Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Fuji Forum | Join Upload & Sell

1 2

4 end

Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

curious80
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Sauseschritt wrote:
You change anything, ANYTHING, the TIFF already has these changes applied - resulting in a loss of information.

Sure, did I claim anywhere that TIFF doesn't result in loss of information? Did you actually read the posts?

May 13, 2022 at 09:13 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

I go away for a few days and return to find that there is an incredibly heated and angry fight over...

... saving files in TIFF format.

Good lord. Photo forums.

May 13, 2022 at 09:21 AM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

I'm a jpeg swilling menace to photographic society.

Bad, perhaps a sinner man, even

I'm gonna go shoot my Rebel, maybe even in *gasp* jpeg.

May 13, 2022 at 12:20 PM

rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

AmbientMike wrote:
I'm a jpeg swilling menace to photographic society.

Bad, perhaps a sinner man, even

I'm gonna go shoot my Rebel, maybe even in *gasp* jpeg.

I don't shoot JPEG or TIFF on my 50R, but I have to say that Fuji makes a damned good JPEG!

Fun fact: one of the things that Fuji can do in camera for JPEG and TIFF that I cannot replicate for love or money with any software in post is remove almost all of the aliasing that my 50R is quite prone to. I find this quite annoying because, clearly, if Fuji can do it in camera, then it can be done. I wish they'd share the secret sauce with Adobe. And Capture One enthusiasts, I also compared Capture One (albeit version 12); it wasn't any better at getting rid of aliasing than Adobe.

May 13, 2022 at 12:29 PM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

rdeloe wrote:
I don't shoot JPEG or TIFF on my 50R, but I have to say that Fuji makes a damned good JPEG!

I'm pretty sure the RAW, jpegs, and tiff are all excellent on that camera. I don't think I ever said that the files were inadequate at all.

May 13, 2022 at 01:39 PM

rdeloe
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

AmbientMike wrote:
I'm pretty sure the RAW, jpegs, and tiff are all excellent on that camera. I don't think I ever said that the files were inadequate at all.

Mike, I didn't think you did either. I was simply saying that Fuji's in-camera RAW development is excellent.

I wouldn't use a 50R to shoot anything but RAF, but so what? I don't use GF lenses on mine, so that already makes my opinion suspect.

May 13, 2022 at 03:12 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

curious80 wrote:
While I understand your point I don't think it is capturing the entire story here. Yes I agree that TIFF would be less flexible than the RAW because if some value gets mapped to 16383 or 0 due to the processing steps then it is no longer recoverable. However there will be many values which would have been mapped to 255 in an 8-bit file but don't get mapped to 16383 in a 14-bit file and are instead mapped to say 16382 or 16381, 16380 etc. Lets say after the application of a tone curve your 14-bit file had values...Show more →

I just tried, by using x raw studio to export two identical images with partially blown highlights. One JPG and one 16 bit TIFF. The result when I try to recover them is exactly the same: looks like crap. No difference what so ever.
But, with the raw, no problem at all and it looks great.

So, you gain absolutely no latitude with TIFF since zero is still zero and "blown" is still "blown". It's just a matter of how many steps there is in between those extremes. What you do end up with is a +300 meg file instead of ~50. I really don't see the point.

---------

Personally I always shoot raw + JPG, and I often only use the JPG. I even occasionally do some light editing of JPG's. But for anything that requires more severe work, raw is of course the way to go. And if you are gonna edit, why on earth choose TIFF instead of RAF? If you like the look of the in-camera conversion, use x raw studio.

May 13, 2022 at 03:26 PM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

rdeloe wrote:
Mike, I didn't think you did either. I was simply saying that Fuji's in-camera RAW development is excellent.

I wouldn't use a 50R to shoot anything but RAF, but so what? I don't use GF lenses on mine, so that already makes my opinion suspect.

It looks like a really artistic camera. I might not be too concerned with the tech spec stuff

I'd probably be adapting lenses, if I got one, too. Although the native glass looks excellent. Even if the alts didn't cover, 30mp ff still pretty high quality

May 13, 2022 at 04:32 PM

curious80
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
I just tried, by using x raw studio to export two identical images with partially blown highlights. One JPG and one 16 bit TIFF. The result when I try to recover them is exactly the same: looks like crap. No difference what so ever.
But, with the raw, no problem at all and it looks great.

