Shot in RAW today... now what? NEED HELP!

My3Sons

I did a shoot in RAW + JPEG Fine. Why do the Jpeg images appear more colorful than the RAW? I thought RAW was supposed to capture more color and detail. My RAW images appear dull in color compared to the Jpeg.

What do I do with the RAW images now that they are on my computer? I have CS4, which includes Camera Raw. I've noticed that when I open the raw image in Camera Raw, I have the option to save the image as a Jpeg. If I do this, and choose the best quality (without doing any editing), the file is getting saved at a much smaller file size! For example, I opened a 7 MB pic. in Camera RAw and saved it as a Jpeg, and when I checked the stats on the new jpeg, it showed up as a 1.7 MB file... what's the deal? What do I do with these RAW images to get them to keep their size? I want to be able to edit them in CS4, but I cannot do so until after opening in Camera RAw, but then when I save, so that I can open with CS4, it's being saved too small. HELP!

Thanks, Melissa
www.naturalphotography.smugmug.com

Elaine

When I first began shooting raw, I also thought the images would magically appear more finished. But shooting raw does not mean your images will be complete. Think of it as food. Raws are your "uncooked" ingredients, all assembled in your photo, just waiting for you to "cook" them. JPEGS from your camera have already had some cooking time, based on your camera settings. Raw files are larger and they do contain more information. They are just waiting for you to cook/process them however you like.

ACR with CS4 is a great place to start. I now use Lightroom for my raw edits, but I also have ACR 4.6 with CS3 which I used to always use. After I would make my raw edits using the various sliders, I would simply choose "open image." This would bring my raw image to CS3 and not change my file to a JPEG. I would make my edits in CS3 and save as a .psd until I was ready to upload to Smug, at which point I would save it as a JPEG.

I'm sure someone else with a lot more knowledge will chime in here, but I just wanted to say that I understand where you're at. Your raw info is there, it just isn't always pretty until you coax it out. I am loving Lightroom to deal with my raw images.

PS - My main reasons to continue shooting in raw are the wonderful ability to adjust white balance and tweak exposure, as well as the recovery and clarity sliders.

colourbox

Elaine's food analogy is pretty good. When set to JPEG, the camera makes bright colors and high contrast, which limits how much you can work with the image. When set to RAW, the camera makes more realistic colors and flatter contrast so that you can decide how much to bump it up later. If it seems like a lot of work, simply customize the camera default develop settings in Camera Raw so that you get exactly the level of initial contrast and color you like when importing images from the camera. Then you can use all the powerful RAW controls to get exactly what you want.

One lesson I learned was that a properly exposed raw file looks wrong on the camera screen because the raw develop settings have not been applied yet and I exposed for good raw material for developing, not for a nice image on the little camera screen. If you tweak your Camera Raw (or Lightroom) defaults and use the right camera profile, you can meet or beat how the JPEG looks, and if you are shooting raw it is probably because you want your images to look better than how the JPEG looks. Otherwise you would just shoot JPEG.

The size of a JPEG made from RAW is entirely dependent on how much compression you applied when you exported the JPEG. If you set it to High or Medium compression, it will be a smaller file size than a JPEG from the camera and it will also look worse. To preserve quality, camera JPEGs are usually Maximum quality (huge file) unless you changed the JPEG setting in the camera. Once again, the final product is more dependent on a decision you have to consciously make because you didn't hand control over to the camera.

hiroProtagonist

The analogy of raw food was pretty good. Running with that you could say that raw is grade A ground round. Not all that appetizing in it's present form but with a bit of seasoning you can grill up the perfect burger while jpg is basically a Big Mac.

Here's a link to a good tutorial
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/workflow_basic/workflow_basic.htm
it was written for CS2 but should still put you on the right track.

ziggy53

My3Sons wrote:

... What do I do with the RAW images now that they are on my computer? I have CS4, which includes Camera Raw. I've noticed that when I open the raw image in Camera Raw, I have the option to save the image as a Jpeg. If I do this, and choose the best quality (without doing any editing), the file is getting saved at a much smaller file size! For example, I opened a 7 MB pic. in Camera RAw and saved it as a Jpeg, and when I checked the stats on the new jpeg, it showed up as a 1.7 MB file... what's the deal? What do I do with these RAW images to get them to keep their size? I want to be able to edit them in CS4, but I cannot do so until after opening in Camera RAw, but then when I save, so that I can open with CS4, it's being saved too small. HELP!

