Converting RAW into JPEG or TIFF

[sai]

I started shooting RAW and I love it! But now I want to share my pictures via

web and store them in my PC.

I was playing withthe software provided with my EOS 350D (Zoombrowser) and after

having developed the RAw file I saved it like a high resolution JPEG a 8 bit

TIFF and a 16 bit TIFF. I can't see any difference in quality from the 3

copies, other than the size of the file (8MB, 25MB and 45MB respectively). I

read Bob's article on the subject, but still I wanted to ask. What do you do? Do

you save them into 16bit TIFF work on them on PS and then turn them into 8bit

TIFF? Is high quality JPEG enough? I don't think I can store thousands of 45MB

pictures! Do you keep the RAW files? (I'm guessing OF COURSE!)

thanks

[ronald_moravec1]

Keep the raw. Keep the final photoshop. Make every JPEG from the last xxx.psd which is uncompressed and unsharpened. Sharpen the final size JPEG as the last step. To make more /different JPEG, go back to xxx.psd.

 

Never reopen a JPEG and change it.

[colinsouthern]

I convert all of my Canon RAW files to Adobe's DNG format - and then delete the originals.

 

From there I save my keepers in Photoshops PSD format.

[sai]

Ronald, what do you mean the "last xxx.psd which is uncompressed and unsharpened"?

Also, how and where do you keep all those files? I mean there is no PC that can hold all that, right? DVD back ups?

[zigzag]

here is a Photoshop Workflow:<br><br>

 

1. Convert files to DNG using Adobe's DNG converter (rename at the same time). Save these DNG files to CD/DVD - these are your negatives/untouched masters. <br>

2. You can now delete the RAWs - once you have checked your backup.<br>

3. If you have CS2+, use Bridge to view these DNGs and rank them (to select the bad from the good, choose those you wish to work on).<br>

4. Delete the low ranking DNGs you don't want to work with (you have them on DVD)<br>

5. Use ACR and PS to work the file. For the best ones work in 16 bit (at least for gross changes), then when you are close (before sharpening), convert to 8 bit and save the unflattened PSD file (learn to use adjustment layers).<br>

6. Decide on your print sizes from the PSD, flatten, crop, final colour manage, sharpen to suit the print size, save to high quality 8 bit JPEG. - These are your print masters.<br>

7. Print and check the quality, repeat step 6 if necessary to get it right.<br>

<br>

 

As you may put a lot of work into the PSD, you want to save this so you can tweak it later. The above is for the 'best quality' photos, for lesser quality/snapshots etc you may choose to work 8 bit and take shortcuts - as long as you know what compromises you make (some shoot JPEG and don't touch up much).

[jason_hall4]

TIFF is good for what it is made for, however, if you are keeping the originals as RAW, DNG, or PSD then output to 8 bit JPEG for web and shareing. Reguardless of the work flow you settle on be sure you keep the originals in one of the formats mentioned above (RAW, DNG, PSD).

 

I keep mine in RAW currently,(I am thinking very strongly about DNG), in lightroom. If I edit a photo in Photoshop a copy is made in PSD. When all is said and done I export to JPEG to send to the print lab after a final sharpening in Photoshop if needed., (I don't print anything myself right now) Just one less headach and expense. Just look around for a good reliable lab in your area.

 

JPEG is more than enough for the web and viewing on a monitor and most printing. If you are not printing yourself ask your lab what they want and prefer as a format. Most will reguire 8 Bit JPEG. Mine does.

 

Jason

[sai]

OK, I downloaded the plugin for PS to convert my RAW files into DNG. I'll work the best ones on 16bit and then convert them to 8 bit. Now for printing what should I choose? 300 dpi? And what's the craic with the "linear image" and "enable ICC profile in image" I get asked when converting to 16 bit?

thanks!

[zigzag]

Sounds like you're ready to learn about Colour Management. Here's the first one I googled (may not be the best): <a href="http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps9_print/ps9_print_1.htm">CS2</a>. The general recommendation is 300dpi, though various photo-labs support different resolutions (240 dpi is also common). An ICC profile is an International Colour Consortium 'mapping' between colours supported by an input device (IN), the editing tool (PS) and the output device (OUT = printer, screen etc). Read up on gamuts, Adobe RGB, sRGB, tone mapping etc.

[zackojones]

Simon: Take a look at Digital Photo Professional (DPP). It should have been installed along with ZoomBrowser. DPP allows you to do a bunch of extra tweaking to images compared to ZoomBrowser. What I do is download images -> scan through them with ZoomBrowser deleting those I don't like -> load the rest into DPP -> tweak -> create JPG's from DPP.

[mendel_leisk]

Unless I'm processing an image after raw conversion, I go straight to jpeg. I log the steps I used to convert the raw, both by saving the settings in my converter (adobe camera raw) and in a log file (txt format). If I am going to Photoshop process the image after raw conversion, I output 16 bit tiff. Unless there's a lot of labour involved, I'll save the post-Photoshop result as a jpeg and delete the tiff.

[david_amberson1]

Just a question, but why would you convert a RAW to TIFF to edit. Why not just edit the RAW to taste, then save as JPEG and you have the original RAW as a negative. Is there a benifit to editing the TIFF over the RAW. The only time I have ever saved as TIFF is when I was printing something around 16x20. The idea was, the bigger file of 58MB vs 7MB would reveal a better print. But I'm starting to wonder. I cant really see a difference. I think I will convert one to TIFF and one to Jpeg 8x10 and see side by side if I can tell a difference. Also, is there any printers that print at 16bit or is this just used for better editing.

[mendel_leisk]

"Is there a benifit to editing the TIFF over the RAW?"

 

Whenever your edit involves something not possible with the raw converter.

[david_amberson1]

So in other words, if your particular raw converter has more options to do what needs to be done, the there is no need to convert to TIFF first. But in my case, I use DPP 90% of the time, if I needed more adjustment than DPP allows, then convert to TIFF and open in another program, unless that program(i.e Camera RAW) allows more RAW adjustment. Camera RAW does. It has all of the adjustments Lightroom has and to me its easier to use(Lay out). So, that being said, would you still convert to TIFF or just edit RAW in Adobe Camera RAW. If I could get my photos to display better in Adobe Camera RAW and it was as fast or faster than DPP, then this would be a nice all in one program to use.