Post Processing in Camera Raw

[leosantare]

Hello,

I might be finally purchasing a professional camera. Before I do so, I just wanted to go over a few things with post processing. I would be recording all my pictures in the raw format and then converting them to dng with Adobe's DNG Converter. I have to do this because my version of camera raw will not support any camera on the market. I have already decided that I will be discarding my proprietary raw files after being converted to dng.

Now, what exactly should I do with the dng files? Obviously, I have to render them since I can't do anything with them as dng. Do most people render them in camera raw to jpeg or tiff? I understand tiff is recommended for printing and jpeg is recommended for sharing. How about the color space, should I render them as ProPhoto RGB, 16bit for the hightest quality? Would this apply for jpeg and tiff?

I know it's stongly recommended to keep the raw files, (in my case the dng files) even after being rendered just in case you want to go back and render it again differently. However, if I insist on getting rid of the dng files, I should render as tiff instead of jpeg. Then, I can always create a jpeg for sharing from the rendered tiff, correct? If I do this, would I need to convert the color space from ProPhoto to sRGB before saving as a jpeg? Also, do I change from 16bit to 8bit or just leave it at 16 bit for jpeg?

My main goal here is to keep all my pictures files the same. For example, I could have dng and jpeg file for each picture or I could have just a tiff file for each picture. PNG might be a possible format also. I will not have a mix. For example, some pictures having a dng and jpeg file and some pictures having a dng and a tiff file. With this being said, what is recommended?

Thank you!

[Erik Bloodaxe]

When you convert your RAW images to DNG format you can embed the original in the DNG file so that it can be recovered if ever needed. I would absolutely NEVER delete the DNG files. It would be akin to throwing away your negatives in the old days. Some folk keep ONLY their DNG files (and sensibly keep multiple backups) and produce other format images from them as and when needed. That is quick and easy to do  using Photoshop's Image Processor as one convenient possibility.

[leosantare]

Yes, I am aware of having the option to embed the original, proprietary raw file inside the dng raw file. However, I personally would never want to do this. I am wanting to understand the most common, recommended workflow for after convertering to DNG. Like I mentioned, the colorspaces and formats options.

[Erik Bloodaxe]

It all depends upon your intended use of your images. That is why keeping the originals or DNGs is essential since then you are able to produce whatever image format you need. I believe most people convert to sRGB for JPEG image sharing. Note that there is no such thing as a 16 bit jpeg, these are compressed files and are 8 bit by default. 

[leosantare]

I see that now, there is no such thing as 16 bit jpeg. Plus, a jpeg should be sRGB, not Adobe RGB or ProPhoto.

Since keeping the dng file is strongly recommended, then I should do that and render each dng file to jpeg 8 bit with sRGB in camera raw.  Like I said, I have to render the dng's to something just so I can veiw them for myself. There is no point of having a collection of unprocessed dng files. Therefore, I will have one dng file and one jpeg file for each picture. I would keep the dng files as masters and can use the jpegs for personal veiwing and sharing. If I ever need to print a specific piucture, I can go back to the dng file and render it to tiff 16 bit with ProPhoto. Does this sound correct?

If so, would it make more sense to just have my camera set to raw+jpeg instead of just raw? This way, I don't have to render all my dng's to jpeg in camera raw. I assume this is just a personal preference of wanting the camera to do the processing or manually doing it in camera raw. I also assume you have more flexiblity and better quality doing it manually in camera raw. Otherwise, no one would bother and just have the camera process the jpeg.

Thank you!

[Erik Bloodaxe]

Editing raw images is far superior to editing jpegs since jpegs are compressed and 8 bit. A large proportion of image data is lost in the process. So one argument is why buy a super camera only to keep throwing away most of the data it captures? Personally I, like many others, shoot images in RAW only and process myself but it's all about personal preference and whether you are content with the jpegs your camera produces.

Viewing: no problem in viewing RAW images using Adobe Bridge which I would recommend. You don't need jpeg versions.

