What Do You Usually Save Edited RAW Images As

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>
>
Depends on what I intend to do with the image.
Jim

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Russell wrote:

> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?


JPEG 11/12 quality in PS. Most edits are in Camera Raw & that info is
saved for re-doing.

PSD if it's really important & I've done a lot of layered editing.

Chances are, if I want to go back & do a better/bigger print, I'll have
a better take on the editing anyways and will simply print before
jpegging it & maybe not even bother to save that version if it ends up
looking about the same.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> writes:

> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?

Either PSD, or nothing. I'll choose "nothing" if I'm making a
web-display jpeg quickly and easily out of the file; but I rarely
shoot RAW for files whose destiny is just web display.

PSD because it allows me to maintain the layering. I tend to use
multiple adjustment layers with layer masks, plus some overlay layers
for retouching, leaving the original bits unaltered on the
background. In CS I can now maintain the layering in a TIFF file --
but nothing but CS will read that TIFF file properly, so why bother?
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Depends i.e. for website stuff either giff or jpeg. A sale = in "bmp". Still in
work-process = a "psd". print to paper = in the raw. jpg = a degraded sample!
raw file = use for later or perhaps a copyright sale!
--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>

When you ask this question, I am assuming you plan to keep you RAW files,
right? These are your digital negatives.

Musty.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Russell <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
: What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?

: TIFF, BMP, PSD?

If you are going to shoot in RAW, the first archive save of the image
should be in RAW. If you are saving the first archive as something other
than RAW, why shoot it in RAW in the first place? Now, once the archive is
saved and you procede to edit/enhance the image, the choice of saved
format will depend on your personal preferences and intended uses.

Personally I save any intermediate edit saves in the PSD format, but this
format is really not a good one for posting to web sites or sending to
friends as not everyone has PS. So anything intended for distribution in
digital format shouldn't be distributed in PSD. On the other hand if you
may be doing more editing of the image in the future, saving in PSD to
preserve the levels makes sense. When I finish my editing, the
finished product is saved in JPG (this is my preferred storage format).
But some people are more nervous about any compression format so they may
prefer TIFF or some other "lossless" format. But the format of choice is
totally up to you.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Russell wrote:
> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>
>
The preferred format for Canon's own converter is TIFF. Presumably this
provides all the information in the original file although it adds
hugely to the file size and if you have any layers in the file, it'll be
enormous!

Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ryadia@TA" <ryadia@hotmail.com> writes:
> The preferred format for Canon's own converter is TIFF. Presumably
> this provides all the information in the original file

I believe TIFF destroys information, since it's the output of the RAW
converter's color interpolation algorithm. RAW tells you the exact
output of the Bayer sensor.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?

Personally, I don't really edit the RAW files, I just use them as digital
negatives. Then I edit them mainly in Photoshop and save the edited output
as either TIFF or JPG depending on my requirements.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fair comment.

Save it to disc in the best possible format for retaining maximum image
quality.


"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:ygxfe.156$ce6.147@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> > What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
> >
> > TIFF, BMP, PSD?
> >
> >
> Depends on what I intend to do with the image.
> Jim
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yes, of course. The RAW files will remain untouched.


"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:eWyfe.62459$hu5.21418@tornado.texas.rr.com...
>
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> > What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
> >
> > TIFF, BMP, PSD?
> >
>
> When you ask this question, I am assuming you plan to keep you RAW files,
> right? These are your digital negatives.
>
> Musty.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Sorry all, I didn't give much info in my original post.

Basically, the RAW imaged will remain intact. What I will do is edit the
original RAW images to get them how I want them and then save the edited
version as something else for print (not web or email).

I carried out some tests on a random RAW image, which are as follows:

Original RAW Image - 7.71MB - Shooting parameters (EG ISO, Aperture,
Shutter, etc.) retained

PSD - 22.8MB - Shooting info retained
BMP - 23.4MB - No shooting info retained
JPG (12) - 5.56MB - Shooting info retained
TIF - 23.4MB - Shooting info retained

Therefore, what I decided to do was obviously keep the RAW untouched. Then
save the edited file as a PSD. Then, if I want to make a print, save it as
a TIF to take into the lab.