Thanks, Melissa
www.naturalphotography.smugmug.com

Melissa,

Using ACR to process RAW files takes a little getting used to the "workflow" or process and interface of RAW processing.

The first thing to check in ACR is to make sure your file is being interpolated to at least the same size as the native capture of your camera.

In ACR, when you first open the RAW files, look at the bottom of the screen, under the image itself, for the basic image properties. In my image it is the blue text I have indicated to the right of the arrow in the image below.



When you click on that a dialog will open and the pixel dimensions of the image is one of the selections you can make. It is best to start with the same pixel dimensions as your camera's native capture dimensions.

From that point I suggest you make basic WB and exposure changes, to make sure that colors are fairly accurate and that the image is not clipping the highlights or crushing the shadows, either of which can lose detail. There are lots of things to tweak but start with just WB and exposure and contrast until you get the image accommodated into the available 16 bit color space of your choice. (I recommend starting with sRGB.)

Now you should be ready to import the image, using the "Open Image" tab at the bottom right of ACR, into PhotoShop, where you can work more with the image to pop the scene or enhance selective parts.

When you save, if you want to save to a 16 bit color space for later processing (I recommend that you do this for now), just save the image as a Photoshop file. If you want to also save to an 8 bit color space, in preparation for saving as a JPG, you need to select the:

Image - Mode - 8 bits per/channel

This converts your image for the same bits as JPG files can handle, but it also throws out tons of color information so you would do this as a last step and after all your modifications.

Now you are ready for saving as a JPG. Be sure to select quality level 12 and baseline "Standard" to try to preserve as much image detail as well as color information as possible. If you have sharpened the image, which is recommended, there is a good chance that now your output JPG file will exceed your camera processed JPG in terms of file size and quality.

None of this is terribly intuitive, so take your time and don't expect instant high-quality results. After a while you will be able to spend minimal time in processing for maximum results and it will become easier. At the start, it's tough, no doubt about it.

My3Sons

ziggy53 wrote:

When you save, if you want to save to a 16 bit color space for later processing (I recommend that you do this for now), just save the image as a Photoshop file. If you want to also save to an 8 bit color space, in preparation for saving as a JPG, you need to select the:

Image - Mode - 8 bits per/channel

This converts your image for the same bits as JPG files can handle, but it also throws out tons of color information so you would do this as a last step and after all your modifications.

Now you are ready for saving as a JPG. Be sure to select quality level 12 and baseline "Standard" to try to preserve as much image detail as well as color information as possible. If you have sharpened the image, which is recommended, there is a good chance that now your output JPG file will exceed your camera processed JPG in terms of file size and quality.

None of this is terribly intuitive, so take your time and don't expect instant high-quality results. After a while you will be able to spend minimal time in processing for maximum results and it will become easier. At the start, it's tough, no doubt about it.

Ok, I'm with ya so far, but still have questions on the saving as Jpeg part. From what I understand, the Jpeg can only handle the 8 bit color space. So, why do print companies use the jpeg, rather than PSD? I would rather not lose any of the color, but need to print these portraits. Since it throws out this color information, I'm guessing the end resulting Jpeg will not look the same as the edited RAW file?

Also, yesterday, when I saved as a jpeg, I did select the quality level 12, as I always do, but it still drastically reduced my MB size. I'll try again and see what I get.

Thank you all for all your help. I really appreciate it.
-Melissa

colourbox

My3Sons wrote:

Ok, I'm with ya so far, but still have questions on the saving as Jpeg part. From what I understand, the Jpeg can only handle the 8 bit color space. So, why do print companies use the jpeg, rather than PSD? I would rather not lose any of the color, but need to print these portraits. Since it throws out this color information, I'm guessing the end resulting Jpeg will not look the same as the edited RAW file?

The food analogy still helps here. When you bake, you always end up with a lot less than the starting ingredients. Maybe you threw peelings and apple cores into the compost bin, and a whole lot of water evaporated in the oven. So you have less material. But it's the quality of what's left that counts.

An important point is to draw a distinction between the file you process and the file you hand off. A high quality 8-bit JPEG is perfectly fine to hand off, just as it is perfectly fine to present an apple pie. A high quality JPEG can look almost indistinguishable from the edited raw file. The reason printing companies use it is because it can store high quality at a small enough size to be practical to upload and store. But it is not suitable as a source for further editing, in exactly the same way that you would never use an apple pie as the starting point for baking anything else. A JPEG/pie is only suitable as an end product, and it's very good for that. That's why camera JPEGs are more for people who don't intend to do deep editing and want something ready to print at the Walgreens. An end product.

