"locked" RAW files

[jimmy156]

Hi all, wonder if the PH collective can help me,

I recently assisted a photographer at an event, edited the shots and sent him a disc with my edited jpegs and the unedited RAW files in case he wanted to revisit them.

The RAW files were opened in canon DPP and converted to TIFF, but that was it.

He has found that when he tries to open the files they are locked, and he is having to individually unlock each one. This isnt something i have heard of and i have no idea how to unlock them. Is it something the camera is doing, or DPP?

Files are canon .CR2 RAW files from a 50d. I think he uses lightroom and CS4. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, James

[andy-xr]

Probably the burn format at a guess

[jimmy156]

andy-xr said:

Probably the burn format at a guess

Of the DVD? can it be changed?

[andy-xr]

I'd imagine so, feels like ti's more software and computer trickery than anything that happened in camera

[Ledaig]

As you put them on a disc and he has copied them directly across, it sounds like they may be coming up as read only (which they would). If that is the case, he just needs to right click the folder in which the files are in and uncheck read only, ok the selection, and hit yes for all sub files.

By the way, if you have converted your RAWs to TIFF they are no longer raw files.

[jimmy156]

Ledaig said:

As you put them on a disc and he has copied them directly across, it sounds like they may be coming up as read only (which they would). If that is the case, he just needs to right click the folder in which the files are in and uncheck read only, ok the selection, and hit yes for all sub files.

By the way, if you have converted your RAWs to TIFF they are no longer raw files.

I will burn another DVD myself and see if this works on another machine, thanks.

When i say converted, i mean outputted as TIFF, the RAW files remain unchanged. As a RAW file isn't actually an image file can it actually be changed too a TIFF as such?

[flat-planedCrank]

jimmy156 said:

... As a RAW file isn't actually an image file can it actually be changed too a TIFF as such?

Yeah, they are just sensor data - they need to be 'interpreted' and then saved as an image file (tif, jpg, etc.)

[Simpo Two]

I too was confused about why TIFFs had entered the scene. You say you sent unedited RAWs, then you imply you saved them as TIFFs. All you need is RAW and the derivative JPGs.

[jimmy156]

Simpo Two said:

I too was confused about why TIFFs had entered the scene. You say you sent unedited RAWs, then you imply you saved them as TIFFs. All you need is RAW and the derivative JPGs.

My workflow goes, shoot RAW > output as TIFF > Edit TIFF in PS > Save as jpeg for sending/printing.

[Simpo Two]

jimmy156 said:

My workflow goes, shoot RAW > output as TIFF > Edit TIFF in PS > Save as jpeg for sending/printing.

Hmm, I go from RAW to JPG but each to his own.

Why does the guy at the other end need the TIFFs? He wants the RAWs surely; TIFFs are pointless in this instance and a RAW converted to a TIFF is no longer RAW...

Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 1st October 10:26

[jimmy156]

Simpo Two said:

jimmy156 said:

My workflow goes, shoot RAW > output as TIFF > Edit TIFF in PS > Save as jpeg for sending/printing.

Hmm, I go from RAW to JPG but each to his own.

Why does the guy at the other end need the TIFFs? He wants the RAWs surely; TIFFs are pointless in this instance and a RAW converted to a TIFF is no longer RAW...

Edited by Simpo Two on Saturday 1st October 10:26

The guy wants the RAWs, which is what i sent him. I end up with three files. the original RAW as shot by the camera. the edited TIFF, and the edited jpeg.

[RobDickinson]

I'm only guessing Jimmy's version of ACR/CS cant convert his raw files and he's using the external raw->tiff convertor.

Otherwise its just daft

[jimmy156]

RobDickinson said:

I'm only guessing Jimmy's version of ACR/CS cant convert his raw files and he's using the external raw->tiff convertor.

Otherwise its just daft

Why is it Daft, it means i get a RAW as shot by the camera in case i want to go back to the beginning and re-edit and image. An edited TIFF that can be tweaked without adding compression each time, and a "final" jpeg. Anyway my work flow wasn't supposed to be up for discussion

[Simpo Two]

Actually he has a point. If there's nothing on telly and your hard drive is depressingly empty, make 16-bit TIFFs

[LongQ]

jimmy156 said:

RobDickinson said:

I'm only guessing Jimmy's version of ACR/CS cant convert his raw files and he's using the external raw->tiff convertor.

Otherwise its just daft

Why is it Daft, it means i get a RAW as shot by the camera in case i want to go back to the beginning and re-edit and image. An edited TIFF that can be tweaked without adding compression each time, and a "final" jpeg. Anyway my work flow wasn't supposed to be up for discussion

The editors I use allow me to create photo edit instruction files that are applied directly to the RAW files when converting to jpg (should I need to) ready for printing or display.

However if I needed to do some graphic design work with replacement or substitution on the image, intermediate files that were not compressed to jpg would be nice.

One potential benefit is that the initial RAW to intermediate processing is not constantly being repeated as it is when using the edit instruction files directly on a RAW file. Also the interaction of further edits will not change anything from the earlier steps and that MIGHT be the case with the direct edit. (It depends on the order of processing and the way the software was designed to work ... and whether any core tool updates from other developers - say Apple or Microsoft - have surprised the application developer by working in a different way than they used to work ...)

However in most cases I find that the the full edit instruction applied directly on top of the original RAW file seems to be the best option.

[flat-planedCrank]

I work in the same way - for each processed shot I have:

- RAW
- Edited TIFF (or PSD)
- JPG (for web use)

Part of the reason being that I don't want to reliant on particular software to get a particular edit of a photo, so a edited (compressed) TIFF is a good backup.

