RAW

[dibbly dobbler]

Gents - can you help me please

I am broadly aware of what RAW is and why it is the preferred format in some scenarios but what *exactly* is it that you gain by shooting in RAW ?

My workflow typically is as follows:

1. shoot in max jpeg
2. save to my laptop
3. open into Photoshop Elements
4. ruin tweak the pic
5. save as max jpeg

If I go to RAW then it would be as follows:

1. shoot in max jpeg
2. save to my laptop
3a. open into Photoshop Elements RAW converter
3b. fiddle around with the sliders
3c. open the image into the full Photoshop editor
4. ruin tweak the pic
5. save as max jpeg

So there's a couple of extra steps in the raw converter - is this where you gain something extra ?

What is it you RAW guys actually do in here ?

If one doesn't do anything at stages 3a and 3b but just opens it straight up into PSE (eg if one didn't understand all the sliders ) is there any benefit or would it be just the same as opening the jpeg straight into PSE ?

Do you guys end up saving it as jpeg at the end or in some other format ?

I have tried this a few times but I think because I don't know what to do in the RAW converter I'm missing the point a bit - any guidance would be appreciated!

Cheers, DD.

[jimmy156]

Hi DD,

RAW in my views gives you 3 things.

1) More digital information to play with when editing. Meaning you can save more highlight or boost more shadows then you would be able too if shot with a jpeg.

2) The ability to adjust white balance and picture stlyes post capture. This means if your auto white balance miss judges you have infinite scope to change it in post. This can come in very useful and is something you really cannot emulate with a jpeg.

3) An "unlossy" format. This means you can revisit and resave the same file without worrying about loosing quality.

If you think you will benefit from any of these things, its worth shooting in RAW IMO.

As an aside I have a slightly different workflow from you.

- Import RAW files into Canon DPP
- Delete duds and make a few tweaks in DPP (white balance if necessary and small sharpen)
- Process into Tiff files (8bit)
- Open into photoshop for full edit
- Save as max quality Jpeg. I then delete the Tiff files but keep the RAW and Jpeg.

I'm not sure how much benefit i get from using TIFF files but its just something i have always done!

its funny, DD, from the photo's you post on here i always consider you to know about all this kind of stuff, you must have a real natrual nack for photography. bd .

Edited by jimmy156 on Sunday 1st May 16:03

[14-7]

jimmy156 said:

As an aside I have a slightly different workflow from you.

- Import RAW files into Canon DPP
- Delete duds and make a few tweaks in DPP (white balance if necessary and small sharpen)
- Process into Tiff files (8bit)
- Open into photoshop for full edit
- Save as max quality Jpeg. I then delete the Tiff files but keep the RAW and Jpeg.

I'm not sure how much benefit i get from using TIFF files but its just something i have always done!

Pretty much what I do as well but rather than save as an 8-bit image then open PS I just transfer the file to PS in the tools menu. It transfers it as a 16-bit image which is the one I edit on. I then save a PS version of the file, a full-size jpeg and a smaller jpeg for uploading as well as tranfering the original RAW image as well if I want to re-edit in the future.

Basically RAW gives you much greater control over the final outcome when compared to JPEG.

[dibbly dobbler]

jimmy156 said:

Hi DD,

RAW in my views gives you 3 things.

1) More digital information to play with when editing. Meaning you can save more highlight or boost more shadows then you would be able too if shot with a jpeg.

2) The ability to adjust white balance and picture stlyes post capture. This means if your auto white balance miss judges you have infinite scope to change it in post. This can come in very useful and is something you really cannot emulate with a jpeg.

3) An "unlossy" format. This means you can revisit and resave the same file without worrying about loosing quality.

If you think you will benefit from any of these things, its worth shooting in RAW IMO.

As an aside I have a slightly different workflow from you.

- Import RAW files into Canon DPP
- Delete duds and make a few tweaks in DPP (white balance if necessary and small sharpen)
- Process into Tiff files (8bit)
- Open into photoshop for full edit
- Save as max quality Jpeg. I then delete the Tiff files but keep the RAW and Jpeg.

