trias10
Newbie
Please pardon my ignorance of digital processing, but lately I've been a bit confused by a lot of the emphasis on 16-bit TIFFs.
I have recently purchased an R-d1s (soon to arrive), and am preparing to develop an optimal workflow for color and B&W photos that I take with the camera. I plan to shoot only in RAW.
Up until now, I have always shot with high end DSLRs, and normally, I just keep the RAW files on backup harddrives (RAW files being quite large). When it comes time to edit the photos, I just open the RAW files directly in Photoshop CS2, edit the photo, then save the file down into JPEG as the final end result. This way, I have the RAW originals, and the JPEG which has all the edits.
Now, I know that when I do this, I can never edit that JPEG again, since that will introduce more lossy compression, so I try to get all the editing done in one pass. If I ever need to re-edit, I just load up the RAW and start all over.
From what I've read, people are including an intermediate step of converting their RAWs to 16-bit TIFFs, then editing the TIFFs before saving down the JPEG. Also, a lot of people convert using Epson's PhotoRAW. I was just planning on using their RAW Plug-in.
Is there a more optimal way to create RAW to JPEG workflow than what I'm currently doing? Am I losing bit depth using my current methodology? What is best for the R-d1s in colour vs. B&W?
Thanks!
I have recently purchased an R-d1s (soon to arrive), and am preparing to develop an optimal workflow for color and B&W photos that I take with the camera. I plan to shoot only in RAW.
Up until now, I have always shot with high end DSLRs, and normally, I just keep the RAW files on backup harddrives (RAW files being quite large). When it comes time to edit the photos, I just open the RAW files directly in Photoshop CS2, edit the photo, then save the file down into JPEG as the final end result. This way, I have the RAW originals, and the JPEG which has all the edits.
Now, I know that when I do this, I can never edit that JPEG again, since that will introduce more lossy compression, so I try to get all the editing done in one pass. If I ever need to re-edit, I just load up the RAW and start all over.
From what I've read, people are including an intermediate step of converting their RAWs to 16-bit TIFFs, then editing the TIFFs before saving down the JPEG. Also, a lot of people convert using Epson's PhotoRAW. I was just planning on using their RAW Plug-in.
Is there a more optimal way to create RAW to JPEG workflow than what I'm currently doing? Am I losing bit depth using my current methodology? What is best for the R-d1s in colour vs. B&W?
Thanks!
yanidel
Well-known
My workflow is the following :
- I import all raw files in Lightroom. They will automatically show in color.
- I convert all files in Epson Raw without touching the settings (no NR) in B&W, sometimes also in color. They are all converted in 8 bits JPG's. I found that the difference in quality with 16 tiffs was not worth it on 99% of my pictures for my use (A4 prints mostly)
- I import the JPG conversion in lightroom. I look at them and decide to :
1) delete raw file and JPG if the picture is not satisfying.
2) keep the B&W picture in JPG (eventually tweak it with lightroom if needed)
3) Go back to Epson raw if deeper changes are needed (especially with filters)
- Eventually I export all JPGs with Lightroom with their modifications back in the same folder to keep only the processed version. I do not like to keep the layers. I also have a "Raw folder" for the pictures I especially like, they remain unprocessed.
To end I think 50% of B&W JPG with untouched setting (no NR) pass the first cut. I hardly ever us CS3, it would take too much time. Note that most of the time I apply some sharpening in Lightroom, but never in Epsonraw.
This might be complicated, but this is now a stable process for me. Though I am sure you will think that my mind is pretty unstable given the workflow ...
- I import all raw files in Lightroom. They will automatically show in color.
- I convert all files in Epson Raw without touching the settings (no NR) in B&W, sometimes also in color. They are all converted in 8 bits JPG's. I found that the difference in quality with 16 tiffs was not worth it on 99% of my pictures for my use (A4 prints mostly)
- I import the JPG conversion in lightroom. I look at them and decide to :
1) delete raw file and JPG if the picture is not satisfying.
