RAW Processing?

[ChrisS]

I recently started producing RAW files. I use a Canon 350D, Canon's Digital Photo Professional programme and the Photoshop 7.

Workflows I have read on-line seem to advise doing conversion and initial processing (white balance and basic exposure compensation) in a dedicated conversion programme, before exporting the file to Photoshop and there doing more refined processing.

Why not just use the conversion programme to convert and immediately export the file, doing all processing in Photoshop?

Thanks

Chris

[picnic]

I recently started producing RAW files. I use a Canon 350D, Canon's Digital Photo Professional programme and the Photoshop 7.

Workflows I have read on-line seem to advise doing conversion and initial processing (white balance and basic exposure compensation) in a dedicated conversion programme, before exporting the file to Photoshop and there doing more refined processing.

Why not just use the conversion programme to convert and immediately export the file, doing all processing in Photoshop?

Thanks

Chris
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Unless you bought the RAW plugin for PS7, you will find there IS no RAW processor in that version.  I bought the plugin when I upgraded to 7, but when PSCS came out with it embedded--plus lots more, I stopped using PS7.  I believe at that time C1 was what I was using after PS7 and the RAW plugin and used it until RSP.  

I used both C1 and RSP until PSCS3 and LR came out with the newer RAW converter in both of those.  I now use LR (or ACR with PSCS3 though I prefer LR for other qualities--both use the same RAW engine) as my RAW processor, move into PSCS3 for some things.  You could easily use PSCS3/ACR/Bridge for all your needs however.  I have DPP on my HD and occasionally run some 5D files through it, but I find I'm as happy with the LR/ACR-PS RAW conversions (using them to their fullest and often moving into PS for more processing).

Addendum:  I don't believe the PS7 RAW plugin ever had the 350D as a compatible camera--I could be mistaken, but I think the 350D came out after it---and the plugin was never upgraded for more cameras.

Edit--reading more, I realize I misunderstood you--I think (thinking you wanted to convert from within PS--not DPP to PS).  YOu are wanting to just 'convert' in DPP and transfer to PS for all the processing--as I now read it.  There are many reasons--others have posted some of the reasons--I would just suggest you process as much as possible in RAW before converting--often in LR I need to do nothing more unless I print.  

Diane

[Farkled]

The editing done in the RAW processing programs is non-destructive, meaning it can be reversed.  For many images, the capabilities of the RAW processor are all that is needed.

[digitaldog]

Why not just use the conversion programme to convert and immediately export the file, doing all processing in Photoshop?

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf]http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf[/url]

[NikoJorj]

Why not just use the conversion programme to convert and immediately export the file, doing all processing in Photoshop?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188045\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

1) Because there is already processing in the DPP conversion, with a fair potential for data loss if it's not well done,
2) Corrolary : because that helps extracting all the useful data from the RAW file to the final print.

The Adobe PDF linked by Andrew is very helpful to understand these issues.

Btw, you didn't try LightRoom (or Aperture), did you? I feel it's the kind of soft which really eases the use of raw files.

[digitaldog]

Further, Photoshop simply can't deal with Raw data. Well it can when you load a plug-in (ACR) but pull that pup from the plug-ins folder and Photoshop will simply lay there when you ask it to handle a Raw file. Its like trying to process a Raw in MS Word. Ain't going to happen. The processing pipeline in ACR and LR is totally different from Photoshop in so many ways. I suppose Adobe could recode this entire and huge application so handling Raw would appear to the user to be just the same as handling a rendered image. That be a huge amount of work and besides, using a plug-in solves that issue (but yes, there's a disconnect in UI and user experience). In the same vein, Lightroom is a Raw processor that allows you to edit rendered images. But under the hood, its far more akin to ACR than Photoshop (thankfully).

