Raw, Jpegs and Recipes

[Rob MacKillop]

Trying to shake off my fear of RAW (I know, weird) and have started experimenting with it. Normally I use the jpegs supplied by my X100, edit them in Nik Software, and save the 'recipe' and as a jpeg. But for a long time now I have saved to my external hard drive all the RAW files as well, just in case one day I needed the higher resolution they provide.

So now I'm wondering...if I have a processed jpeg image I'm happy with, how can I add that recipe, so to speak, to the RAW file, so that it comes out as close as possible to the jpeg, but higher quality?

Or is this just a crazy way to spend one's life?! Should I just work with RAW files? The thing is, I often prefer what the X100 has done to the image, compared to the raw version.

Here's a scenario: A magazine likes one of my images and asks for a raw file (or tiff), but they saw a processed jpeg. How do I get the raw file as close as possible to the jpeg?

And how do you convert a tiff file to a jpeg for upload to Flickr?

Sorry for rambling...

 

[Lesley Jones]

Rob,

When I first started with digital I didn't understand RAW at all. I would say take a deep breath and go for it! You don't have to do much in RAW and in fact, I don't. I have two presets saved for noise removal. One is for low ISO and the other is for high ISO and really bad noise. I got the slider settings from a PS guide. I can tweak if I like, but I know the settings are pretty safe left as they are. Also included are lens correction, version and a touch of clarity.

I only tinker with the sliders to correct the white balance and get reasonable contrast with no blocking or clipping. If I had a really contrasty image where I couldn't put the camera on a tripod for multiple exposures, then I can go back to the RAW and change the exposure there and paint back the lost pixels if necessary. I know they say you can take jpgs into RAW now, but I'm wary of them. There is a reason the files are so much smaller and I want the biggest possible.

You may like what the camera is offering, but don't forget the camera is doing the processing for you. It takes the image in one direction and if it blocks some shadows you are pretty much stuck with it. A RAW file is unprocessed, allowing you to take the image in any direction you want and you can keep going back to it. Think of it as a digital negative. You can keep printing it on different contrast paper, try some dodge and burn, perhaps do some fancy toning with chemicals - you can tell I'm not a printing expert, but the options are almost limitless. If you are trying to work with a jpg, then to my mind it's like trying to scan a contrasty print and working with the resulting digital file. It's contrasty and you're pretty much stuck with it

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Thanks, Lesley. I kind of understand that already, mostly. But I'm wondering if there is a method other than guess work of making a raw image look like a jpeg I did two months ago?

Also, you seem to be saying just work with raw files. OK, but I'm then left with a very nice, but very large tiff file, when I really also need a jpg. So, how to get a jpg from a tiff?

 

[Lesley Jones]

OK - I can only tell you how I work, but I don't think you should be trying to get the RAW to look like a processed jpg. I was trying to say use the benefits of a RAW file to start with. Get the noise reduction right and the white balance and don't block your shadows or clip your highlights. I then save this as a DNG file because that it supposed to be the standard from now on. I'm not sure they will ever rubber stamp this, but I think they are files we will be able to open in years to come.

Then open the image in the editor of your choice and play with the Nik filters. I use smart objects, but I do end up with files over 300 Mb - it doesn't have to be as bad as that! If you have the options it's up to you whether you want to go back and tweak the settings later. I'm afraid I know nothing about Lightroom. I prefer to save as PSD files with all layers intact, but TIFF is pretty much the same (and I think TIFFs also have had less criticism).

I only see JPGs as output files - so something for in here, a file to upload for a competition, a picture to e-mail to a friend. I think you use Elements and you can easily "Save As" from a TIFF to a JPG. That is, keep the TIFF with layers as your "master" and just go back to flatten, resize, sharpen and save as a JPG for the intended purpose. Needless to say, I don't sharpen my PSD files.

Does that make sense? I start with RAW for the extra quality. Process in Photoshop (usually with Nik) and save the "master" file with intact layers. Any time I want an image for something I go back to the "master" file. I tend to use the JPG for a purpose and then delete it. If I make a 700 pixel JPG for in here, I will upload a copy and delete the JPG file my end. Chances are the next time I will want a 500 pixel image for Flickr, so I will just make another version to upload there. I have at least two files of every image - the DNG and at least one PSD. If I head off in another direction, then I may have several PSD files

 

[Rob MacKillop]

OK, I can follow what you are saying (and many thanks for taking the time!). I now end up with four files - jpg, psd and now raw and tiff - but only of the images I think are worth working on. I try to keep them all on the external hard drive, as I'm trying not to fill up the iMac too quickly. Looks like I'll need another external hard drive for backup...