2) keep the B&W picture in JPG (eventually tweak it with lightroom if needed)
3) Go back to Epson raw if deeper changes are needed (especially with filters)
- Eventually I export all JPGs with Lightroom with their modifications back in the same folder to keep only the processed version. I do not like to keep the layers. I also have a "Raw folder" for the pictures I especially like, they remain unprocessed.
To end I think 50% of B&W JPG with untouched setting (no NR) pass the first cut. I hardly ever us CS3, it would take too much time. Note that most of the time I apply some sharpening in Lightroom, but never in Epsonraw.
This might be complicated, but this is now a stable process for me. Though I am sure you will think that my mind is pretty unstable given the workflow ...
sevres_babylone
Veteran
I do not have Lightroom.
I shoot raw+jpeg.
I import from the SD card using Photo Mechanic and change the file names to a date format year-month-day-hour-minute.
I do a very rough edit using Photo Mechanic and delete the awful ones (not the borderline ones.)
For the web, I usually open the jpeg in Photoshop, make some adjustments, and make a smaller sized file for uploading.
For prints, or in situations where more work is needed I use Epson Raw, make some adjustments to colour and exposure and save as a 16-bit TIFF.
I then open in Photoshop and make some initial levels and/or curves adjustments to the 16-bit file.
I also use Photokit sharpener for an initial capture sharpening.
At that point I usually convert to 8-bit for final tweaking.
I save either as a TIFF or more likely a PS file.
I shoot raw+jpeg.
I import from the SD card using Photo Mechanic and change the file names to a date format year-month-day-hour-minute.
I do a very rough edit using Photo Mechanic and delete the awful ones (not the borderline ones.)
For the web, I usually open the jpeg in Photoshop, make some adjustments, and make a smaller sized file for uploading.
For prints, or in situations where more work is needed I use Epson Raw, make some adjustments to colour and exposure and save as a 16-bit TIFF.
I then open in Photoshop and make some initial levels and/or curves adjustments to the 16-bit file.
I also use Photokit sharpener for an initial capture sharpening.
At that point I usually convert to 8-bit for final tweaking.
I save either as a TIFF or more likely a PS file.
kshapero
South Florida Man
Gosh, I take a simpler route. I import the RAW files (I shoot mainly B+W), then load Epson RAW the application because my workflow stays in B+W. Then I fiddle if necessary and export to a JPEG. All done with Epson RAW.
I do have Adobe PSE6 if I need to manipulate but I almost never do this.
I do have Adobe PSE6 if I need to manipulate but I almost never do this.
Tuolumne
Veteran
For the most part I just shoot jpgs on my R-D1, edit in Picassa, print from the edited but unsaved jpg files. I will sometimes export the jpgs if people want me to send them a digital file. I'm sure this is sub-optimal from a theoretical stand point, but the prints look just fine to me.
/T
/T
Sam N
Well-known
Does Epson RAW give much better results than Adobe ACR, or are they about the same?
kshapero
South Florida Man
ER is a little more intuative to work with. ACR has probably more features. My results are about the same.
Tuolumne
Veteran
The problem with Epson raw is that it is as slow as molasses. Reminds me of doing imaging on a 486. What is its performance problem, anyway?
/T
/T
yanidel
Well-known
Epson raw is slow. I guess it is a bit like processing film ... This is why I prefer to convert all B&W pictures in a batch and do something else meanwhile. After that, the tweak is only on the ones that I am not satisfied with. In the end, I think I gain time compared to processing and tweaking every single image with Epson Raw.
Also I like the look of B&W it gives, call it the Epson B&W look, it also allows me to have a constant B&W look though I am sure you could better the pictures with CS3.
This is why I prefer to convert all B&W pictures in a batch and do something else meanwhile. After that, the tweak is only on the ones that I am not satisfied with. In the end, I think I gain time compared to processing and tweaking every single image with Epson Raw.Also I like the look of B&W it gives, call it the Epson B&W look, it also allows me to have a constant B&W look though I am sure you could better the pictures with CS3.
kshapero
South Florida Man
My sentiments exactly.Epson raw is slow. I guess it is a bit like processing film ...
