printers accept DNG files, TIFF is generally accepted... I know they are not exactly RAW. Too bad NX2 cannot convert to DNG, or else I'd have used that with my older version of PS. Now, I don't have to since you say Adobe programs can now read NEF - good riddance to TIFF! But previously, with older versions of PS, TIFF is my only option out...
 

Last edited:
Just another point to add, sometimes NEF downloaded and converted to JPG on a PC can potentially result in a slightly sharper final images. The simple reason for being so is the process of demosaicing being processor intensive. Most digital cameras would make a compromise on the choice of algorithms used to reduce the processing time, while making a small compromise on image quality. This will add towards conserving power and extending battery life. On a computer however, the situation is different. You have all the processing power to implement the most complex algorithms, getting the best out of what you could do with a RAW file. :)
 

Just another point to add, sometimes NEF downloaded and converted to JPG on a PC can potentially result in a slightly sharper final images. The simple reason for being so is the process of demosaicing being processor intensive. Most digital cameras would make a compromise on the choice of algorithms used to reduce the processing time, while making a small compromise on image quality. This will add towards conserving power and extending battery life. On a computer however, the situation is different. You have all the processing power to implement the most complex algorithms, getting the best out of what you could do with a RAW file. :)

So it really depends on your needs. For one, I know some professionals prefer to shoot jpeg or jpegs + RAW (latter for later enhancements), because they need to transmit the images across the globe as urgently as possible. And being attached by e-mail they are more lightweight...
 

Just another point to add, sometimes NEF downloaded and converted to JPG on a PC can potentially result in a slightly sharper final images. The simple reason for being so is the process of demosaicing being processor intensive. Most digital cameras would make a compromise on the choice of algorithms used to reduce the processing time, while making a small compromise on image quality. This will add towards conserving power and extending battery life. On a computer however, the situation is different. You have all the processing power to implement the most complex algorithms, getting the best out of what you could do with a RAW file. :)

Basically what you're saying is just skip the TIFF conversion and go right to JPEGs right? I'm talking about while still using NX2 software with older PS...
 

Years ago....some of the first Full Frame bodies (eg Canon 1ds Mk1 sorry i know this is Nikon territory) actully produced TIFF files when shooting in 'RAW' when this area of file formats was still a grey area

U can imagine the headache..... a 1-2 gig CF card was a pretty big deal then and shooting in 'RAW' then, u had to carry loads of cards
 

Last edited:
Years ago....some of the first Full Frame bodies (eg Canon 1ds Mk1 sorry i know this is Nikon territory) actully produced TIFF files when shooting in 'RAW' when this area of file formats was still a grey area

Was RAW and NEF format already around then? Sorry, I need to get to speed with my history lesson... Please enlighten me.
 

Apologies to all others for throwing confusions into the discussion. Just realised that I need to keep myself updated with all the new technologies around me... :sweat:
 

Was RAW and NEF format already around then? Sorry, I need to get to speed with my history lesson... Please enlighten me.

IIRC .NEF started with the Nikon D1.
 

after reading 2 pages of TIFF seem nobody has the answer of when we shoot in TIFF?:think:
I onli know >>>
shoot RAW if your want to develop the image yourself
shoot tiff if you want the camera to develop the image but not compress it

but wat the real effect me also :angel::angel::angel:
 

Correct, one of the several ways, not the only.

But probably the more universal one though.

But seriously, Tiff is one of the best formats when sending stuff to printers. Especially banner printing. Experienced it first hand when printing large banners in China (not your usual metro cities.. but the smaller ones). Different shops have different software from different periods (mostly outdated, most use an old obscure version of Coreldraw). We had stuff in illustrator and PSD and found almost no way to get our stuff printed. TIFF saved the day because all the software can read TIFF.
 

after reading 2 pages of TIFF seem nobody has the answer of when we shoot in TIFF?:think:
I onli know >>>
shoot RAW if your want to develop the image yourself
shoot tiff if you want the camera to develop the image but not compress it

but wat the real effect me also :angel::angel::angel:

Nowadays most shoot in RAW and after PP, export to the format required. At times, in not too advanced locations, TIFF is the way to go.
 

