DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> a few RAW tips
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/19/2006 01:52:24 PM · #1
Over the last little while I have started to shoot my images in RAW and wow, what a difference over shooting in JPG. My question is:

After converting a RAW file into a TIFF file for editing in photo shop, what do you do with the file? Do you leave it as a TIFF for archiving? Do you convert to a .bmp or .jpg instead?

Thanks,

Dan

Message edited by author 2006-08-19 13:52:37.
08/19/2006 01:59:36 PM · #2
Originally posted by daninbc:



Do you leave it as a TIFF for archiving?

Thanks,

Dan


I leave mine in TIFF and use LZH compression when saving. Sometimes if I think I might play with the editing again I save it as a PSD. But that's probably about the most space consuming file format. But I'm just a beginner in Post Processing.
08/19/2006 02:05:25 PM · #3
I delete the tiff's. If it's something I did a lot of editing on I'll save the psd anyway so the tiff does nothing for me. Only tiff's I have saved are ones I used for making prints. That's the only case where they are the electronic 'final'. All other times the final output is jpeg or something else, so I dump them when finished with them. At 45-50 megs a pop, they just aren't worth keeping around imo.

edit: probably goes without saying, but obviously i save all raws

Message edited by author 2006-08-19 14:06:25.
08/19/2006 02:24:56 PM · #4
I dont waste my time with RAW, personally, but that's just me. If you can't say exactly why you're shooting in RAW, maybe you should rethink too. I mean give it a shot for a while and see what you think.
08/19/2006 02:36:10 PM · #5
Originally posted by deapee:

I dont waste my time with RAW, personally, but that's just me. If you can't say exactly why you're shooting in RAW, maybe you should rethink too.


I second this. Quality isn't that much better and it takes up so much more time and space.
08/19/2006 02:39:58 PM · #6
I shoot in JPG about 85% of the time. The only time I use RAW is when I'm shooting with extremes of brightness that make it worthwhile to utilize RAW's ability to compensate for over or underexposed shots. Shooting in JPB most of the time saves me 100's of gigabytes of storage space!
08/19/2006 03:20:02 PM · #7
For those that do shoot in RAW I have one more question. If you convert a RAW file to a TIFF and then in photoshop, edit the shot and save in .bmp do you lose any quality from the original RAW file?
08/19/2006 03:23:37 PM · #8
Why would you save in BMP? It's not space efficient.

Save in PSD and keep the RAW. When saving for the web, or a quick view, use JPEG. If you want to save the full 16 bit file in a compressed mode, use PNG--it's not lossy.
08/19/2006 05:50:02 PM · #9
Originally posted by nshapiro:

Why would you save in BMP? It's not space efficient.

Save in PSD and keep the RAW. When saving for the web, or a quick view, use JPEG. If you want to save the full 16 bit file in a compressed mode, use PNG--it's not lossy.


Yeah. What Neil said. By shooting in .jpg you're stripping about a third of the data your camera sees, which makes a huge difference when printing...particularly when you make 'em real big or do a lot of cropping. On your monitor you won't see much of a difference...in print? Huge.

P
08/19/2006 06:35:12 PM · #10
JPEGS lose data every time they are opened and will eventually be a ghost of the orginal, over a period of time.

Message edited by author 2006-08-19 19:07:20.
08/19/2006 07:18:47 PM · #11
Originally posted by deapee:

I dont waste my time with RAW, personally, but that's just me. If you can't say exactly why you're shooting in RAW, maybe you should rethink too. I mean give it a shot for a while and see what you think.

Originally posted by strangeghost:

I shoot in JPG about 85% of the time. The only time I use RAW is when I'm shooting with extremes of brightness that make it worthwhile to utilize RAW's ability to compensate for over or underexposed shots. Shooting in JPB most of the time saves me 100's of gigabytes of storage space!

You 2 have some great shots in your portfolio and far be it from me to tell you how to take photos.
So I'll just ask:
1. David - have you tried RAW and just don't like it or do you REALLY see it as a waste of time?
2. John - do you shoot in JPEG just to save space or is there another reason?
I have taken shots in RAW and found the control you have over the photo is incredible.
08/19/2006 07:26:10 PM · #12
I shoot in RAW and adjust the photo in Adobe Camera Raw, and then "save and convert" to JPG. I don't usually need to do any more editing after I convert to JPG, except NoiseWare Pro, but I archive the RAW file away on my server and eventually back up to DVD and put away.

08/19/2006 07:54:31 PM · #13
Originally posted by msdoubletrouble:

JPEGS lose data every time they are opened and will eventually be a ghost of the orginal, over a period of time.


Actually, they lose data when they are SAVED again, not when they are opened... If you shoot in JPG and open the file and immediately save as a new filename, the original remains unchanged.

