Converting RAW->tiff->psd->jpg

dlscott56

I have a question about RAW. I shot a photo in RAW and copied it to my PC, then imported, leaving it where I copied it, into LR. File size of the RAW is 7,889 KB. Adjusted the exposure how I wanted in LR and then requested to open in CS2. The only option I had at this point was to leave the stack original check box checked or uncheck it. I left the default checked. Then a tiff file was created that is 45,906 KB. After editing, adding adjustment layers, etc, I saved as a psd file that turned out to be 169,792 KB. Then wanted to save as jpg but the option doesn't show up.

First question is, what did I do wrong to cause such large file sizes? And, secondly, how do I get it to jpg?

Thanks in advance for your help.

dlscott56

I may have found part of my trouble. Apparently the tiff generated is 16 bit and when saving as psd it is also in 16 bit mode. I changed the mode to 8 bit and then was able to save as a jpg.

Still not sure I'm working with the RAW correctly though.

HarlanBear

Hi Dave,

Everyone is going to give you their own workflow, and they are all probably fine. So here's mine:

Transfer RAW pictures into a folder marked for the location, date, whatever. View using Bridge (I don't have Lightroom, so it's all PSCS3 and Bridge) and open in Camera Raw. Here I do whatever Camera Raw adjustments I want then Save as a Photoshop file (.psd) in my working folder. Open it in PSCS3 and do whatever PS work it needs (still in 16 bit, Adobe RGB). Save with all layers, etc. as the Master PS file. When converting for output, let's say JPEG, I flatten all the layers, convert the Color to sRGB, Mode change to 8 bit and then save as jpeg in another folder where I keep jpeg versions. If it's going to the web, convert to jpeg and then save for web in the File>Save for Web application.

This does make several different versions of an image, but, hey, it's digital.

We all need a workflow that works for us. Maybe this one will help.

arodney

Right, you can't save a 16-bit JPEG. JPEG doesn't support that bit depth.

Check your export presets OR if you're using the Open in External Editor command, the preferences there for these options.

dlscott56

HarlanBear wrote:

Hi Dave,

Everyone is going to give you their own workflow, and they are all probably fine. So here's mine:

Transfer RAW pictures into a folder marked for the location, date, whatever. View using Bridge (I don't have Lightroom, so it's all PSCS3 and Bridge) and open in Camera Raw. Here I do whatever Camera Raw adjustments I want then Save as a Photoshop file (.psd) in my working folder. Open it in PSCS3 and do whatever PS work it needs (still in 16 bit, Adobe RGB). Save with all layers, etc. as the Master PS file. When converting for output, let's say JPEG, I flatten all the layers, convert the Color to sRGB, Mode change to 8 bit and then save as jpeg in another folder where I keep jpeg versions. If it's going to the web, convert to jpeg and then save for web in the File>Save for Web application.

This does make several different versions of an image, but, hey, it's digital.

We all need a workflow that works for us. Maybe this one will help.

Thanks HarlanBear. I didn't notice that it was in Adobe RGB. Hmm, I'll try it again a look more closely. I wonder if I can change settings in LR to work in sRGB or if that's not a good thing to do. Also, what's the advantage of flattening the layers instead of just converting to 8 bit then doing a 'save as' and selecting jpg file type? Just curious. And thanks again for the help.

dlscott56

arodney wrote:

Right, you can't save a 16-bit JPEG. JPEG doesn't support that bit depth.

Check your export presets OR if you're using the Open in External Editor command, the preferences there for these options.

Thanks Andrew.

arodney

dlscott56 wrote:

Thanks HarlanBear. I didn't notice that it was in Adobe RGB. Hmm, I'll try it again a look more closely. I wonder if I can change settings in LR to work in sRGB or if that's not a good thing to do. Also, what's the advantage of flattening the layers instead of just converting to 8 bit then doing a 'save as' and selecting jpg file type? Just curious. And thanks again for the help.

There's two possibilities here. One is open in external editor. That provides one set of export settings for color space, bit depth etc. You also end up recording this into the catalog. So if you have a Raw file, LR will allow you to 'open' for lack of a better term, this Raw after rendering in the application of your chose (Photoshop) AND it will place this newly created doc into the catalog.

The other option is to build one or many export presets. You can have one for sRGB at this or that size for the web, one for full rez in high bit ProPhoto RGB and so on. I have half a dozen different presets based on what I want to export. But export DOESN"T update the catalog with what you just asked for as Open in External Editor does. They are quite different.

Export is just that. Take the Raw (or rendered image you may have edited and cataloged) and make a copy outside of LR using any number of parameters. Open in External Editor is telling LR, make a copy, open it in Photoshop, then save the edited version within my Catalog as a new entry. From there you could export that edited version if you wanted.

