- This topic is empty.
Converting Raw images
-
aoluain wrote:
eshortie wrote:
i use Photoshop CS3 extended and i think its the biz for converting,
you can even correct chromatic abberations ! classAnd in LR – hold down ALT when changing red/cyan and then blue/yellow – there is usually a mixture of both, and alt shows one without the other.
LR is a sort of mixture of ACR and bridge with a DAM – and much more intuitive that DPP or CS – and for most work, all that is necessary for final output.
aoluain wrote:
i second this statement, canon professional raw software is crap
In what way is it crap?
nfl-fan wrote:
Few pointers:
* 16 Bit – TIFF is a good option as I was recently informed myself (I only use JPEG when re-sizing for web hosting)
Why would you convert to TIFF, if you don’t actually need the tiff file? You’re taking up large amounts of space, for no reason.
I convert directly from raw to jpg (jpg used for website and printing). I’ve never had a problem, and never had complaints about the results. Most print services will only accept jpg files anyway.
Yes, I know jpg is highly compressed, but I will still always have the raw file (and it’s xmp) if I need to produce or adjust the file again.
paul wrote:
Why would you convert to TIFF, if you don’t actually need the tiff file? You’re taking up large amounts of space, for no reason.
Because there’s no such thing as a 16-bit JPEG file and working with 16-bit images almost guarantee’s that you won’t have any posterization in your image. Working in 16-bit mode can make a very noticeable difference if one is converting to BW. It’s also beneficial when trying to preserve the subtle highlights in a brides dress, for example. If you have ever made a levels adjustment with an 8-bit image, you’ll know just how quickly “combing” can affect the histogram after you’ve made the levels adjustment. The combing is as a result of missing data. Now, do the same adjustment on the same image, but in 16-bit mode and you will almost always have no combing. That’s the power and beauty of working in 16-bit mode!
Thorsten wrote:
paul wrote:
Why would you convert to TIFF, if you don’t actually need the tiff file? You’re taking up large amounts of space, for no reason.
Because there’s no such thing as a 16-bit JPEG file and working with 16-bit images almost guarantee’s that you won’t have any posterization in your image.
But surely when working with the raw file, there is no need to first convert to a 16bit tiff?
Besides, your original data is never 16 bit. Your raw file is probably 12 or 14bit anyway.
And in the end you’re going to convert to 8bit jpg anyway.
I think Thor is suggesting that if you intend to take the picture into an editor, like CS3, then you want all of the information, therefore a 16bit file. Tif wouldn’t be the best choise due to file size, yo can open it straight as a psd file.
Si
But, all the information, the original raw file, is never 16bit. It’s 8bit, 12bit, 14bt.
I can only see the benefit of 16bit tiff, if you’re sending it to a print house that requires an extra large print and accepts tiff files. Other than that, an 8 bit jpg image does for 99% of people’s usage of photographs.
Thorsten wrote:
aoluain wrote:
i second this statement, canon professional raw software is crap
In what way is it crap?
HHHMMM this sounds like a LOADED question.
Can I re-phrase my statement?
“I second this statement, canon professional raw software is” . . . BASIC compared to Photoshop CS3 . . .
If I cant . . . then Canons Professional RAW converter is crap because the processing functions and filters
are limited especially if you want to name your converter “Professional”.paul wrote:
But, all the information, the original raw file, is never 16bit. It’s 8bit, 12bit, 14bt.
I can only see the benefit of 16bit tiff, if you’re sending it to a print house that requires an extra large print and accepts tiff files. Other than that, an 8 bit jpg image does for 99% of people’s usage of photographs.
I think Paul is right here JPEG’s do for 99% of jobs like small sized print and internet based images but for large print files as the TIFF’s hold so much more information, but there is a down side to converting All your images from RAW to TIFF and that is space.
Anyway 95% of people with the exception of course of people who deal with image files on a daily basis like Magazines or high end colour reproduction houses are not going to notice whether the image is missing something and then there is the issue of the reproduction, I am a Printer by trade and the printed image is never the same as the original .
I don’t mean to sound flippant but to hear people going on about the struggle for exactness wears me out.
Either I’m not explaining myself correctly, or your just missing the point completely in relation to the benefit of 16-bit files. Yes, indeed 95% of the time, there’s nothing wrong with working on an 8-bit image. Yes, cameras only produce 12-bit or 14-bit images. No, the reason for using 16-bit isn’t for large prints (there’s no particular advantage that 16-bit has in this regard). No, I’m not saying I convert ALL my images from raw to TIFF and wasting space in the process.