[ChrisS]

Edit--reading more, I realize I misunderstood you--I think (thinking you wanted to convert from within PS--not DPP to PS).  YOu are wanting to just 'convert' in DPP and transfer to PS for all the processing--as I now read it.  There are many reasons--others have posted some of the reasons--I would just suggest you process as much as possible in RAW before converting--often in LR I need to do nothing more unless I print.  

Diane
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[/quote]



Diane (and everyone who kindly replied)

Thanks for your edit - I think it must have been my question that was the problem! I really enjoyed reading the Karl Lang text digitaldog recommended - very clear and told me lots of things I need to know - but not the reason for doing some processing in a RAW convertor before going to Photoshop rather than just converting the file from RAW and exporting it straight to PS. For anyone wondering whether or not to go RAW, it's excellent. Farkled pointed out that RAW processing is non-destructive, but DPP exports to PS leaving the original RAW file on my hard drive and opens a TIFF in PS - so is reversability an issue? Or have I misunderstood?

I read Michael's tutorial at
[a href=\"http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/digital-workflow.shtml]http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorial...-workflow.shtml
and he writes:
'The RAW converter is the place to make basic adjustments. These are white balance and basic exposure compensation. Look at the histogram within the RAW converter. If you need a bit more shadow detail this is a good time to get it.'
And then, later, in PS:
'What I do at this point [...] is any required Levels or Curves adjustments. I also will do any fine turning of gray point, white point and black point that weren't properly done in the RAW converter.'

My question is: if these adjustments can be made in PS (after DPP has converted the RAW file and exported it to PS as a TIFF), why not just do them all in PS? (That said, I can't find a white balance control in PS.) Why do initial adjustments in the converting programme and then continue them in PS? Is it less destructive of the file's data to do it in the RAW converter before the file becomes a TIFF?

If anyone can recommend a text to help answer this question, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Chris.

[digitaldog]

My question is: if these adjustments can be made in PS (after DPP has converted the RAW file and exported it to PS as a TIFF), why not just do them all in PS?

Because its often slower (you're working with the full resolution pixel file now and not just building metadata instructions). Its not non destructive. The edits in a Raw converter are happening on high bit, wide gamut, linear encoded data, this is often going to produce more control in highlighted areas where half the data resides. You can always alter the metadata instructions and build new, virgin, correctly appearing pixels at any time, or for that matter, build a set of iterations. All edits are being applied in one set when the pixels are rendered.

Raw processing IS NOT color correction, its pixel creation. Only once you end up with fixed pixels can you use Photoshop to alter them, the question becomes, could you have started with the preferred rendering before Photoshop even comes into the picture (the answer is more often yes than no). So, better quality. Faster processing. More flexibility. Why would I want to use Photoshop to apply a correction when I can produce the correct pixels first?

[ChrisS]

Because its often slower (you're working with the full resolution pixel file now and not just building metadata instructions). Its not non destructive. The edits in a Raw converter are happening on high bit, wide gamut, linear encoded data, this is often going to produce more control in highlighted areas where half the data resides. You can always alter the metadata instructions and build new, virgin, correctly appearing pixels at any time, or for that matter, build a set of iterations. All edits are being applied in one set when the pixels are rendered.

Raw processing IS NOT color correction, its pixel creation. Only once you end up with fixed pixels can you use Photoshop to alter them, the question becomes, could you have started with the preferred rendering before Photoshop even comes into the picture (the answer is more often yes than no). So, better quality. Faster processing. More flexibility. Why would I want to use Photoshop to apply a correction when I can produce the correct pixels first?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188504\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think I'm starting to get it, though I still need to work on this terminology(!). Part of the reason for my question is that I've read that DPP isn't considered very good (I think it's in Michael's tutorial), and so wanted to get the files into a programme that is good (PS) asap. But from what you say, it sounds like DPP would still be better than going straight to PS. (NikoJorj asked if I'd tried others, which I haven't - I got DPP 'free' with my camera and need to stick with it till I can buy another converter.)

Thanks for your answer - this forum is excellent.

