8 bit or 16 bit if shooting Weddings?

[marissa_c._boucher]

Going RAW this year for all our wedding and portrait photography and

I want to make sure we're choosing the best workflow overall.

 

I've read that shooting in 8 bit, then working in 16 bit gives the

most possible manipulatable data, then converting back to 8 bit for

printing.

 

What I want to know is how many high end pro RAW wedding shooters

use the 8 bit > 16 bit > 8 bit workflow. I want to know if it's

realistic for serious full time professional wedding photographers

to use this method.

 

I need to know if the hard drive space required for working with 16

bit RAW files will require more hard drive space than being worth it

in processing advantages. I also need to know if it's going to slow

down my workflow significantly since each RAW image may take longer

to open, close, convert, save, etc.

 

Forgive me if I am uninformed in RAW workflow, I'm just basing it

off what I know or have heard.

 

Any input appreciated.

 

 

 

Thanks,

Weston

[fotografz]

Camera RAW files in the camera are actually 12 bit (except for a sparse few digital cameras

and MF digital backs which are 16 bit). RAW files sent to Adobe Raw Converter (ARC), are

converted to 16 bit, unless you select 8 bit in the RAW converter selection panel. It's best

to work in 16 bit until you are forced to use 8 bit (some adjustment tools in PS only work

in 8 bit), because there is more data to work with.

 

You don't HAVE to convert to 8 bit to print, the printer driver does that automatically. Most

printers are 8 bit, but that will change. I believe Canon already is making a printer that is

12 bit.

 

But 16 bit files are twice as big and take a lot of storage space. So you have to make up

your mind how important archiving images is to you. I save everything I can in 16 bit for

future upgraded printers, and more fully featured editing programs. PS will most likely be

all 16 bit with 32 bit options in the not to distant future.

[michaelmowery]

First of all you don't go from 8bit to 16bit it is the other way around. Yes I shoot raw in 16bit

and as Marc said it really is 12bit. The work flow as Marc described is just as fast as shooting

raw when you use batch processing. You will be needing more space with the larger files. I

suggest you have at least 3 copies of what ever you do. I unlike Marc process the raw to

jpegs only then i archive the raws for future use down the road. Read all you can about digital

and shooting in raw.

 

Michael

[marissa_c._boucher]

Thanks guys, I appreciate the help. You know what I did find though that is also helpful is the "Image Processor..." option in PSCS2's Bridge. There I can do everything in one swoop without worrying about having a ton of images loaded in my ACR window.

 

Michael...So you save to JPG? Not TIFF? I would think that you would want to save as TIFF in order to manipulate further with PS's additional imaging options on a file that isn't compressed. Then, once the photo has been processed in ACR and PS, it can be saved from that master "imaged/processed" TIFF to different sized JPG's based on required print sizes.

[fotografz]

Marissa, the very best way to archive images for yourself is as RAW files. Even if you adjust

images in the RAW developer, all the original information right from the camera is saved for

the future.

 

I agree that saving for the client can be done in jpgs format which takes up less space than

tiff images because it compresses the information. Doing that once is okay. However,

repeatedly opening and re-saving jpegs degrades the image quality.

[michaelmowery]

You answered your own question. Yes, if i am going to do further manipulation in PS then i

would save that file as a tiff. All my manipulation is done before i get into PS. If i have to do

any retouching i would then convert to tiff. I need only to convert what i use.

 

Michael

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

The great thing about RAW is that you can decide each time. For proofs or pictures that don't need photoshopping then 8 bit is fine and will cut your workflow time in half. If you need to work an image then you can open in 16 bit. To be honest though, any work that needs a 16 bit workflow should be done in the RAW converter itself for maximum quality.

[twmeyer]

here's a slight re-routing of one aspect of this topic... I archive my worked files as PSDocs, thinking a "native" format will retain more compatability, and it seems to like saving layers better that way. I have recently noticed that my clunky Fuji RAW converter EX yeild a MUCH better conversion than the PhotoShop RAW converter... sharper, more accurate color with WAY less tweaking required and easy batching, too. Is this true of the Canon and Nikon converters, too? Or am I the "lucky" one?<p>Weston, I haven't noticed that the change back to 8 bit from 16 doubles my post time, but it certainly has a huge effect on the quality of the final document. If time is an issue... buy more RAM and more hard drive space. Also, Delkin is now making Gold DVDs (actual gold, not just gold colored, and priced accordingly) that they say are stable for 100 years... t

[JohnWebster]

Saving an image as a JPG only once? A number 12 JPG is bullet proof for me. Try a test. Create a canvas and save a thin line on it. Open the file again and place another thin line next to it and resave it. Do this 30-40 times. If repeated saves degrade image quality, I can't see it in this test. The last line looks as good as the first.

[twmeyer]

Okay, then try that same test with a gradiant like a blue sky or a grey sweep of seamless. And every time you open it, adjust the levels a little, or bump the color, or change the contrast, or change it's ppi (you can keep the file size the same, just change it's resolution) and "save" it again. Then try printing your last save and match it against a print from the first saved file.<p>You can resave a jpg, but you'd better change it's name to create a new file each time you do. We really don't make this stuff up just to amuse ourselves with needless Voodoo processing... t