I'm not sure how much benefit i get from using TIFF files but its just something i have always done!

its funny, DD, from the photo's you post on here i always consider you to know about all this kind of stuff, you must have a real natrual nack for photography. bd .

Edited by jimmy156 on Sunday 1st May 16:03

Thanks James

Can I ask some further nerdy questions please ?

You say '1) More digital information to play with when editing. Meaning you can save more highlight or boost more shadows then you would be able too if shot with a jpeg.'
- I kind of get this but is it only when using the RAW converter that you get this benefit ? Ie if you don't do anything in the RAW converter but just open it straight into PSE have you ended up exactly where you would get to with a original jpeg file ? (This is probably the key thing I am not clear on)

And you also say' 3) An "unlossy" format. This means you can revisit and resave the same file without worrying about loosing quality.'
- Does that mean if I save as jpeg, then reopen, re-edit and re-save as jpeg I have 'lost' something and if I did it a 100 times I would only have a couple of pixels left ?

Thankyou for assuming I knew what I was doing - I am only a year and a bit into this lark and there are tons of things I am completely and embarrassingly ignorant of!

[flat-planedCrank]

Raw is the sensor data, unedited - a raw file isn't an image in the same way a jpg is. It's data that your raw processor needs to interpret. In this way, the raw file is the greatest possible range of data your camera has produced - if you get new (better) raw processing software in the future it can re-interpret this information as if the shot had just been taken.

So when your camera saves the jpg's its making a series of decisions for you (guided by your contrast, style, etc. settings). So if you switch to shooting raw you effectively interrupt that process a stage earlier, you stop the camera making those decisions and get to make them for yourself.

You could compare the process to the 'old' system of taking your film to the chemist to get your photos done - they interpret your film and produce a final image. If you were printing your own shot in your darkroom you may have made different decisions and produced a radically different image.


My process is:

1. Shoot RAW
2. Process - export TIF file.
3. Edit in photoshop if required (my ps is too old to have raw import)
3. Save web-resolution jpg.

There is nothing to stop you from shooting RAW & JPG though, see if you prefer one shot over the other.

Along with the quality argument, I want to have the most flexibility stored for the future. If you end up wanting to brighten the image then you want all the shadow data possible - shadow data that may have been lost if the original image was saved as jpg only.


Its all personal preference of course - I've just decided that I don't want to discard any data until I need to. So I shoot raw, save with lossless compression, then only save as jpg once I've decided on the final image.


Hope this helps.

[jimmy156]

dibbly dobbler said:

I kind of get this but is it only when using the RAW converter that you get this benefit ? Ie if you don't do anything in the RAW converter but just open it straight into PSE have you ended up exactly where you would get to with a original jpeg file ? (This is probably the key thing I am not clear on)

I believe so, Photoshop Camera Raw (the RAW converter) is the part of photoshop that allows you to change white balance etc, so you would loose that benefit) but you will still be working on the RAW file so will still have the advantages this brings.

dibbly dobbler said:

- Does that mean if I save as jpeg, then reopen, re-edit and re-save as jpeg I have 'lost' something and if I did it a 100 times I would only have a couple of pixels left ?

You would still have all your pixels left, but every time you open and save a jpeg file it is compressed. So if you did it 100 times you would have a very compressed files (probably similar or maybe worse to saving it as quality "1" instead of "12" in photoshop)

14-7 - The only thing that stops me from using 16bit files is photoshop elements wont save them as jpeg files . Good idea to also save a .psd file of your edited images, i may start doing this!

[dibbly dobbler]

Thanks fpc - excellent info

In my reply to James above I ask a couple of supplementary queries, can you be bothered to post a quick reply to these please ?

I think the nub of my problem is that I don't really understand how to use the sliders in the RAW converter and so tend to just go straight through to normal PSE hence am I missing out on the benefits of RAW ... ?

