 Stephen R |
RAW questions Recently started trying RAWCameraData, Nikon NEF shooting. Confused about process or terminology of "RAW conversion" and 2 programs I tried. Transferred images from CF card into/using Nikon PictureProject. It is supposed to be a true converter, so I'm told. Although with few editing abilities. After opening an image you can make the adjustments available, but then what? Only option I find to actually save it with the edits is 'Jpeg export'. Is THAT considered the 'RAW conversion'? Can't save as a tiff? Transferred the same NEF card images with CorelPhotoDownloader, open w/PSP10. PSP 10 has been reviewed as NOT being a true RAWconverter, but mfr says it supports my Nikon's RAW-NEF in full 16bit. I can open a NEF image, edit, etc all in full 16bit mode. Then can save as anything, tiff, jpeg, pspimg, with the orig NEF file unchanged. How is a 'true RAW converter' different? It's my understanding that such, CaptureOne, RawShooterEssentials, Nikon CaptureNX, Adobe Photoshop CS2, Lightroom, Bibble, many others ARE considered true converters. What is PaintShopPro10 missing?
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
"How is a 'true RAW converter' different? Stephen, a true RAW converter is different in that it's main purpose is the conversion of RAWs to other formats and it has got limited other editing capabilities. Which is why many people, including me, use ACR (Adobe Camera Raw, a dedicated RAW converter) in combo with CS3/Photoshop (a versatile image editor). Have fun!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Stephen, You will forgive me as I have not used PSP in a while, and the only reference I can find is: "Grossman reports that while Paint Shop Pro will open most RAW files, it lacks a true RAW converter." That is Debbie Grossman of Popular Photography. What she likely means by "true converter" is that you do not have a bunch of sliders that allow you to make adjustments prior to committing the conversion. The image just opens up. Can you confirm that as a PSP user? The program has to convert the file if it opens it...otherwise you wouldn't see the image on screen. RAW data can't be displayed and must be converted. If you don't shoot in RAW, that conversion takes place on camera. In software, if the conversion is automated it will likely be similar to what you find on camera, with tweaks based on exposure settings and metadata. The format you can save to has little or nothing to do with the conversion but is really a manufacturer's choice. Once the image file is an image file, saving should be a matter of the software making a file format and encoding available. I fear that some make far too much out of the importance of control of RAW conversion as if it were necessary to pump every image through a converter and considered every value for tweaking. This assumes that the previews are valuable, and in turn that you are viewing on an accurate, calibrated monitor, that your color management is set up correctly, that you have a good ICC profile, and that you are not inherently colorblind (which can really be an issue when trying to trust what you see on screen and your ability to make color evaluations). Oh, it also assumes you know what you are doing and what you want to achieve. For the most part I save just about all my corrections for Photoshop where thee measurement tools are superior and so are the tools. I imagine it is the position of PSP and Corel that there is only so much of value that a converter can do (and frankly, usually that is to rescue poorly exposed images). You may not be missing so much as there is often a lot of hype and fluff surrounding these mysterious areas of image processing. The biggest benefit of RAW is that you can work with high-bit files (known as 16-bit, but often really 12 bits in a 16-bit wrapper). With a JPEG file, you only get 8-bit. At the same time, the value of high-bit files is really potential as you can only print in 8-bit and that is all your monitor will use in display. This things may be in flux of change as technologies advance. So if my original assumption is right, all you are missing in PSP is the right to agonize incessantly over tweaking your RAW conversions -- as much fun as that can be! But, let me know if that assumption is incorrect. Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephen R |
Thank you. Richard: Yes, there are no sliders for adjustment prior to "opening the image" or as you said "committing the conversion". The image does just open up. BUT, once open, can make any and all adjustments as I usually did on Tiffs that were "saved as" from as-shot-Jpegs. If I understand you correctly, a "true RAW converter" allows slider adjustments prior to "opening", i.e, "converting the RAW file into something you can see"? IOW the conversion IS the process of making the RAW file into a viewable image? 