So, you gain absolutely no latitude with TIFF since zero is still zero and "blown" is still "blown". It's just a matter of how many steps there is in between those extremes. What you do end up with is a +300 meg file instead...Show more →

Thanks for trying it out and sharing the findings. This is contrary to what I would expect but since you have tried it so I won't dispute it. I will see if I also get a chance to do some experiments.

---------

Personally I always shoot raw + JPG, and I often only use the JPG. I even occasionally do some light editing of JPG's. But for anything that requires more severe work, raw is of course the way to go. And if you are gonna edit, why on earth choose TIFF instead of RAF? If you like the look of the in-camera conversion, use x raw studio.

Yes I have also been shooting raw + jpeg and at times edit jpegs directly and other times switch to raw if more extensive editing it needed. However if I have say 60-70 photographs from a series then on a per photo basis switching between raw and jpeg is painful, and also makes the catalog management difficult and takes more time to keep a consistent look across the jpeg vs raw version. As for X-Raw studio, it doesn't really have much editing tools, if I export through x-raw and edit in lightroom then im back to editing the jpegs. And it requires the camera to be attached, which is just not practical for me while im editing

May 13, 2022 at 05:28 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
I just tried, by using x raw studio to export two identical images with partially blown highlights. One JPG and one 16 bit TIFF. The result when I try to recover them is exactly the same: looks like crap. No difference what so ever.
But, with the raw, no problem at all and it looks great.

So, you gain absolutely no latitude with TIFF since zero is still zero and "blown" is still "blown". It's just a matter of how many steps there is in between those extremes. What you do end up with is a +300 meg file instead...Show more →

Don't blow your highlights. If I had to make that level of correction, I'd certainly work with the RAF, but it's not something I commonly deal with. I tend to underexpose by about half a stop.

Anyway, you're not choosing RAF or TIFF. The RAF is still there. If I decide I like the shot but want greater latitude in processing, I can discard the TIFF and work from the RAF.

May 13, 2022 at 09:54 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

gdanmitchell wrote:
I go away for a few days and return to find that there is an incredibly heated and angry fight over...

... saving files in TIFF format.

Good lord. Photo forums.

I had no idea it'd be this controversial. Maybe no one works with TIFFs when they print anymore.

Anyway, I'm still fairly new to the camera and I may get over my fascination with their film emulations. I really can't say. I guess I'll just be satisfied with giving everyone a place to beat their chest over their superior choices.

May 14, 2022 at 12:14 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

freaklikeme wrote:
Don't blow your highlights. If I had to make that level of correction, I'd certainly work with the RAF, but it's not something I commonly deal with. I tend to underexpose by about half a stop.

Thing is, you are already underexposing ~1 stop when you think exposure is optimal (ETTR), that is used for extra latitude in the RAF file. But you can only recover it from the RAF, not from TIFF or JPG that has a lower clipping threshold.

Anyway, you're not choosing RAF or TIFF. The RAF is still there. If I decide I like the shot but want greater latitude in processing, I can discard the TIFF and work from the RAF.

But why use TIFF instead of raw + JPG if you're not gonna do heavy processing other than occasionally? Still don't understand.

May 14, 2022 at 03:04 AM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
Thing is, you are already underexposing ~1 stop when you think exposure is optimal (ETTR), that is used for extra latitude in the RAF file. But you can only recover it from the RAF, not from TIFF or JPG that has a lower clipping threshold.

If I follow that logic, then it would make the most sense to get the exposure right in the EVF and let the camera make the TIFF because it will look properly exposed, where the RAF will be underexposed by a stop. Is that what you're saying?

Makten wrote:
But why use TIFF instead of raw + JPG if you're not gonna do heavy processing other than occasionally? Still don't understand.

Because it's going to be a TIFF if it makes it to print. It may as well start that way if I liked what I saw in the camera. I don't understand why you'd want it to make a JPEG of every shot. That actually has an impact on the speed of the processing chain while you're shooting.

