RAW file, now what?

arthur_reyes1 · March 8, 2009

Fellow photographers. Please excuse my ignorance for a moment.

I received my 5DII

this past week and have been enjoying the switch to digital after using my Elan IIe for years. Now I'm trying to figu

re out this whole digital processing thing. So I have a bunch of photos taken in RAW. After playing around with th

e file and finally get the look I want, now what? Do I save as a RAW file? Do I save as a TIF? Do I save as a jpeg? W

hat is the preferred/optimal file type to save as. Do most folks save the file as a huge uncompressed file and

then change file type depending on how the photo is used?

I have a digital po

int and shoot that I've been using that only makes jpegs. So I haven't done much with those files other than tweek

a few things here and there, and resave as a jpeg. So as you can tell this is all new to me.

In a nutshe

ll, what

is your processing procedure?

Thanks for your hel

p.

2008. · March 8, 2009

I am not a pro photograper but i save in jpeg only, but in the programe i use called Capture One Pro you can save in all three as you have mentioned ! imagin a pro would save in tiff ! if you are not a pro save in jpeg !cheers.

derrickdehaan · March 8, 2009

I am not even close to a pro, but I save in TIFF. Every place that I have prints done can use TIFF files without any problems.

chrisjb · March 8, 2009

Not in my experience, most labs print jpeg files, even when presented with tiff often change to jpeg without sayin so. The reason to convert to `tiff` is that it is lossless, so you can save many times while processing. the files are large soo when you feel you have reached your goal for each i,age. save to jpeg to save space. jpeg can be opened and closed without loss providing no further changes and savin is done..HTH :)

allardk · March 8, 2009

Hi arthur,

A raw file is like a negative. There are different ways to 'develop' it into an image. After you have done this development, you can save the image as a JPEG or TIFF to send to a printer or show to your friends. But you keep the RAW file in case you decide later you want a black and white version, or a different white balance, or whatever.

Opinions differ about this, but I say a low compression (high quality) JPEG is virtually indistinguishable from a tiff, but much smaller. As long as you don't do any editing on the JPEG anymore you don't have to worry about quality loss.

If you want to use the image to do a serious amount of editing in e.g. photoshop it's better to save as a 16-bit TIFF, it gives you more latitude.

neill_farmer2 · March 8, 2009

Hi Arthur, I shoot in Raw. I process the shots I want to print or send on the web into jpegs using DPP. Out of 100 shots this might be only 10 or so. I store all my shots as Raw. I generally keep a copy of the final jpeg that I printed as well. Often I will process or play with images to see what I can make of them but if they don't make the grade the processed images get deleted, only the original raw being kept. I regularly transfer the raws to two external drives. After I'm sure they are safely stored I and when I know I no longer need them I delete the raws off my main drive thus keeping it clean.

I don't store as jpegs (other than those already printed) as these are derived images and don't take much extra processing, I believe only the original image, raw, is a viable starting point if I need the image again at a later time.

Neill

peterblaise · March 8, 2009

.

Hi Arthur,

Earlier: "... A raw file is like a negative ... "

</blockquote>

Nope. This is a popular misconception. This is further confused by Adobe misnaming their own Raw storage file format as DNG meaning Digital NeGative.

A film negative is a developed interpretation of the original latent image (the latent image is the thing that starts our copyright, by the way).

A Raw file is a latent image , not a developed image, and as such can be redeveloped over and over, unlike a negative that can only be developed once.

Arthur, I save from my screen copy for whatever my target is. Immediate web sharing is ~65% to ~85% quality JPG compression with resizing to a reduced pixel count to match the size of the target, often 1024 x 768 pixels or less, 700 pixels wide for photo.net sharing in threads. For printing, I always save as 16-bit lossless format such as TIF or PSD, which also allows subsequent tweaking without any noticeable additional image information loss.

Since you have your Raw, you can always start over, so you don't even have to save a screen copy as anything.

If you resave as Raw, it will merely save your screen copy as instructions along side the original latent image, or as an 8-bit lossy-compressed pixel-grouped JPG along side the original latent image, all in the resulting DNG Raw latent image file.

Only the camera can save an original Raw latent image file.

Perhaps manufactures should name their Raw as "LIFE Latent Image File Encoding -- for the life of your images ". Just a thought. ;-)

.

frank kennedy · March 8, 2009

I keep the photos as RAW files. I only save TIFF if I have a need for one as they are very BIG.

For JPG I save only those I have a use for. 240 dpi for printing. 72 dpi for monitor display. Note that no matter how many dpi the photo is the monitor only uses 72. I use a quality of 7 to save jpg. That seems good. These values are for use with DPP.

peterblaise · March 8, 2009

.