2) If so, how do you MAKE adjusts on something you don't yet see?? I don't wish to make more of this issue than necessary and usually like to keep things more simple than complex. That's why I chose PSP10 over CS2 when I finally made the switch to digital a few yrs ago. That said, I know what I'm doing, for the most part, using PSP to edit/adjust Tiffs, and use color-management tools, ICC profiles, etc. I know that WIS is WIG. And all works well for me when shooting Fine-Large Jpegs, batch saving originals to Tiffs then editing. Began with RAW to get that extra stop or two of latitude or dynamic range vs. Jpeg that I read/hear is inherent. And don't want to have to learn another s/w for RAW if I don't have to, as I'm very comfortable with PSP. But if the answer to question 1 is yes, and that reason for it appears meaningful/significant, I may need to try another s/w. Or if someone knows that my above PSP method on NEFs somehow compromises the RAW exposure latitude advantage over Jpeg-shooting, because PSP is NOT a "true RAW converter". Thank you
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Stephen, 1. There can be an advantage in the appearance of the image, yes. How big the advantage is in reality may be arguable. If you have a 12 bit image and you open to RAW of 16-bit, technically all the information in the file should be in the result as long as the process of opening does not purposely clip some information. It is a good question. I'm sure all sorts of misinformation can be heaped on it. Like I said, I have my doubts and often accept defaults unless they appear to skew and throw out what may be valuable information. Many people do more damage to their images by adjusting RAW sliders than they do to fix them from my experience. 2. Camera RAW has a preview, and even if it didn't there are histogram measurements to go by. There are methods I use to make adjustments without even looking at an image. Dan Margulis used to swear he could teach people to color correct even if they were color blind. I don't go quite that far, but you can tell a lot from a histogram when you learn to read them. "Began with RAW to get that extra stop or two of latitude or dynamic range vs. Jpeg that I read/hear is inherent." That is the most viable reason and really I think the imperative to shooting RAW over JPEG. I don't think simplifying is bad...a lot of times the people who make it more complex either don't understand it or hope to sell something. I think it sounds like you are approaching this realistically. This discussion as it stands might freak a lot of people out... Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
" It is supposed to be a true converter, so I'm told." "If I understand you correctly, a "true RAW converter" allows slider adjustments prior to "opening", i.e, "converting the RAW file into something you can see"?" Wow!...These are all good questions Stephen, and bolsters my statements in the past, that working with and understanding RAW remains quite a bit of "black art" due to misinformation and just bad writing by authors who assume too much. There are however some hard & fast facts however. "A true converter"? The "converter" does what the name indicates. It converts the file for use in some image editing program. (codecs) "True converter" is a misnomer. NEF, DNG are just two of several file types to indicate RAW. If you can see it, it has been converted..NOT molested yet! Not possible. You can not manipulate ANY image until it has been converted..including jpg. One can not even see an image unless it has been converted. Conversion is nothing more than the proper codec being employed to decode the image to binary..hence 8 bit, 16 bit etc... Some SW suites are more powerful in their abilities to handle RAW data. More powerful in speed processing and more powerful in manipulations (sliders) etc... Hope that helps a tad, all the best, Pete
|
|
|
|
||
|
Stephen R |
Thanks Richard and Pete, The article Richard referred to is exactly where I read and believed the 'true RAW converter' idea. You have convinced me there isn't anything magical one can do with a RAW file opened/edited/converted/saved as It opens the image in 16bit/ch, Adobe RGB 98 space, and the full plethora of editing/adjusting tools are fully functional; except you have to go 8bit to do 'hist adj'. the other hist tools work in 16. So what. Yes Pete, traipsed down the path of misinformation mentioned. An image program will either allow you to open, view image and fully use features and save as tiff, etc or it won't. Even calling it 'RAW conversion' sounds fuzzy now. How is that different than say, PSD conversion, Tiff conversion, PNG conversion etc.? So now appearing less meaningful, but which of these are closer to general acceptance; Thanks
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