Does it use more HD space? Yup.....but you can buy 2TB drives for about £50 so I'm not too fussed

[LongQ]

flat-planedCrank said:

I work in the same way - for each processed shot I have:

- RAW
- Edited TIFF (or PSD)
- JPG (for web use)

Part of the reason being that I don't want to reliant on particular software to get a particular edit of a photo, so a edited (compressed) TIFF is a good backup.

Does it use more HD space? Yup.....but you can buy 2TB drives for about £50 so I'm not too fussed

I think it depends on what you shoot and how many images you are likely to keep in ready-edited form.

If shooting for your self or for a commission with a limited number of final images to be selected storing the ready-edit TIFFs is likely to be OK since, as you point out, storage capacity is cheap enough and with smart back-up technology and fast connectivity the system admin time would not be too bad either. It would not be so good for an event at which many shots are taken and nearly all might be considered as potential outputs by someone somewhere.

Your point about relying on a particualr application is a good one. There is a counter argument that suggests that a change of application may not be a disaster since if you have a need to re-produce the image you may well re-visit it from the start, as we sometimes see in comments here.

The point can be made that new software (and especially newer software) may well offer the opportunity to create an improved version or interpretation of the image.

Now if you have created a specific image in a certain way and are offering it for commercial sale as prepared then freezing the work makes sense and the edited TIFF probably offers the most widely supported way to go about that at this time. But if the use and exploitation of the image is not quite so 'fixed' re-starting from the RAW file (assuming that we are talking photo editing and not graphics based re-engineering work) may be a viable option for the odd file or two dug out from the library once in a while.

I suppose there is no right or wrong way to do anything although work efficiency may strongly point to certain work flows and methods to suit specific requirements most effectively. Whether one actually follows such guidelines is another matter!

[flat-planedCrank]

LongQ said:

flat-planedCrank said:

I work in the same way - for each processed shot I have:

- RAW
- Edited TIFF (or PSD)
- JPG (for web use)

Part of the reason being that I don't want to reliant on particular software to get a particular edit of a photo, so a edited (compressed) TIFF is a good backup.

Does it use more HD space? Yup.....but you can buy 2TB drives for about £50 so I'm not too fussed

I think it depends on what you shoot and how many images you are likely to keep in ready-edited form.

If shooting for your self or for a commission with a limited number of final images to be selected storing the ready-edit TIFFs is likely to be OK since, as you point out, storage capacity is cheap enough and with smart back-up technology and fast connectivity the system admin time would not be too bad either. It would not be so good for an event at which many shots are taken and nearly all might be considered as potential outputs by someone somewhere.

Your point about relying on a particualr application is a good one. There is a counter argument that suggests that a change of application may not be a disaster since if you have a need to re-produce the image you may well re-visit it from the start, as we sometimes see in comments here.

The point can be made that new software (and especially newer software) may well offer the opportunity to create an improved version or interpretation of the image.

Now if you have created a specific image in a certain way and are offering it for commercial sale as prepared then freezing the work makes sense and the edited TIFF probably offers the most widely supported way to go about that at this time. But if the use and exploitation of the image is not quite so 'fixed' re-starting from the RAW file (assuming that we are talking photo editing and not graphics based re-engineering work) may be a viable option for the odd file or two dug out from the library once in a while.

I suppose there is no right or wrong way to do anything although work efficiency may strongly point to certain work flows and methods to suit specific requirements most effectively. Whether one actually follows such guidelines is another matter!

I'd certainly take your point that photos taken to be used immediately, say of a sporting event, would not need a TIFF file version. I'd imagine in that scenario it may be 'global' editing that takes place such as exposure and cropping - something that it would relatively easy to reproduce in the unlikely event that it would be required.

I guess one other diving line I might use is the amount of time I have spent processing a particular image - if I have invested an hour tweaking an image then I want a cast iron backup I'll still keep the RAW + 'edit settings' so I can rebuild from the original shot as well...

The software reliance point is due to changes that I've seen happen to certain packages - it might be a new demosaicing approach or colour processing change that, although an improvement, makes it difficult / laborious to recreate the original image. I actually had an occasion where the particular effect in the image I was seeing was caused by a bug in the software - when the bug was fixed the image changed. If I wanted that image back I'd obviously have to try and reinstall an older version of the software or try to recreate it somehow.

I realise this work flow does consume additional storage space and may be slow to some, but I try to compress the data and automate it as much as possible. I dare say that on the other end of the scale some people want to sit in front of a computer editing as little as possible - as you pointed out, there is no right or wrong way

Think this has drifted a little OT

[LongQ]

flat-planedCrank said:

The software reliance point is due to changes that I've seen happen to certain packages - it might be a new demosaicing approach or colour processing change that, although an improvement, makes it difficult / laborious to recreate the original image. I actually had an occasion where the particular effect in the image I was seeing was caused by a bug in the software - when the bug was fixed the image changed. If I wanted that image back I'd obviously have to try and reinstall an older version of the software or try to recreate it somehow.

It's annoying when that happens. In any software.

Recently a few of 'the big boys' have been changing things with no or very little indication in some of their core routines. Since their development users have been using the core routines for a while and expect notable changes to be fully documented with possible warnings of the consequences of upgrades it comes as an unpleasant surprise when code suddenly stops working as it used to. There are some examples around which are central to the core routine yet potentially so specific that normal testing may well not show a problem. Since no change is documented no special testing requirement is indicated as part of de-development. But you can be sure that one or more users somewhere will have something that uses that specific routine and their processes will fall apart.

So yes, you are right to be cautious especially if the results have taken some time to achieve and are unlikely to be easily or quickly reproduced should the current edit be 'lost' one way or another.