Agent M10 Posted January 14, 2008 Share #1 Posted January 14, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 14, 2008 Posted January 14, 2008 Hi Agent M10, Take a look here Scanning: Tiff v. Raw. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tllabron Posted January 14, 2008 Share #2 Posted January 14, 2008 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 More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 15, 2008 Share #3 Posted January 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
hdg Posted January 15, 2008 Share #4 Posted January 15, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 15, 2008 Author Share #5 Posted January 15, 2008 So you think it's better to scan in Raw and then take it to Lightroom instead of scanning in TIFF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 16, 2008 Share #6 Posted January 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share #7 Posted January 16, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Andy, thanks for the input. Sometimes it seems that this digital stuff is just way over the top, doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 16, 2008 Share #8 Posted January 16, 2008 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
charlesphoto99 Posted January 16, 2008 Share #9 Posted January 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted January 16, 2008 Share #10 Posted January 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
wda Posted January 16, 2008 Share #11 Posted January 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 16, 2008 Share #12 Posted January 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 16, 2008 Share #13 Posted January 16, 2008 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. Maybe - I haven't done this either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jansson Posted January 16, 2008 Share #14 Posted January 16, 2008 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 More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 16, 2008 Share #15 Posted January 16, 2008 Vuescan RAW files open with ACR, just like any other RAW file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wda Posted January 17, 2008 Share #16 Posted January 17, 2008 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 More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted January 17, 2008 Share #17 Posted January 17, 2008 David I guess this is the salient point Lars amkes...."and your TIFF-file has the RAW colour channels ..... in a colour space that is your wanted one" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share #18 Posted January 19, 2008 Andy, I'm scanning Tiff and Raw at the same time using Vuescan on a Nikon 9000 and the files are the same size. Are you scanning both at the same time? I'm trying to think of what is accounting for the difference in file sizes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted January 19, 2008 Share #19 Posted January 19, 2008 My tiff/raw files were scanned at the same time. Coolscan V Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent M10 Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share #20 Posted January 21, 2008 Andy (or anyone else for that matter), we just did our first batch of scanning Tiff and Raw with Vuescan. In Adobe Lightroom, the raw files are coming up as negatives (we used the convert to dng feature). Got any tips? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.