Printing: Lots to learn there. This is another huge topic but very, very basically you can open a RAW image in Camera Raw, send it directly to Photoshop at whatever size and resolution you require and print it. You don't absolutely have to keep a copy of the image in another format for printing though some people store their perfected images as TIFFs so that they are always ready to go. That seems more relevant to those who enter the same image in competitions or sell their wares for example.

It took me many years to develop my printing skills and I am still learning, though perhaps I am a slow learner!

Ultimately you will develop and improve your method of working with time but don't throw away your RAW images as I am sure will grow to regret that.

[leosantare]

I am very aware that editing raw images is far superior than editing jpeg images. I never questioned this. I also never mentioned that I would only shoot jpeg. I questioned shooting in raw+jpeg vs only shooting in raw.

You have to process the raw files to something. They are essentially incomplete and not meant for viewing as a final image.

As you pointed out, you prefer manually processing the raw file in camera raw instead of the camera doing it automatically. It sounds like most professionals do the same. 

Either way, you end up with a raw file for archiving and a jpeg for viewing/sharing. Do you agree with this, am I understanding things correctly?

[Erik Bloodaxe]

"Either way, you end up with a raw file for archiving and a jpeg for viewing/sharing. Do you agree with this, am I understanding things correctly?"

As I said, its personal preference. I only keep RAWs and not JPEGs. If I want JPEGs I use Photoshop's Image Processor to generate them as I have no need to keep both RAWs and JPEGs thereby increasing storage demands considerably. You must decide since there is no right and wrong way to proceed.

[leosantare]

What do you mean you have no need to keep raw and jpeg? Don't you like to look through and share your photo collection? 

As I mentioned raw images are not meant for viewing since they are incomplete and you can't share raw images.

[Erik Bloodaxe]

I am constantly looking through my image collection., all RAWs. There is no difficulty viewing and browsing RAW images using Adobe Bridge. If I want a JPEG version, I create one.

As for RAWs being "incomplete", they are more complete than compressed JPEGs which have had a large proportion of their data discarded.

[leosantare]

That is a good point and thanks for the tip. I may consider using bridge to view my raw images. However, the raw files are still unprocessed and not the final image.

[ExUSA]

I never discard RAW files. I've recently been going through photos from a 2012 and retouching some nuggets I've dug up. Using current noise reduction and processing is going well.

Everything is processed (started with Bridge/ACR, use Aperture for years, now use Lightroom at home and Bridge/ACR at work) and then EVERYTHING goes through Photoshop and saved out from there.

[leosantare]

What do you mean by everything goes through photoshop and saved out from there? Isn't it better to process raw files and convert them with camera raw instead? Meaning, raw files will be saved out from camera raw, not photoshop. 

[leosantare]

Please let me know what you mean by this. Thanks

[Conrad_C]

You said “my version of camera raw will not support any camera on the market.” Is that because you’re staying with an older version of Camera Raw, for example are you avoiding the subscription?

Another big question is, do you like to edit, export a final version, then never edit that image again? Or, do you like to go back to older images and make them better using new tools and techniques?

My workflow is: Shoot and archive raw files only. If needed (as little as possible), convert raw files to TIFF only to use features not available in Camera Raw. Export JPEG copies for publishing and sharing.

I am not saying that’s the only right way, but here are my reasons:

I don’t need the in-camera JPEGs. I edit the raw files to my taste and export JPEG copies of those, so I wouldn’t be using the out-of-camera JPEGs for anything so I don’t want unneeded duplicates taking up storage space on camera cards and computer storage.

(In-camera JPEGs can be useful for event/news photographers who don’t have time to edit because their editor needs them to send photos for publishing ASAP. Or, some people like the look of in-camera JPEGs enough that they don’t feel like editing them much, and today’s cameras make very nice JPEGs.)

I use current versions of the software, so the raw files of all my cameras are supported. That’s why I asked if you need to stay on an older version.