What I was trying to say is that if you intend to do a significant amount of work on an image in Photoshop, you’re far better off with a 16-bit file than an 8-bit file, particularly if the image includes delicate tones or if the image is destined to be black and white.
An 8-bit RGB file has 256 shades of red, 256 shades of green and 256 shades of blue. A 16-bit RGB file has 65536 shades of red, 65536 shades of green and 65536 shades of blue. A 12-bit raw image won’t have as much as that, but will still have 4096 shades of red, 4096 shades of green and 4096 shades of blue, which I think you’ll agree is exponentially more than 256 of each of red, green and blue and gives you far more scope for making adjustments without visually degrading the image.
This tutorial on bit-depth explains the whole thing very well and even features an excellent example of posterization when working at 8-bits. This article in Digital Photo Pro (the US one!) also outlines the benefits of working in 16-bit mode but also balances the discussion by saying that 8-bit mode is quite adequate in the majority of cases, and I agree entirely with that assessment.
But, one of the principle reasons I shoot raw is because of the bit-depth advantage I gain from doing so. When I convert a raw image to a 16-bit TIFF file, I delete that TIFF file once I’ve finished working the image. If I need it again, it’s a simple matter of opening DPP and recreating it, so there is no storage overhead in using a 16-bit workflow. But if you’re willing to accept the compromises that are inevitable with an 8-bit workflow, that’s OK too. Heck, I do a large percentage of my work entirely in 8-bit mode!
And if you’re wondering about posterization and what it looks like, check out this tutorial.
aoluain wrote:
Thorsten wrote:
aoluain wrote:
i second this statement, canon professional raw software is crap
In what way is it crap?
HHHMMM this sounds like a LOADED question.
Can I re-phrase my statement?
“I second this statement, canon professional raw software is” . . . BASIC compared to Photoshop CS3 . . .
If I cant . . . then Canons Professional RAW converter is crap because the processing functions and filters
are limited especially if you want to name your converter “Professional”.Canons Digital Photo Professional is a raw file processing application, not a full-featured image editor like Photoshop CS3. If that’s the basis of your comparison, then yes, I agree it’s very basic. As a raw file processor it does what it does extremely well, with a minimum of fuss and at great speed too. It has saved me countless hours of time compared to when I used to work with JPEG’s only. I can go from a shoot to proof gallery with sharpened, colour correct web sized images in a matter of minutes. For an application that didn’t cost me anything extra to buy, that’s not a bad achievement at all.
I agree with what you say Thorsten – as I also use DPP as much as possible for quality reasons.
However, it lacks two things that would make it even better for speedy proofing (and even final version production) :(1) crop-tool rotation (for image straightening) and
(2) a recovery tool/slider for highlights/shadowsI can deal with both of these – but it usually means transferring images to Photoshop.
Because of this, I am now tending to use Lightroom for initial proofing.
For selected images, I then use DPP for Raw conversion and initial editing with Photoshop for final tweaking. A bit cumbersome, but the best combination of time vs quality for me.FrankC wrote:
(1) crop-tool rotation (for image straightening) and
(2) a recovery tool/slider for highlights/shadowsIt does seem that there are a lot of requests for an image straighening tool out there. It’s not something that’s bothered me too much because I don’t shoot a whole lot of landscapes.
Regarding highlight/shadow recovery, have you tried playing around with the histogram/curve in the RAW tab? Are you aware that you can drag each of the four axes towards each other? If you pull the bottom axis up, you get more detail in the shadows (at the expense of contrast) and if you pull the upper one down, you can recover detail in the highlights (again, at the expense of contrast).
If you think your workflow sounds cumbersome, mine will probably sound even more convoluted, but I find it works very fast for me.
1. Download from CF card to PC using a card reader and Downloader Pro, which creates the required folder structure on the fly, renames the files to specific job-related sequential filename and adds IPTC data to the images as they are downloaded.
2. Initial edit of images to cull out all the duds using Breezebrowser.
3. Create double backups (and only then do my CF cards return to the camera bag!).
4. Correct and convert raw images using DPP.
5. DONE, or…
6. If desired, open any images in Photoshop CS2 for creative processing.
I find my images aren’t always straight – even for non-landscapes !
I have played with the DPP Raw Curve – but find that the recovery slider in Lightroom, or other techniques in Photoshop work much better. For preview/proof versions, I am using Lightroom more and more – for reasons of speed, efficiency and the side-effect of having all my images tagged and indexed. I still reconvert and re-edit the final versions, but this might change as LR is improved.
Yes thorsten, yor are right, point taken it is quick in some regards all right !
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