Earlier: "... Frank wrote: I save ... 240 dpi for printing ... 72 dpi for monitor display ... dpi the photo is ... "

</blockquote>

Frank, I'm sure you mean "equivalent print out or display dpi " since a digital image file is a virtual image and has no physical dimensions such as the inches in dpi.

A photo does have a pixel count divided as across and down dimensions, so you probably mean "pixel count/dimensions equivalent to a print out or display dpi of ... ", right?

This is a common fallacy -- believing a digital image file CAN have a meaningful dpi setting -- even camera makers get confused and put dpi settings in digital image files captured in-camera! Doh! Silly them.

.

frank kennedy · March 8, 2009

I was using the language that is used in DPP. They call it Output Resolution specified in dpi. They call it Resize setting, specified in in., cm., or pixel.

If you specify the desired dpi and specify the desired picture size, then, I guess it would result in what you said, "pixel count/dimensions equivalent to a print out...." But, your language is not the language used in DPP.

Note that if you (or I) crop small enough but then try to specify a pixel density or picture size that is too big it results in not enough pixels to "fill" the specified picture dimensions. I presume that DPP automatically up-rezes the output to provide the specified size and pixel desity.

I was just trying to tell the OP how to achieve output with the least confusion and still achieve the desired results.

nail33 · March 8, 2009

Frank:

Sorry to interrupt this thread, but does 72 dpi also hold true for a HD monitor capable of 1080 resolution?

frank kennedy · March 8, 2009

Arnold,

I don't have one. I don't know.

steve_crist · March 8, 2009

"A Raw file is a latent image , not a developed image, and as such can be redeveloped over and over, unlike a negative that can only be developed once."

A negative can be developed muliple times. A raw is like a negative in the respect that it is the stored image directly from the lens to the sensor/film prior to any manipulation.

peterblaise · March 8, 2009

.

Steve, how can a negative be developed multiple times?

And a negative is NOT the stored image directly from the lens prior to any manipulation, as chemical development makes a boat-load of permanent decisions once and for all time.

Are we misunderstanding "negative" to mean "undeveloped latent image". A negative is a "developed image".

.

peterblaise · March 8, 2009

.

Yes, Frank, as I said, Adobe is a great contributor to the confusion by erroneously calling their Raw file a Digital Negative.

.

ralph_jensen · March 8, 2009

To me, a RAW file is like a negative because in both cases, once you start working with the image you can't go further back in the process without returning to the scene and taking the picture again. Sure, technically speaking there are differences, but nobody cares except nitpickers. "RAW = film negative" is fine with me. ------------------- Arthur, you ask some good questions. I too have a 5DII. It's easy to feel that it's a waste not to always shoot RAW, especially since as with many cameras, the 5DII files can look much better when processed from RAW than when they were shot as JPGs. On the other hand, RAW is often overkill for a lot of the non-critical stuff I shoot. (Dang, those 5DII RAW files are huge, aren't they?)

The problem with these discussions is that one photographer will save all year to go to Yosemite on the equinox and get the sunset just so and say that it's foolish to not keep everything in RAW and TIF; "storage is cheap." Meanwhile, another photographer will shoot hundreds or thousands of photos a week of soccer games and children's parties and pets and family and friends and feel crushed by the burden of "all those huge RAW files."

So it depends in large part on what you shoot and how you shoot.

Here's my approach: When I got my new 5DII, I immediately did some quick tests with different file options and I decided that "RAW will be my negatives, and normal [not Fine] jpg's recorded at the same moment will fill the role that drugstore prints used to fill." (In film days I would shoot a roll of film, have drugstore prints made as proof prints and giveaways to friends, and then I would really work with only a couple of frames on the roll of negatives. Same principle here; I keep the "negatives" - the RAW files - of the critical and important shots, and the [drugstore prints] [JPGs from a 21mp camera] are more than good enough for everything else.)

So I shoot RAW + JPG, which I rarely did before. With the 5DII, RAW-only shooting only frees up a little more storage space than RAW+JPG (again, Normal, not Fine, jpg; that's the setting with the bumpy icon, not the smooth one.) If I shoot RAW-only, I can fit 900 shots on a given card; if I shoot RAW+JPG (Normal) I can "only" fit 800 images on the same card. Viewed another way, if I have 64 shots left and I'm shooting RAW+JPG, I can only increase that to 72 shots left by switching off the JPG's and shooting RAW-only.