I have gotten a lot of satisfaction out of re-editing old work. Partly that’s because I’m better at editing than I was in the past. I can open a raw file I edited from my first digital camera 20 years ago and create a much better image today. But it’s not just about technique…

…In recent years, Adobe has added raw editing features such as improved raw demosaicing for better details, vastly improved highlight/shadow processing, improved local contrast editing (Clarity, Texture, Dehaze…), and AI/GPU-assisted features such as AI masking, resolution enhancement, reflection removal, and the revolutionary Denoise. These not only make editing easier, they also make it possible to rescue images that used to be unusable, or make it possible for good images to look at lot better. These features are not available in older versions of Camera Raw, and some of them work only with raw files, or work best with raw files. Some of those features don’t work at all with TIFF or JPEG. So I have a strong incentive to keep original raw files so that I can get the most out of my images in the software, both today and in the future. 

Another reason is storage space savings. A raw file is a few megabytes, because it’s just a single channel of a sensor data readout. A TIFF version of the same image is many times larger than the raw/DNG original, because the raw file has been demosaiced into three RGB channels. If it was demosaiced to 16 bits/channel, then the file is twice as large as at 8 RGB bits/channel. If the TIFF file contains layers, then it’s even bigger. So 2000 photos from a trip could take hundreds of megabytes more storage space as TIFF files than as raw files. (JPEG files can be smaller than raw files, but the tradeoff in image quality is too high of a cost to pay.)

I convert raw to TIFF/PSD only when an image needs edits that can’t be done at the raw level with Camera Raw/Lightroom. But as Camera Raw has gotten more powerful, today I only need to send very few raw images to Photoshop, saving me a lot of storage space. 

So my image storage looks like this:

• Almost all raw originals, except for images from cameras that don’t shoot raw such as HEIC from smartphones or my TIFF scans of film. 
• A few raw files have a TIFF version as needed…but I still keep the raw original. 
• The raw/TIFF originals that are worthy of sharing are exported as JPEG. (So not every raw image is converted to TIFF or JPEG, only as needed.) 

You don’t have to do it the way I do, but for me, keeping the raw source file and working from it as much as possible gives me the best combination of present/future editing flexibility, while also helping simplify file management and storage needs. But it requires keeping software current.

[leosantare]

Yes, I will never have a subscription. I use CS6 and camera raw 9.1 and will always use this software unless a newer perpetual license becomes available. I may get a perpetual license from Affinity or someone else in the furture.

I think I would edit, export a final image and never go back. Although, I'm new at this, so may go back as my editing skills improve.

What do you mean by you convert raw files to tiff when needed to use its features not available in camera raw?

I can understand you wanting to edit the raw files yourself to taste and not wanting to use the out of camera jpegs. I may decide to do the same. I will have to wait and see. It may take me a long time to edit the raw files myself and may not enjoy doing it. Plus, the out of camera jpegs may turn out to be better than my processing. I will try it both ways and decide for myself.

Yes, I know a 25mb raw file can turn into a 105mb tiff file when using 16bit pro photo.

Most likely I will keep all my raw files (the keepers) for archiving and I will either edit myself and convert to jpeg with camera raw or just use the out of camera jepgs. Either way, I will have a processed jpeg for all the raw files I keep for viewing and sharing. This seems to be the most sensible thing to do. I understand if a photo needs to be printed, I can always go back to the raw and convert it to tiff. I would then delete the tiff once printed.

Please let me know if I'm missing something.

[Erik Bloodaxe]

You are in fact missing a great deal if you stick with CS6. Camera Raw editing has changed very significantly since those bygone days. 

It seems that you have already made up your mind as to how you wish to proceed with your photography. Others have chipped in with their preferred methods of working which you may or may not choose to emulate. Ultimately the decision is yours.

[leosantare]

Yeah, I figured that. Although, like I said, I may pruchase a perpetual license in the future.