Is there any software that can add raw files

<p>I'm wondering if there is any software available that can add 2 raw images together to create a new raw image. Would like this to add exposures together. Additional math functions such as averaging 2 raws would be great. The whole point would be to have the final image still in raw format to provide the flexibility of raw. </p>

<p>You can open many kinds of files in Adobe Camera Raw - for example, in Adobe Bridge™ by right clicking on the file and choosing "open in ACR" (will do jpgs as well as tifs, etc.). To keep the maximum information just save it in a non-lossy format.</p>

<p>Depending you your software, you might need to save to DNG to get close to Raw, but not quite. You're not going to lose a lot with an uncompressed tiff.</p>

<p>There is a way of doing this, although a bit roundabout. You have to own Adobe Photoshop to make it work. If you have access to Adobe Photoshop, you have also access to its raw converter, called Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).</p>

<p>After importing your raw image into ACR, you upload it into Photoshop as a SMART OBJECT. This means that the raw image is preserved in Photoshop as a layer. Nothing prevents you from up-loading another raw image as a SMART OBJECT into another file in Photoshop. Therafter it is a piece of cake to move the second smart object on top of the first in the first file created. Averaging can be done by choosing an appropriate opacity in the second smart object layer. </p>

<p>I hope this helps!</p>

<p>Once you've manipulated it it's not a raw file any more. But you're not really asking for that, just the functionality of it.<br>

Most raw files are based on the tiff file format. So if you save your edited file as a 16 bit tiff then you'll be very close to having flexibility of a raw file. You'll lose a little bit as you won't be able to have a camera manufacturer's raw converting program read it in some cases, but if you're going for Photoshop or another type of pixel editor it will fit that purpose.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering if there is any software available that can add 2 raw images together to create a new raw image</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope. You can of course combine two <strong>rendered</strong> versions from each raw. But raw is read only and doesn't look like any kind of image you'd want to look at. Kind of like asking if you can combine two color negs (well in the darkroom you could but why?). You can expose a single piece of paper with two color negs but the negs themselves are not combined. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Once you've manipulated it it's not a raw file any more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not true, at quite a <em>fundamental</em> level - you can manipulate the pants off a Raw, and it never stops being Raw.</p>

<p>All Raw converters are "non-destructive" by their nature (with the very slight exception that some converters might write to the file's Exif) - you can therefore manipulate a Raw file until you're blue in the face and the Raw itself doesn't change - the changes are stored in a database or in an xml or other "sidecar" file associated with the Raw.</p>

<p>The manipulations are committed to a physical image file only at the point of conversion to a tiff, a jpeg or whatever. And the Raw stays Raw.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help but this still won't allow saving in raw format. It seems like this should be easily accomplished, just by adding the pixel values but I've never seen any software that does it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Thanks for the help but this still won't allow saving in raw format. It seems like this should be easily accomplished, just by adding the pixel values but I've never seen any software that does it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You probably need to search and read up on what a raw file is (and isn't). It is partially processed data, you can't save out that kind of data any more than you can combine two raw files. And no, it isn't easily accomplished. <br>

<br>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Sensor_image_data</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm wondering if there is any software available that can add 2 raw images together to create a new raw image. Would like this to add exposures together. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Isn't this functionally what is done with the HDR method? Do you perceive some advantage in having the summed image in raw format (assuming it were possible to accomplish)?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Isn't this functionally what is done with the HDR method?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. The images have to be rendered first. Raw isn't a rendered image. It isn't demosaiced. </p>

<p>Andrew-<br>

I recognize that. Key word is "functionally". The OP wants to add two exposures. Is this not what HDR does, in effect?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Key word is "functionally". The OP wants to add two exposures. Is this not what HDR does, in effect?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes (partially). Directly from raw, no. The OP seems to be slightly in need of looking into the differences between raw data and rendered data. I don't see how bringing HDR into the mix helps in that respect. </p>

I understand that raw files can be partially cooked and compressed but besides that they must contain the luminance values for each

photo site. I just want to add these values. My Nikon cameras can do this ( when doing multiple exposures) so why can't I do it on my

computer?