Also I like the look of B&W it gives, call it the Epson B&W look, it also allows me to have a constant B&W look though I am sure you could better the pictures with CS3.
trias10
Newbie
Can you still preserve that Epson B&W look on the R-D1s if you shoot in colour (using RAW), and then convert your colour RAWs into Monochrome using Epson PhotoRAW or Epson RAW plug-in?
Or is the only way to preserve that Epson B&W look to shoot in Monochrome at the camera level?
I like B&W, but I've always liked to shoot in colour to keep my options open, and then go to B&W as necessary in post.
Or is the only way to preserve that Epson B&W look to shoot in Monochrome at the camera level?
I like B&W, but I've always liked to shoot in colour to keep my options open, and then go to B&W as necessary in post.
yanidel
Well-known
The raw file is always in colour. That is why I always shoot in monochrome raw because I know I always have the colour file.
But to answer precisely your question, if settings used are the same in camera and photoraw, you will get the same picture in Photoraw.
sirius
Well-known
Try using Adobe Bridge with your files before you open them in Photoshop. It's a program that comes with CS3, I believe.
Crane
Member
Lightroom for me...
Lightroom for me...
For me, Lightroom is the most effective workflow solution for Epson RAWs. All Epson files get dropped onto the Lightroom desktop icon (Mac) and imported into a job-specific folder. Previewing of the small (by modern standards) RAW files is fast on my Intel Macs, and so the process of working with RAW is no more complicated, but much more flexible, than using JPEGs (Actually, I've never used JPEGs.)
Lightroom handles RAWs from all of my camera platforms, other than the DP1, and just seems to work as I need it to. The Print module is a revelation, after all those years of beggaring about with Photoshop's convoluted print manager. I especially like Print module's hands-off approach to interpolation.
With Lightroom, I always know where the given RAW original is, and all adjustments are performed on virtual copies, or else on exported 16-bit TIFFs. The whole package is fast, cheap, stable and intuitive. Best of all, it works with Epson files straight out of the camera, unlike the leading competitor. I shoot a bewildering variety of RAW formats; Kodak, Aptus, Epson, Nikon, and lately Sigma. Lightroom handles all of them, bar Sigma, with the same ease and reliability. When DP-1 compatibility is added, I think I'm going to ask Lightroom to marry me. No single piece of software has done more to streamline my workflow or improve the quality of my work, and that of my existing body of files.
Crane
Lightroom for me...
For me, Lightroom is the most effective workflow solution for Epson RAWs. All Epson files get dropped onto the Lightroom desktop icon (Mac) and imported into a job-specific folder. Previewing of the small (by modern standards) RAW files is fast on my Intel Macs, and so the process of working with RAW is no more complicated, but much more flexible, than using JPEGs (Actually, I've never used JPEGs.)
Lightroom handles RAWs from all of my camera platforms, other than the DP1, and just seems to work as I need it to. The Print module is a revelation, after all those years of beggaring about with Photoshop's convoluted print manager. I especially like Print module's hands-off approach to interpolation.
With Lightroom, I always know where the given RAW original is, and all adjustments are performed on virtual copies, or else on exported 16-bit TIFFs. The whole package is fast, cheap, stable and intuitive. Best of all, it works with Epson files straight out of the camera, unlike the leading competitor. I shoot a bewildering variety of RAW formats; Kodak, Aptus, Epson, Nikon, and lately Sigma. Lightroom handles all of them, bar Sigma, with the same ease and reliability. When DP-1 compatibility is added, I think I'm going to ask Lightroom to marry me. No single piece of software has done more to streamline my workflow or improve the quality of my work, and that of my existing body of files.
Crane
yanidel
Well-known
I thought about going Lightroom only, but the B&W files through grayscale conversion do not satisfy me. And I do not want to spend hourse tweaking everys single picture. For color, many times Lightroom is better than EpsonRaw but for B&W, I feel the output of Epsonraw is just amarzing. How do you process your b&w files ?
__hh
Well-known
RAW for me (so that I have a coloured version if needed). I use Bibble and convert to JPG using the embedded B&W/Tri-X plug-in.