 

[Lesley Jones]

Not really Rob. Keep the RAW because that is your "negative" and probably in DNG format (better than your camera format that may not work in years to come). Keep the "master" that you have worked on and tweaked to your satisfaction - either TIFF or PSD, they are interchangeable - both can be saved with their layers. It depends what you want to do with the JPG files - as I said... I create them for a one-off purpose and then delete them off my external hard drive.

Of course, I don't have a problem at the moment because by comparison I shoot so little. I've scanned around 500 slides/negatives, although there are many more to do. The Sony has recently clocked up 1,500 shots. I haven't kept them all, but saving the DNG files and some second or third PSD variations, Bridge tells me I have about 2,000 images in total. I can afford to keep huge files. My husband grumbles because the 400 Gb external drive he bought me a few years ago is filling up, but to be honest, memory is cheap compared to memories. I have a 500 Gb second "home" back up and a 1 Tb "off site" back up. They didn't cost that much. By the time the smaller drive is full it will be replaced by something bigger, but frankly the space on drives is increasing faster than I can shoot and scan.

I like to think I'm pretty organised, but I do find all this quite stressful too. Do you scan all your old film or just leave it as negatives and prints? If you go digital, do you process in 8 or 16 bit? What editing software to choose? What plug-ins? Do you back up on CDs, external hard drives, or go for RAID? Are Photoshop really going to get rid of their PSD files in the future, or are people on other forums talking a load of rubbish? Are my banding problems due to a cheap monitor, or should I buy full Photoshop and work in 16 bit?

Don't you wish life was simple?

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Yes, I do! Many thanks for all that, Lesley!

 

[Larry Bolch]

The RAW file is in every way the original. It contains the raw data, just as it came off the sensor. If I am doing a web-gallery, I use ACDSee Pro to select the images and I copy them to a working folder on my "Projects" drive, which is a very fast SSD. I match them to what my eye—or soul—has seen, not the JPEG. I use Adobe Camera RAW in CS5—soon to be CS6. The embedded preview in the RAW file should look pretty much exactly like the JPEG.

If creating a web gallery, the results are saved as JPEGs, and the working copies of the RAW files are deleted. The originals are preserved forever. If I need one of the images a few years from now, I can go back to the original and re-process it. This is ultimately important to me. ACR has grown greatly in power from one version to the next, and I have grown as a photographer. By going back to the original and re-processing it, I am truly expressing the state of the art in my taste and ability at that moment.

(I am fully fluent in ACR. A year or so back Focal Press, top publisher of books on photography, hired me to vet the manuscripts to their book on RAW.)

In camera, corrections are very crude—say, -5 to +5—while a slider in ACR may cover -100 to +100 for very fine tuning. RAW has no colour balance, so ACR can generate a version for every light-source when shooting under mixed light. Photoshop's layers allow them to be blended seamlessly, to provide excellent skin-tones no matter the light source. I rarely shoot in daylight, so this is something I use a lot. The same technique can be used for dodging and burning, to open shadows and preserve highlight detail with a high degree of naturalism.

Using the blue and aqua luminance sliders in the HSL tab, one can darken the sky far more naturally than when using a Polaroid filter, then boost the overall mid-tones for a high level of detail, without wiping out the sky or detail in the clouds. Dynamic range and clarity can also be controlled on a very local basis. Cameras see very differently from people. RAW lets you interpret in the way that the image is truly your own expression of what you visualized. Needless to say, one never stops learning nor refining processing skills.

Digging up a file that I interpreted a few years ago and re-using it, would be the equivalent of a musician lip-syncing a record made way back when, instead of performing in real-time. I have no desire to be stuck in time, repeatedly imitating myself from a different era. For the same reason, when I make a print, I consider the print to be the "Save", and the print-file is deleted from my drive. Skills, taste and software are constantly improving, and having an intact set of RAW originals is profoundly important.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

OK. That's all wonderful. I get it. But I'm not there yet...food for thought, though, Larry, so, many thanks for that!

 

[Pete Askew]

Rob, I think you have hit the point where you need to re-visit Lightroom. It is a non-destructive raw editor. The files when imported won't look like the JPEGs you used as a starting point before but, with a bit of playing, you will soon come up with a recipe (preset in LR terminology) that matches your JPEG (you can load both by unticking the don't import duplicate duplicate files box) and so have them side by side for comparison. From there you can open them directly in the appropriate Nik module and apply your recipe. A copy with these changes will be saved back to LR. You can then export directly from LR to Flickr as a JPEG and as a TIFF for the publication. Over time you will be able to dispense with the comparison approach and start directly with the raw files. The other nice thing is that you can create virtual copies of each file in LR (at almost no cost to disc space) and edit them in different ways. The instructions are remembered instantly and just wait for you to export them as required (even as a book) when you want.

 

[Rob MacKillop]

Now, that is closer to what I was getting at, I think. Ah, the dreaded LR4. I don't know why I have a block with it, but then again I do for most technology until I'm forced to sit down and work it out. I tend to avoid anything that is not intuitive...not a good working method. But I can see the point of it. Thanks, Pete.

