Jump to content

Scanning: Tiff v. Raw


Agent M10

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am using Vuescan and am interested in knowing the benefits of scanning Tiff v. Raw. We just bought Adobe Lightroom, but I understand that it can read either format. Also, I read somewhere that Vuescan's raw is basically a Tiff with a .dng suffix. Any help on that would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't know much about Vuescan, but RAW images are just that. Kind of like a Negative in real photography in the digital realm. Also something to think about it that RAW differs from manufacturer to manufacturer, and sometimes from camera to camera so it is important to use the software that came with you device to process the RAW image. Adobe Photoshop CS can process RAW images but it may not handle all the information like the software that came with your device would, so it is best to stick with the processing software that came with your device. I have not used the Adobe product you are talking about, it is not part of my CS. I do a lot of scanning in my work and so use the TIFF format all the time. The only problem here is that TIFFs take up a lot of room and can fill a hard drive quick if you are scanning at 600dpi like I am all the time.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Tom L.L.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Full frame tiffs in 64 bit colour produce files of around 125 MB on my Nikon Coolscan V. RAW files go up to 150MB

 

If you use it, it's relevant to note that Digital ICE doesn't work when scanning RAW, as all you are doing is collecting the basic data off the chip, and not processing in any way.

 

I never scan at anything less than the full 4000 dpi

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct Andy.

 

Scanning a picture means scanning a "developed" picture, analog or digital, based on TIFF or jpeg. And this is absolutely different from the RAW-file idea.

To scan a picture as a dng-file seems to be an advantage looking for the future (if you believe in the promisses of ADOBE)..

 

Regards Hans

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have only just started playing with RAW from the scanner, but if a camera is up to it, then RAW is the way to go (with the exception of the D-Lux 3, which seems to produce much better jpgs than RAW files, in my experience)

 

Tiffs from the Nikon are very good, so my jury is currently out. Lack of ICE in RAW files is an issue though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've yet to have anyone convince me that a RAW scan from a film scanner is any better than an high-res, high bit-depth TIFF in a good colour space.

 

Yes I own an Imacon 646 and dont bother scannng in RAW but 16 bit tiff only. Of course owning the scanner I can always go back and rescan. I know a lot of people who rent imacons scan in RAW so as to speed up the workflow and then do the final outputs on their home computer with with the software. I probably should scan raw but just haven't gotten my head wrapped around it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tiffs from the Nikon are very good, so my jury is currently out. Lack of ICE in RAW files is an issue though.

 

Can't you just process the RAW files with Vuescan again when you want to produce Tiffs and select dust removal?

 

I haven't played with this, but I may do so at the weekend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am puzzled why raw is an option with film scanning. I thought it only applied to digital capture from a sensor. Of more importance with film scanning is the choice of multi-pass to maximize information capture. With a film scanner all data is read and is virtually lossless if saved in TIFF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The scanned image is produced by a sensor and a RAW file is merely the raw data from that sensor, pretty much like the raw data from a camera chip.

 

On a Coolscan V, using Vuescan, there is roughly 25MB data lost when scanning to tiff instead of RAW.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using Vuescan since last century (!) and I like to clear up some confusion on the different file formats discussed.

 

Scanning with Vuescan in Raw means that you capture all what the scanner can deliver (max 3 x 16 bit plus an infrared channel 16 bits, if available in the scanner) this format captures everything and adjusts nothing.

 

Next stage in Vuescan is to adjust the raw data with respect to the scanner profile and the working space you desire (typically Adobe RGB). Both those steps is what you do when you press SCAN. When the scan is finished the above adjustments have been accomplished and you can see the picture (the raw file in itself is very, very dark as it is in another colour space). As you probably noticed, the scan took a while, so you don't want to do that again - therefore save the RAW file as your original, particularly if you also where able to capture the infrared channel.

 

Next step is to adjust the picture to your liking - brightness, contrast, etc.. Film transparency is different for infrared, which is why the IR channel can be used to minimize effects on dust and scratches. The routine included in Vuescan for doing just that is very good (and probably one of the few, if not the only one, also working with Kodachrome).

 

Having done all that - picture to your liking, dust and scratches removed - it is time to save the picture. Now you can do that in TIFF (except the IR channel, which makes no sense outside Vuescan). The TIFF file saves everything of the picture you have adjusted as above - 3 x 16 bits.

 

This is the file you put in to Photoshop or Picture Window or your favorite editor for final adjustments - crop, size, sharpening, etc..

 

What about DNG ? Instead of the TIFF output from Vuescan, you can output it in DNG format, which probably (sorry that I'm unclear here) includes the RAW file together with your adjustments. I does not give you any extra quality - your previous RAW file has it all, and your TIFF-file has the RAW colour channels as adjusted by you, in a colour space that is your wanted one (typically Adobe RGB).

 

(What I would like is that a DNG from Vuescan can be read by C1 4, because the adjustment user interface is so much simpler to use in C1 4. That is not the case yet.)

 

more clear ....?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using Vuescan since last century (!) and I like to clear up some confusion on the different file formats discussed.

 

Scanning with Vuescan in Raw means that you capture all what the scanner can deliver (max 3 x 16 bit plus an infrared channel 16 bits, if available in the scanner) this format captures everything and adjusts nothing.

 

.......

 

Next step is to adjust the picture to your liking - brightness, contrast, etc.. Film transparency is different for infrared, which is why the IR channel can be used to minimize effects on dust and scratches. The routine included in Vuescan for doing just that is very good (and probably one of the few, if not the only one, also working with Kodachrome).

 

Having done all that - picture to your liking, dust and scratches removed - it is time to save the picture. Now you can do that in TIFF (except the IR channel, which makes no sense outside Vuescan). The TIFF file saves everything of the picture you have adjusted as above - 3 x 16 bits.

 

This is the file you put in to Photoshop or Picture Window or your favorite editor for final adjustments - crop, size, sharpening, etc..

 

What about DNG ? Instead of the TIFF output from Vuescan, you can output it in DNG format, which probably (sorry that I'm unclear here) includes the RAW file together with your adjustments. I does not give you any extra quality - your previous RAW file has it all, and your TIFF-file has the RAW colour channels as adjusted by you, in a colour space that is your wanted one (typically Adobe RGB).

 

(What I would like is that a DNG from Vuescan can be read by C1 4, because the adjustment user interface is so much simpler to use in C1 4. That is not the case yet.)

 

more clear ....?

 

Lars, I guess my question prompted you to reply in depth for which I am very grateful.

 

My digitally captured raw files are processed to my satisfaction in Lightroom. I normally do not route film scanned files through LR but direct to Photoshop CS2.

 

For film I use Nikon Coolscan 5000 and 9000 film scanners operated with Nikon software. However I would like to know whether using Vuescan instead of Nikon software in Raw mode would offer any significant quality improvements in the ultimate production of TIFF files compared with using my method. A tough call unless you or any member has done comparative trials.

 

All views welcome. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...