I have no idea what you are seeing. The two images look identical to me. And, just for your information, Lightroom opens your raw images in a 16 bit workspace, not 32-bit.
Thanks THG_BO and JimHess for taking the trouble to check this. I'm writing here a reply to both of you.
I checked it again and I think that I have a better description of the problem: it seems that when viewing an image in a scaled-down view (i.e. not 1:1 but rather 1:4, 1:8, etc.), LR applies some extra sharpening to DNG/RAW files. This makes DNG/RAW files look crisper and slightly brighter in the highlights when viewed scaled-down although they look the same at 1:1.
Here is a screen capture that was taken when the images are viewed at 1:8:
Do you notice that the DNG is crisper than the TIFF?
Here is a crop from the screen capture:
The DNG is clearly crisper - sharper and slightly brighter.
I also compared when viewed at 1:4, here is a screen capture from my desktop:
And here is a crop from this screen capture:
As you can see, here the difference is less serious.
And if I continued and compared at 1:2 or 1:1 I wouldn't notice any difference - just like you haven't noticed when you compared in a zoomed view of 1:1 probably.
To sum up, LR seems to apply some extra sharpening to DNG/RAW files when showing them in a down-scaled view such as 1:4, 1:8, etc. This makes DNG/RAW files look crisper than files in other formats although in 1:1 they look the same.
Do you see the problem I'm describing?
I am seeing what you’re seeing, yes. For reduced-sized views of raws, there is an increase in local contrast that makes the small bright details brighter (sunlit leaves) and the small dark details darker (bare branches against sky).
I suspect one of two things, the resampling algorithm is starting with different data in the case of raws vs non-raw files, or the algorithm used is more accurate for non-raws due to not having to do so much work to compress the highlights and such.
I also don’t remember if demosaicked raw data that is cached in the camera-raw cache is stored as floating point (not 32 vs 16 bit, just floating point vs fixed-bits integers) and that could account for a difference in resampling algorithms.
In any case, it appears that the resampling of raw files is different than the resampling of non-raw files and that the non-raw files resampling is more accurate.
yes you are right. But you are comparing the "wrong" imges. You compare a raw image with a lot of ajustments (which will take place in the moment you look) with an "unprocessed" image.
I took you dng, removed all ajustments, saved the tiff and applied the same ajustments on both images. The result is: the TIF looks better to me! (There is a difference in the colors because the vivid camera profile is not there for the Tif. I used Adobe for the DNG and "build in" for the tiff).
One addtion: You can not use the library module for pixel peeping. Libraray module works on pre-rendered JPEG images. Colors and sharpness may be different from the develop module.
(DNG left, TIF right)
Thanks. I'm thinking in the same directions.
But I'm a bit disturbed by this behavior because I usually make my edits when viewing at 1:4 in the Develop module. I wouldn't mind so much about the extra sharpening applied to the DNG file in the 1:4 preview, because I sharpen in 1:1 anyway, but the brighter-crisper small details are misleading. They make the DNG files look better than the exported TIFF/JPEGS look when shared on the web / printed.
I noticed this simply because I exported a DNG to TIFF, de-fished it in Hugin, and imported the generated TIFF back. Then I compared them next to each other and noticed that the TIFF is lacking in its micro-contrast. I thought that this was a side-effect of Hugin, but it was simply the fact that in down-scaled view LR shows the DNG with over micro-contrast.
EDIT: I meant to say 1:8 in the second paragraph.
I checked this now and I agree that the differences are smaller as less edits are performed to the RAW file.
However, I don't think that it helps in anyway to solve the problem because my images are usually heavily processed. And this is plain normal since this is what RAW development is about and this is why LR offers all of these controls - to give the photographer the option to fine tune parameters like brightness, global/micro contrast, tone curve, etc, before generating the file for the output medium. Especially when dealing with images with high dynamic range that require aggressive shadows pushing (up) and highlights pulling (down). As it seems, LR's scaled-down preview of fairly processed RAW files (and only RAW files) results in crisper images and brighter highlights than the TIFFs/JPEGs that it generates. This means that the preview is unreliable in significant properties of the image. I wouldn't mind waiting a second or two for a more accurate preview (or to be requested to press a button and then to wait for the preview to update).