Any Difference of retouch in RAW vs RAW to Tiff then edit

[geo_lam]

Dear All,

 

If there is a RAW file and the retouch/edit work is done in the raw

conversion. Is the quality the same as convert raw to Tiff, then edit the Tiff?

[ellis_vener_photography]

You mean as you do with Adobe Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw(ACR) ?

 

The difference is that Adobe's policy is that they will not "touch' your raw files. any retouching color balance, tone modifications or cropping done in Lightroom or ACR 4 are saved as part of the instruction set and are not incorporated into the file until it is output as a TIFF, PSd or JPEG. This means you can always "wipe the slate clean" and start fresh. Lightroom has the additional optional capacity of using History "snapshots". which allow youto save the work down so far before you go forward with more work. In practice this means that if you don't like what you've done since that last snapshot you can quickly go back to where you were last happy.

[glenbarrington]

To expand on what Ellis has contributed. . .

 

It has been my experience/understanding, that when you send a raw file (or any OTHER file format for that matter) to an editor, that it gets automatically converted to that editor's native format anyway. And that converted image is what you edit. For non raw files, many editors are smart enough to auto convert the image back to the intake file format, others require an export to save as a non-native file.

 

And the reason Lightroom will create a non raw copy and send IT to the editor is to incorporate the changes to the image that you made in LR. Remember, Lightroom is non destructive to the original image, so the changes are saved separately and applied every time Lightroom pulls up that photo. So to make the changes 'permanent', LR needs to create a new, discreet image in a new file format.

[randmcnatt]

Ellis, I think what Geo is asking is, which method yields the best color and resolution: capture the RAW image first with a stand-alone converter, then edit that tiff or jpeg or whatever; or use the RAW import plugin in the editor (PS maybe)?

 

I'd think a stand-alone from the camera manufacturer would be slightly better, but I'd recommend this: capture a RAW test image to tiff or full-size jpeg, then open the same RAW image in PS and immediately save it in the same format. Compare the two images. If the stand-alone looks better to you, use that route, otherwise save yourself a few steps and open directly with PS.

[glenbarrington]

To answer your original question; The easy answer is, yes, you will not likely notice any difference in an image converted from raw. It should look like the retouched raw image.

 

However, that isn't the whole story. And the actual answer is likely to vary depending on the particular raw developer and the particular editors you use.

 

Each file format has it's own set of strengths and weaknesses, and any weakness of the new file format will be inherent in that new format from that point on.

 

For instance, jpg throws a little data away every time an open jpg gets saved. Not a lot, mind you, but a tiny bit, so over time, you COULD detect some image deterioration if you frequently re-edit and save.

 

And none of the non-raw formats have ALL the data that is contained in the raw image. They all represent the raw image as you have retouched it (i.e. how you have chosen to display that raw image), so any data in the raw image that isn't used in the final retouched version is thrown away at conversion time and the converted image can no longer access that discarded data.

 

That is why you either need a non destructive raw converter like Lightroom, or make sure you save a master copy version (i.e. unretouched) of the raw file, so if you want to go back and change the retouching, you have all the data that was originally available.

[Ed_Ingold]

The tools are different, consequently the end results will differ. One is not automatically better than the other, but some operations are easier in ACR (or Lightroom) than in Photoshop.

 

It is much easier to adjust white balance and exposure in the RAW file. White balance has the dimensions of color temperature (degress K), which relates well to photographic experience. Exposure correction in RAW lets you recover up to 4 stops of overexposure (2 stops without loss). As previously stated, any "changes" to a RAW file are instructional only, and can be reversed at any time, even after the file is closed and reopened, without loss.

 

On the other hand, only Photoshop has USM sharpening, which is the best and most controllable method. Photoshop has many other tools which have no counterpart in ACR or Lightroom.

[frank_dzambic]

I have found that with 1Ds files, darkening shadows in ACR will sometimes make them appear very noisy, where darkening them in Photoshop with Levels doesn't cause the same problem.

 

As a general rule, I'd think you're much better off getting the colour balance as close as possible to what you want in ACR (or whatever converter you're using) rather than trying to do it in Photoshop.