[dibbly dobbler]

jimmy156 said:

dibbly dobbler said:

I kind of get this but is it only when using the RAW converter that you get this benefit ? Ie if you don't do anything in the RAW converter but just open it straight into PSE have you ended up exactly where you would get to with a original jpeg file ? (This is probably the key thing I am not clear on)

I believe so, Photoshop Camera Raw (the RAW converter) is the part of photoshop that allows you to change white balance etc, so you would loose that benefit) but you will still be working on the RAW file so will still have the advantages this brings.

dibbly dobbler said:

- Does that mean if I save as jpeg, then reopen, re-edit and re-save as jpeg I have 'lost' something and if I did it a 100 times I would only have a couple of pixels left ?

You would still have all your pixels left, but every time you open and save a jpeg file it is compressed. So if you did it 100 times you would have a very compressed files (probably similar or maybe worse to saving it as quality "1" instead of "12" in photoshop)

14-7 - The only thing that stops me from using 16bit files is photoshop elements wont save them as jpeg files . Good idea to also save a .psd file of your edited images, i may start doing this!

James - excellent, thanks again for taking the time to reply

[14-7]

jimmy156 said:

14-7 - The only thing that stops me from using 16bit files is photoshop elements wont save them as jpeg files . Good idea to also save a .psd file of your edited images, i may start doing this!

That's because jpegs are 8-bit files (don't worry I made the same error in thinking I couldn't save them).

Once you have done all of your editing, and I'm speaking from using CS3, you need to go to image>mode>8bit. I don't know if elements is the same.

[JSS 911]

DD had a quick look on youtube,see if this helps

http://youtu.be/4Y0zMxRJVHs

[jimmy156]

14-7 said:

That's because jpegs are 8-bit files (don't worry I made the same error in thinking I couldn't save them).

Once you have done all of your editing, and I'm speaking from using CS3, you need to go to image>mode>8bit. I don't know if elements is the same.

Aha, thanks, i will give this a go next time. Although im not sure my laptop with 1gb RAM and 5 yr old processor will thank me for it

[dibbly dobbler]

JSS 911 said:

DD had a quick look on youtube,see if this helps

http://youtu.be/4Y0zMxRJVHs

Damn that's good - helps a lot, thanks!

[Major Bloodnok]

JPEG files are always compressed (even at the highest quality level). Because of the actual algorithm used to compress them, every time you save a JPEG, you increase the artefacts produced by the process. At first, you won't see them, but ultimately, you'll have a ruined picture.

Secondly, they're only 8 bits per channel - if you tweak things like curves, or even just adjust the exposure/contrast/brightness, you stand a very good chance of getting posterisation - especially in the dark areas. Note that this is also true of editing 8-bit TIFFs.

RAW files are typically 12-14 bits per channel - you can do a lot of levels tweaking before you notice any degradation of the picture quality.

As fpc said above, RAW files are not image files - they are RAW sensor data and have to undergo a process called deBayering (look up Bayer mask on Google) before they can be displayed as images. This deBayering is what your RAW converter is doing - it's turning a load of numbers that represent voltages into a picture. Whilst it's doing that, you get the opportunity to do some tweaking, because the RAW 'image' is typically quite flat and lacking in contrast. Note that this is not the primary purpose of the converter, it's just there for your convenience - you could just leave all the sliders at zero and make all the adjustments in Photoshop.

I would liken not using RAW to shooting on film, making a print (in the darkroom) and then throwing away the negative. If you want to make a slightly different print, you re-photograph the print you just made and make a new print from that (then throw away the negative).

For the record, my workflow is

1) Import RAW files into Lightroom
2) Get as much right in Lightroom as I can using the Develop module
3) If it needs more sophisticated tweaking, edit as a 16-bit TIFF in Photoshop (stack the TIFF with the original RAW).

This TIFF (if it exists) is now my 'sub-master' image (I may have many TIFFs from one RAW - based on different treatments, such as B&W and so on). Conversion to JPEG is done on an as-needed basis and is always the last step in the process. Usually it's done transparently by, for example, the Lightroom Flickr uploader, so that the JPEG doesn't even hang around on my disk after it's been uploaded.

