Trooper
Well-known
Is there any advantage to keeping a RAW file if I have a PSD?
I have recently started using RAW format and convert and edit with Photoshop CS2. I use Photoshop to adjust curves, retouch, and sharpen--usually about four layers including the background. Is there any advantage for me to use RAW at all?
I'm also open to any suggestions regarding workflow if there is a better way.
I have recently started using RAW format and convert and edit with Photoshop CS2. I use Photoshop to adjust curves, retouch, and sharpen--usually about four layers including the background. Is there any advantage for me to use RAW at all?
I'm also open to any suggestions regarding workflow if there is a better way.
jarski
Veteran
for me RAW is the source that never does change, PSD's are work files (with layers etc.), and JPEG is the end result, usually for web. PSD's loose the history information when Photoshop is closed. if you always remember this, and never edit your "PSD originals" that you might want to revert back again, PSD can be used just as well as RAW.
if unsure about workflow, Lightroom is often recommended here because it simplifies the process while still allowing most often needed tools for the user.
if unsure about workflow, Lightroom is often recommended here because it simplifies the process while still allowing most often needed tools for the user.
Last edited:
willie_901
Veteran
Yes, a RAW file is like a negative. A PSD file is like a print.
The RAW file contains all the original data recorded by the camera. A PSD file renders the RAW data into an image humans can comprehend. The PSD file may have no input from the photographer when it is first rendered in CS2, but there is human semi-subjective input. For instance the PSD will use the white balance setting in the camera when the photo was recorded. But the RAW data contains no color temperature information whatsoever. The same goes for display sharpening and noise filtering.
Shooting in RAW has several advantages. The RAW file contains all the information recorded by the sensor. In-camera jpegs throw away large amounts of sensor information in order to provide convenience. If the scene is perfectly exposed (or even well-exposed), the discarded data is not required by the human eye and brain to properly perceive the image. Sadly the RAW to jpeg conversion software knows nothing at all about how well the image was exposed. The people who designed the software had no choice but to assume the exposure was perfect. Unfortunately I am not able to achieve perfection with every exposure, so I prefer to shoot in RAW whenever possible. I can make decisions about what data from the RAW image should be used to best represent the scene/subjects. The better the exposure, the less important my decisions become – and vice-versa. Once I have the optimum version of the RAW image, I can convert it to a jpeg knowing the discarded information is not needed.
Adobe LightRoom, or a similar program, would make more sense. LR renders the RAW data and lets you process the image to suit your needs. LR never modifies the RAW data. PSDs aare not required for image processing. LR keeps a detailed database (called a Catalog in LR) that records every modification you make to the rendered RAW image. Every time a RAW image is viewed in LR the processing steps are applied to the original RAW data to recreate the rendered image. The image is never duplicated which is much more efficient. Upon export for viewing outside of LR or printing, a new, separate file is created (usually a jpeg).
Finally, LR can transfer a rendered version of the RAW data to Photoshop (maybe even CS2, who knows?). You can process the image with more powerful tools if LR's tool are inadequate (LR does not use layers) and then import the resulting
PSD file into LR as a new separate file.
The RAW file contains all the original data recorded by the camera. A PSD file renders the RAW data into an image humans can comprehend. The PSD file may have no input from the photographer when it is first rendered in CS2, but there is human semi-subjective input. For instance the PSD will use the white balance setting in the camera when the photo was recorded. But the RAW data contains no color temperature information whatsoever. The same goes for display sharpening and noise filtering.
Shooting in RAW has several advantages. The RAW file contains all the information recorded by the sensor. In-camera jpegs throw away large amounts of sensor information in order to provide convenience. If the scene is perfectly exposed (or even well-exposed), the discarded data is not required by the human eye and brain to properly perceive the image. Sadly the RAW to jpeg conversion software knows nothing at all about how well the image was exposed. The people who designed the software had no choice but to assume the exposure was perfect. Unfortunately I am not able to achieve perfection with every exposure, so I prefer to shoot in RAW whenever possible. I can make decisions about what data from the RAW image should be used to best represent the scene/subjects. The better the exposure, the less important my decisions become – and vice-versa. Once I have the optimum version of the RAW image, I can convert it to a jpeg knowing the discarded information is not needed.