a) Conversion occurs when doing 'save as' to tiff, jpeg, etc on an opened-edited RAW file, because I don't think I can save what I'm seeing with my edits to another RAW, 'Camera RAW' file (I know you're not changing or editing tha actual RAW file) or, b) Conversion happens when clicking 'open' on a RAW file in an image program that is capable of opening your particular camera's RAW file? Both statements are correct yet are different in practice. In regards to (a), of course when you "save as" to ANY other file format, there is a conversion taking place. (tiff) obviously being far less damaging (clipped) than a (jpg). Concerning (b), ANY RAW file can be opened IF (IF) you have the proper codecs. In other words, Canon's RAW format can not be opened by Nikon's codec language. This problem is simply solved by installing as many universal codecs as possible in a image editing program which will then automatically detect the format used. This inconsistancy is slowly being resolved, with Nikon leading the charge in their hopefully (DNG) or digital negative becoming more of the norm. More and more photographers (myself included) are beginning to use DNG conversions. Stephen, if you really want to feel even more confused, start researching the various RAW architecture...You have 12 bit....14 bit..compressed, uncompressed, reversible, NON-reversible..Yeesh!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
There is clearly a lot of gray area to get sucked into. Even some noted experts in the field make some pretty grand misinterpretations. I read an article in Pop Photo not all that long ago by an expert that suggested it was best to overexpose images using some calculation that seemed interesting, but interpreted incorrectly when applied to camera exposure in a digital camera. Something about half the light information being in the brightest tenth of the light spectrum...well, sure it is, but that doesn't mean you want to over-expose -- if you do you blow it out -- you don't capture more. It is similar to the fact that AdobeRGB which is supposedly better for print will often produce drab prints and drag images on the web. But here, I like Pete's answer: both are conversions. The RAW is converted on open, the file on save. The article I refer to also suggested that you shouldn't shoot RAW because it was 'dull' or something in comparison to JPEG files right off the camera...of course it was...but that neglects the advantages (and possibly the skill of the photographer ;-). You want to find th real reasons, and not the fluff. Regretfully it is very hard to extract one thing from the other. Richard
|
|
|
|
||
|
Pete H |
"The article I refer to also suggested that you shouldn't shoot RAW because it was 'dull' or something in comparison to JPEG files right off the camera...of course it was...but that neglects the advantages (and possibly the skill of the photographer" _____________________ Man-O-Man!..You said it Richard. When one reads statements like that from a (so called) "photo" magazine; I find it amazing how many people accept it as fact. Worse, the number of beginners entering digital photography will never even try RAW thinking it now to be somehow inferior. It's enough to make one laugh and cry!
|
|
|
|
||
|
W. |
The upside is that those beginners will never be competitive with the image quality of your photos, Pete.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Pete, "It's enough to make one laugh and cry!" I've been through several of those episodes where a flock of sheep followed misinformation and I was left defending my position as I tried, hopefully, to divert the group back on track. Back when Adobe introduced AdobeRGB and many experts endorsed it blindly (I am not saying it was wrong or that it couldn't work, but that the endorsement was for poor reasoning). I actually felt like I might be missing something when I continually wrote about using sRGB instead as the safer workflow, because in the real world there might be problems with dropped profiles. I tested and confirmed my ideas, and ruminated over them to be sure I wasn't going the wrong way. But my pre-press experience wasn't something most authors could match. just to be clear here: People can use both AdobeRGB and sRGB with success, but people continually referred to AdobeRGB as having "more color" is incorrect. The other time it was virtually me against the world was trying to convince people that Elements has 99% of what any digital photographer needs. After checking out the program at the bidding of my publisher, I wrote a book that showed how to do all the things you 'couldn't' do in Elements, like work with channels, curves, save CMYK, edit paths, tons more...and it was a fight to get that book accepted by the public because press and Adobe themselves advertised and promoted these features as missing in Elements (so as not to lose sales on PS). Again, this wasn't to say Photoshop did not have advantages, but far fewer over Elements than people counted as given. And more that the product could do a lot more than advertised. I see the tides turning some 10 years later on AdobeRGB and sRGB, where services often expect sRGB (and happily, many accept and handle both profiles correctly); and I also see a lot more proud users of Elements -- though many buy Photoshop Extended for all the wrong reasons. Once the 'facts' have been proliferated through the power of advertising, the world stays flat for a long time ;-) Authors should be more diligent about taking even Adobe's word for fact. I've learned not to say much about things I haven't a) thought out to a conclusion, and b) tested myself. Trying not to be a part of the problem, Richard Lynch
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||