Converting to JPEG (or even 8-bit TIFF) is throwing away useful information that your camera has captured, and I hate throwing away information until I absolutely have to.

[JSS 911]

dibbly dobbler said:

JSS 911 said:

DD had a quick look on youtube,see if this helps

http://youtu.be/4Y0zMxRJVHs

Damn that's good - helps a lot, thanks!

Your not the only one that struggles, Ive saved it to my favorites as a reminder

[jimmy156]

Major Bloodnok said:

Usefull Stuff

So are you better off directly editing a RAW file in photoshop, or editing an 8bit tiff?

I will try using 16bit files, but i genuinlly dont know if my computer will be up to it, i think they work out at 80mb each or something!

[flat-planedCrank]

dibbly dobbler said:

You say '1) More digital information to play with when editing. Meaning you can save more highlight or boost more shadows then you would be able too if shot with a jpeg.'
- I kind of get this but is it only when using the RAW converter that you get this benefit ? Ie if you don't do anything in the RAW converter but just open it straight into PSE have you ended up exactly where you would get to with a original jpeg file ? (This is probably the key thing I am not clear on)

And you also say' 3) An "unlossy" format. This means you can revisit and resave the same file without worrying about loosing quality.'
- Does that mean if I save as jpeg, then reopen, re-edit and re-save as jpeg I have 'lost' something and if I did it a 100 times I would only have a couple of pixels left ?

dibbly dobbler said:

Thanks fpc - excellent info

In my reply to James above I ask a couple of supplementary queries, can you be bothered to post a quick reply to these please ?

I think the nub of my problem is that I don't really understand how to use the sliders in the RAW converter and so tend to just go straight through to normal PSE hence am I missing out on the benefits of RAW ... ?

Think this has really been covered now

...but a couple additional thoughts:

1. I don't have a newer photoshop to check, but i'd imagine that the raw importer will pass a 16-bit image to photoshop - its a higher quality image then opening a jpg.

There are loads of tutorials for the photoshop raw importer, it's basically got the same settings as Lightroom's develop module.


2. JPGs throw data away every time you save, its in their nature So saving a file over and over will result in a spiral of quality loss (hence they are described as having 'lossy' compression). They are good for web images as they can represent an image with relatively small file size - but for archive they aren't ideal.

TIFF images are another option - they have the facility to compress their data but they use a 'lossless' technique that doesn't dis-guard information - but doesn't manage the very small file size JPG's can produce. They are more suited to archives.

[andy-xr]

jimmy156 said:

So are you better off directly editing a RAW file in photoshop, or editing an 8bit tiff?

I will try using 16bit files, but i genuinlly dont know if my computer will be up to it, i think they work out at 80mb each or something!

Personal preference is a 16 bit TIF in Photoshop, there's one I'm working on currently thats 850 meg with layers. It'll shrink down to around 100'ish, and the resulting jpeg will be around 6 meg. Thats how much is thrown away

[Major Bloodnok]

jimmy156 said:

Major Bloodnok said:

Usefull Stuff

So are you better off directly editing a RAW file in photoshop, or editing an 8bit tiff?

'Directly editing a RAW file' is a bit of a meaningless statement. Any editing package worth its salt will not modify the RAW file in any way (and, if it does, throw it away - NOW!). What the RAW converter will do is to create what's called a 'sidecar' file. This is a file with the same name as your RAW file, but with a '.xmp' (usually) extension. This file contains details of all the settings that you applied in the converter, and Photoshop will read this sidecar at the same time as it reads the RAW, so that it can apply the same processing to the displayed image. If you now make further changes inside Photoshop and try to save, it will not let you save directly onto the RAW file, you have to save in another format. One slight exception to this rule is that, if you convert your RAWs to DNG (Digital NeGative) files, then Lightroom will store the info that would have gone into the sidecar in the DNG, but this is because Adobe deliberately designed the DNG file format to allow for this type of update whilst maintaining the integrity of the RAW data. The advantage of this is that you can't lose the sidecar files (or not know that it exists) and thus lose all your changes. Photoshop still won't overwrite a DNG, though - you have to save your changes in a different format.

jimmy156 said:

I will try using 16bit files, but i genuinlly dont know if my computer will be up to it, i think they work out at 80mb each or something!

