Hello all,

I have been using RAW a bit more lately. Using Canon I end up with a CR2 file. Using RAW has opened up a whole can of new exporting quality issues and I am keen to get to the bottom of whats 'best' with the smallest hard drive space.

My most confusing problem, is that when opening my RAW files into Lightroom 2, after editing and saving, when previewing the images in a standard preview, the editing is not there. However when I re-open the RAW image in Lightroom or Camera RAW, the editing changes appear again. So I guess RAW must always stay in it's original form and cannot be saved as you edit like a jpeg?

More confusing options cropped up from this, as a RAW file is only around 15MB, where as saving as a TIFF file, bumps the image up to 48MB or even 89MB if using 16bit quality! So it would be useful to be able to edit a RAW file and save as I go along, seeing and being able to preview the changes and NOT being able to revert to the original. But I do not think this is possible? Which means to save and have the image edited, I have to save as a Tiff for ultimate quality (So much larger) or a Jpeg at the risk of loosing quality.

Other questions arise from this such as saving a Tiff as 8 or 16 bit... I guess the 16 bit option is better for print or something? Is it worth the double file size?

Also does anyone here use DNG, which as RAW, stays as the original unless opened in PS or Lightroom? The advantage with this is the editing is saved within the file, as a pose to saving with a separate info file like RAW files do? (xmp sidecar or whatever it's called)

My questions are. What have you learn over the years? What do you use and why?

I am very new to the RAW scene and have been using Jpeg for years!

Thanks in advance and hope this helps anyone else with similar confusion when it comes to exporting issues.

Shoot in RAW, go through your photos, delete everything you will never need to see again, export as Jpeg 100% quality for web, edit, re-scale, delete the original. Export as TIFF 16bit for prints. You might need to get yourself an external harddrive. Ignore everything else, be as ignorant as physically possible, photography is a tedious hobby, no need to make it any worse. ;)

I shoot always RAW.
- Editing the RAW file in Lightroom
-> convert to 16bit Tiff
-> edit 16bit Tiff in CS4
->When editing is finished: convert to jpg for web

16bit files contains much more data than 8bit files.
You'll benefit from that extra data when editing a photo.

What do I keep:
Original RAW file and 16bit Tiff.
I delete the JPG's.

Thanks for the replies guys.

Tim, you must have some seriously big hard drive back ups?

Why 16 bit over 8 bit?

Stefan, I have a very simple approach to processing mainly because I value convenience, simplicity and time.

Shoot in RAW, weed out as many duds, maybees and has-beens as possible, a lot in my case.

Select the very best of the bunch for processing, open in NX2, edit and save as 8 bit TIFF.

Upload all to Elements 5 Organiser and stack NEFs and TIFFs.

Open TIFF in Elements 5 Editor and edit, save as MASTER TIFF (8 bit), create a JPEG for my website, 1X etc.

The MASTER TIFFs are kept in a separate folder and is regularly backed up to a separate external HD, I also periodically burn all my NEFs and TIFFs to a DVD.

Once I have the MASTER TIFF I never go back to the NEF files, the MASTER TIFF is used for all printing purposes as it is, I never alter this either. I delete all JPEGS except for the one sfor my personal website, these are backed up as well.

Periodically I delete older folders off my PC HD to keep capacity around 50% but I usually have around 8 months of images on it.

JP

A 16bit file contains more data than an 8bit file.
You'll benefit from that extra data when editing a photo.
Here is an example I found on the net: http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/16_vs_8.htm

My back ups are not that big...Everything still fits on one 500GB hard drive. :)
I just delete everything I don't need/like... :D

Shoot in RAW and keep the originals! Never work on the originals! Only on the copy! Never delete originals! The time comes and you will need them! Always make sure you have a save copy of your files.

Depend on what you wane do with your picture but you should photograph in the highest possible quality! 16 bit color depth i only shoot!

For the web it is sufficient save your work as jepeg but you should leave your original work saved as *.psd file.

Robert

Agree 100%!
I shoot raw, and keep them in a directory for originals, and backing it up to external drives. Then I edit and save 16 bit psd with layers, and backing up all my finished files. Yes, it takes space, but storage is cheap now. This keeps all the editing open for adjustment. You might want it a little different for different use.
There is a lot more info in 16bit. More than 4000 levels per channel, compared to 256 for 8 bit.
You might save as high quality jpg at the end to save space, and also for print. Very few printers are actually handling 16 bit anyway. Just don't delete your originals. The software, (and the people using it) are getting better all the time..