Not that any magazine has taken an interest, I feel I ought to add!

 

[Pete Askew]

If you edit them, they will come. Have faith Rob!

 

[David M. Byrne]

An interesting thread. A topic that resonates with me.

I've never shot in RAW & don't know much about those files apart from the fact that they are big & require post processing, the latter being the main reason I've not shot RAW to date. However, I'm always questioning the wisdom of this decision... the wisdom of this photography laziness! For example, will I, in years to come, want to have a RAW version on file of a .jpeg that I like? My gut feeling on this is 'yes' so I'm toying with the idea of shooting in both RAW & .jpeg just in case some day I feel the need, or have the need, to run those files through a program like Lightbox.

 

[Larry Bolch]

For example, will I, in years to come, want to have a RAW version on file of a .jpeg that I like? My gut feeling on this is 'yes' so I'm toying with the idea of shooting in both RAW & .jpeg just in case some day I feel the need, or have the need, to run those files through a program like Lightbox.

Storage is cheap and getting ever cheaper. Even if years go by before you become serious enough about your photography to really want to get the most from it, by shooting RAW+JPEG—which most cameras can do—you will have those great originals awaiting your attention.

JPEGs by definition are strictly 8-bits per channel—256 steps from zero luminance to maximum. My Fuji cameras produce 12-bit RAW—4,096 steps, and my D700 14-bit—16,384. While stretching the dynamic range of the sky in JPEG can result in bands of tone, RAW produces smooth gradients. Merging layers—which holds much of the power—is seamless. It is very easy to produce JPEGs for the web from RAW, but without the extra bits in the original file, JPEG will always be limited by its 256 step maximum.

Shooting JPEGs, you must avoid problem lighting, even though it may be beautiful or dramatic, because it is impossible to achieve an acceptable white balance. RAW has no white balance, so you can shoot freely under mixed light source conditions, and do regional white balances with ease. A click with the eyedropper tool on a known neutral, produces a perfect white balance with the single click.

Since JPEG processing is limited to only 256 steps, most of the corrections need to be done in the camera, which means you must put more of your attention on camera operation and less on photography. In terms of film photography, JPEGs are like slides or Polaroid. What you can not get right on the shoot, you just have to live with. RAW is like negatives. One has great scope in the fume-room, to interpret a negative to match your vision. The same is true in the digital darkroom with RAW.

 

[David M. Byrne]

Thanks Larry. I love being educated like this! I'm shooting RAW+jpeg from now on.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

What a bostin subject! I love how much detail this is getting
For all the good reasons. I always shoot in RAW.
That's not much advice for what your looking for Rob however, I'm going to see if I can find you the time to show you the detailed benefits. The reasons why it may appear an advantageous benifit to yourself, is I've notice you do like your post processing (not a bad thing) and you'll certainly notice the goodness from it despite the mass hoarding disadvantage.
Jpeg addiction is hard to overcome, it's an easy fix, but there is a better drug out there..... RAW, 'harder' to take a hit from it.. But the buzz is rewarding!

 

[Rob MacKillop]

OK, I'm beginning to feel inadequate

"One has great scope in the fume-room" - now I need to buy a fume room?? WTF is that?!

Only kidding. I'll play with raw a bit more. The advantages are obvious when you compare the figures. But there have been hundreds of great shots on this site which have not been from raw sources, which have blown me away. The sterling images of Chris come to mind - correct me if I am wrong Chris!

From another perspective, many of my all time favourites from this forum have come from Brian, shooting and scanning film, with no processing.

Photography is GREAT!

 

[Lesley Jones]

If I could just add to what Larry said about the benefits of working in 16 bit. I stuck with Elements 6.0 for many years and because I didn't do many landscapes, I didn't notice the problem. Then I had less than 24 hours in Somerset last year and some photographs of the old wreck on Berrow beach have the most awful banding in the sky. I asked on my old forum and they said it could be due to a number of reasons, especially as I have a very small and cheap monitor. So I forgot about it.

When I spent three days in Yorkshire last October, I never gave the problem a thought. Even if it was banding due to 8 bit, I didn't have any cloudless skies on my trip - the reverse in fact. When I started processing them I found banding in the clouds. Not bad in most cases, but it was very hard to remove. Within weeks I bought CS5, but I also had to change the way I processed images. Duplicate pixel layers taken as "snap shots" had to go because file size shot up. I had to find my own method of non-destructive editing. It wasn't easy and I despaired of getting it all to work (especially pixel changes), but I eventually got there and I haven't looked back.

There is no one right way to do things, but I do think it seems crazy to limit your choices at the point of shooting. Even if you do almost nothing in RAW processing, keep that original and then you can play with the TIFF and Nik filters just as you have been doing with the JPGs. You have more options left though