One thing I am not sure of though is why do TIFF files create a much bigger
file size than the original RAW? If RAW isn't compressed, what extra info
is stored?



"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Russell wrote:
>
> One thing I am not sure of though is why do TIFF files create a much bigger
> file size than the original RAW? If RAW isn't compressed, what extra info
> is stored?

Most RAW files are compressed, also it's one color channel per pixel
since that's the way the camera captures it, every other pixel is green,
the others are red & blue. Most of what the RAW conversion does is
average out the colors from adjacent pixels to fill in the blanks.
Different converters use different methods.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"adm" <adm1@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:jtudnai11p3J0OLfRVnyrg@giganews.com...
>
> "Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net...
>> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>>
>> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>
> Personally, I don't really edit the RAW files, I just use them as digital
> negatives. Then I edit them mainly in Photoshop and save the edited output
> as either TIFF or JPG depending on my requirements.


So if I require the best quality Prints up to a size of A3, what is the best
method of achieving this from the RAW files from my Minolta 7D?
Use the raw file as a neg, make a copy of some sort and use that? What would
be best for home printing, I usually dont do much work on my images apart
from using levels and unsharp tool with jpeg files, thats all that is
usually needed.
Im having a hard time finding the best use for RAw images, uts thats only
cause I dont know what to do!!!

Simon

>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hello Paul

Thank you for your post. I apologise, I didn't realise that RAW files were
compressed.

So, as you mentioned RAW image pixels are either R, G or B. So, in effect,
would I be correct in saying the TIFF images make up the larger file size by
'filling in the blanks'? Does this mean that the final image will be softer
when printed?




"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:x5SdnaexiaQQLeLfRVn-tg@speakeasy.net...
> Russell wrote:
> >
> > One thing I am not sure of though is why do TIFF files create a much
bigger
> > file size than the original RAW? If RAW isn't compressed, what extra
info
> > is stored?
>
> Most RAW files are compressed, also it's one color channel per pixel
> since that's the way the camera captures it, every other pixel is green,
> the others are red & blue. Most of what the RAW conversion does is
> average out the colors from adjacent pixels to fill in the blanks.
> Different converters use different methods.
>
> --
> Paul Furman
> http://www.edgehill.net/1
> san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

here's a great article written by Joanne Carter from Popular Photography &
Imaging.

here's their site
http://www.popphoto.com/default.asp

And here's the article
File Formats Made Easy
http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&articl...

--
There are no words that can be heard unless someone listens....
Remove *flaps* to reply

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:H6CdnXuXitzJceLfRVnytw@pipex.net...
> Hello Paul
>
> Thank you for your post. I apologise, I didn't realise that RAW files were
> compressed.
>
> So, as you mentioned RAW image pixels are either R, G or B. So, in effect,
> would I be correct in saying the TIFF images make up the larger file size by
> 'filling in the blanks'? Does this mean that the final image will be softer
> when printed?
>
>
>
>
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
> news:x5SdnaexiaQQLeLfRVn-tg@speakeasy.net...
> > Russell wrote:
> > >
> > > One thing I am not sure of though is why do TIFF files create a much
> bigger
> > > file size than the original RAW? If RAW isn't compressed, what extra
> info
> > > is stored?
> >
> > Most RAW files are compressed, also it's one color channel per pixel
> > since that's the way the camera captures it, every other pixel is green,
> > the others are red & blue. Most of what the RAW conversion does is
> > average out the colors from adjacent pixels to fill in the blanks.
> > Different converters use different methods.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Furman
> > http://www.edgehill.net/1
> > san francisco native plants
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>
>
>
JPEG2000 @ 70%

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <6qCdnSp-x8VEPeLfRVnyiw@pipex.net>,
Russell <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Fair comment.
>
>Save it to disc in the best possible format for retaining maximum image
>quality.

That would be RAW. Anything else is a compromise of resolution, dynamic
range, colorspace, white balance, or crop.

Even lossless image formats may throw away some information that's in
the RAW.