RAW/TIFF/PSD at above 8 bits have the headroom to accommodate extensive editing without breaking down. That's why they are important as the file that you edit. They are not easily interchanged like JPEG although some specialty printers will take a PSD or TIFF.

Printers prefer JPEG because it's kind of like showing up at a picnic with a baked pie, instead of showing up with a couple sacks of flour and sugar, a bag of apples, and you expect to bake it on site. The baked pie is a lot smaller, a lot easier to carry, and it's ready to eat.

My3Sons

colourbox wrote:

The food analogy still helps here. When you bake, you always end up with a lot less than the starting ingredients. Maybe you threw peelings and apple cores into the compost bin, and a whole lot of water evaporated in the oven. So you have less material. But it's the quality of what's left that counts.

An important point is to draw a distinction between the file you process and the file you hand off. A high quality 8-bit JPEG is perfectly fine to hand off, just as it is perfectly fine to present an apple pie. A high quality JPEG can look almost indistinguishable from the edited raw file. The reason printing companies use it is because it can store high quality at a small enough size to be practical to upload and store. But it is not suitable as a source for further editing, in exactly the same way that you would never use an apple pie as the starting point for baking anything else. A JPEG/pie is only suitable as an end product, and it's very good for that. That's why camera JPEGs are more for people who don't intend to do deep editing and want something ready to print at the Walgreens. An end product.

RAW/TIFF/PSD at above 8 bits have the headroom to accommodate extensive editing without breaking down. That's why they are important as the file that you edit. They are not easily interchanged like JPEG although some specialty printers will take a PSD or TIFF.

Printers prefer JPEG because it's kind of like showing up at a picnic with a baked pie, instead of showing up with a couple sacks of flour and sugar, a bag of apples, and you expect to bake it on site. The baked pie is a lot smaller, a lot easier to carry, and it's ready to eat.

Thanks, this helps a lot.

My3Sons

ziggy53 wrote:

If you have sharpened the image, which is recommended, there is a good chance that now your output JPG file will exceed your camera processed JPG in terms of file size and quality.

When sharpening the image, are we talking about going to Filter, and then selecting sharpen? When I do this, the picture gets much more grainy. It doesn't seem to be as bad when sharpened in ACR.

I did all the steps with minimal editiing, and my end result was a 6.2 MB. The RAW was a 9.4. I did not do the sharpening due to the grain it added. Is it worth the extra grain to get a larger MB?

I did all the steps with minimal editiing, and my end result was a 6.2 MB. The RAW was a 9.4. I did not do the sharpening due to the grain it added. Is it worth the extra grain to get a larger MB?

EDIT: I just saved it again, with the sharpening (from the filter selection) and the end result is 7.5 MB. I still pose the same question... is the grain worth the larger MB? Or will the grain not show up unless the picture is printed extremely large?


-Melissa

colourbox

1. Watch out for oversharpening.
2. Sharpening should be used in conjunction with noise reduction.
3. A good Adobe raw sharpening tutorial is here. It refers to Lightroom, but the exact same controls were added to Camera Raw, so now it applies there too. It goes over how to get the right quality without boosting grain.

Tiziano

FWIW, my D90 came with its in-camera sharpening set to '2' (even for NEF -RAW files). I had to override it to zero so my sharpening in LR2 or CS3 PS didn't double up.

Perhaps your cam is similar?

ziggy53

I prefer to sharpen only in PS using very specific technique and actions. Different images often require a different technique and experience goes a long way towards knowing what technique to use and how much to apply.

Web images, print images and other different sizes may require different sharpening treatment.

Always save original RAW files for important images as RAW converters and RAW technique tends to improve with time and experience.

My3Sons

colourbox wrote:

1. Watch out for oversharpening.
2. Sharpening should be used in conjunction with noise reduction.
3. A good Adobe raw sharpening tutorial is here. It refers to Lightroom, but the exact same controls were added to Camera Raw, so now it applies there too. It goes over how to get the right quality without boosting grain.

Awesome! I will be reading that soon. Thanks again!
-Melissa

Art Scott

Sharpening
I donot use the sharpen filter but instead....I have been usingthe UN sharp mask and never have I had a noise problem.....of course Ishoot 99.9999% ofthe time between iso 64 and 200............so noise has not been an issue.......

But one I tried the Un sharp mask I never looked at the reg sharpen filter again..................