Skip to main content

⚠️ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠️

RAW vs TIF visual quality

Ravi mail.raviravikumar
I am an amateur hobbyist and am using a 645df with iq280.

My question is: Do you notice a difference in the quality of the image (tonal) after you "process" the recipe in C1, between the RAW file and the TIF (or Jpg) file?

I only have to process to TIF to send for external printing service. However, it is disturbing to see a distinct quality difference on the same monitor (profiled). I notice that the tonal quality is not as rich for the processed images.

Welcome your thoughts on:

1. you have the same experience?
2. anything i am not doing right?

thanks in advance!
0

Comments

6 comments

Date Votes
  • Keith Reeder
    How are you viewing the "Raw" in this comparison?

    A Raw file is not an image file, so you're not looking at a Raw, but - most likely - an embedded preview jpeg.

    How you're viewing it (what you're viewing it in) will be fundamental to its appearance; and as this is a jpeg preview, it will also depend on what in-camera settings have been dialed in, which will be applied to the preview jpeg.
    0
  • Andriy.Okhrimets
    You cannot export from C1 to RAW, because RAW acts like a digital negative, and remains unchanged by processing by Capture One, you ither exporting to TIFF or JPEG. And the difference that you observe is because you are comprering built in JPEG into RAW file to output using C1 profile Curves, you can adjust that by going to Color tab and changing it in Base characteristic controls. You have multiple profiles and tone curves to use, for your flexibility
    0
  • Ravi mail.raviravikumar
    Thanks Keith and Andriy.

    Here's my scenario:

    I am viewing two images on C1, at the same time on, a calibrated monitor:
    - one image is the .iiq file and the other image is the TIF processed file of the same image (processed thru C1 recipe)
    - I have tried TIF 8-bit and TIF 16-bit - the 16-bit TIF file is expectedly better, although not the same as the .iiq image

    Question is, since C1 is soft proofing for the output profile/recipe, why would I see so much tonal difference in the two images?

    Or, should I assume this is always going to be the case? ie., no other color profile will match phase one color profile in C1, for tonal quality

    Thanks for your help, in advance,

    Ravi
    0
  • SFA
    Ravi,

    Let me first say that as the user of an IQ back I hope that you have raised this question also with the Phase Support teams in order to get a definitive answer.

    Secondly I tried a small experiment using a test shot for flash exposure experiments taken a couple of days ago.

    A Canon 1D3 file which I have pushed 2 stops lighter to see what happened. Crazy possibly but it probably amplifies colour deiscrapancies so made some sort of sense to me.

    I processed the result of a few edits out to a 16bit TIFF in the AdobeRGB colour space and then compared the files side by side in Capture One.

    At my standard screen resolution and compressed to fit the screen the original RAW edit shows an ever so slightly green tinge in places when comparing the two images. I note that the TIFF White balance is set to 5000K and 0 tint, as one might expect, and the CR2 edit is 5057 and -3.9 which is "As Shot".

    If I view both files at 100% the differences seem to disappear. The only things I can pick our as some incredibly slight general differences in the darkest areas of the image which, it must be remembered, have been recovered by a 2.1 Exposure increase - so they are a bit rough and noisy. That is to be expected given the age of the camera technology.

    I was going to compare points with pinned colour readouts but for some reason the pin positions in the two images don't line up when set.

    For those pins I can place in an area of reasonably consistent looking colour the readings are very close and the offset difference for each of the four reading parameters are the same for all practical visual purposes. In other words the RGB values all move up or down together.

    It occurs to me that when viewing at anything less than 100% there are likely to be a few "factor" involved.

    The RAW file, processed in the default C1 colour space at full size, will have been compressed for display and then had the AdobeRGB adjustments applied in order to obey the Proof Profile setting (AdobeRGB for this experiment).

    The TIFF file will, presumably, in the Browser display the embedded (compressed) jpg "thumbnail" but on selection (or perhaps before) will be re-interpreted as a file produced with the AdobeRGB colour profile but being reinterpreted for display using the "Tiff File neutral" ICC profile before having the AdobeRGB Proof Profile applied (or not if C1 has already discerned that it was produced with the AdobeRGB profile embedded although I am not sure that really makes much difference here so long as it is not double profiled).

    Looking at the Histograms for both files there are some slight differences (as one might expect) but they seem to be very slight and very limited in the effect on the graphs.

    So my conclusion is that viewed at 100% the original image (processed in a large colour space but with software interpretation to Adobe RGB for the on-screen display) and the TIFF file produced with the preferences set to 16bit output and AbobeRGB are, for all practical purposes for this image and and elderly CR2 file, as near as should make no difference.

    I would not be surprised if using other files, especially something like an IQ280 file, made it easier to pick out some further slight anomalies but whether they also retain high visibility at 100% view may be the key question for practical concerns.

    However your experiences may be very different to mine even discounting the source of the RAW file so I will be interested to see what you find out.

    I should mention that this experiment was undertaken using a Dell Windows Notebook system with a high end screen but one that seems to refuse to accept the settings required by my EyeOne calibration device. However since we are talking about general colour shifts rather than absolute colour accuracy I think what it offers as it stands is valid for the test.


    HTH.



    Grant
    0
  • Boris Sheikman
    I do see a difference between the TIF and JPG files created by C1. Seems like the sharpening and highlights in the TIF are done differently in a TIF. Maybe that really is the result of the reduced color space and compression of a JPG.
    0
  • Andriy.Okhrimets
    This is definitely results of jpeg compression even if quality set to 100%. And because of color managment that implied for JPG and Tiff is quite different you see difference in quality. Thats why for high critical work I export TIFF is 16 bit, and they perfectly match my expectation/
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Didn't find what you were looking for?

New post