[digitaldog]

Part of the reason for my question is that I've read that DPP isn't considered very good (I think it's in Michael's tutorial), and so wanted to get the files into a programme that is good (PS) asap.

I don't use it, I have no comments on it. But some think Lightroom is the cat's meow and others hate it and love Aperture or Bibble, or C1. You get the idea. The fundamental tools (these Raw converters) and Photoshop is what you need to clearly understand and define when you'd use them and when you'd say, "done", and move into Photoshop.

There are far, far too many old school people out there doing far more work then is really necessary in Photoshop and not enough at rendering stage.

[ChrisS]

I don't use it, I have no comments on it. But some think Lightroom is the cat's meow and others hate it and love Aperture or Bibble, or C1. You get the idea. The fundamental tools (these Raw converters) and Photoshop is what you need to clearly understand and define when you'd use them and when you'd say, "done", and move into Photoshop.

There are far, far too many old school people out there doing far more work then is really necessary in Photoshop and not enough at rendering stage.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I like the idea that you get the 'raw' material sorted before moving on to refine it. I'm also pretty clear that while DPP might not be the best, it will be fine while I figure out how all this works. Thanks again, Chris.

[picnic]

I like the idea that you get the 'raw' material sorted before moving on to refine it. I'm also pretty clear that while DPP might not be the best, it will be fine while I figure out how all this works. Thanks again, Chris.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=188511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Many Canon shooters love DPP--and many pros.  However, it does lack some of the abilities of other RAW cconverters.  However I would never say its a bad RC--and some really like it because it does a good job, they feel, for skintones--and has the ability to use Canon's Picture Styles--the only way you can use them (basically curves I guess for a simple explanation--one shot color corrections but you can do similar on your own in other RAW converters).

If I recall, you have PS7.  That means you have to use a 3rd party RC (RAW converter) in order to use it for other processing since it does not have a RAW converter included.  If you are considering buying a new RC, then I would download Lightroom, PSCS3/Bridge/ACR and perhaps others and see how you like them.  Be sure and give them a fair trial--making sure you understand at least the basics.  Lightroom and ACR use the same RAW engine but you might find LR more useful--or find you would rather have PSCS3 with ACR.  Then there is Capture One, Bibble and others---but ultimately with those you will have to save as a tiff and bring into Photoshop in most cases.

Diane

[Steven Draper]

For my own work I normally shoot with all the camera adjustments set to "null" (except WB which I select the nearest setting or take a custom reading with an expodisc.) and therefore tend to look at adjustments at the RAW convertor stage as specific adjustments to exposure and possibly WB if for any reason it requires some adjustment.

I then convert to a 16bit tiff and then go over to photoshop for all the other processing including all sharpening, noise and curves, although my personal images sometimes run through some intermediate stages in photomatix first.

I tend to push my curves and colours fairly hard, and 16bit may just help me keep things together!!  I also process very few images, perhaps one or two from a sequence.

If I'm shooting and need a quick "general" result then I set everything up in the camera and the raw convertor is used to make any minor but general tweaks, although in saying that I won a competition with a pure 5min edit in Nikon Capture NX!!!!!!! A more thorough process did however produce a slightly better print!!

Steven

[situgrrl]

It's not that DPP is a bad RAW convertor, it's just badly designed and hard to use from a workflow point of view.  As has been said before, you want to process as much as possible in RAW because it is non-destructive.  

PS7 is now pretty old and I suggest it would be worth upgrading to something newer - we are 3 versions ahead now and a whole bunch of useful features - not least, full 16 bit implementation.  

Alternatively, many are using PS less and less due to Lightroom and you may find this, combined with PS Elements a cheaper and more effective combination.

I certainly recommend downloading the LR demo.  The new beta version has some very effective dodge/burn tools that will, once some other features (soft-proofing!) are added, obsolete PS from many - though by no means all - photographers' workflows.