DNG and TIFF File Sizes and Color Quality

[nvw]

I have started to compare DNG and TIF images to see which I prefer working with. My unscientific approach tells me that the colors are a little more vivid with DNG. What surprised me was that the TIF images are twice the size of DNG. Could this be because the TIF has more information stored and thus allowing for more flexibility during post?

[digitaldog]

DNG is useful for storing raw data. If you've got rendered data, might as well stick to TIFF (which is a cousin of DNG).
With rendered data, a DNG that has this embedded inside it and a TIFF should appear the same (unless you've got some processing instructions within the DNG that is being applied to the preview).

[nvw]

I have not found a reason to replace/store my RAW files with DNG so from that perspective there's no point in creating DNGs. If I understand the second point, since the output will have rendered data, I should stick with TIF. Is this because the TIF file stores more information?
 

[geezerhood]

I have not found a reason to replace/store my RAW files with DNG so from that perspective there's no point in creating DNGs. If I understand the second point, since the output will have rendered data, I should stick with TIF. Is this because the TIF file stores more information?
 

I am fairly new to all this, having just started shooting raw on a Nikon D800 last year, so take what I say with that in mind.  I am guessing what I am about to type will probably make me look pretty ignorant on the topic, but here goes.

My understanding is that they are BOTH loss-less formats so you won't lose any image data with either one.  You will lose some RAW only info of course, but you probably knew that already.  As for replacing my RAW files? That isn't something I am willing to do as I want to keep the information that was stored in the RAW. A RAW file loaded into C1Pro or DXO takes less effort to process than loading a TIF or DNG from the same raw.

If I wanted or needed to reduce the size of my stored images or wanted an archive of processed images, and was OK with losing the RAW data, I would PROBABLY choose DNG since it is substantially smaller than the TIF and I can generate a TIF from the DNG if the need arises, such sending it to someone who requires a TIF (One of my printing guys only wants TIFs).

As to "how" the DNG is smaller than the TIF I guess Adobe knows that answer. I think it was engineered from the get-go to basically equal a TIF but in a smaller footprint with the intent of creating some kind of new universal open format.  I recall that some camera makers chose DNG as their native format rather than a proprietary RAW, which makes me think it must be a pretty decent file format. 

[BobShaw]

My understanding is -

DNG or Digital Negative is an Adobe standard raw file, which is made from a camera raw file but does not include a lot of the proprietary features of the camera. Hence the camera manufacturers won't use it. It is not an image as such as it is just raw data. No colour space, white balance or any of those things. You can't print from it or view it without a raw converter. If you see more colours in the DNG it is because your editor has added them for viewing. There will be 12 bits (consumer range) or 14 bits (most Canon Nikon FF) or 16 bits (most Medium format) per colour depending on the camera.

TIF is an edited output file. You may not have intentionally edited it but the program you used did using it's default setting or you may have adjusted it to your heart's content. It is a 16 bit ( or 8 bit if you saved it that way) per colour file. So in most cases it would be bigger because there are more bits per colour. You can print from it as it's a standard.