R.
08/19/2006 07:58:23 PM · #14
I shoot RAW, convert to TIF, and edit the TIF in Photoshop. I notice through this and other threads that some people work with a PSD version of the file instead of a TIF version. Is there a big difference to editing in either filetype? Just wondering if I should be working with a PSD file instead of a TIF or if it really matters.
08/19/2006 08:28:24 PM · #15
I usually shoot RAW, because I then have the option to do an HDR image with multiple filess from ACR, and it gives you huge latitude for editing, not just the firt time around, but later on when new RAW converters might be released, or when you learn some new editing trick you want to try out on your old files.

I do shoot JPG when shooting, say, 60+ images if I'll need to use most of them later on for a gallery or something. I wouldn't edit that many in photoshop unless I was getting paid for it, so I just batch convert, and I think the camera can do just a good a job as raw shooters essentials, if not better.

It's worth the extra disk usage for me, I usually shoot under 50 images at a time so I don't even fill up half of my card with RAW files. And I have like 60+ GB free on my hard drive, so no problem there.
08/19/2006 11:54:17 PM · #16
Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by msdoubletrouble:

JPEGS lose data every time they are opened and will eventually be a ghost of the orginal, over a period of time.


Actually, they lose data when they are SAVED again, not when they are opened... If you shoot in JPG and open the file and immediately save as a new filename, the original remains unchanged.

R.


Not to mention that JPEG's are only 8 bits per pixel, so you lose information immediately.

There's more to a file format than storing the image pixels. Does it have color management? Is it platform independent (will you be able to read it on whatever system you have in 20 years?). Does it offer non-lossy compression? Is it well interpreted (well standardized), or will you have problems reading the standard format with some software? Does it support your camera's recorded EXIF data?

There's of course no simple answer for something that meets all these critera. But BMP fails in a number of these critera--it's primarily a format designed for graphics storage in MS-Windows. For example, I don't believe EXIF is stored in the BMP file, nor does it contain color space information.

There's a good comparison chart of the various formats at

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_graphics_file_formats
08/20/2006 12:04:18 AM · #17
is using the LZW compression in TIFF format OK? i mean does it loose any detail, or is it a lossless form of compression?

thanks
08/20/2006 12:11:15 AM · #18
bound for BearMusic to point out when/if i error...HOWEVER, now I'll have to find the darn print I read that from and quote them..so he can correct the original author. As i said to another, i should learn not to post in forum so as to show my ignorance...

on lost pixels when 'opening' file: "Raw Vs. JPEG Capture Mode" by Peter Burian in DIGITAL PHOTO HOW-To Guide 2006. "...the lowest JPEG quality level causes the processor to discard numerous pixels in order to generate remarkably small files. Later, when you open the JPEG in a computer, the compression is automatically reversed: your sofware adds pixels to rebuild the file so it's returned to the full size."

I still stand by what I originally said. If the processor discards pixels to generate small files and new pixels are added to rebuild file to it's full size..and they are added by the computer and NOT the pixels taken in the shot and SAVED for edit...they deviate and are NOT the original.

so..my ignorant self..translated this to...email JPEG shot to someone or save to file for them...they open...and will resave under another file name and that then becomes new "original" that second user ASSUMES is same as first like the mortals such as myself think, and not that the god's such as bear know better...and eventually after multiple forwards and new opens, saves under new file creating new original..we get the ghost of the true "original"

now...remind me not to EVER post comment again..and keep my fingers still and learn from those willing to give constructive criticism and how-to on my shots...God bless you all

Message edited by author 2006-08-20 00:30:12.
08/20/2006 12:13:20 AM · #19
Originally posted by diablo2097:

is using the LZW compression in TIFF format OK? i mean does it loose any detail, or is it a lossless form of compression?

thanks


It is lossless.
08/20/2006 12:29:37 AM · #20
I shot raw for about four months and basically quit because of time and file size. I now only shoot it if I think white balance is going to be an issue or it is an important shoot that won't have a lot of images. I did a head shot once where I took 400 frames all Raw+jpeg. It was a big mistakes since it took me hours to wade through those huge files. I would deal with the big files if they really translated into pixel info, but the size is mainly due to white balance and some exposure control if I understand raw correctly. Since one can get a lot of flexibility with post processing in photoshop (in terms of color correction), I think I'll wait until computers get faster and storage gets cheeper before I go back to shooting raw full time.

Message edited by author 2006-08-20 00:35:14.
08/20/2006 12:41:09 AM · #21
Why do the RAW files look worse than the jpeg straight from the camera?
08/20/2006 01:14:28 AM · #22
Originally posted by msdoubletrouble:

now...remind me not to EVER post comment again..and keep my fingers still and learn from those willing to give constructive criticism and how-to on my shots...God bless you all


No, don't do that. It's just a little misunderstanding and lack of clear enough wording on the author's part.

JPEG is a lossy compression format, so if you save at less than 100% quality it will use algorithms to compress parts of the image, and has to throw away data. Here's a little example..

Imagine you were compressing a text file that contained the characters 'AAABBCDDDD', you might compress it to 'AwBxCDy", where 'w' means it's 3 characters, 'x' means it's 2, and 'z' means 4. That would be a lossless compression, because you could decode it using that key, and it would be restored to the full original. Text is easy to compress losslessly, and in fact lossy compression just doesn't work for text/data.