To me (and I know that many will disagree!), giving up that little bit of memory-card space [i.e., so that I can shoot RAW+JPG] is well worth it, because most of the shots I take are pretty forgettable (or deletable) and I'm not going to keep the RAW versions of most of them--I'll just keep JPGs for most. Yes, I know full well that with software (like the DPP that came with your camera, which is what I use) it's relatively easy to make JPG's from RAW files, but to my mind it's not as easy as making them instantly, in camera, and deleting all of the RAW files except the few I specifically decide are worth saving. (Others will definitely feel differently; much depends on the subject. Those once-a-year-sunset-in-Yosemite shots deserve RAW preservation much more than the hundreds of snapshots you might take at the neighbor kid's birthday party.)

JPG is underrated in advanced-photography forums. I would never argue that important shots shouldn't also be shot in RAW, but a lot of the great images of our time that aren't of landscape subjects are being shot in JPG and it's nothing to sneeze at. It may be heresy here, but I often shoot (gasp!) JPG-only with the 5DII. There. I said it. You may find yourself doing the same when using your 5DII for shots you used to take with your point-and-shoot!

As far as your question about what to do with the RAW files you already have, it depends on what they're of and what you want to do with them. Safest thing if you don't want to keep the RAW files is always to save as TIF and convert to JPG's only those photos that warrant it (warrant it because others need to see or work them and they can't handle TIFs). On the other hand, if you shot RAW of a kid's birthday party, the world wouldn't end if you saved them to JPG. (Only you can decide; you'll hear both perspectives.)

But I feel much less burdened by the weight of "all those huge RAW files" since I started shooting RAW+JPG (normal) for most subjects with which I "might" want RAW for a few but am not likely to need RAW versions for most or all of what I shot.

allardk · March 8, 2009

When I said a raw file is like a negative, I meant you can make multiple prints from one negative, prints that differ in more things than just size (contrast, dodging & burning, etc). Just like you can make multiple, different JPEGs from a RAW. There are ways in which RAW files are different from film negatives as well. Just like there are ways that RAW files are different from exposed, but undeveloped film.

I don't think it makes much sense to look for one-to-one comparisons of the intermediate steps in film and digital photographic processes.

JDMvW · March 8, 2009

The distinction on RAW versus a "negative" is one without a point. Say it's "analogous" in digital terms if you must.

Or is it the digital analog of the analog negative? ;)

mphoto gallery · March 8, 2009

Since you asked about procedure, I am happy to oblige.

I shoot RAW, convert to a TIFF and save my edited TIFF with all processing completed except for output sharpening. I have two files, the original RAW and the TIFF. I archive them both.

When I need a print, I go to my TIFF and resize it, perform a final sharpening and print the image. If I have to go to a print shop or need a web file, I will convert to a JPG.

This process works for me. You see, there are lots of opinions on workflow, file format, color space and so on and so on. I imagine you will need to spend a lot of time reading up on this whole new world. My advice, go buy a book and/or take a course to get up to speed quickly. I recommend Digital Photography by Eismann, Dugan and Grey. It served me well. At least, I could get infor off the web and knew when I was being led in a direction that was either wrong or would not work for my needs.

peterblaise · March 8, 2009

.

Earlier: "... The distinction on RAW versus a "negative" is one without a point ... "

</blockquote>

The point is in direct response to the inquiry in opening post, essentially asking, "Once I open a Raw file and tweak it on screen to my satisfaction in preparation for publishing, do I save it as a Raw again?" THAT implies the opening poster has had NO help from the industry (or us) in accurately understanding that the Raw file is a LATENT image. No one who knows that would ever try to save a fully developed image back as a latent image again IF THEY UNDERSTOOD what's really going on in the inner details of our photography.

However, as Kodak once said, you push the button, we do the rest. That means that no one HAS to understand anything accurately in order to take and make some great pictures. It's when we want inner control over something that accurate understanding becomes so important, and apparently so hard to find considering the vast amount of misunderstanding out there regarding what's what, photography detailed processes wise.

Let me try to sew together the film and chemical photography process and the digital photography process.

A random access storage card is like unexposed film in that you put it in the camera empty, expose some shots, then you can take it out of the camera and it may have those exposures on it.

However, those exposures can be either latent undeveloped images as they would be with film, now called Raw, or, unlike film, the images might be fully developed images (developed in-camera, as Polaroid might be thought of?), now called a JPG or TIF. You can also re-save on-screen images as JPG or TIF or other formats. The fact that the camera AND the photographer can separately save JPGs and TIFs can be very confusing.

Actually, the closest things to a developed negative in the digital world are (1) on-screen/in-memory images, and (2) on-disk/on-card files, such as JPG, TIF, and PSD files -- but NOT Raw files, which of course are undeveloped. However, the fact that all these on-disk/on-card files -- Raw, TIF, PSD, JPG -- can be made to appear as on-screen/in-memory copies seamlessly without the photographer having to do anything special is very confusing.

