TIFF output from Silverfast vs TIFF Prep Scan VS Raw DNG

Hi guys!

Curious about the differences in outputs and quality between TIFF, DNG, and then Tiff but using Tiff Prep in LR.

Nate added support for DNG files obviously so is it worth it to even prepare output in TIFF? What’s the advantage to either?

I am kind of lost on what the tiff prep scan does…If use tiff prep scan it creates my new images in a new folder. Before NLP they look very different, the new ones are super bright and white, the old look more like film. After NLP they almost always look the same with the newer ones a bit more pink and worse colors.

Any help understanding would be appreciated.

1 Like

My experience is similar. I am exporting Silverfast positive TIFFs at gamma 2.2 with no ICC profile embedded. I find they look better when converted as is, than when I use the TIFF prep function. Maybe the TIFF prep function is only necessary when you are working with gamma 1.0 files?

I do find the raw DNG files convert better, but unfortunately I often need to make use of iSRD dust removal prior to editing.

After reading Nates post about this when he added DNG support I think you’re right. Tiff output from silver fast with a gamma of 2.2, no prep AND no white balance dropper seems to be better colors than DNG, Tiff Prep, or classic WB dropper.

Maybe older silverfast was only allowing 1.0 gamma and then the difference was more stark.