For music, videos, and images, it's a little different - when they're displayed on the screen, images are made up of a bunch of pixels and coordinates, and in a bitmap file, that's what they're saved as also. What JPEG does is look for patterns, and use a mix of bitmap coordinates and pattern info (I can't explain it that well, and I don't know the details, sorry) to make a file that will let the computer viewing it generate something reasonably similar to the original. There is not any degredation from opening a file multiple times - the only thing that happens is the data in it gets translated into a bitmap image for display on the screen. The author is right, it does 'create' pixels when you view it, and in a way, saving it does 'throw away' pixels. You probably noticed that images without any discernable patterns, and with a whole lot of detail, take up much more space when you try to compress them. That's because JPEG isn't as effective at what it does with those, and it has to save them as more of a bitmap.

The binary data in the file can not change without being overwritten (if you do save another copy with the same name, but don't modify it at all, it probably won't recompress it or make any changes to the data unless you change the quality setting). You can open it as many times as you want, and as long as you don't compress it further, it won't degrade. If you're worried, just make a copy of the file outside of Photoshop. It'll be the exact same thing no matter how many different people open it, guaranteed (I don't mean it's the same as the original, it'll be the same compressed file that you originally saved)

Originally posted by mandyturner:

Why do the RAW files look worse than the jpeg straight from the camera?

Because with JPEG, the camera applies some processing to the RAW images to make them more acceptable (sharpness, contrast, levels, saturation, white balance, etc). RAW is meant to be post-processed to look its best. You have more control, even if you just use the utility that comes with the camera and have the same processing that the camera can apply.

Message edited by author 2006-08-20 01:17:44.
08/20/2006 08:30:58 AM · #23
I shot a few shots in RAW with the Sony alpha, just to experiment, and I guess I won't be doing that for awhile again. I don't understand post processing enough to utilize RAW. Anyway, I am happy it comes with the camera, but I don't see the benefit of having it just yet.
08/20/2006 08:47:46 AM · #24
Originally posted by mandyturner:

Why do the RAW files look worse than the jpeg straight from the camera?


Because no PP has been done to the data. The jpg has been color corrected, sharpened, whatever you've told your camera to do to it. Shooting RAW leaves those choices up to you, and how much of each to do. RAW rulez.

One thing I noticed, and Pedro touched upon, is quality in printing. JPG's introduce artifacts, why *start* with an artifacted image - even if they are tiny tiny not quite noticable? When you blow them up you *will* see them.
08/20/2006 08:51:30 AM · #25
Originally posted by msdoubletrouble:

bound for BearMusic to point out when/if i error...HOWEVER, now I'll have to find the darn print I read that from and quote them..so he can correct the original author. As i said to another, i should learn not to post in forum so as to show my ignorance...

on lost pixels when 'opening' file: "Raw Vs. JPEG Capture Mode" by Peter Burian in DIGITAL PHOTO HOW-To Guide 2006. "...the lowest JPEG quality level causes the processor to discard numerous pixels in order to generate remarkably small files. Later, when you open the JPEG in a computer, the compression is automatically reversed: your sofware adds pixels to rebuild the file so it's returned to the full size."

I still stand by what I originally said. If the processor discards pixels to generate small files and new pixels are added to rebuild file to it's full size..and they are added by the computer and NOT the pixels taken in the shot and SAVED for edit...they deviate and are NOT the original.

so..my ignorant self..translated this to...email JPEG shot to someone or save to file for them...they open...and will resave under another file name and that then becomes new "original" that second user ASSUMES is same as first like the mortals such as myself think, and not that the god's such as bear know better...and eventually after multiple forwards and new opens, saves under new file creating new original..we get the ghost of the true "original"

now...remind me not to EVER post comment again..and keep my fingers still and learn from those willing to give constructive criticism and how-to on my shots...God bless you all


That's kind of harsh :-)

Note that the author is specifically referring to the "smallest" jpg file the camera can produce. So if you set your camera at jpg-small you are definitely doing yourself a world of hurt, sure. Nevertheless, for what it's worth, it doesn't matter how many "copies" of the original you mail, they are all going to be the same; you can mail the same file to 100 different people, and when they open it they will all see the same thing, barring differences in screen resolution and color paramters etc, which have nothing to do with jpg.

But as you've correctly surmised, at a very low jpg quality level the computer is extrapolating a LOT of data to fill up even-toned areas in the image, and you WILL end up with pixelization at very low jpg quality settings. Plus, with jpg in general, each time you open a file it "decompresses" it, and each time you save it it recompresses it, so the end result of multiple decompressions/recompressions is a degradation in the quality of the image. But, if you open it and then close it without saving it, the file you opened remains completely unaltered, it's as if it never happened. So, by extension, if you open and then save-as, the original (that you opened) remains unaltered.

Robt.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 12:22:32 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 06/05/2020 12:22:32 PM EDT.