Should Photographers Still Use TIFF Files?

During a recent photo critique session I ran, one of the photographers brought along her images as TIFF files, something I hadn’t seen in a while, it's generally edited high quality JPEGs that are sent to me in recent years. It reminded me how much digital photography has evolved and how differently we all approach our workflows.

For years, TIFFs were the gold standard. They were the mark of a “serious” photographer — uncompressed, detailed, and perfect for print or retouching. Many of us used them by default. But in recent years, as RAW and JPEG formats have developed, that approach has quietly shifted. It’s not that TIFFs are wrong — far from it — but for most photographers today, they’re not as essential as they once were. I decided to look into the pros and cons of using TIFFs in the modern world. 

Why TIFFs Were So Important
TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) was designed for image integrity. It stores every pixel and colour tone without compression, making it ideal for preserving quality through editing and printing. If you worked with magazines, design agencies, or fine-art printers, TIFFs were the safest choice. They offered consistency and peace of mind at a time when JPEG compression could visibly degrade images.

How RAW Changed the Game
RAW files flipped that logic on its head. A RAW file contains the unprocessed data straight from your camera’s sensor, giving you full flexibility when editing. You can correct exposure, adjust white balance, and recover highlights without damaging the image. For most photographers, the RAW file has become the true master.

That’s certainly the case for me — I shoot and archive everything in RAW. When I need to share or print, I export high-quality JPEGs. If I ever need to revisit an image, I just go back to the RAW file and export it again. TIFFs don’t really feature in my everyday workflow anymore, but that’s not because they’re obsolete — it’s just that RAW now does the heavy lifting.

Where TIFF Still Shines
TIFFs do still have a place, and for some photographers, they’re essential. If you’re doing detailed retouching in Photoshop, working in 16-bit colour depth, or producing large fine-art prints, TIFF is the safest format to maintain every last bit of detail. It’s also still a trusted archival format — long-term, stable, and non-proprietary. So if a TIFF-based workflow suits you, there’s nothing wrong with that.

JPEG in the Modern World
What’s changed is how good JPEGs have become. Modern cameras and editing software produce incredibly high-quality JPEGs. Export one at 90–100% quality, and you’ll struggle to spot any difference compared to a TIFF — even in print. JPEGs are smaller, faster to work with, and accepted by every lab, platform, and device. They’re perfect for client delivery, online galleries, and everyday printing.

For many photographers, JPEGs are more than good enough — they simplify your process without sacrificing quality. The key is to keep your RAWs as masters, so you can always go back and export new JPEGs if needed.

The Balanced View
There’s no one “right” format. It’s about what fits your workflow and goals. If TIFFs give you confidence and suit your process, keep using them. But if you’ve been wondering whether you should be using TIFFs just because it feels more professional — you can relax. In 2025, a high-quality JPEG exported from a well-edited RAW file is more than capable of handling almost any professional need.

The critique night reminded me that photography workflows are deeply personal. What matters most is understanding your tools and choosing what works best for you — not what used to be standard. For me, that means shooting in RAW, exporting JPEGs, and keeping TIFFs on standby for those rare occasions when they’re truly needed.

In short: use TIFFs if they serve your purpose — but know that JPEGs are more than enough for most photographers today.