Options
Raw versus Tiff
Kodachrome
Registered Users Posts: 47 Big grins
I don't have Photoshop CS yet and I am using the software that came with my D5 for editing the images...then they go into PS as tiffs for colour balance, saturation, sharpness...etc... before the software lets me do any edting, the software converts the image to a tiff.
First question...how much of a loss in quality is there between the raw image and the tiff...I know the RAW is like a negative and needs to be processed...but is there a way of working at the RAW level.
Second question...when taking the RAW image into PS does PS convert the image to something else as well...or does it open, beworked on, and saved in PSD...never to see the raw file again...except as a RAW saved original file.
I am using a fiends computer that has a copy of PS 5.5 on it but my friend can't upgrade it...so I will purchase photoshop when I get a computer of my own.
Which leads to my next question...for all I do PS 5.5 does everything I need...just need to know if it is worth the expense of purchasing a computer just so I can open RAW images...my two step appoach is working for me but wondered if I have some quality issues that are not apant to me working that way??
First question...how much of a loss in quality is there between the raw image and the tiff...I know the RAW is like a negative and needs to be processed...but is there a way of working at the RAW level.
Second question...when taking the RAW image into PS does PS convert the image to something else as well...or does it open, beworked on, and saved in PSD...never to see the raw file again...except as a RAW saved original file.
I am using a fiends computer that has a copy of PS 5.5 on it but my friend can't upgrade it...so I will purchase photoshop when I get a computer of my own.
Which leads to my next question...for all I do PS 5.5 does everything I need...just need to know if it is worth the expense of purchasing a computer just so I can open RAW images...my two step appoach is working for me but wondered if I have some quality issues that are not apant to me working that way??
0
Comments
A RAW isn't processed - it hasn't yet been instructed what on exposure, white balance, saturation, sharpening settings to use. No, you cannot turn a TIFF into a RAW.
Photoshop will open and adjust a RAW file, then save it as whatever format you choose, putting it where you choose. The original RAW file remains where it was, as it was. You can and sometimes should make multiple exposures of your RAW file, then combine them in PS.
Whether or not working on RAW files is worth the software upgrade - many of us have said yes. But the real answer lies in your pocketbook and your passion for editing your images.
As for your computer - if it can handle the TIFFS with no problem, are you sure it needs to be upgraded? What camera are you using? What software that came with your camera?
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp
This can give you a free sampling of the control available working with a RAW based workflow.
The oldest version of PhotoShop I can honestly recommend is version 7. This version provides significant improvements in color space over previous versions.
On the other hand, if you have Win 2000/XP, then you really should get PhotoShop CS2. CS2 has integrated support for RAW files, and supports 16 bit color operations and filters, so you can stay in 16 bit mode until you need to save the distribution image, which is usually 8 bit TIFF or JPG.
Expect to pay around $550-600USD for the full version of CS2. It may be worth your while to find an older version to upgrade from, because the upgrade is usually less than $200USD.
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Hi wxwax... I don't have the studio anymore...but if I had another 30 years I certainly would go for the upgrade and a newer faster computer...as it is now I still shoot a few weddings and lots of portraits...of the kids that I did the weddings of/for?
AMD Athalon running at 1.80GHz and a couple of gigs of ram... windows XP...I have a little Lexar dock for my cards...it will download a gig in less than 5 minutes...to my pictures...then either singally or one at a time I put them in to the Canon Zoom Browzer EX were I do my culling ...as you can check the raw file...once I have all the images I want off that card I open them in photoshop...it is just one extra step...
But tonight I have been digging into the ZoomBEX and there is some powerful tools...so I have not written off my two step process.
Thanks Ziggy for the link to PixMatic...their program on the surface looks very similar to the ZoomBEX.
Only had the D5 for two days ...this morning the camera was out on a paying job...talk about a seemless entry into digital...I feel like I just graduated from film school all over again...!!!
Ditto. After you use a raw processor you will never go back to converting without processing the raw file first.
jc
"Chance favors the prepared mind." ~ Ansel Adams
"Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it." ~ Terry Pratchett
Do you mean 5D?
If so, why not use Canon's Digital Photo pro on the RAW files? It's free.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
...ya I mean 5D...heh,heh...I am an old geezer...but I can still out photoshop those young wipper snappers!
...I have been using a Canon product for the raw files...I thought I was missing out on something not having CS.
...I am so happy with the "5D"...I won't forget...that I am going to buy one for my son...he helps me out with the big weddings...does the running around at the church and reception...I only do the wedding portraits.
...been using the 24-105L for a lens...he thinks/likes one a tad longer...darn young boys...what would you folks recomend?
Of course, this
If you have the money, how about the famed 80 1.2?
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
This is one su-wheeeeat lens, no questions (man, I wish I had $2K lying around