IF I'm opening in an external editor from a Raw, I want the biggest gamut, bit depth file I can make. The idea is I'm making a new master, pixel based image FROM the Raw. I want to do some pixel based work in Photoshop and I want to keep this newly edited pixel based master in my catalog (I may want to export it to the web, then I'd use an export preset for a smaller file, in sRGB).

So setup the preferences accordingly. You can only have one Open in External Editor setting (well technically you can have two for two editors). Set that up to get out all the data you think you'll ever need.

You can have dozens of export presets. They can access the raws or the files you original opened in the external editor.

colourbox

dlscott56 wrote:

First question is, what did I do wrong to cause such large file sizes?

NOTHING. You did nothing wrong. It's the math.

A raw file is one 12-bit grayscale channel. The second you turn it into RGB, you now have 3 8-bit or 16-bit channels, R+G+B. So your file size can only go up. PSD uses lossless compression, so there is little savings. That is actually your baseline. A PSD or TIFF is not unnaturally large, they are "normal" for having full quality and full color. Raw is unnaturally small because it is one channel, and JPG is unnaturally small because it throws away lots of information.

dlscott56

Thanks everyone. Very helpful information! That should get me started with developing a RAW workflow.

arodney

dlscott56 wrote:

Thanks everyone. Very helpful information! That should get me started with developing a RAW workflow.

This is a useful although lengthy article on Raw:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

HarlanBear

arodney wrote:

IF I'm opening in an external editor from a Raw, I want the biggest gamut, bit depth file I can make. The idea is I'm making a new master, pixel based image FROM the Raw. I want to do some pixel based work in Photoshop and I want to keep this newly edited pixel based master in my catalog (I may want to export it to the web, then I'd use an export preset for a smaller file, in sRGB).

So setup the preferences accordingly. You can only have one Open in External Editor setting (well technically you can have two for two editors). Set that up to get out all the data you think you'll ever need.

You can have dozens of export presets. They can access the raws or the files you original opened in the external editor.

This is what I'm doing, as well. I want to keep the widest gamut, biggest depth I can in the master. I only convert from RGB to sRGB for output; taken that I am also shooting in Adobe RGB, so that is the camera master as well. Though it is a RAW file.

HarlanBear

dlscott56 wrote:

Also, what's the advantage of flattening the layers instead of just converting to 8 bit then doing a 'save as' and selecting jpg file type? Just curious. And thanks again for the help.

I don't know that there is an advantage. This is just the way I work. I may indeed be adding steps. Someone else may have something to say on this, and, of course, YMMV.

Hindsight

I may have missed it as I was skimming, but in Lightroom preferences you can choose the color space and bit depth for edits out to an external editor. You can change the main preference to 8bit so that's the default, and still change to 16bit on the fly in the dialogue that pops up when you hit "edit in external editor" from lightroom. Setting to 16bit in such a way is useful if you plan on making drastic changes to a given edit in photoshop, but for minor things it's best to leave it at 8bit so photoshop doesn't run like a snail when you apply filters and such. (not to mention much the smaller file sizes that result from 8bit)

dlscott56

arodney wrote:

This is a useful although lengthy article on Raw:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

Thanks. I've printed and read this. It's a great article and the reason I decided to start shooting RAW. I appreciate the help and I'm sure I'll have lots more questions later.

dlscott56

HarlanBear wrote:

This is what I'm doing, as well. I want to keep the widest gamut, biggest depth I can in the master. I only convert from RGB to sRGB for output; taken that I am also shooting in Adobe RGB, so that is the camera master as well. Though it is a RAW file.

That brings up another question I guess. Right now I'm shooting color mode IIIa (sRGB), that's the setting in my camera. What's the added advantage of shooting in Adobe RGB?

dlscott56

Hindsight wrote:

I may have missed it as I was skimming, but in Lightroom preferences you can choose the color space and bit depth for edits out to an external editor. You can change the main preference to 8bit so that's the default, and still change to 16bit on the fly in the dialogue that pops up when you hit "edit in external editor" from lightroom. Setting to 16bit in such a way is useful if you plan on making drastic changes to a given edit in photoshop, but for minor things it's best to leave it at 8bit so photoshop doesn't run like a snail when you apply filters and such. (not to mention much the smaller file sizes that result from 8bit)

Thanks Hindsight. I missed those settings and will take a look at it. It may be an advantage for someone like me to do the same thing for general shooting. Then for more important stuff, or something I would like to go back and do more serious work on, I'll always have the RAW file, so could work with the 16 bit if required. Not sure yet, still learning.

claudermilk

dlscott56 wrote:

That brings up another question I guess. Right now I'm shooting color mode IIIa (sRGB), that's the setting in my camera. What's the added advantage of shooting in Adobe RGB?

