AtomicSnipe :
I didn't get all the term's you used. But from what I understand, I should convert to RAW to TIFF in order to have the least compression if I want to edit a picture. Is that what you meant?
It depends on which workflow you'd like to adopt. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Shooting straight JPEG is the least flexible, but is the quickest and takes the least amount of storage space.
RAW is the most flexible and takes the second-least amount of storage space. But it takes the longest.
RAW to an intermediate TIFF to a JPEG is more flexible than JPEG, less flexible than RAW, and takes the most storage space. It's quicker than RAW if you only do a single edit, but can be slower if you go back to do multiple re-edits on that photo. I also found it confusing to keep track of what the difference is in the dozen different TIFFs of the same photo, especially if you come back to it after a couple years when a client requests a reprint. But certain types of editing can't be done in a photo processing program like Lightroom, so you have to convert to TIFF to be able to edit it in Photoshop.
And to clarify, JPEG is lossy. The image that's saved is not exactly the same as the image in your editing program. Repeatedly loading, editing, and saving a JPEG will eventually result in it turning into mush, as the tiny errors build up with each save. TIFF is non-lossy. The image that's saved is exactly the same as the image in your editing program. They are safe to load, edit, and save over and over. So the intermediate edits in Photoshop or GIMP should always be saved as a TIFF (or other non-lossy format). The drawback is that non-lossy formats take a lot more storage space than a JPEG. So the
final version of a photo is usually saved as a JPEG for use on a website or to email to friends.
My camera does have a RAW + JPEG option. I think I will use that to have both Instagram-ready and editing-ready pics haha.
That's a safe way to do it. Then one day when you take a picture that you'd like to improve but find the JPEG is missing the details you want, you can go back to the RAW file and work from that.
AtomicSnipe :
Okay sorry again for the dumb question, why do pros (who I am quite sure shoot in RAW) use Photoshop and stuff instead?
Lightroom and the NX-D converter program think in terms of photos. You load a photo, you do classic photo edits on it (exposure, color adjustment, sharpness, etc), then you save it as a JPEG or TIFF for whatever its final purpose is. Most of Lightroom's editing tools adjust the entire photo at once.
Photoshop thinks in terms of pictures. It doesn't care if the image you're editing is a photo, a scan, something drawn by hand with a tablet and stylus, or a computer generated image. To Photoshop they're all just pixels on an image. Photoshop lets you manipulate those pixels. Many of Photoshop's editing tools let you modify individual pixels.
There's a lot of overlap between the two. But Lightroom will be more photo-centric (e.g. can adjust the color temperature of the photo, which Photoshop can't do because it doesn't have a concept of "as shot" and "color temperature"). Phtoshop will be more graphics artist-centric (e.g. you can draw a line with a brush tool). 98% of the stuff I do with my photos can be done in Lightroom. But occasionally I get a photo which needs some detailed touch-up work (e.g. remove distracting power lines in the background from between the strands of a model's hair). I use Photoshop for those.
Facebook
Twitter