Lossless Raw Workflow

[marvpelkey]

Over the years, I have been aware of a fellow (Mark Metternich) who is, I presume, well known by some in the digital image processing field. He is a fanatic (I mean that as a compliment) about getting the most and best quality from a digital file.  I just received an email, announcing a brand new on-line course (8 hr) on how to squeeze the ultimate from a file, including a lossless raw layer workflow.

Not being familiar with this philosophy, and still stuck in CS6, I am unsure of the benefit of this type of workflow. So am wondering if someone, like Digitaldog or others, can comment on whether this stuff really results in a much improved image, or is it is only marginally/any better than a traditional process?

I do not know whether it is appropriate to provide a link so did not want to do that without some guidance.

Marv

[digitaldog]

My BS detector is going off (a bit). But I have an open mind.
Lossless raw layer workflow in what product?
If you want to get technical, all raw processing is  non-destructive:
https://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing

[Wolfman]

My BS detector is going off (a bit). But I have an open mind.
Lossless raw layer workflow in what product?
If you want to get technical, all raw processing is  non-destructive:
https://www.dpbestflow.org/image-editing/parametric-image-editing

I'm familiar with M. Metternich's process. He's using Adobe Camera Raw.

[digitaldog]

I'm familiar with M. Metternich's process. He's using Adobe Camera Raw.

Well, have him explain raw layer workflow since that product has no layers.
My BS detector is going off (a bit more). But I still have an open mind.

[Wolfman]

Well, have him explain raw layer workflow since that product has no layers.
My BS detector is going off (a bit more). But I still have an open mind.

This is his explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLZ3iirgcc

[digitaldog]

This is his explanation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nLZ3iirgcc

Well, then someone misunderstood layers (which exist in Photoshop) and not ACR. 
There's nothing special about Smart Object. The raw is embedded into the non raw 'stack', and like the editing in Adobe Camera Raw, it is always non-destructive.
SO's with raw have been around for a very long time. Like, Photoshop CS2.
What's new and novel here?
To answer a more general question of the OP, still on CS6, there have been huge increases in editing capability in the Adobe Camera Raw engine since CS6. I'd concentrate on what it can do without getting too involved in Lossless raw layer workflow and instead learn more about lossless raw processing in Adobe Camera Raw or Lightroom Classic.

https://gregbenzphotography.com/photography-tips/3-common-misconceptions-about-camera-raw-smart-objects/

An exported TIF, Camera RAW Smart Object, or rasterized Smart Object are all going to give you the same results (assuming you used the same RAW settings to create each of them). As far as the image is concerned, the Smart Object is exactly the same as a flat layer. The only difference is that you can make changes to recreate that flat layer. But the algorithm used in Lightroom or in Adobe Camera RAW (inside the smart object) is exactly the same and produces the same results.

So if don’t need the flexibility to make changes later, you’re probably better off skipping the Smart Objects to save a bit of file space.

[digitaldog]

Marv, probably skip the YouTube video referenced and examine what just localized masking in a modern version of ACR provides: game changer:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDg6FdNdufs

[marvpelkey]

Andrew,

Thanks very much for your comments, suggestions and links. Valuable, and trusted, info.

I expect I will move up to the latest PS/LR. Just been comfortable with the old CS6 over the years.

Marv

[Peano]

My BS detector is going off (a bit).

Agree. Mine is going off at full volume. The guy in the video keeps repeating, like the voice of God, "Are adjustment layers above a raw smart object non-destructive? NO!" Finally, at 3:08, he inserts the crucial qualifier: "All adjustment layers, all smart objects, are done at the pixel level when the image is flattened."

Well, duh! If you flatten the image, then of course the edits are destructive. But when you open a raw file from ACR into CS6 as a smart object, and when you use adjustment layers and make other non-destructive edits (such as cloning on blank layers), that process is non-destructive. After editing, if you want to save the image as a jpeg or tiff, fine. Save it that way. But don't flatten the PSD file. Save it with all layers intact, so you can return and make further edits later. If for some reason you want to return to the original raw file, it's right there in the smart object, undisturbed by any of your non-destructive edits.

The guy in the video is a pedantic BS artist. I don't think he is offering any useful advice. I certainly wouldn't pay $154 for his "Full video course 5 Years in the Making!" I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater than listen to that.

[David Eckels]

I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater than listen to that.

LMAO. I agree and there's lots of excellent free content on youtube that will get you to the same place.

[digitaldog]

The guy in the video is a pedantic BS artist. I don't think he is offering any useful advice. I certainly wouldn't pay $154 for his "Full video course 5 Years in the Making!" I'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater than listen to that.

My BS detector exploded when I saw his 'tutorial' on Lab:

Most photographers don’t know that RGB makes many “like” colors the same. There is nothing that can break apart colors and vastly increase color separation and variety like careful use of Photoshop’s LAB Mode.
In this power packed some odd hour video tutorial, Mark Metternich takes you through the simplest yet most powerful way to increase color variation, color separation and even expand color gamut with just a few simple steps.

The guy is a very good photographer; he should stick to that. What he's selling in terms of image processing is maybe at best amusing if offered for free.