Why shoot RAW - The real answer

[wparsonsgisnet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

First, I don't use Lightroom - I'm a long-time Capture One user and only had a play with Lightroom 1 some years ago. So, if any of the following doesn't apply to Lightroom, someone please shout!

 

Lightroom is, at its core, a Raw converter - and, like all good Raw converters, it doesn't change your Raw files (in the same way that you wouldn't want a negative or slide changed): what it does is to save your Lightroom edits separately. (If Lightroom is like most raw converters such as Capture One, the edits are saved in a separate file - one file for each Raw image.)

 

The process in any Raw converter is as follows: you import/open your Raw file; faff around with the photo's appearance (these changes are automatically saved without changing the Raw file, typically in a separate settings file); then export the image as a TIF or JPG file (i.e. this is the actual raw conversion stage). When you export the image, the raw converter uses the raw file to create a TIF/JPG to which your changes are applied.

 

Thus, if you want to back-up the changes you made in your raw converter, you need to back up two files per image: (a) the raw file (which, as mentioned, is unchanged, and identical to when it came out of the camera) and ( the setting's file for that image created by the raw converter. Lightroom may have a method for automatically backing up both Raw and settings files (sorry - I don't know). You need to back up the exported TIF/JPG too, of course.

 

Rich, this was very informative; thanks.

 

I would not back up any derivative file, that is the TIFF or FPG. A backup of the RAW and changes files would always allow recreation of the TIFF or JPG file. Also, the TIFF is the biggest file of all, so not backing it up would save a lot of space.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Yes, of course, if there is processing after the conversion, then backup is indicated.

 

I use PS seldom anymore, except for spotting. When I spot or do other work in PS I do backup those image files.

 

Well put.

[john_newell]

Unfortunately, with the M8's heavy RAW compression, there's not much gain anyway.

 

You have obviously never looked at 100% crops. I'm sorry to be blunt, but you are completely mistaken.

[John Thawley]

Yes, ever used Aperture mode when taking a portrait against the sun?, this happens all the time, and is the reason i mainly meter manually...(but not everyone does that)

 

No.

 

Look... technically, there is NO argument against the idea of shooting raw. Logically, realistically, there are many many reasons that deem it unnecessary, most of the time.

 

The argument of "accidentally" is among the most pathetic.

 

The author also appears to be unaware of non-destructive editing tools, too.

 

JT

[haroldp]

What I don't understand is the relevance of 12 bit RAW imported to 16 bit Photoshop in that article. Surely the best you can ever get from a 12 bit image is the 12 bit - you can't add image data which was not originally recorded. Even after importing to 16 bit it is still 12 bit image quality upsampled to 16 bit format. Or am I misunderstanding something?

 

The reason to work in 16 bit space, even if only 12 (or 8) bits are imported into it, is to reduce the significance of rounding errors in subsequent processing steps.

 

In PS, even if my goal is an 8 bt JPEG, I do all processing in 16b mode, and convert to 8 bit as the last step before saving as jpeg.

 

Another important reason to shoot RAW is that raw processing software gets smarter as time goes on, and old RAW images can benefit from it where old JPG cannot.

 

4 years ago I shot some interesting architecturals in Vienna with a Nikon 'tourist' lens (18-200mm VR) (on a D200). This lens while great on vacation, suffers from significant distortion at some lengths, and being wavy or 'moustache' type of distortion is not easily corrected with PS type tools.

 

The new release of Nikon's RAW processor (capture NX2), maps the distortion characteristics of their lenses and corrects it. I re-processed and saved several of these pics.

 

It also corrects for both lateral and axial CA.

 

These features only work for RAW because the software cannot reconstruct the original data stream from processed files like jpg or tif.

 

Regards ... Harold

[stuny]

John -

 

Non-destructive editing tool? I too am unaware -- Perhaps they are in applications I've not tried. Please fill me in.

[stunsworth]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Non-destructive editing tool? I too am unaware -- Perhaps they are in applications I've not tried. Please fill me in.

 

Lightroom can edit Jpegs etc. non destructively.

[h00ligan]

even picasa edits jpg non-destructively.

[daveleo]

clue me in folks .....