<blockquote>

<p>I understand that raw files can be partially cooked and compressed</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But they are not partially cooked, they are raw. You have to cook em (render them) to do anything with the image, in fact to build an image. They do contain luminance values but only one pixel which contains only one 'color' filter. They have to be demosaiced to produce RGB data. <br>

Here's what a raw file looks like:<br>

http://digitaldog.net/files/raw.jpg</p>

<p>I think everyone is missing my point. I am a photographer, not a software engineer but I do understand what a raw file is. I know that they need to be converted to be viewed. I just want to add 2 non converted files and have the result in the same nonconverted format. Like I said, my Nikon cameras can do this, why can't my computer? It's obvious that the file formats are able to be decoded otherwise lightroom etc. wouldn't work. If you're wondering what the practical implications/ uses of this are here is a scenario: You take 1 shot, well underexposed, take another at same exposure and continue. Now in post you can add these up until you have the optimum exposure with no blown highlights and still have all the capabilities that the raw format affords you. Another capability would be to allow extremely long exposures if you could average the raw files. I would also like to be able to take the top half of one exposure and the bottom half of another exposure with a gradation and still have RAW (OK I'm asking for a little bit more now.) I know you can do all this in photoshop but then you lose the raw format. I think the benefits of the raw format have been discussed ad nauseum so I won't get into that. And Yes, sometimes raw files are partially cooked (but don't take my word for it. Dxomark understands this stuff much better than I do. http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Insights/Half-cooked-RAW If there is a software engineer that can explain why you can't average 2 raw files I'd really like to understand this. </p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Sensor_image_data">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format#Sensor_image_data</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thanks for posting that link. Did you notice that they include the output from scanners as part the definition of RAW?</p>

<p><em>A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, <strong>image scanner</strong>, or motion picture film scanner...Flatbed and film scanner sensors are typically straight narrow RGB or RGBI (where "I" stands for the additional infra-red channel for automatic dust removal) strips that are swept across an image. The HDRi raw data format is able to store the infrared raw data, which can be used for infrared cleaning, as an additional 16-bit channel. The remainder of the discussion about raw files applies to them as well. </em><br /> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format</a><br /> (Emphasis added.)</p>

<p>Apologies to the rest of you for going off topic, but Andrew knows what the reference is about.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think everyone is missing my point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'd agree I'm not at all certain what you're asking for or to do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just want to add 2 non converted files and have the result in the same nonconverted format. Like I said, my Nikon cameras can do this...<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>It can? How (and why)? Can you explain exactly what you are hoping to produce? I understand you want to do something with two raw files. Can you describe what you hope to do? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>You take 1 shot, well underexposed, take another at same exposure and continue. Now in post you can add these up until you have the optimum exposure with no blown highlights and still have all the capabilities that the raw format affords you.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, once you render the image, this <strong>can</strong> be done. <br>

Exactly how can the Nikon do this without rendering the data? That's a new one for me (but I'm not a Nikon user). </p>

<p>Thomas, you're describing (for the most part) HDR. High Dynamic Range. Have a look at http://www.hdrsoft.com/ or http://www.fdrtools.com/front_e.php or http://www.oloneo.com/ or search google for HDR. But you do need to not get hung up on the raw file format. Any program that will let you do this (and more) will let you save in a number of formats but a raw file isn't one of them. Not unless you plan to write your own code. Even DXO isn't going to write to a raw file. But to be blunt there's no reason to write back to a raw file type. The advantages can still be had with a tiff or other lossless format. Jpegs are lossy, raw files are not, neither are a host of other file types. In fact, once you start getting into HDR, you don't even need to shoot in raw, just shoot jpegs and cover the dynamic range you want to end up with. When you combine those jpegs in HDR software you wind up with something that is greater than the sum of it's parts.</p>

<p>Most of us have found that we need to just ignore Andrew. He gets off on a tangent and takes the discussion in a different direction. His insistence on what a raw file is for example. Yes, he's correct and posted links to support his argument, but he's not really answering your real question. He's more interested in proving his point. Wayne is just following up on a previous "discussion" with Andrew about something else. http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00avaH</p>