Many are shooting only jpg, having no interest in more advanced editing. I tell them to shoot raw+jpg, and store the raw files for later. I know quite a few that later has picked up on editing and regretting not shooting raw from the beginning

totally agree with Robert and Lars here. Never delete raw originals.. the time will come ;) when you need them be sure. I work in 16 bit and never save in full quality jpg...jpg is only used for web. I only work in tif and save the tif for print.

I have to agree with Lars!I shoot only in raw,but my external drive is damaged and I have to wait to be repaired,the data inside it is o.k.!

Shooting always in raw but about tiff and jpeg I'm for jpeg this time, I've made some printing tests back in time when I've had my dilema about the way the files should be saved and I've decided that the full quality jpeg is more than enough for huge prints no matter how many bit (16 or 8 ). Yes, it is right that mainly my photographs look like low fidelity photography so it could be this the reason why I am doing this, though also for my 'sharp' images my jpegs were enough for great 'huge' prints! http://codrinlupei.1x.com/photo/1923/1232/ Cheers!

Have a perfect weekend!
Codrin

Absolutely, as many printers don't work in 16 bit anyway. Just don't save jpg before editing is done.
My Epson is one of the first to actually work in 16 bit, but jpg's works just fine on large prints. It is mainly when you adjust levels/curves the 8 bit files comes short

I think this has not been replied to - so here are my 2 cents:

In Lightroom editing is non-destructive, that means all editing is stored in the catalog and/or in so called "sidecar XMP" files.
Because of this, it depends on the program you are using whether or not this "meta data" (which it in fact is) is used when opening a .CR2 file.

This is THE most beautiful thing about Lightroom. For the images with limited editing (which are not required to migrate to a PSD or TIFF file for editing outside of Lightroom in Photoshop etc.) all you need to maintain is the original .CR2 and the JPEG's are just an export product which you can always re-export in an identical way later.

PS: regarding the XMP files - you can set a preference that all editing and all metadata like keywords are always stored automatically in the XMP file as you are editing. I find this very easy, personally, for transferring a folder with .CR2 RAW files with the XMP files alongside them between a laptop and desktop computer. Because when you use "Import from Disk" in Lightroom, the XMP files are read automatically, and all the settings and metadata are identical on the 2nd computer as well!

Don't forget to turn on the option in LR to write the XMP sidecar. Otherwise LR will only save the settings applied in his own library. By using the XMP sidecar file, PS and Bridge should be able to read the settings. It's also important to have the same version of ACR in both LR and PS.

Thank you all for the replies. The knowledge gained here is excellent and I feel a little easier now.

Would you say that a RAW file and a high quality TIFF are equal in quality for viewing digitally and printing? If so there doesn't seem much point in saving TIFFS, surely just keeping the RAW images with the edited sidecar data and saving high quality jpeg for the internet and reference would be a better option? Maybe I missed something... I have never printed any of my images so do not know if it is even possible to print a direct edited RAW image.

I am a little OTT when it comes to organisation and I hate having side car files and images that I cannot quickly organise/preview or show friends and family without loading up PS or Lightroom. I guess I just need to weight up the pros and cons.

You can not (from what I understand) print from a raw/sidecar file. Using Lightroom you can select a rawfile and have it printed, but lightroom will make a jpeg conversion behind the scenes and print from that.

Visually and in print, you will see no real difference between a raw-file (even you need special software for it), tiff or even a jpeg file, ONCE ALL EDITING IS DONE. But that is not really the point here. The thing with the different formats is the journey to the final image. With raw, and tiff/psd keeping the editing layers you can always go back and tweak your editing if you want to. If you plan never to go back and redo it you could just keep a jpeg. I myself would never delete a raw-file or a psd. I don't know how many times I've gone back and redone/tweaked my editing...

Absolutely correct!

Only In pro print studios they have the resources to handle big *.tiff files. But for saving data you should use the maximum on quality!

Robert

Another thing that just cropped up is 'color spaces'...

Which do you guys use? I have been using the default sRGB and have read so many opposing arguments in the last half hour I am confused again. The three main options are sRGB, Adobe sRGB (1998) and RGB Pro or something.

Is this really that important? I have not really taken any notice of it before and I am sure I have been taking photos in sRGB, then editing in Adobe sRGB and god knows what I have been exporting/saving them in...

Thoughts?

I'm using adobe rgb 1998. All my gear is set for that. If you decide to do the same, make sure you remember to convert to srgb for web, if not you will get too low contrast and some offset in the colors.
If you shoot raw you don't really need to worry about srgb/adobe rgb. The raw files are the same whatever you choose. Then you can choose mode when you convert.
The adobe rgb mode gives you a little wider color space than srgb, but I don't really know if it makes a lot of different for average shooting.