I just save the RAW file ("*.CR2") on Canon, together with an MD5
checksum, on DVD-R media.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <uYOdnSexo7W-CuPfRVnygw@pipex.net>,
"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>
>TIFF, BMP, PSD?

I leave them RAW, unless I am going to put them on my web page, in which
case they become JPEG. I also like to have JPEGs to show other people.
If I am going to print, I either convert in Photoshop and print directly
from there without ever saving as a file, or I make a 16-bit TIFF in one
of the other converters, tweak it in PS, and then print it there.

I don't think that there's really much point in saving in more than
8-bit as an end in itself, until monitor/videocard calibration becomes
completely analog. Right now, all it does is posterize 8-bit data.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <6qCdnSp-x8VEPeLfRVnyiw@pipex.net>,
"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>Save it to disc in the best possible format for retaining maximum image
>quality.

That's called "RAW", generically, perhaps to be replaced by "DNG".
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <427ea301$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au>,
"Ryadia@TA" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Russell wrote:
>> What do you usually save your edited RAW images as?
>>
>> TIFF, BMP, PSD?
>>
>>
>The preferred format for Canon's own converter is TIFF. Presumably this
>provides all the information in the original file although it adds
>hugely to the file size and if you have any layers in the file, it'll be
>enormous!

Actually, the 16-bit TIFF loses detail from the RAW in a few ways:

1) 12-bit linear to 16-bit gamma-adjusted rounds some numbers up, and
some down. It's a small error, but it's there, nonetheless.

2) Demosaicing the image is an interpretation.

3) The readout hardware has all kinds of small offsets that are large
percentages of image intensity in the deep shadows, hence artifacts like
colored noise with banding. This has to be treated differently then
general noise for optimal results, and demosaicing the data makes it
harder to address the problem at its root (in the RAW data, the
artifacts are first generation).

4) The TIFF is color-balanced, and clips one or two color channels,
unless the conversion uses negative exposure compensation, in which case
it will further posterize the image (to a trivial extent, perhaps).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <H6CdnXuXitzJceLfRVnytw@pipex.net>,
"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>So, as you mentioned RAW image pixels are either R, G or B. So, in effect,
>would I be correct in saying the TIFF images make up the larger file size by
>'filling in the blanks'? Does this mean that the final image will be softer
>when printed?

I'm not exactly sure how the better algorithms work, but I think it goes
something like this: the local color (hue and saturation) is calculated
by the intensity of local sensor pixels with different color filters.
Then, based on the full interpolated local color, the luminance is
calculated for each pixel, using the color as a guide. This is a safe
assumption of luminance, as color generally does not change much from
pixel to pixel.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
> I'm not exactly sure how the better algorithms work, but I think it goes
> something like this: the local color (hue and saturation) is calculated
> by the intensity of local sensor pixels with different color filters.
> Then, based on the full interpolated local color, the luminance is
> calculated for each pixel, using the color as a guide. This is a safe
> assumption of luminance, as color generally does not change much from
> pixel to pixel.


I've played with dcraw on some images. It can do better with luminance;
better contrast but the colors are pretty badly off so I just use the
B&W part of the dcraw version & add the colors from ACR. A big hassle
but worth playing around for special or troublesome pics.


--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

You can't save edited files as RAW.


<JPS@no.komm> wrote in message
news:1iu781lvd6nivmig2kilfar43bb8uvshoq@4ax.com...
>
> That's called "RAW", generically, perhaps to be replaced by "DNG".
> --
>
> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <5Lidne7_of4GdBnfRVnyrw@pipex.net>,
"Russell" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>You can't save edited files as RAW.

No, you can't (actually, it's possible, but it's not done, to my
knowledge). I thought that there was a sub-discussion about what format
to keep the master or digital negative in, but maybe there wasn't.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:

>
> I've played with dcraw on some images. It can do better with luminance;
> better contrast but the colors are pretty badly off so I just use the
> B&W part of the dcraw version & add the colors from ACR. A big hassle
> but worth playing around for special or troublesome pics.
>
>
I'd be interested in seeing your workflow for this.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bubbabob wrote:

> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I've played with dcraw on some images. It can do better with luminance;
>>better contrast but the colors are pretty badly off so I just use the
>>B&W part of the dcraw version & add the colors from ACR. A big hassle
>>but worth playing around for special or troublesome pics.
>>
>>
>
> I'd be interested in seeing your workflow for this.