May 14, 2022 at 04:03 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

freaklikeme wrote:
If I follow that logic, then it would make the most sense to get the exposure right in the EVF and let the camera make the TIFF because it will look properly exposed, where the RAF will be underexposed by a stop. Is that what you're saying?

No, I mean that there is latitude outside the histogram, but it can only be recovered using the RAF. When the camera saves the image as JPG or TIFF, it's clipped and gone forever.

Because it's going to be a TIFF if it makes it to print. It may as well start that way if I liked what I saw in the camera.
Sure, but you get huge files for very little reason. You were asking if it makes sense, and IMO it doesn't.

I don't understand why you'd want it to make a JPEG of every shot. That actually has an impact on the speed of the processing chain while you're shooting.
Because if I don't feel the need to process the image, JPG is fine. I then delete the RAF and save a lot of disc space. If I need to process the file a bit more than minimal, I use the RAF and delete the JPG.

It has no impact on the speed, at least not for me. I never use continuous shutter and unless "clarity" is used, I can instantly take how many photos I want in a row.

May 14, 2022 at 09:07 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

freaklikeme wrote:
I had no idea it'd be this controversial. Maybe no one works with TIFFs when they print anymore.

Anyway, I'm still fairly new to the camera and I may get over my fascination with their film emulations. I really can't say. I guess I'll just be satisfied with giving everyone a place to beat their chest over their superior choices.

My guess is that most people who work with TIFF files (I no longer do) are converting raw files to TIFF so that they can import the TIFF into a post-processing environment. This can make sense in some cases, since TIFF is a file format that will hold the full range of post-conversion image data.

TIFF has the additional plus of being a platform and software agnostic file format, unlike the photoshop format.

Printing from TIFF is, I think, much less common these days and often unnecessary. (Despite that, you'll still encounter clients, etc. who will ask for a TIFF file. This is, in my view, often more out of habit than necessity.)

Regarding the previous paragraph — holding the full range of image data from the original image can be important during the post-processing stage. When you alter image files there you lose the accuracy of the least significant bit, so having "extra" data in the file helps put off the point at which you end up with various kinds of artifacts after really significant processing. In short: You may benefit from a lot of extra bits during post-processing, but once you are done post-processing you no longer need them in the same way.

Regarding the film emulations, I'm no expert. I don't use them. I prefer to work with the raw file data, do significant processing in ACR, and then more in Photoshop. (That's my workflow, but I realize that others may prefer a different process.) But if I recall correctly, during the raw conversion process Adobe products — and perhaps some others? — will recognize the image file modifications of the film emulations and apply them.

For what it is worth, the idea that I would want my digitally captured files to look like specific film types is unattractive. I get the nostalgia for the "look" of various old (and in some cases obsolete) film types and their image reproduction inaccuracies. But I'd rather use the power of post-processing to create whatever look I have in mind without reference to old films stocks.

I realize that is pretty meaningless to those who like to emulate old films. YMMV.

Bottom line: I'm not seeing much if any advantage of generating TIFF files as the camera output. Raw from the camera, proprietary in post if you use Adobe. Raw from camera then TIFF in post in some cases with other software.

Dan

May 14, 2022 at 09:55 AM

AmbientMike
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

I think the op should use tiffs. He seems to like them better. If he's getting a film or other look he likes just use that. Idk if you can get the same in pp or not, and if you can get the image you like no real reason to bother shooting raw and accompanying post.

His reasons sound similar to my reasons for using DPP on Canon

May 14, 2022 at 11:52 AM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

The TIFF/JPG files out of camera look slightly different from "the same" settnings in C1, but I don't know about Adobe. Especially the chrome effect is really nice and not easy (if even possible) to replicate using C1.

I don't understand why Fujifilm refer to actual films, because most of the simulations look nothing like film, and even less so the ones they use the names of. To me it's more about getting a "non digital look". Organic, or whatever you want to call it. I have zero interest in accuracy; I want my images to look nice.
Unfortunately, I don't like most of the simulations. They are either way too saturated in the highlights, and/or too green.

May 14, 2022 at 12:06 PM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
The TIFF/JPG files out of camera look slightly different from "the same" settnings in C1, but I don't know about Adobe. Especially the chrome effect is really nice and not easy (if even possible) to replicate using C1.