Don't think too much about it. Coz even PnS cams like a Nikon 700 (long time ago even before D1!) also outputs in TIFF, in 2MP resolution. Just take it as "for convenience" for us and marketing for Nikon, for those who wants to do commercial printing.
 

IIRC .NEF started with the Nikon D1.

Those early prosumer models also have it. 8800, 9900. Shaped like mini dSLRs. Funny they did not sell that well, as compared to nowadays all the rojak stuff we have (see until I blur!). Guess its a very big market nowadays for the chic and hip crowd!

I hope one day, dSLR would once again be seen as retro and un-hip by the masses. Coz I am sure quite a number of us do this for bread-n-butter. Evil thought, but seriously.... :sweat:
 

Those early prosumer models also have it. 8800, 9900. Shaped like mini dSLRs. Funny they did not sell that well, as compared to nowadays all the rojak stuff we have (see until I blur!). Guess its a very big market nowadays for the chic and hip crowd!

I hope one day, dSLR would once again be seen as retro and un-hip by the masses. Coz I am sure quite a number of us do this for bread-n-butter. Evil thought, but seriously.... :sweat:

Eh. Later they think we using outdated equipment I going cry. But come to think of it DSLR is getting unhip - the mirrorless models are getting the attention now.
I can still remember when we use polaroid to test light setup. Now polaroid is a "retro toy" :bsmilie::bsmilie:
 

after reading 2 pages of TIFF seem nobody has the answer of when we shoot in TIFF?:think:
I onli know >>>
shoot RAW if your want to develop the image yourself
shoot tiff if you want the camera to develop the image but not compress it

but wat the real effect me also :angel::angel::angel:

Here is the google :)

JPG's main benefit is that it gives excellent compression
(small file sizes) with reasonable / acceptable compromises in image quality.
TIFF is lossless, JPG is lossy. It's pretty simple.


The TIFF can be looked at by any picture editing program, just like JPG.
There would be very, very little difference between a low compressed JPG
and a non compressed TIFF file.
The RAW file is as the camera captured the light, and must be extracted and
processed into a useful file type, but it gives more possibilities for the
pros and those who want to fiddle a lot with every picture.

With RAW, the settings may be saved but are not permanently applied to the image, and thus can be changed during post processing.

TIFF is a large, uncompressed file format that is only limited to 8 bits deep in all the cameras,
while raw is either 12-bit or 14-bit, depending on one's camera and or/capture mode preferences.

The greater bit depth of RAW files allows more extreme corrections before posterization occurs.

Apart from the advantages the others have mentioned, Raw files are
smaller (typically LOTS smaller) than TIFF files. So you should get
more on the memory card, they may write to the card faster, etc.
 

wahh... appreciate your ideas about TIFF format, everyone! :D
now that I understand a little bit more this TIFF thingy. well since its uncompressed form of file format, do you think that there's not much of difference in quality?
details, colors and etc, both is almost the same, right? (RAW & TIFF)

did tried some comparison and pixel peeing for both format but it seems there's not much of difference. thought TIFF does stands out from jpeg in color and details. :p

and thanks for the replies, everyone :)
 

I don't know exactly the answer, but if one wants to process their images from NEF as raw as possible using professional 3rd Parties like Photoshop...then TIFF is the only way to go. No seconds about it...

hmm... i didn't get what you mean. :p
 

Dont understand what he talking either.

Tiff format is bigger because it is a bigger box at 16bit. Whether that box is filled with data or not, doesn't matter. It still occupies the same space coz the exterior dimension of the box is 'Size 16bit Tiff'

Raw format is smaller because its a smaller box at 12 or 14bit. Most of the time its filled up and packed with data.

JPG format is even smaller at 8bit.

Take a JPG pic and save it as a 8bit Tiff, immediately you will see the same image/file size changes to a lot more. Save it as a 16 bit Tiff, it becomes even bigger. So why does the file size change so dramatically when its the same data same picture? What you are doing now is actually taking the contents/data of the JPG and putting it into a bigger 'Box', whether you fill that box or not is another matter. The space occupied in the storeroom is always a size 16bit Tiff because the exterior is that dimension.

So you can shoot Tiff captures with camera but that doesn't mean its got more data than RAW, some tonality data and a significant amount of color data is discarded and lost permamently, unlike a full Raw file.

Hope this analogy helps.

yeah... it does help. thanks! :)