RAW workflow question

[Trigger]

Ok, so I’ve decided to start shooting RAW. Up to now, I’ve been quite competent at processing my JPGs (I use Photoshop CS6 and NIK – don’t have LR), and it’s all pretty straight forward with JPGs, but I’m unclear as to what the proper workflow ought to be (with the software I have) with RAWs.

Do I simply open the RAW file(s) in CS6, do all basic adjustments there, and then use NIK for any extra manipulations? Do I bring a RAW file into NIK, or a JPG saved from the PS RAW? If someone could spell it out in a clear, step by step procedure, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Overread]

The answer is "is depends"

There is no single approach to RAW workflow and what approach you take really does depend on upon your output and what you want from things as well as your own approach to using RAW.

There are two main approaches that I've read of:

1) The most common is to tweak the RAW photo until its as close to finished as you can get it. Adjusting all the sliders and controls to get the photo as close to finished. Lightroom tends to be even more helpful here since it has selective editing options on the RAW itself whilst most other RAW processing setups are global (all the photo) only. Whatever you use the intent is to minimise out of RAW editing as much as possible.
After that you generally open up the RAW in the editing software of your choice (if you're using CS6 I'd just open it up in CS6 right after, without saving the output) and then complete the editing process with more selective editing options and other tools until finished.

2) A different approach (I've a good series of youtube videos on this but I've not got my normal computer with the link I'm afraid - if I remember I'll drop back in and post them in a week or two) is to maximise the data output of the RAW for the more powerful editing software. This means that you set all the RAW editing option sliders to 0 (ie their most neutral position). You then output the image direct into editing and then perform all of your adjustments in the editing software itself. This approach tends to take longer and has the expectation that you're generally using a slightly more advanced method which is worth taking the extra time over.


Note a few factors that remain the same regardless:

1) Sharpening - RAW processors by default always apply a level of sharpening on the photos. This level of sharpening is important as it provides a clearer photo to work upon and is the only time that sharpening is done prior to the rest of the editing that is applied to a photo. This early sharpening is called "capture sharpening" and is separate from (often more extreme applications of) "Output sharpening" which is the sharpening performed at the very end of editing and is aimed at the output use of the photo (eg print, web posting etc...)

2) Noise reduction should also be performed late in the editing process as, like sharpening, its a very destructive form of editing that removes large bodies of data.

3) With more powerful RAW editing packages (like lightroom) many people have adopted an almost all "in lightroom" editing process where even output sharpening and final noise reduction is performed in lightroom itself; this is a result of the fact that almost or actually no editing is needed outside of that package for the typical photo.

4) If you are saving photos for work later I, personally, always save them as either a PSD or TIFF photo. This ensures that you retain all the data from the photo since both of those formats are lossless saving formats. JPEG is a lossy format which means that data is actually lost each time you save the photo. Now typically you can save a few times before you'll notice this data loss, but the more data you lose the more potential you strip out of the photo (esp if you then want to perform more extensive editing). In general I only ever use JPEG for a finished output photo version (ie something I won't be editing and then saving again), whilst keeping all my edited final versions as PSD/TIFF (note that those two formats also preserve any layers that you might have if you were using them in CS6).

Note if you are using Lightroom or any other extensive RAW editing package remember that the photo itself is never adjusted and that hte RAW processor saves all the changes in a separate file which is referenced each time the RAW is opened and the same changes from before applied to it. As a result if you're editing in RAW mode and doing all of your editing there you won't need to save a separated "edited" TIFF/PSD version since you'll already have that from the RAW editing side.

 

[480sparky]

FWIW, here's my method:

(Please note: I DO NOT do everything on this list to every image. This is only order I would do any particular set of steps needed for a given image!)


To start:
• Create sub-directories on hard drive
• Create virgin hard drive copies (second internal hard drive)
• Download image files
• Import geotag data
• Cull worthless frames (exposure way off, OOF, etc.)
• Rate (star) remaining frames
• Batch Rename image files
• Batch insert XMP/IPTC data
• Insert keywords
• Create jpegs if none were taken or created in-camera
• Separate jpegs from raws into their own sub-directories
• Select & rate raw image files

Now the fun begins:
• Load a single raw file into Capture NX2
• Duplicate of original for comparison (Ctrl+D)

Then, adjust original image file if necessary:
• White Balance
• Picture Control
• Noise Reduction
• Active D-Lighting