I got the idea from... I think it was a luminous-landscape.com article
where they used some really complicated techniques but it seems to work
fine for me to simply:

Convert with dcraw. I use the following line in a simple bat file:

dcraw -v -b 4 -3 -w 1.nef

When opening in PS, assign the profile AIM RGB Pro = Wide Gamut D65 G1.0
which I had to find and download.

Apply curves to match ACR version or to suit. Sharpen.

Add a saturation adjustment layer to make grayscale.

Convert raw with ACR & paste that on top.

Change layer mode to Difference to allow careful alignment (dcraw gives
a few extra pixels on each side).

Change layer mode to Color to apply ACR colors to dcraw luminance.

Flatten & convert to 8 bit, save as HQ jpeg.

--
Paul Furman
http://www.edgehill.net/1
san francisco native plants

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Russell wrote:
> You can't save edited files as RAW.
[snip]

You sometimes "sort of" can, to a limited extent.

With Photoshop CS2 and ACR 3.1, there is an option to save Raw files as
DNG, with settings and some editing instructions embedded as extra
metadata. Apart from the usual settings of Raw processing, there are
some that are more like those of a photo-editor. For example, cropping,
rotation and alignment, and curves. (And some of the features in ACR
are also in Photoshop itself, such as lens corrections).

These editing instructions are non-destructive. They don't affect the
sensor data, for example. They change the thumbnails, and when opened
in Photoshop they get applied to the Photoshop image, but they can be
reversed in ACR. (So the cropping just stores metadata saying where the
new corners are, it doesn't throw away any sensor data outside those
corners).

This editing is very limited compared with what is in Photoshop, of
course! But it can make life a bit easier. For example, it is easy to
apply a curves-setting to a set of Raw files, if they all need similar
treatment. Then they will have that already applied when they are
opened in Photoshop.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks. I'll play around with that.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:
[snip]
> RAW files have one major drawback--the high probability that they may
be
> unreadable in future software applications. If archival qualities
factor
> into one's decision of which file format to use, TIF uncompressed is
a much
> less risky choice.
>
> If the files are intended for use in a relatively short time horizon,
say
> under 5 years, then this may not be as important a concern.

This is a problem being addressed by various groups of photographers.
In case some here haven't heard of it, I'll mention:
http://www.openraw.org/

I now convert all my Raw images to DNG, and archive that. I am
confident that DNG will be supported long after the Raw formats of the
camera manufacturers run into problems. In fact, I'm confident that DNG
will form the basis for any future standards intended for archiving of
Raw images.

Even if photographers archive in TIFF 6.0 format, they should still
ALSO archive their Raw files, because of the extra information
contained within them. And perhaps the ultimate way of archiving Raw
files is to archive DNG with embedded original Raw files. The best of
all worlds.

DNG is the only Raw format whose specification is openly published. DNG
files are self-contained, in the sense that the DNG-reader does not
need to have specific information about the camera that took the
photograph. There are about 25 non-Adobe products that support DNG,
plus all the Adobe products. These are all obvious aids to making DNG
the archival format of choice.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"james" <fishbowl@conservatory.com> wrote in message
news:SSXfe.17636$fI.7689@fed1read05...
> In article <6qCdnSp-x8VEPeLfRVnyiw@pipex.net>,
> Russell <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Fair comment.
>>
>>Save it to disc in the best possible format for retaining maximum image
>>quality.
>
> That would be RAW. Anything else is a compromise of resolution, dynamic
> range, colorspace, white balance, or crop.
>
> Even lossless image formats may throw away some information that's in
> the RAW.
>
> I just save the RAW file ("*.CR2") on Canon, together with an MD5
> checksum, on DVD-R media.
>


RAW files have one major drawback--the high probability that they may be
unreadable in future software applications. If archival qualities factor
into one's decision of which file format to use, TIF uncompressed is a much
less risky choice.

If the files are intended for use in a relatively short time horizon, say
under 5 years, then this may not be as important a concern.