Arthur now has an on-screen/in-memory image and wonders what to do with it. It is a developed image, so to speak, so save it as an on-disk/on-card file in a way that is supportive of it's next intended use. What is the next use? Web? Resize it and JPG it. Print? Full resolution and full bit depth TIFs are nice. Readjustments later? Full resolution and full bit depth PSD are favorites.

.

wayne_campbell · March 8, 2009

To muddy the waters (if that's possible!) what about those of us who use iPhoto as an organizing and storage program? In iPhoto you can make a copy of your original jpeg. The copy will then appear immediately to the left of the original jpeg. You can then process and tweak your brains out on the copy and you still have the original jpeg sitting there next to it. Isn't the original jpeg in effect a RAW photo because you can return to it endlessly and make copies to work on? I realize jpegs are "lossy" but if your original jpeg is adjusted to your satisfaction and then left alone, then it should serve as a RAW original for 90% of users. No? Yes?

chrisjb · March 8, 2009

So I have a bunch of photos taken in RAW. After playing around with th e file and finally get the look I want, now what? Do I save as a RAW file? Do I save as a TIF? Do I save as a jpeg?

Just a thought Arthur, OK you have a Raw file you adjust to suit, Then CONVERT to either Tiff or Jpeg. generally to Tiff for changes or archive. The Raw file remains unchanged just like ol film days a neg is stored for future printing. I hope this is the work flow you are asking about. :) The argument of whether a Raw file can be called a `Digital neg` or not is trivial, just a common name for a starting point of 2 different processes

chrisjb · March 8, 2009

Wayne No IMO, the Raw files contain All recorded lnformation from the sensor, a jpeg will shed some of the info to produce a smaller file. but in most files not noticable. Your copy is what most folks would do with a finished archived jpeg.. I shoot mainly jpeg as the workflow is quick and rarely have exposure problems, if there are difficult lighting or large prints required the use Raw as these files have the lattitude of the old negs. I`d just call them originals :)

dave404 · March 8, 2009

When you "modify" a RAW file in ACR or some other RAW converter you are not really changing the pixel data, you are changing metadata that inserted in the file. This is just setting information you created when you "edited" the RAW file in the converter. If you use the camera vendors format (say Canon CR2) if you make change in ACR you save them most likely to a "sidecar XMP" format file (XMP which is a form of XML the web savy), which is a text file that has the same file name but is named dot XMP. This file contains just settings that have to be interpreted by a RAW converter that reads them, the white balance, tint, all the settings on the sliders. If you do not have sidecar XMP option selected they go to the place Photoshop keeps a central database - the worst choice since the settings are separate from the RAW file. I convert to Adobe DNG and therefore I do not need these sidecar files and the setting get saved with the RAW data. Still, the RAW data is not overwritten and is essentially a NEGATIVE. These settings are like adjustment layers in Photoshop - no pixels just instructions for how to modify the pixels.

The RAW converter ACR or DPP will convert the pixels from the camera into Pixel data that photoshop can use and then write out as JPG or TIFF or PSD.

cabbiinc · March 9, 2009

I won't comment on the other comments.

Upload RAW files.

Delete non-keepers.

Fix white balance and Picture Style in RAW tab. (copy recipe and paste recipe to all if it can work will save a lot of time)

In the main DPP window select all. Click Adjustment > Tone Curve Assist (standard or high depending on the set of pics). This will apply a curve suited to each individual pic. If you copy and paste a recipe it will apply that tone curve for the one you copied.

I then go through and tweak to my hearts content. I also add check marks as I go, 1 for a no keeper, 2 and 3 for extra editing, nothing for leaving it as is. (alt+1, alt+2, alt+3, and alt+z to delete the check mark).

When I'm done with that I select the ones I want for what I want (check 2's go to a 'to edit' folder, check 3's go to a 'stitching' folder, etc...) and batch process, converting to jpeg, image quality 10, output resolution 300 dpi, I might change the file names I might not.

I use Jpegs because software has been improved quite a bit. It's almost lossless in most cases (that's not to say that I won't use a Tiff if I know it will need a lot of extra work). I also use 300 dpi all of the time because when you go to edit something in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro Photo Professional X2 Ultimate or Gimp the dpi carries over. Big deal most of the time but if you wanted to combine two images into one when you go to do that and one is 300 dpi and the other is 120 dpi the 120 dpi image will appear bigger compared to the other image and just muck up your work flow (its corrected easy enough but why bother if you don't have too). Having the image at 300 dpi and only using 72 dpi of it won't hurt a thing either, but if you try to print something at 72 dpi you probably wont like the results. To put it simply, use the dpi that your going to print at the most and stick with it.

This is just the workflow and reasoning behind it. It's as good as an opinion. Find one that fits you and go with it. In the end it's the resulting image that matters.

Sign In

RAW file, now what?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in