If shooting in RAW, the camera setting does not matter. RAW files have no color space. You select the color space to output to when converting. IMHO, there is largely no advantage to messing with the wider gamut spaces and a lot of pitfalls that can eat up time, so I don't bother. I know someone will pipe up with some exception example to prove the advantage, but--again IMHO--for 99% of what is shot it makes no difference. Also keep in mind the web is sRGB, and nearly all printing services want sRGB files, so you're probably going there anyway.

arodney

claudermilk wrote:

Also keep in mind the web is sRGB, and nearly all printing services want sRGB files, so you're probably going there anyway.

Discussed here:

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=67176

claudermilk

Discussion is a nice euphemism.

For you, with nearly $6,000 invested in your own printers, obviously sRGB is not the primary choice. The OP is even having trouble getting his RAW files converted to JPEG and grasping the basic workflow; in his case, sticking with sRGB until the basics are understood and mastered is the best choice. Seeing that the RAW files are there, it's easy to go back and re-convert with the simple change of what colorspace to go to later. I cannot count the number of threads with RAW newbies asking why their web images look washed out instead of like in PS (you already know the answer: fiddling with aRGB as rote from expert's advice).

I see this is going to head in the direction of a pointless argument, so I'll leave it with that.

arodney

claudermilk wrote:

Seeing that the RAW files are there, it's easy to go back and re-convert with the simple change of what colorspace to go to later.

With something like Lightroom, its quite easy since there's such a nice history state that sticks around after you quit and the multiple export presets you can make. Getting a high rez, 16-bit ProPhoto RGB and a small, sRGB version is super easy and fast.

HarlanBear

arodney wrote:

Discussed here:

http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=67176

I suggest everyone thinking on this subject read the link above and Andrew's entire sections.

I for one do not want to play to the lowest common denominator with my MASTER images.

Case in point: I work in TV and video production. Back in the day (before full-on digital) we shot in ¾ inch U-matic format; a very poor, but portable video tape format. Not as poor as VHS, but not great. Then they developed a format called BetaCam, a vast improvement for many reasons and the standard for TV, video and news videography for many years. Then along came DigiBeta, a digital tape format which was fairly expensive and of course called for upgrading cameras, etc. (BTW, complain all you want about the cost of digital still cameras, but to buy one of these TV camera systems cost approx. $70,000). Many production houses did not upgrade until absolutely necessary. We did. Even though we were, in all likelihood, dropping the finished show or whatever on to VHS for viewing. But guess what. With the advent of digital and especially DVD delivery, those DigiBeta masters look great. The old analog BetaCam masters, not so much. And forget about U-matic.

Point is we do not know what the future will bring and, for me at least, I see no reason to limit myself to present day technology. Especially given where we’ve been and where we’re going.

My 2 cents (and then some, I guess).

dlscott56

Here's where I'm at so far with my decision. I set my camera to shoot RAW + Fine. I know it takes up lots of space but I have a few memory cards and can manage it fine. Then, as I learn more I can ditch the Fines if necessary. In any event I'll have the RAW files available and can work with either until my knowledge and comfort level help me settle into a workflow of my own.

claudermilk

arodney wrote:

With something like Lightroom, its quite easy since there's such a nice history state that sticks around after you quit and the multiple export presets you can make. Getting a high rez, 16-bit ProPhoto RGB and a small, sRGB version is super easy and fast.

Sounds like maybe they did do something right in LR. To be honest (if you haven't seen my rants in the past) I really don't like LR. But, that's beside the point; from what I've seen most all decent converters give you some kind of saved recipe file so you can go back and re-convert, and some allow for multiple options. So, at least as far as this point goes it looks like we are finally on the same page.

Dave, sounds like a good plan. Basically take it one bite at a time & before you know it you'll be at the top of the learning curve and joining our bitter debates on the pros/cons of various colorspaces. :tiptoe

dlscott56

claudermilk wrote:

Sounds like maybe they did do something right in LR. To be honest (if you haven't seen my rants in the past) I really don't like LR. But, that's beside the point; from what I've seen most all decent converters give you some kind of saved recipe file so you can go back and re-convert, and some allow for multiple options. So, at least as far as this point goes it looks like we are finally on the same page.

Dave, sounds like a good plan. Basically take it one bite at a time & before you know it you'll be at the top of the learning curve and joining our bitter debates on the pros/cons of various colorspaces. :tiptoe

Thanks Chris, and all, for the help. No doubt I'll be back for more.