TIFF vs DNG
Pcurtis
Registered since 19th Nov 2015
Wed 10-Feb-16 08:41 PM
Which is the best to convert the .nef files into, TIFF or DNG. I have some files taken a year ago and Adobe Bridge does not recognize them but then I have recent files that Bridge does recognize. Both taken with the same camera (D7100). From what I understand is that DNG is an Adobe format and TIFF is more of an industry standard.
|
-
#1. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 0
Montereyman Registered since 18th Feb 2013Wed 10-Feb-16 08:44 PMTIFF without a doubt. TIFF is a public domain file format whereas DNG is proprietary to Adobe. My lab will take TIFF, PSD, and JPEG format files but not DNG. Print shops can work with TIFF but not DNG.
With TIFF you can preserve layers as with PSD and file size ends up to be about the same so no loss unless working with smart objects.Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#2. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 0
aolander Nikonian since 15th Sep 2006Wed 10-Feb-16 08:53 PMDNG is another raw format so if you want the most flexibility, covert to DNG. You can convert DNG to TIFF, JPEG, PSD, just like with NEF. Non-destructive editing goes for DNG, too. Not sure why Bridge won't recognize some of your files, though.Alan
-
#4. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 0
Ferguson
Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004
Thu 11-Feb-16 12:33 PM
>Which is the best to convert the .nef files into, TIFF or
>DNG. I have some files taken a year ago and Adobe Bridge does
>not recognize them but then I have recent files that Bridge
>does recognize. Both taken with the same camera (D7100). From
>what I understand is that DNG is an Adobe format and TIFF is
>more of an industry standard.
I think the first question is to find out why it won't work. Perhaps you have an old version of Bridge? Upgrading may fix that so you can use Bridge or other Adobe programs. If you don't want to update, the DNG converter is free and is an option, and then you may be able to edit the DNG's in your editor of choice.
You can also convert to TIF with the Nikon software ViewNX-I, ViewNX2, or the (not free) various Capture programs. If you use the Nikon programs the picture control information from the camera will be used in the conversion to TIFF.
While there are some technical issues with saying this perhaps, think of TIFF as an already converted (demosiac'd, white balance applied, etc.) format, and DNG as still a raw format. If your plan is to convert them to do more editing, DNG may be better than TIFF, and 16 bit TIF is better than 8 bit TIFF.
But.. I'll come back to my original comment -- you should probably find out why you can't process the NEF's and address that if you can. While some may argue otherwise, especially if you use Lightroom or any non-destructive editor (including Bridge without Photoshop), there's not necessarily an advantage to converting first, and may be some disadvantages.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
>DNG. I have some files taken a year ago and Adobe Bridge does
>not recognize them but then I have recent files that Bridge
>does recognize. Both taken with the same camera (D7100). From
>what I understand is that DNG is an Adobe format and TIFF is
>more of an industry standard.
I think the first question is to find out why it won't work. Perhaps you have an old version of Bridge? Upgrading may fix that so you can use Bridge or other Adobe programs. If you don't want to update, the DNG converter is free and is an option, and then you may be able to edit the DNG's in your editor of choice.
You can also convert to TIF with the Nikon software ViewNX-I, ViewNX2, or the (not free) various Capture programs. If you use the Nikon programs the picture control information from the camera will be used in the conversion to TIFF.
While there are some technical issues with saying this perhaps, think of TIFF as an already converted (demosiac'd, white balance applied, etc.) format, and DNG as still a raw format. If your plan is to convert them to do more editing, DNG may be better than TIFF, and 16 bit TIF is better than 8 bit TIFF.
But.. I'll come back to my original comment -- you should probably find out why you can't process the NEF's and address that if you can. While some may argue otherwise, especially if you use Lightroom or any non-destructive editor (including Bridge without Photoshop), there's not necessarily an advantage to converting first, and may be some disadvantages.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
#5. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 0
walkerr
Registered since 05th May 2002
Thu 11-Feb-16 12:42 PM
One thing that hasn't been discussed is why you are wanting to convert the files. I wouldn't bother converting NEFs into DNGs unless you had a really specific reason (more aggressive compression, having edits within one file). If you're wanting to do subsequent editing, I would use a 16-bit tiff. If you're wanting to send it to someone else for printing or viewing, I'd use a jpeg.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#6. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 5
Pcurtis Registered since 19th Nov 2015Thu 11-Feb-16 01:30 PMMy Bridge and Photoshop are up to date as well as the camera raw. The photos I'm having trouble with are the first two hundred maybe that I took when I first got my D7100 a year ago. From what I recall they worked just fine in Photoshop 6. I've been going back and forth with someone at Adobe and just sent him one of the files to take a look at. I'll update when I hear from him if he finds the problem.-
#7. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 6
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 11-Feb-16 01:32 PM>My Bridge and Photoshop are up to date as well as the camera
>raw. The photos I'm having trouble with are the first two
>hundred maybe that I took when I first got my D7100 a year
>ago. From what I recall they worked just fine in Photoshop 6.