Absolutely, they're huge - I do 16-bits scans from negs, too, and you should see the size of file that comes from a 5x4. If you haven't got at least 500 Gb free disk space, you'll start struggling - but, if you're serious about your photographs, invest in a 1Tb external drive, they're about £70. I've got a 2Tb external, and I still cringe when I save a 16-bit TIFF - but I maintain that it's worth it. Don't forget - a lot of images don't need any Photoshop tweaking, so there's only the RAW file and the associated catalogue entries. I must have about 10,000 images on that drive including the TIFFs, and I've only used about 300 Gb. Also, as fpc (I think) pointed out, if you've got the original RAW, you can always start off doing 8-bit edits and go back to the original when you've got a more powerful computer. If you start with JPEGs, you're stuffed.

I only really posted about my workflow as an example of someone who's extremely anal about not throwing away useful stuff before/unless it's necessary, and how you can achieve that in Lightroom/Photoshop. If what you do works for you, then stick with it - there's no point in adding complications if they don't improve things for you. The only thing I would say is that you may be happy with things as they are now, but a couple of years down the line you may want to revisit some of your old stuff and do a better job of it. If you've got at least the original RAW file, then you can do that.

[dibbly dobbler]

Ooft - Major that is is some serious techie info there thanks

fpc - thanks again, I think the fog of confusion has cleared somewhat.

Having lost interest in actual images I'm now off out to create some RAW files

[jimmy156]

Major Bloodnok said:

'Directly editing a RAW file' is a bit of a meaningless statement. Any editing package worth its salt will not modify the RAW file in any way (and, if it does, throw it away - NOW!). What the RAW converter will do is to create what's called a 'sidecar' file. This is a file with the same name as your RAW file, but with a '.xmp' (usually) extension. This file contains details of all the settings that you applied in the converter, and Photoshop will read this sidecar at the same time as it reads the RAW, so that it can apply the same processing to the displayed image. If you now make further changes inside Photoshop and try to save, it will not let you save directly onto the RAW file, you have to save in another format. One slight exception to this rule is that, if you convert your RAWs to DNG (Digital NeGative) files, then Lightroom will store the info that would have gone into the sidecar in the DNG, but this is because Adobe deliberately designed the DNG file format to allow for this type of update whilst maintaining the integrity of the RAW data. The advantage of this is that you can't lose the sidecar files (or not know that it exists) and thus lose all your changes. Photoshop still won't overwrite a DNG, though - you have to save your changes in a different format.

This is what i meant by directly editing a RAW file, i didnt realise that photoshop was creating a "sidecar" file without me realising, to be honest i have only done it this way a handful of times as i prefer the workflow i have using canon DPP to handle the RAW files.

Major Bloodnok said:

[Absolutely, they're huge - I do 16-bits scans from negs, too, and you should see the size of file that comes from a 5x4. If you haven't got at least 500 Gb free disk space, you'll start struggling - but, if you're serious about your photographs, invest in a 1Tb external drive, they're about £70. I've got a 2Tb external, and I still cringe when I save a 16-bit TIFF - but I maintain that it's worth it. Don't forget - a lot of images don't need any Photoshop tweaking, so there's only the RAW file and the associated catalogue entries. I must have about 10,000 images on that drive including the TIFFs, and I've only used about 300 Gb. Also, as fpc (I think) pointed out, if you've got the original RAW, you can always start off doing 8-bit edits and go back to the original when you've got a more powerful computer. If you start with JPEGs, you're stuffed.

I have a 500gb external drive that i use, but it wasn't hard drive space that i would be worried about, more my laptops very limited RAM being able to cope with editing such a large file! I think the only way to to find out is to give it a go!

As you say i can always go back and edit from the original RAW file if i feel its necessary, I still have every RAW file i've shot somewhere or other!