interesting. I shot a series of jpegs and TIF's to compare filesizes.. you know how people often say "this setting gives this filesize blah, blah, blah.." Now as we ALL know filesize is dependant on the level of detail in the image, I thought I'd do a test, so I made an exposure some 8 stops overexposed, then one of a blank grey card then one 9 stops underexposed.. in all cases the lens was held close to the subject but set to infinity to blur the target and ensure a smooth tone. Camera - Sony f717 the results: All TIF's were 14,403Kb (or 14Mb) in size. the white jpeg was 99kb the black jpeg was 914kb the grey jpeg was 144kb interestingly the TIF took about 12 times longer to write to the card (as a guestimate), and it also wrote a Jpeg to the card at the same time.. The TIF file jpegs were: 1,512Kb for the grey image, 1,387Kb for the black and 97Kb for the white image. Strange that the TIF format's grey jpeg was bigger than the black one, but the file shot as a JPEG straight up was smaller.. All the grey images showed the same amount of noise give or take a bit but there was a distinct green tinge to the TIF, not noticable in either the TIF's small jpeg file, nor in the JPEG file shot as a JPEG. All were exactly the same size in pixels, so all would print the same size. Now while this is a dramatic difference in file size, I'd really like to get a good black and white crosshatched target and shoot that to compare both the details and the file sizes between the JPEG format and the TIF format. karl