>I've been going back and forth with someone at Adobe and just
>sent him one of the files to take a look at. I'll update when
>I hear from him if he finds the problem.
If they worked with photoshop before they should work now, so it will be interesting what he says.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#8. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 7
Pcurtis Registered since 19th Nov 2015Thu 11-Feb-16 01:39 PMIt will be interesting.
Now from what I've read above correct me if I'm wrong but I don't really need to convert them to process in Photoshop? I've been trying to learn this on my own so I guess I need to do some more reading on post processing.-
#9. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 8
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 11-Feb-16 02:01 PM>It will be interesting.
>Now from what I've read above correct me if I'm wrong but I
>don't really need to convert them to process in Photoshop?
>I've been trying to learn this on my own so I guess I need to
>do some more reading on post processing.
Photoshop uses ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) to convert from NEF to something else internally which feeds Photoshop. So if you open a NEF in Photoshop, it first calls ACR (and in a normal setup gives you the ACR prompt). How it converts is set there (there's a line at the bottom if I recall for selecting 8 vs 16 bits, etc.).
So in a loose sense Photoshop opens NEF's directly, but does it cooperatively with its own copy of ACR (you do not have to install it separately, though you can install updates separately to make it compatible with new cameras).
Once in photoshop it is no longer editing the raw NEF, and when you save it, you will have to pick a format (TIFF 16 bit is probably the best if you plan subsequent edits, JPG if you want to display on the web but not further edit, or more normally both - one for your records (TIFF) and one for display (JPG)).
If you have Lightroom (if you subscribe to Photoshop you do), you can edit the NEF with Lightroom without ever going to TIFF, it does a "non-destructive" edit which means it remembers and applies your changes each time you go into it. You can then export a JPG for web display, and the NEF plus your remembered edits become the thing saved (as opposed to a TIFF).
If you use Lightroom and Photoshop together, Lightroom passes off the file through ACR to Photoshop relatively transparently, and then receives back and catalogs a TIFF as the edited file from Photoshop.
Confused ? If you aren't using Lightroom ignore all that part.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
-
-
-
#11. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 5
NRVVA
Nikonian since 30th Jan 2013
Mon 15-Feb-16 04:12 PM | edited Mon 15-Feb-16 04:13 PM by NRVVA
Rick,
I don't understand your suggestion to convert NEF's to 16 bit TIFF's, "If you are wanting to do subsequent editing..." I though all images in a LR catalog were capable of subsequent editing with no degradation of the original image.
I import RAW into LR, then have been converting to DNG, probably just because Kelby's book suggested it, primarily to retain an Adobe format in case things change in the future. "Finished images" are sent to my desktop as jpegs for sending to others or posting on-line. The original imported files remain in my LR catalog.
What am I not understanding about your suggestion regarding TIFF's?
Thanks.
Steve
I don't understand your suggestion to convert NEF's to 16 bit TIFF's, "If you are wanting to do subsequent editing..." I though all images in a LR catalog were capable of subsequent editing with no degradation of the original image.
I import RAW into LR, then have been converting to DNG, probably just because Kelby's book suggested it, primarily to retain an Adobe format in case things change in the future. "Finished images" are sent to my desktop as jpegs for sending to others or posting on-line. The original imported files remain in my LR catalog.
What am I not understanding about your suggestion regarding TIFF's?
Thanks.
Steve
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#12. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 11
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Mon 15-Feb-16 06:15 PMI suspect we're talking past each other, but you can't edit an image with the typical Photoshop adjustment layers or complex cloning and save the results in a DNG format. You'll need to use either a TIFF or PSD format. You could also use a jpeg, but you're limiting yourself with future edits. If you're never pushing stuff to Photoshop, you can stay in a raw format.
Personally, I think DNGs are handy when you need radical compression or resizing and you want to preserve some raw-editing ability, but the future-proofing argument is overblown.Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
#10. "RE: TIFF vs DNG" | In response to Reply # 0
I used to use DNG extensively before I updated to CC. As I couldn't afford to always update the Photoshop programmes I used to be left with unreadable NEF's when I bought a new camera. I either used Capture NX2 to see NEF's or convert them to DNG so they were readable in both Lightroom and Photoshop. With CC those days are over as CC updates to meet the reading of new camera NEF's. When I want to print I always save the file as a TIFF so to retain all the information as would be contained as a PSD.
Richard
Richard
G
Upload images
6
Uploading and including images in forums available to members on Silver membership level or higher. Please upgrade to take full advantage.