RAW

OK, here it goes. I feel rather embarassed that with the amount of

digital work I have personally done over the last 1 1/2 years, I don't already

have an answer to this seemingly elementary question. I shoot my images in

RAW to give more flexibility in post process. My workflow involves

sorting/deleting and bumping up exposure on underexposed shots in Digital

Photo Pro and then batch converting into 16bit TIFF. I then do all my colour

adjustment, highlight adjustment, cropping, sharpening, etc in CS2 and save in

a new/finished folder (my original TIFF files are burned to DVD/backed up on

external). I use a number of plugins like PixelGenius and Artistic Tools to

gain my final product. A couple of days ago I downloaded the trial version of

Bibble Pro 4.9 and really like it, but feel that processing in Bibble and then

making more adjustments in CS2 is increasing my workload, not speeding it up.

My question is, have I been doing it wrong for the last year by doing my

work on a TIFF file and not a RAW file? Should I actually be concentrating my

efforts to basically have a corrected file BEFORE I batch convert to TIFF. Am

I loosing the benefit of RAW doing my work on a converted file? Please Help:-)

 

Sean

Typically, working on a Raw file allows you more adjustments before things begin to break

down.

 

But - whatever works for you is what works for you. If your current workflow gives you

images you like and lets you move fast, then why change?

I would also add that since you keep your images at 16 bit depth, you are not losing a lot

of data by operating in TIFF. If you're comfortable with it, my advice is to keep doing it.

Thanks for the quick response. One more thing, am I getting the benefit of RAW by converting to TIFF, or would I get the same results shooting JPG and batch converting to 16bit TIFF...or are JPGs all shot at a 8bit depth by default?

You're better off shooting in Raw than in JPEG so long as you can afford the time it takes to

process the images carefully. If you don't have the time to process the images with the care

you describe, then by all means shoot JPEG and let the camera do the processing itself. Do

keep in mind that a JPEG image cannot withstand as much processing as a 16-bit image.

 

As an example: when I shoot casual images, such as family snapshots, I shoot JPEGs

because I just want images I can quickly touch up and send off to friends and relatives. But

when I shoot landscapes or more "serious" images, I shoot Raw because I don't mind

spending the time doing the post processing.

 

It sounds as though you've come up with a workflow that works well for you, gives you

results you like, and that you believe is efficient. If you want to try something different, you

could try doing more in the raw processor - but approach it as a learning experience rather

than something you MUST do "because it's better." Try doing your raw processing in Adobe

Camera Raw - you already own it since you own CS2 - and see if it works better for you

than what you're already doing. If it is, do more of it. If not, do less of it.

I agree with Obi, since you're converting to 16 bit TIFF, you're not losing much, if anything, as compared to making your adjustments in RAW first.

 

But one of the prime purposes of a high end, third party, RAW processor like Bibble Pro is that it speeds up the process. It "should" make it less likely that work in CS2 would be necessary for the vast majority of your images. If you find that you still have to work most of them over in Photoshop, you may not be doing something right -- maybe -- or maybe you're just picky. But if it doesn't speed things up, don't do it. You're not loosing quality with what you're doing now.

 

One small issue is that 16 bit TIFFs are larger than storing the RAW files with their adjustment (sidecar) files.

Earlier: "...have I been doing it wrong for the last year by doing my work on a TIFF file and not a RAW file?..."

 

Not "wrong, per se, but as mentioned, and as you're discovering, RAW processing is w-a-y more flexible than TIF processing. Wait 'til you see CS3 "vibrance' adjustments! This evolution will happen every, oh, 18 months? Good thing you capture RAW. Nice that you burn one version of those converted to TIF as backup disks. Do you save the RAW so you can always revisit them as our tools mature? RAW beats negatives since the RAW is the LATENT IMAGE and can be re-developed over and over and over. A negative gets developed once, and we work from there in the enlarger - sort of like your TIFS. Sean, let us know how your RAW work flow evolves in yet another year or more - a never ending story, eh? ;-)

Good answer Peter! ;)

 

I couple times I have also regretted not shooting RAW. I started shooting totally RAW around 2 years ago (well, 99% truth be told).

 

You can redevelop your Raws over and over again as you learn new and better techniques as well as more advanced Raw editors (especially the CS3 RAW 4.0 beta program, nice!).

 

People who shoot JPG only with their DSLRs totally miss the point. Color space? Extra 4 bits of image data? More exposure latitude? All gone with the JPG shooter. Editing a JPG original is sinful.

You have the unique opportunity with RAW files to correct the exposure, which cannot be done subsequently in Photoshop. The histogram is always a 24-bit representation of the 48-bit RAW file, and is the only "handle" on which Photoshop can operate. You will notice that you can correct over or under exposures in ACR resulting in a smoothly tapered histogram.

 

It is also much easier to correct the white balance in ACR, since the parameters are empirical (daylight, cloudy, etc.) or in degrees Kelvin. You can do the same thing in Photoshop only using filters or Red/Blue balance in curves - without benefit of the simplified parameters.

 

All other operations are best done in Photoshop, including Levels, Curves and Sharpening, which is more reproducible and reversible (using layers).

<cite>or are JPGs all shot at a 8bit depth by default?</cite>

 

<p>JPEG is an 8-bit standard, period. So if you shoot JPEG, not only are you allowing the camera to apply a number of settings (white balance, sharpening, contrast, colour tone, etc.) which you can't undo later (you can try to counteract them but you won't get them exactly undone), you're also irretrievably throwing away the last few bits of data. Many (most? all?) sensors in cameras with RAW modes have 12 bits per pixel. If you work on a 16-bit TIFF, you can use all that data; if you start out with a JPEG, you have only 8 bits.</p>