Adobe LightRoom, or a similar program, would make more sense. LR renders the RAW data and lets you process the image to suit your needs. LR never modifies the RAW data. PSDs aare not required for image processing. LR keeps a detailed database (called a Catalog in LR) that records every modification you make to the rendered RAW image. Every time a RAW image is viewed in LR the processing steps are applied to the original RAW data to recreate the rendered image. The image is never duplicated which is much more efficient. Upon export for viewing outside of LR or printing, a new, separate file is created (usually a jpeg).
Finally, LR can transfer a rendered version of the RAW data to Photoshop (maybe even CS2, who knows?). You can process the image with more powerful tools if LR's tool are inadequate (LR does not use layers) and then import the resulting
PSD file into LR as a new separate file.
Trooper
Well-known
So when I open a RAW file in CS2 without making any changes in the converter, is the first layer (background) of the PSD essentially the same as the RAW?
willie_901
Veteran
No, it's not even close. The PSD is a rendition of the RAW data.
Mcary
Well-known
Despite what some people may tell you there is no best way to process/edit image files simply only different ways.
Myself I prefer and digital work flow that is centered around Lightroom in which Photoshop (CS2) plays only a small supporting rule and is in fact used mostly for files that need extensive healing and cleaning or for removing dust from B&W scans as I prefer the linear nature of how the tools in LR work vs how the tools in Photoshop work.
The only real way to find out is to read and try some different tutorials, maybe you'll find that using a work flow that includes 4-5 layers in PS works best for you on the other hand you may find all the tools you need in a program like LR or Aperture.
CS2 was the first version of Photoshop that was designed with a RAW processing program/plug-in ACR so its some what limited compared to current version of ACR that's included with LR 3.0 and CS5. So to get real idea of what is currently possible as far as processing RAW files you might want to download the free 30day trails of the two programs and give them each a try.
Last edited:
jarski
Veteran
Ranchu
Veteran
I think the first layer is a TIF, innit?
(I keep the raws..)
(I keep the raws..)
Mcary
Well-known
You can save a bit of time a effort by using the LR"Edit In" command rather then export and import commands to send files to Photoshop for editing and bring the updated file back into LR. When using the Edit with command any changes made in Photoshop are applied to the version of the file in LR. This includes the changes applied using Layers, though to access those layers in the future you'll need to choose "edit original file" from the Edit with window/menu.
Simple work flow example
1. Edit RAW/Capture file in LR **Work on scanned TIFF/PSD/JPEG files just as well as RAW files
2. Choose Edit In PS * I also select Stack with Original/Capture file. This create file with the same name as your original/capture file with -Edit on the end in your choice of file formats, most people use TIFF or PSD as they are 16bit files.
3. Edit file in PS
4. Save and close file in PS *again no need to flatter your layers*
5. Go to library in LR and you'll see a small arrow on the right side of the TIFF/PSD file just click on it a select yes and the files is updated with the changes that were made in PS.
6. Again if you decide later that you want to use PS to make additional edits just choose "Edit In" "Edit Original"
Last edited:
user237428934
User deletion pending
If you throw away the raw files after conversion to PSD you don't have the option to benefit from future developments in new raw converters. Over the years you get better output from different raw-converters from the same raw-file.
tlitody
Well-known
If you decide your conversion from raw could have been better and you have deleted the raw file, then you can't do it again. Deleting your raw files is analogous to burning your negatives after you scanned them. You can't go back and do a better a scan. Raw file conversion is analagous to scanning in the sense that you are aiming to get the most out of your neg but don't always succeed first time. Often you decide to go back and have another go at it, maybe scanning at two or more different settings and combining the results for optimum results.
Last edited: