Camera Craniums: The Photography Community for Enthusiasts

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: CML-1591 on May 26, 2010, 05:12:00 PM

Title: Nikon Files
Post by: CML-1591 on May 26, 2010, 05:12:00 PM
Is it best to use NEF or TIFF/Tif?

sorry if this has come up before or a really stupid question...
Title: Re: Nikon Files
Post by: nickt on May 26, 2010, 05:17:13 PM
NEF, definately.
Nick
Title: Re: Nikon Files
Post by: Oldboy on May 26, 2010, 05:31:22 PM
NEF files range between 12mb to 20mb but saved as a Tiff each would be 35mb on my D3. Raw files like NEF are Tiff files but with a special compression applied, which reduces their size but still contain the same infomation as a full Tiff file, which contains no compression.  ;D
Title: Re: Nikon Files
Post by: Jonathan on May 26, 2010, 06:35:17 PM
Quote from: Oldboy on May 26, 2010, 05:31:22 PM
Raw files like NEF are Tiff files but with a special compression applied, which reduces their size but still contain the same infomation as a full Tiff file, which contains no compression.  ;D

Well...neff files are only compressed if you choose to compress them.....some people recommend not doing this due to a loss of dynamic range.  http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/nef-compression

Also, neff files contain more "information" than tiff files.  I.e. they contain everything a tiff file does plus more.  They are smaller when uncompressed because they don't pad the high end bits with zeroes.

Oh and tiff files support 2 different types of lossless compression - zip and lzw.  Neither are used by Nikon.

As long as you have the s/w to decode it properly and believe you always will have then nef is almost always better than tiff.  I can think of a couple of times when you might want tiff but really not many.
Title: Re: Nikon Files
Post by: Oldboy on May 26, 2010, 10:26:48 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on May 26, 2010, 06:35:17 PM

As long as you have the s/w to decode it properly and believe you always will have then nef is almost always better than tiff.  I can think of a couple of times when you might want tiff but really not many.

Which makes me womder why Nikon included Tiff as a shooting option on a D3.  ???
Title: Re: Nikon Files
Post by: CML-1591 on May 27, 2010, 01:14:04 AM
Quote from: Oldboy on May 26, 2010, 10:26:48 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on May 26, 2010, 06:35:17 PM

As long as you have the s/w to decode it properly and believe you always will have then nef is almost always better than tiff.  I can think of a couple of times when you might want tiff but really not many.

Which makes me womder why Nikon included Tiff as a shooting option on a D3.  ???

Same on a D700

Okay so... NEF it is I think... :o :D

Thanks folks!
Title: Re: Nikon Files
Post by: Jonathan on May 27, 2010, 06:00:39 AM
Quote from: Oldboy on May 26, 2010, 10:26:48 PM
Quote from: Jonathan on May 26, 2010, 06:35:17 PM

As long as you have the s/w to decode it properly and believe you always will have then nef is almost always better than tiff.  I can think of a couple of times when you might want tiff but really not many.

Which makes me womder why Nikon included Tiff as a shooting option on a D3.  ???

Because

1. It costs them nothing.  Apart from the increased write time there is no "cost" to producing a tiff.  They have the data in the right format as part of the processing.

2. Because there are a couple of special applications where you might want a high quality uncompressed file that comes out of the camera ready to use.  Off hand I can think of high quality magazine work and (possibly) some branches of forensics.  The people who need this will buy another brand if their required format isn't supported.