 

what is a "destructive" editing tool ? ...... there's something out there that deletes and then shreds your original image file from your hard drive ?

 

this is not a joke guys .... what are you talking about ?

[John Thawley]

John -

 

Non-destructive editing tool? I too am unaware -- Perhaps they are in applications I've not tried. Please fill me in.

 

Programs such as Aperture and Lightroom DO NOT edit your original file. That file remains stored as a "Master" file.... just like a negative. Any adjustments you make to the image simply generate an XML file that is nothing more than a small text file that amounts to a laundry list of the adjustments you've made. So, not only did you not alter your master, you haven't even created a duplicate (albeit adjusted) version of the file. So, ultimately you can have multiple versions of the same images without increasing storage space. You just have "versions" which are XML files that are about 8K in size.

 

So, when you click on the thumbnail of a version to view it, the related XML file is applied auto-magically. The only time an actual image file of a version is created is if you export or out put the file.

 

Lots of other benefits too. Let's say you're adjusting a bunch of images with very similar attributes that require the same adjustments. You can simply adjust one, "lift" those adjustments and "stamp" them to subsequent images. And... the adjustments are applied in the proper sequence ... ie; sharpening is applied last.

 

So.... if I'm done with my edit of a shoot and want to transmit to a client or say a web gallery, I simply select the versions I want, export them at the size I want (even add my watermark) and it's all done on the fly. So... not only are all the images transmitted let's say at 800 pixels on the longest side... those files are created and transmitted. The little 800 pixel images are NO WHERE to be found on my local drive.

 

So, non-destructive. Masters remain as they were imported into my system. Versions are strictly small 8K XML files and transmitted finals are just that... transmitted.

 

Hope that's a clear explanation.

 

And by the way, Aperture and Lightroom could care less if it's RAW or JPEG. It's treated exactly the same.

 

JT

[stunsworth]

Just to add a little something to John's excellent explanation, taking Lightroom as an example.

 

If you process a file and then think you would like say a black and white version, you can make a virtual copy of the adjusted file and work on that copy. So you will have both colour and black and white versions available, but the original file has still not been changed.

[daveleo]

thank you John T. and Steve ..... i have stumbled upon this way of editing images through friends who have Apple computers and ask me for help editing images, and (as i did not understand the process you describe) i always storm off and tell them to fix their computer.

 

i was always looking in their file folders for the new edited image files and could never find them .... now i understand why.

[John Thawley]

thank you John T. and Steve ..... i have stumbled upon this way of editing images through friends who have Apple computers and ask me for help editing images, and (as i did not understand the process you describe) i always storm off and tell them to fix their computer.

 

i was always looking in their file folders for the new edited image files and could never find them .... now i understand why.

 

Ha! Glad you brought that up.

 

One of the GOLDEN RULES of using a digital asset management program is stay out of Finder. Manage the images using the management tool.... otherwise, you loose the "virtual" links to the images and the next time you open the program it's instructions are crossed up.

 

JT

[daveleo]

i know we are taking this way off topic .... what can i say ..... but i have another question on that type of editing software.

 

take two moderately similar images. edit one. then apply the xml file from the first image to the other. are the commands in the xml file applied as if you were keyboarding them in .... in other words as if you were editing the second image with the same keystrokes?

 

OR

 

does the xml file modify the second image so that it ends up with the same white balance, average brightness, contrast, saturation, etc etc as the edited version of the first image ???

 

(i had to read that six times myself but it's the best wording i can come up with).

[lesh]

I dunno how you could 'apply' an XML file to an image other than with the help of an application such as Lightroom (maybe Aperture too, but not sure).

Number of ways to do it in Lightroom, but my choice would be, having selected the adjusted image, also select the one to be given the treatment - then click the "Sync" button. This will the provide you with the option of applying all, or just some the adjustments you've made. It's possible to include more than 25 types of adjustments (if you've really gone overboard on the processing). Usually I just select 'all' which ensures that any adjustment made the original image is now applied to the target image.

Of course the second image will now have it's own associated xml file which should be identical to the other xml file - although I've never gone to the trouble of looking at them.

Not sure if that makes sense, but......... if not let me know. I guess the answer to your question is that it's the first option you listed.