Then on to:
• Curves
• Exposure compensation
• Contrast
• Highlight Protection
• Shadow Protection
• Saturation

Camera & Lens Correction:
• Color Moiré Reduction
• Image Dust Off
• Lateral Color Aberration
• Axial Color Aberration
• Auto Distortion
• Red Eye
• Vignette Control

Further color corrections:
• Luminance, Chroma and Hue
• Color Booster
• Saturation & Warmth

Now to adjust focus & sharpness:
• Gaussian blur
• High-Pass Filter (my favorite step!)
• Unsharp Mask

Next:
• Add grain/noise
• B&W Conversion
• Colorize
• Color Range Contrast
• Sepia
• Tint

May still need to do the following:
• Color Control Point
• Auto Retouch Brush
• Straighten / Rotate
• Crop (either freehand or specific aspect ratio) This I rarely do at this point.... I typically wait until I know what size print I'm making.

Time to:
• Save raw file (neat thing about raw.... the original sensor data is not overwritten... just the adjustments I made are added to the file. So if need be, I can always delete the steps at any time in the future and return the file to the original downloaded state!).
• Rename, adding "Sell Name" to filename and save as a Jpeg in a separate file.

Export a JPEG to GIMP for:
• Cloning any areas that need it.
• Correct Perspective Distortion.
• Crop to final aspect ratio for printing (again, typically I don't do this until I know what aspect ratio I need to print).
• Any other step that CNX2 cannot perform.


Create a resized image for posting on web.
• Add copyright info to EXIF file.
• Add watermark & create custom gradient.
• Add custom-color drop shadow.
• Rename file, go to website for uploading.

 

[Trigger]

Thanks for the replies. A few things:

- I'd rather not have to buy (and learn) LightRoom. I am of the understanding that the RAW file handler in CS6 ("Camera Raw 7.0") is equivalent to that used in LR. If not, I'm all ears, but I'd like to keep my upcoming RAW workflow as simple as possible. I don't mind noodling with each file one at a time, and at this point in time I really don't understand the concept of "batch processing" as it seems to me that each image requires a different and specific treatment. Feel free to fill me in on "batch" if I've got the wrong idea on that. My JPG workflow in the past (which works well for me) is to edit the image to the point where I'm happy with it, making all changes that I want to be permanent (like taking out that piece of litter on the ground, fixing the crooked horizon, slight tonal/color adjustments, etc etc, then saving that file ONCE as a master, never to be edited again. Any further mods to that file (which usually amounts to a B&W version, or a special treatment in NIK) then gets "Saved As" a separate file. Then, that file will be cropped specifically for proper display on my Plazma TV (1920x1080), Digital Picture Frame (800x480), Smartphone (1280x720), and those too are "Saved As" separate files in separate folders, minimizing the lossy factor.


- I understand how RAW and TIF are superior to JPGs, and I will at times use those TIFs as I have a 54" Roland printer, but it seems to me that the vast majority of the time, the ultimate destination for our images is the ubiquitous JPG so that others can view them via web or email. So I'd like to have a clear workflow nailed down for me and the particular software I have. It seems that the CS6's "Camera Raw" doesn't have the editing tools like clone-stamp found within PS, and when I apply those tool effects to the RAW file in PS, it doesn't get saved in the xmp sidecar, rather, I'm forced to Save it as one of the numerous file-types that we're familiar with (PSD/BMP/JPG/TIF etc). So it appears that all of the edits/mods/effects I make in PS or NIK, does not get applied to the RAW file.

See how in the dark I am? LOL

 

[KmH]

Yes. Both CS 6 Camera Raw and Lightroom 4's develop module use Adobe Camera Raw 7 (ACR) to render edits.

Lightroom 4 does have a couple of additional features, like different Crop Guide Overlays, but otherwise all the sliders and other panels are the same in both.

Here is an inexpensive book I consider an essential ACR reference - The Digital Negative: Raw Image Processing in Lightroom, Camera Raw, and Photoshop

The author was part of the team that wrote the software that makes ACR's Sharpening panel functional.

 

[Trigger]

One other thing I just noticed: When I open a RAW file in PS Camera RAW, at the bottom it displays some image info, and one of the tidbits of info says that it's Adobe RGB; 8 bit. Why is this? I have my camera set to sRGB, and aren't RAW files 12 or 14 bit?

 

[Pallycow]

I fought getting and using LR as well, but I'm glad I finally made myself do it. It really depends how many you have in a shoot to edit.