I don't understand why Fujifilm refer to actual films, because most of the simulations look nothing like film, and even less so the ones they use the names of. To me it's more about getting a "non digital look". Organic, or whatever you want to call it. I have zero interest in accuracy; I want my images to look nice.
Unfortunately, I...Show more →

First, like you, my preference is not to use canned preset simulations, at least not as a general rule. (I could see using them for some quick and dirty work where I don't necessary want to tweak things to my precise preferences.) I'd rather apply my own adjustments to images, and I'd rather to it in post based on the full image data of the raw file. (And, yes, I get it that not everyone feels this way.)

So...

Since I don't use the simulations, I had to look this up. But at least with the Fujifilm APS-C cameras, Adobe DOES supply the simulations in ACR. If I open one of my XPro2 files in ACR, and double-click it to open the raw editor, and look just to the right of the "Profile" popup, there is a little icon that is a matrix of four squares. Click it.

This opens a list of preset raw file conversion settings. Choose the "camera matching" set from the list and you can see and try out ALL of the available simulations right in ACR. I see:

ASTIA/Soft
CLASSIC CHROME
Pro Neg Hi
Pro Neg Std
PROVIA/Std
Velvia/Vivid
ACROS
ACROS+G
ACROS+R
ACROS+Ye
Monochrome
Monochrome+G
Monochrome+R
Monochrome+Ye

In addition to the Fujifilm presets, you will will also find a plethora of Adobe-provided presets.

(Someone with one of the GFX cameras could easily try this and report on what simulations are available.)

This is extremely flexible. You shoot the generic raw format. Then you can mouse over all of the simulations to preview the effect. Then you can select any one of them and it will be applied immediately to your raw conversion. Or you can just go back and use your own settings.

One important thing to keep in mind. The original image data (essentially photo site data) always begins as raw. Even if you do an in-camera jpg (and, I presume, film simulation or TIFF conversion) the image data starts as raw. Any additional "hard" conversion of these data will depart from and, by definition (except perhaps with TIFF?) lose data from the original file.

By bringing the raw file data into your post-processing workflow and THEN making changes (whether by applying presets or making manual adjustments) you maintain the maximum quality of the original image data.

Bottom line: It does not appear that you forego access to the simulations if you use raw.

Dan

PS: The second post in this thread — the first reply to the OP — had it right in basically every way.

May 14, 2022 at 04:13 PM

freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

Makten wrote:
No, I mean that there is latitude outside the histogram, but it can only be recovered using the RAF. When the camera saves the image as JPG or TIFF, it's clipped and gone forever.

Okay, I agree with that, but if the process itself is causing clipping, then that would be obvious in the viewfinder. With modern sensors, I expose to get the shadows and darker tones where I want them, knowing that I'll have plenty of room to bring up the mid and high tones in post. The TIFFs are proving to be just as flexible as the RAF for that purpose.

Makten wrote:
Sure, but you get huge files for very little reason. You were asking if it makes sense, and IMO it doesn't.

Did I? I remember making a statement about how I'm using my camera and asking how others how they're using theirs. I have no problem with the criticism, but I had no idea people were so invested in how I use my camera.

Makten wrote:
It has no impact on the speed, at least not for me. I never use continuous shutter and unless "clarity" is used, I can instantly take how many photos I want in a row.

Sounds like it works for you, then.

May 14, 2022 at 04:34 PM

Makten
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Fuji GXF 50sII- RAW or 16-bit Tiff?

gdanmitchell wrote:
First, like you, my preference is not to use canned preset simulations, at least not as a general rule. (I could see using them for some quick and dirty work where I don't necessary want to tweak things to my precise preferences.) I'd rather apply my own adjustments to images, and I'd rather to it in post based on the full image data of the raw file. (And, yes, I get it that not everyone feels this way.)

So...

Since I don't use the simulations, I had to look this up. But at least with the Fujifilm APS-C cameras, Adobe DOES supply...Show more →

The problem is, the simulations you apply in C1 don't look exactly the same as the JPG out of the camera. It's close of course, but not the same.

May 14, 2022 at 04:54 PM

1 2 3 4 end
FM Forums \| Fuji Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 end