DMR in TIFF Mode

[masjah]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can anyone comment on how well the DMR performs in 16 bit TIFF mode. Granted that the files are huge, but suppose one wanted to produce an uncompressed file without going through RAW conversion. For example, how good is the camera's white balance in this mode? (I'm not talking about the release 1.2 LCD display problems, but the actual image files.) Or, more generally, how good would unaltered results be if one were to regard the DMR as "electronic slide film" (where one has to get it right at source). Granted that this is a hypothetical question, since the whole point of digital capture is that one DOES have such manipulative corrective facilities, but I'm interested in the principle!

[peterv]

Dear John,

 

interesting question...

 

I do not own a DMR, but I worlk eveyday with my Leica D Lux 2.

A few months ago I started to use Apple's Aperture and this program does not support the RAW files that come out of my D Lux 2. This forced me to start shooting TIFF files. These files are 3 to 4 times bigger than the RAW's I used to convert in PS.

 

BUT:

 

I get fantastic results! In the past I would look at the JPG that accompanied the RAW file, and it would have the 'Leica Glow'. Nevertheless, in PS it was impossible for me to get the same look and feel from the RAW file. Now that I let my camera do the calculating my photo's look like Leica photo's again! Maybe the firmware in the D Lux 2 does a better, or more dedicated, job 'converting' than PS...?

 

Anyway, of course this does not say anything about the DMR performance, but maybe if you, or someone else can do some tests you will come to the same conclusion. I'm very pleased working in TIFF. I don't care about the discspace my TIFF's need. Gb's are not expensive nowadays. At least not in order to obtain the 'Leica Glow' I like so much.

 

I hope this was helpfull.

 

Knd Rgrds,

 

Peter

[Bob Ross]

Hi John,

Like Peter, I think this is a very good question and like him, I don't have a DMR. I hope some one with a DMR has tried this. In a way it is the "No Life Guard on Duty" approach. When we shot film and got a bad exposure, we knew we had to refine our techniques, or in other words, learn something about photography. Now, when we do something wrong, we need to learn more about RAW development and post processing.

The challenge of getting it righ to start with was part of the fun of seeing photographically. Now it is a challenge to get all the sliders in the right place on your software...:-)

Bob

[andybarton]

tiff files with a DMR are bigger than the RAW files.

 

I can't see any point in shooting tiff, when you can shoot RAW. Already I have learnt that a 2 gig card is woefully inadequate, so tiff would only make this worse.

[mgcd]

tiff files with a DMR are bigger than the RAW files.

 

I can't see any point in shooting tiff, when you can shoot RAW. Already I have learnt that a 2 gig card is woefully inadequate, so tiff would only make this worse.

 

 

Amen.

[Bob Ross]

tiff files with a DMR are bigger than the RAW files.

 

I can't see any point in shooting tiff, when you can shoot RAW. Already I have learnt that a 2 gig card is woefully inadequate, so tiff would only make this worse.

Hi Andy,

John did condition his post that he knew the files are huge (59MB I believe). Memory capacity wasn't his point, though it could be added to the reasons to "get it right the first time", in his approach proposal. Memory capacity limitations are well known to those of us who shot medium format, without an assistant to load or a dozen backs....

Your point of why bother is also valid and there is also the write times or buffer load with 59MB files. I haven't heard anyone complain about AWB and if you are going to fool with a 16bit TIFF, you have enough time to do a custom WB, completely meter the scene and compose.

Bob

[ho_co]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can anyone comment on how well the DMR performs in 16 bit TIFF mode?

John--

I think the replies indicate that you are the first to want to try!

 

Maybe when you get an answer, you can let the rest of us know!

 

But more directly: How well do you find the white balance working in RAW?

 

If I'm not mistaken, the DMR's auto white balance would be the same in both cases. In other words, in RAW the camera stores the value in the file and you can change it in post-processing if you need to. How often are you dissatisfied with the DMR's choice? I think it would choose the same white balance for TIFF as for RAW, but hard-code it in the file.

 

--HC

[hdg]

Im am using my R9+DMR since more than one year. First I made some picture in JPEG, second I did this in TIFF and at last in RAW. After checking the qualities my clear decission was further to take RAW, only. Unsing the Adobe RAW converter (first CS and now CS2) you can decide to get your pictures in 8 or 16 bit. The question is what do you realy need.

 

To your information: RAW file = 21 MB / TIFF file 8 bit = 30 MB / TIFF file 16 bit = 59 MB

 

As I am not a professional I prefer the convertion from the RAW file to TIFF / 8 bit. So I get excellent pictures printed with my Epson R 2100 up to the size A4 plus and can produce high quality diashows with Wings or Pictures to Exe (after convertion to JPEG).

 

Regards Hans

[fredrik]

Hello John, I like to quote some info from LFI 4/2005:

"when you use TIFF and JPG you only employ 80% of the tonal range." I understand that in DNG format you have no help from antialiasing filter, in JPG and TIFF you can activate the moiré filter. The article further conclude that even in DNG this problem was kept to a minimum, and easely removed in Photo Shop.

 

Have a nice day

[masjah]

Thanks everyone for your replies. My question was (at least in part) philosophical, in terms of a possible approach, and certainly hypothetical, since I don't yet have a DMR. But I am moving DMRwards. At the same time I'm moving digitalwards, since I've never ever used anything but film before. As a result, I guess I'm exploring possible "learning curves"; after all, I would be jumping straight in with the very best available, when I've never before taken a single digital image. (But I don't see the point of buying a digital camera for the sake of it, if it can't produce as good or better results than my R9 with film, so to my mind it's got to be a DMR or nothing.)

 

I guess I was exploring possibilities for getting the best quality, without jumping straight into RAW processing as a total digital novice. Does that make sense?

[andybarton]

John

 

You may as well learn your new craft on RAW files. Anything you learn using RAW is transferable to jpgs and tiffs, but you are starting with the highest possible level of information.

 

I can't see the point of learning with tiffs then moving to RAW. Jump straight in! The RAW files produced by the DMR are exceptional and don't need a great deal of processing anyway.