If you come back from a shoot with 200+ images to go through, you are not going to want to edit Raw in CS6 one at a time, trust me.

The benefit of "batch processing" , to me, is for minor things. Say all things considered equal, on a shoot you have same light setup for the shoot, and you under or over expose by a stop or two, you can fix one, export the develpment settings and then apply to all, and you've just edited 200 pics in 5 minutes.

The culling process is great too, using the star method as posted above. makes things nice and seamless.

LR really is, I believe, the best tool for processing a shoot.

Now if you only have a few files to work with, sure, use CS6, no biggie.

 

[Trigger]

Say all things considered equal, on a shoot you have same light setup for the shoot, and you under or over expose by a stop or two, you can fix one, export the development settings and then apply to all, and you've just edited 200 pics in 5 minutes.

That's the thing, I always seem to to have a real mix after a day out. It's usually all over the map, and I cringe at the thought of applying a treatment to a particular image if it doesn't call for it, or worse, if it calls for a treatment in the opposite direction. No, each one of my images are like my children - all with their own personalities, wants and needs.

Cheers

 

[Buckster]

My basic RAW workflow:

1. Import to LR (4 at present) to specific folder: Date - Subject
2. Cull and Star losers and keepers
3. Delete losers
4. Adjust, straighten, crop keepers to taste
5. Output to TIFF in sub-folder: TIFFs using original camera shot number
6. Open TIFF in PS (CS6 at present)
7. Make final overall and pixel-level edits to taste in PS
8. Resize to needed sizes for screen or print renaming with subject and intent added to shot number
9. Sharpen each size to taste
10. Save files in sub-folder: JPGs, renaming individual files with subject and intent added to shot number

 

[480sparky]

One other thing I just noticed: When I open a RAW file in PS Camera RAW, at the bottom it displays some image info, and one of the tidbits of info says that it's Adobe RGB; 8 bit. Why is this? I have my camera set to sRGB, and aren't RAW files 12 or 14 bit?

Just a guess here: You're seeing an 8-bit rendering based on the editing steps performed on 12- or 14-bit files.

 

[Trigger]

Thanks Buckster. In step number 5, why not just save it as a highest-quality JPG, and crop & re-save as needed from there? The TIF file is HUGE! I'm thinking that if one ever wanted a TIF for a large print, one could always just go back to the RAW and create the TIF. Just wondering.


480sparky: Thanks. Any idea why it would say Adobe RGB?

 

[Buckster]

Thanks Buckster. In step number 5, why not just save it as a highest-quality JPG, and crop & re-save as needed from there? The TIF file is HUGE! I'm thinking that if one ever wanted a TIF for a large print, one could always just go back to the RAW and create the TIF. Just wondering.

Same reason I don't shoot in JPG in the first place: JPGs are 8 bit, and I don't want to sacrifice any bit depth or lose any data information that I might want or need during the editing process. So, I don't take it down to JPG until the last step, when I'm ready to show online and/or print.

I have a 15 terabyte over-redundant e-SATA hard drive system, and its cheap enough to buy more hard drives as needed without breaking the bank, so I personally don't care one whit about file sizes. I have some $40,000 in camera gear acquired over the years, according to the insurance rider. I'm not about to scrimp on storage, editing and management software, machine capability, or anything else to support that gear and my needs, desires and capabilities for photography. But that's just me.

 

[Trigger]

Same reason I don't shoot in JPG in the first place: JPGs are 8 bit, and I don't want to sacrifice any bit depth or lose any data information that I might want or need during the editing process. So, I don't take it down to JPG until the last step, when I'm ready to show online and/or print.

I see, so are you saying that an 800x600 JPG saved from a large TIF will have better image quality than if it was saved from a large, highest-quality JPG?

 

[Buckster]

Same reason I don't shoot in JPG in the first place: JPGs are 8 bit, and I don't want to sacrifice any bit depth or lose any data information that I might want or need during the editing process. So, I don't take it down to JPG until the last step, when I'm ready to show online and/or print.

I see, so are you saying that an 800x600 JPG saved from a large TIF will have better image quality than if it was saved from a large, highest-quality JPG?

I'm saying that any editing done to a TIF will allow me to use the entire bit depth, whereas an 8 bit JPG, even "highest quality", will not. That can result in banding, blotching, and other compression issue problems. Thanks anyway, but it's easy to avoid, so I do.

 

[Trigger]

Hmmm, ok, thanks. There's so much to learn with this.