For beginners (I don't think you're one of them), I use to tell them not to change to adobe rgb before they understand the difference. There are so many out there talking advanced but not knowing so much about what they talk about.

Pro rgb is usually not an option in camera. Lab color is another mode I know advanced users of Photoshop are using. But, I'm not that advanced..

It could be some lessons to learn from setting up your system all the way through. Set mode, calibrate screen, get color profiles for the papers you use in your printer etc. Not so difficult, and might take away some of the worries (and suddenly find out that all those talking a lot didn't know that much anyway..). There are books about it, but just start in one end and work through it.
A calibrator is needed, but they don't cost much anymore (mine is a Spyder 3). Paper profiles you'll find on the websites of the paper producers. Usually there are also instructions on how to install them on the different systems.

Good luck!

If you use Photoshop, there will be a star (is that called an asterix?) beside the bitnumber after the file name if the image don't have the same profile as your Photoshop setup.

Many folk will advise to shoot and have your work flow in Adobe RGB throughout Stefan for the main reason that the colour space is bigger than sRGB however, I shoot and have my whole colour space/colour management in sRGB for no other reason than I am perfectly happy with the colours recorded, processed and final printing in this space. The colours that I see in the images on my website and the prints that I make are as I want to see them so for me personally, I don't see a need to be in another colour space, the other reason for me is convenience as well as I don't have to remember to change spaces for different applications.

Way up the pros and cons then stick with the one you decide on I would say.

Lars has good advice about a colour managed and calibrated workflow from monitor, software through to printer. It is well worth getting this right and more important I would say rather than the colour space you choose to use.

JP

I just save everything. I shoot in RAW + jpeg. When I edit, the edit get's saved as a 16-bit TIFF and as a jpeg copy since the TIFF's tend to easily grow to 100+ MB and it's easier to open a jpeg for quick inspection. I don't like the .psd format as it seems to cause compatibility issues every few versions of PS, while I've never had a problem with a TIFF file.

Of course I could throw away a lot of bad pictures. But I like some creative editing every once in a while and it can be pretty useful to have a large database of nonsense at hand at such times.

Why am I not more economic with my hard drive space? Mostly because I like to shoot on film as well, and I tend to scan the negatives/slides at 3200 dpi. At 16-bit TIFF and medium format, that's almost 300 MB. It doesn't get really horrible until I start editing those ;).

I find it more convenient to buy a new 250-500 GB external hard drive every year or so then delete pictures I think I might never use again. And I'm well aware I'm crazy of course :P.

I like what you said :)

If you want to keep as much information as possible, which gives you the most options in editing, you should use 16 bit and Prophoto colour space when exporting from Camera Raw into Pshop. ( Camera Raw is a great piece of software and the edits are non destructive ) Also saving the file after any pshop adjustments with it's adjustment layers as a psd is something you may wish to do if you want to revisit the file at a later date to edit some more. Otherwise you can flatten it and save as a tiff, which gives you the option of going back into Adobe Camera Raw and tweaking the tiff still further. . . ( I'm talking CS4 here ) Though having this many options can lead to you never actually making final decisions at all! Which is a bit daft and uses up stupid amounts of time . . .
So, on the other hand, what Mr Parminter suggests is a perfectly logical, good and simple way to go as long as it works for you. . . You have to go by results ultimately i reckon.
RAW requires some sharpening however unlike jpegs which have sharpness added in camera.

;-) Alex! Abso-bleedin-lutely!

best, Jon

Jon, not strictly true, I don't do any PP sharpening at all but instead select max sharpness in camera to the NEF file and this is then saved in the TIFF file when I convert, remember I like the convenience route to all things associated with processing.......;-)

JP

John, pretty sure camera sharpness is not applied to the Raw file only to the jpeg.

It is carried with it Clyde, when you open the NEF in NX2 you can see the amount you have applied, you can also change it if you like but I leave mine at +9 when I save as a TIFF. On default settings I found the D300 RAW files really soft and couldn't be bothered to apply different sharpening to different images in PS, I'm lazy but also content with the in-camera settings.

To say that the sharpness is applied to the NEF file is probably incorrect but the values you set in camera are carried with it and can be utilised in NX2, would be fairer to say.

JP

AH, I see, never used NX2, I keep hearing good things about it. I guess I should try it. Sometimes I want the 16bit convert from Raw to look just like the jpeg that the camera made. Sometimes I just can't get it to look the same, I guess with NX2 I could, huh?