[Jamie Roberts]

i know we are taking this way off topic .... what can i say ..... but i have another question on that type of editing software.

 

take two moderately similar images. edit one. then apply the xml file from the first image to the other. are the commands in the xml file applied as if you were keyboarding them in .... in other words as if you were editing the second image with the same keystrokes?

 

OR

 

does the xml file modify the second image so that it ends up with the same white balance, average brightness, contrast, saturation, etc etc as the edited version of the first image ???

 

(i had to read that six times myself but it's the best wording i can come up with).

 

 

If I understand what you're saying then number two is correct: the settings are simply applied (copied) from one shot to another. If the shots were taken under the same conditions, then you should see similar results. It's not a macro recorder for keystrokes.

 

To get back to the main point, the problem with treating JPEGs as master files is not that Lightroom (or better, Photoshop) can't edit them. It can.

 

But it can't rework, say, the white balance, gamma characteristics or other editable qualities of a RAW file with the same final quality as it can working with RAW data.

 

Why? Because the JPEG is missing a ton of data in addition to colour data (RAW files typically contain orders of magnitudes more colour information than a JPEG). A JPEG is like a baked cake; the RAW file is more like a bunch of ingredients and a recipe.

 

For some applications this distinction might not matter much. For my work though, with multiple outputs and (potentially) multiple ways to print, RAW is the only really logical choice for a master.

 

BTW and FWIW, C1 and Photoshop can also be used "non-destructively." C1 doesn't ever touch original files (Lightroom actually DOES on some occasions, so be careful!) and every time you use a copied layer, adjustment layer or "save as copy" in PS you are essentially editing without destroying any original data.

 

But the non-destructive argument is a total red-herring, and really has nothing to do with why you'd shoot RAW or JPEG.

[John Thawley]

i know we are taking this way off topic .... what can i say ..... but i have another question on that type of editing software.

 

take two moderately similar images. edit one. then apply the xml file from the first image to the other. are the commands in the xml file applied as if you were keyboarding them in .... in other words as if you were editing the second image with the same keystrokes?

 

OR

 

does the xml file modify the second image so that it ends up with the same white balance, average brightness, contrast, saturation, etc etc as the edited version of the first image ???

 

(i had to read that six times myself but it's the best wording i can come up with).

 

The XML is adding the recipe... there aren't really any key strokes involved. However, if you remove a spot of sensor dust... it will be removed in any image you subsequently stamp using the same radius, opacity and softness settings. Things like sharpness, contrast etc. are all applied in the same amount.

 

So... if you are asking does it apply the adjustment or match the results, it applies the adjustments. The results will only be relative to the base image.

 

It is also important to note, those adjustments can still be readjusted after the fact on any of the images.

 

JT

[daveleo]

thank you all for your time and answers.

 

i understand the general concept now.

 

i don't use the software you guys mentioned but people ocassionally collar me and ask me to explain to them how their photo edit programs work ( huh ? ) ..... and i don't have a clue .... but now i have a slight clue and i understand why i could never find the files i was looking for.

 

also i was imagining that a person could apply an xml file (set of commands) to any image and end up with an image that had all the characteristics of some other (great) image (specified contrast ratio, sharpness, etc etc etc). this would make it possible to take any set of trash photos and batch transform them into a glorious set of works of art at the push of a button (what a horrid thought, huh?).

 

thanks.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Hah, now you have to choose the one to use.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

{snipped}

 

also i was imagining that a person could apply an xml file (set of commands) to any image and end up with an image that had all the characteristics of some other (great) image (specified contrast ratio, sharpness, etc etc etc). this would make it possible to take any set of trash photos and batch transform them into a glorious set of works of art at the push of a button (what a horrid thought, huh?).

 

thanks.

 

Alas--'garbage in garbage out' still applies

 

But if you take 100 shots in the studio, and for some reason they're all off in terms of WB, contrast or brightness (no excuse for studio shots!) then working on one image and applying the work to the 99 that follow is a great timesaver

 

So in one way you're correct about turning things into works of art: it would be hard (very hard) to do the same thing with a set of JPEGs that are off and next to impossible to do with film, where if you mess up badly to be out of spec, you're toast for every image