<blockquote>

<p>he's not really answering your real question.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

He answered in the 12:48 post above. That's where this could have ended, but it seemed that some people weren't happy with the answer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just want to add 2 non converted files and have the result in the same nonconverted format. Like I said, my Nikon cameras can do this, why can't my computer?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think this is a reference to the HDR imaging capability of the newer Nikon cameras (D800 etc.). In fact this process does not use the raw images but rather only the jpeg images; so it is working with converted images.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now in post you can add these (raw files) up until you have the optimum exposure with no blown highlights and still have all the capabilities that the raw format affords you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This discussion continues because of a <strong>conceived</strong> (by the OP) <strong>advantage</strong> of summing two raw files to produce a file that remains in raw format. Assuming it could be done (and we all agree, it cannot), what capabilities do you assume such a raw file would afford that could not be achieved by first converting the raw files to 16 bit tiff format, and then performing whatever summation operation you choose?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here is an example of an unfinished (unfortunately) project, consisting on an extension to DCRaw, by Manuel Llorens, which was aimed at what you are looking:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.rawness.es/extender-dcraw/?lang=en">Synthetic raws and raw stacking</a></p>

<p>You might want also to take a look at Astrophotography software, which performs those kind of operations.</p>

<p>This software, <a href="http://www.mlunsold.com/ILImageProcess.html">Images Plus</a>, is highly regarded for data manipulation, although I have not personally used it (too expensive for my needs). I don't think that you can output a raw from images plus.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thomas,<br>

You mention that your NIKON can stack raw exposures, average them out and produce the result as a raw file. As far as I understand, the result is produced as a JPEG file.</p>

<p>If my understanding is correct, this same operation can suitably be replicated by the process I described earlier. After having taken a burst of exposures with your NIKON, to be outputted by NIKON as raw files, you import this burst of raw files into ACR. From there, you upload them individually into Adobe Photoshop, each on its own file as SMART OBJECT. From there you just move those smart objects as individual layers into one file. Thereafter you can average out those layers and output the result as Tiff, PSD or JPEG, whatever is your fancy. </p>

<p>The advantage with applying this cumbersome procedure is – precisely as you intend – that you can go back to each raw file picture freely and change the parameters without any pixel losses. It is only the output that is being rendered as Tiff, PSD or JPEG, the individual raw files are preserved as layers in the file: they can be accessed and re-processed loss-free as many times as you wish, and the output will be adjusting itself accordingly. </p>

<p>I content that you cannot, with this procedure, get an output that is in the raw format and can be re-processed again loss-free as such. But as long as you can re-process the underlying raw files (smart objects), there is no lossy processing involved. In my opinion, this procedure works as well as the one desired by you; your proposed procedure will possibly be unobtainable to photographing amateurs. I am sure that data experts can construct a scheme to accommodate you perfectly, but will it be workable as easily as the procedure described by me?</p>

Francisco, thank you for understanding what I was saying. I don't know how I was misunderstood by so many. That is

unfortunate that the project is unfinished.

 

To the others, this has nothing to do with HDR, I despise it. I appreciate the smart object work around but it still isn't

perfect, raw files are large enough, I don't want tiff files eating up my hard drive space. If I could average 10 raw files I

would be happy to delete the originals. The smart object technique makes more files instead of less. I don't think I need

to explain the advantage of having a file in raw fomat.

 

And yes my nikons can stack 2 to 9 raw files either averaging or summing them resulting in a raw file. I do it all the time

and I am positive the result is in raw format. I am talking about multiple exposure mode NOT HDR! You can not do this

after the fact but have to set the camera before acquiring the images.

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know how I was misunderstood by so many.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>You weren't "misunderstood", Thomas - you were understood perfectly well. You asked a specific question and got a number of specific and correct responses <em>to that question</em>.</p>

<p>What you did was <em>ask the wrong question.</em> It's nobody's fault but yours that the answers you got answered the question you asked rather than the question you <em>meant</em> to ask.</p>