Clyde, I shoot exclusively in RAW but with the workflow I use I have to do very little to achieve my final results, the RAW file viewed in NX2 looks remarkably like the preview JPEG that is displayed on the camera LCD, more often than not I simply just save the NEF as an 8 bit TIFF and do a wee bit of levels contrast polishing in Elements 5. The most I usually do in NX2 is adjust the WB if I feel I got it wrong in camera or occasionaly do a small tweak to the exposure slider +/- 1/3 EV again if I didn't quite get it right in camera.

However, NX2 is a very flexible and useful convertor and sometimes I do use the control features if I have a particularly difficult DR exposure to deal with, the Colour Contol Points are ace for this as I can adjust similar types of pixels without affecting others.

I highly recommend it, considering it was designed specifically for Nikon files I am surprised more folk don't use it.

JP

Yeah, been using Adobe Camera Raw from day one mostly because it's free and integrates seamlessly w/ PS which is my primary software. I really need to look around a bit. Camera Raw wont read any of the scene data from the camera.

Best RAW converter for Nikon is NX2,, I don't use Adobe Camera Raw,, It has a Big different color result compare to NX2.. but it just me,,.

Eric.

For simple workflow

iPhoto handles all my files,, Really easy to make Events,, easy to search or scan,, and it's free in Apple

Now if you want just to play in your files,, just to see if it has a potential in BW, I still edit in the iPhoto,, but I know the result SUCKS,, but at least i have the idea on how it look like.

Then if the Photo has a Potential 1X material,, Then press Option then Drag the Photo to NX2,, it will open as an original,,, so do all the basic necessary adjustment and then click to open with PS to do more artistic filter, put Watermark, margin etc. then save in Biggest Jpeg

so Summary
1. Keep my Raw
2. I keep also the Edited Picture (Many Layer) in Psd format 16 Bit
3. Keep also the Final edited in Jpeg..8 bit
4. Delete the non-sense Photo
5. Storage now is cheap, I buy this just for my Photography Back-up (buy it in BHPhotovideo)

I'm not that surprised after trying the first NX.. Very clumsy to work with, and resource intensive. It slows down most systems, and the NX2 is supposed to be worse on that part.
I've stayed away for that reason, but will run on a new computer setup soon, so I might give it a try.

Any of you who have tried Phase One's, Capture One? Simply fantastic! Very easy to get started with, very fast, and gives excellent results. And it converts in the background without slowing down the computer as it converts. It have all the possibility to save your settings, and you apply your settings to as many files you want. You can download a trial version for free. No need for the Pro version for most people, if what you need is a converter.
The tool for lazy people! You claim to be one of them John ( I doubt it, after reading about you running up mountains)..

You are right Lars about NX2 requiring plenty of RAM, my PC only had .5G originally and it was useless but I upped it 2G and now it works fine. I have heard plenty of excellent reviews for Lightroom and Capture One but NX2 is fit for my purposes and I like the added benefits of the extra data that I can work with on Nikon NEF files if I need to. Eric has a valid point as well, I could never reproduce the contrast and colours that I expected from camera in ACR, whereas they are faithfully replicated in NX2.

I'm lazy when it comes to the hum-drum things like computing Lars but have bags of enthusiasm for walking and running up mountains, you never know when you will spot a good composition...... ;-)

Sounds like me, many years ago...;-))

Thanks for the tips about NX2. I shall check it out, as the softness of Raw files does bug me somewhat. It takes quite a lot of hard won experience to get the sharpening right, and i don't always succeed to the degree I would like. And another option for colour tweaking would be nice.
I wonder if Pshop lets you keep NX files as Smart Layers. . .
Jon

This is a fantastic collection of peoples work input, output flow. Thanks again to all of you who have shared.

I have never used NX2, I guess the Canon equivalent would be Digital Camera professional, I think? Well so far I have used Lightroom for all my RAW editing and I am loving the ease and control of the workflow I get with it.

Lars, I will keep an eye out for the color space of my images from now on. I turned it all over to sRGB, but some files seem to already be other formats when opened, so I just have to keep my eye open. Thank you for the tips on the complete work flow. Is there a way to save PS so every image in all formats are forced into your chosen color space, or is it a manual option each time you open an image?

Eric, I tried using iPhoto, as I use a mac too, but I didn't like it. Mostly because it seemed to have horrible automated saving and backup solutions which eat away at my HD space. I could give it another shot maybe turning off and playing with some options. You know each change you make a change to a photo it will duplicate it and store the edited away in some file?

You have an option in Photoshop to convert opened images automatically. I think in the preferences menu. Don't have ps activated om this laptop at the moment, so I can't check right now.
Then you can of course make actions to do standard stuff on one click. You can also use automate, and do changes to whole folders of images. Quite fun to look at it working. You would need some fast fingers to compete..