# If I had to explain the difference between RAW, TIFF, and JPEG...



## e.rose (Mar 16, 2012)

...and I had to explain it in a short and simple way... And I said:

"RAW files are basically digital negatives that contain all the information pertaining to the image and are usually edited using certain software in a non-destructive manner.

TIFF files are working files that can be in 16 bit or 8 bit without loss in image quality.

JEPG files are smaller image files, compressed with lossy compression in order to save space.  Converting to JPEG should ideally be your last step when editing a file, due to the possibility of artifacts introduced due to compression."

...How accurate would that be? Haha. 

Am I missing any major key components or is that a fairly decent description?


----------



## SCraig (Mar 16, 2012)

TIFF files are not necessarily "Working" files.  For years they were, and in some cases still are, the preferred method for digital images.  The TIF format is a standard format and is lossless and has a bit-depth large enough to faithfully contain the data from any camera manufactured today.  The issue with TIF is that there are a number of "Standard" formats and they are not always compatible.  There is TIF RAW, TIF TILED, TIF with LZW compression, and a couple of others I can't recall right now.

JPEG can be a lossy standard format depending on the level of compression however it is an industry standard.  The original use for JPEG was to provide smaller file sizes when TIF was the most commonly used image format, disk sizes were much smaller, and bandwidth much lower.  TIF files can be very large, especially when uncompressed.  JPEG files can take the same data and compress it to a much smaller file size, but in doing so the data is frequently modified and is no longer an exact representation of the original.

RAW files use proprietary formats that vary from manufactorer to manufacturer.  The data contains the raw sensor data as well as camera settings specific to the manufacturer and camera used.  They are not bitmap images in that the data in the file is not a pixel-by-pixel representation of the image.  They can be likened to a digital negative but only in the sense that neither a film negative nor a RAW file are of much use without additional processing.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 16, 2012)

google


----------



## e.rose (Mar 16, 2012)

2WheelPhoto said:
			
		

> google



That's plagiarism 

You don't think I DIDN'T look it up? 

I'm just trying to consolidate the information I read and put it in "laymen's" terms.  But I also want to make sure I'm RIGHT and not misunderstanding... HENCE... This question.


----------



## table1349 (Mar 16, 2012)

e.rose said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It isn't plagiarism unless you directly copy the work without giving credit.  To read and  understand an idea or ideas is good ole fashion research.  Back in my day "Google" was called The Encyclopedia Britannica and you surfed it at the library. :mrgreen:

In fact, let me help you with that:  Let me google that for you

  :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lmao: :lmao: 

Sorry rosie, couldn't resist myself.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 16, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:
			
		

> It isn't plagiarism unless you directly copy the work without giving credit.  To read and  understand an idea or ideas is good ole fashion research.  Back in my day "Google" was called The Encyclopedia Britannica and you surfed it at the library. :mrgreen:
> 
> In fact, let me help you with that:  Let me google that for you
> 
> ...



My point was that I DID google an I'm trying to figure out how to paraphrase what I read... I'm not going to just copy/paste what I read. XD


----------



## KmH (Mar 17, 2012)

e.rose said:


> ...and I had to explain it in a short and simple way... And I said:
> 
> "RAW files are basically digital negatives that contain all the information pertaining to the image and are usually edited using certain software in a non-destructive manner.
> 
> ...



 I would suggest;

"Raw files contain the maximum amount of digital image data the capture device can provide. All digital photos start as a Raw files. Like film, Raw files are not usable right out of the camera and have to be converted (developed) to a usable form. Most camera makers have proprietary Raw file types, so there are a lot of different Raw file types. Raw files can be either uncompressed or compressed using lossless compression."

TIFF files are a standard in the printing and publishing industry. TIFF files can be either uncompressed or compressed using lossless compression. TIFF files can have a bit depth of either 16-bits per channel or 8-bits per channel, and multiple layered images can be stored in a single TIFF file. TIFF files can be rather large as far as file size, particularly if saved as a multiple layered image."

"JPEG files are edited in the camera and are compressed into significantly smaller files by discarding image data (lossy compression). JPEG discards most of the image color data the camera captured, while retaining all of the brightness image data. The amount of compression that can be used is highly dependent on image content. Since JPEG files have already been edited in the camera, they don't tolerate much, if any, additional editing.


----------



## e.rose (Mar 17, 2012)

Are you not going to credit the source you copy/pasted that from?

I read that article before I posted this


----------



## mattyclown (Jan 14, 2014)

e.rose said:


> ...and I had to explain it in a short and simple way... And I said:
> 
> "RAW files are basically digital negatives that contain all the information pertaining to the image and are usually edited using certain software in a non-destructive manner.
> 
> ...



I am asked to do the same thing. Explain the differences to students who know nothing about digital image formats. And they even do not know what bit is. I googled and found a very simple answer for TIFF and RAW: Tiff has larger file size and a better image quality. But when it comes to TIFF and JPEG, I have no idea on how to express the difference with one sentence. ;-)


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 14, 2014)

Ok, in layman's terms

Raw : Everything + The Kitchen Sink
Tiff : Everything but the kitchen sink
Jpg : An IOU for a kitchen sink


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 14, 2014)

Ok, if I had to explain it in one sentence: A tiff file contains all of the information of the original image whereas JPG is a much smaller file, because it discards any details or color changes that it determines are too small to perceived by the human eye.


----------



## KmH (Jan 14, 2014)

Raw is like an undeveloped film negative.
TIFF is like a wall size, but unframed print from a pro lab.
JPEG is like a  still curved, small 4x6, 1 hour photo lab print.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2014)

REALLY old thread here, folks. Just FYI.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 14, 2014)

Argh.. dang zombie threads.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 14, 2014)

hehehe, I know.  I get suckered by them all the time.

The only reason I caught this one was because it was e.rose and she hasn't been on in a long time.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 14, 2014)

Can't we take up a collection and get a priest in here or something - do some of that whacky consecration mojo and put a stop to this?


----------



## mattyclown (Jan 21, 2014)

:greenpbl: Thanks. And I think I can also add the difference of the compression methods to that sencense. JPG, lossy compressiona and TIFF lossless compression.


----------



## bribrius (Jan 22, 2014)

its the compression that I don't get. whats the difference?
For example a tif file 18 mb I click the compression box and export it and exports it (copies and compresses) to 7.89 or something megabytes. Either the original or the copy they look the same.
why don't they just start off by making it 7.89 megabytes to begin with? 
Or click the 16 or the 8, they look the same..
it all really looks the same. Least when I click on them. 
well, except jpeg. seems it kind of goes down hill a little there...


----------



## e.rose (Jan 22, 2014)

Hahaha... Man. I'm gone... but my threads live on...


----------



## manaheim (Jan 22, 2014)

erose!!!!!


----------

