Darren G said:Just made the effort to start working more in RAW and was wondering
what is the best :
1. way of managing files. Currently I'm processing the RAWs to 16-bit
TIF as a 'reference file' and then generating JPGs from the Tiff for
'working' copies (I.e. web, sharing, wallpapers, etc.) My thinking is
that this way I maintain a fully detailed image showing the effects of
precessing from RAW and hence have a file I can get consistent JPGs
from.
This is how I do it.
1. THE NEGATIVE. The RAW file is the negative. That should never be
deleted or you'll never have an "original" to go back to. There may be
better software for converting RAW files in the future.
2. THE REFERENCE FILE. I batch convert all my RAW files into JPEGs as
soon as I download them onto the computer. This gives me a complete set
of JPEGs for convenient viewing and reference, without any processing
applied. That way I can see exactly what the original image looks like.
3. THE WORKING FILE. Converting to 16 bit (by opening directly in
Photoshop) gives me an image suitable for post-processing. I rarely
save these images, but if I do I save in PSD (Photoshop) format in 16
bits, complete with layers, masks and extra channels. These files can
be quite large. When I've finished working on an image I delete any PSD
files since they are only an intermediate stage - I can always go back
to the RAW file if I need to reprocess an image. These could be saved
as TIFFs but I prefer to save them as PSD to avoid any confusion. In
effect, PSD files are "temporary" files.
Note: Don't keep 16 bit TIFFs and delete the RAW files! The RAW file
is the original, not the TIFF, which is partially processed. Only the
RAW file is "pure". You can lose information even when converting to a
16 bit TIFF if it's a very high contrast shot. The RAW file allows you
some additional exposure leeway.
4. THE MASTER FILE. Once I've finished working on the 16 bit image and
produced a result that I'm happy with, I flatten all layers, get rid of
any masks, reduce to 8 bits and save, without resizing or applying any
sharpening. That's my "master" file - the finished processed image.
There's no advantage in keeping it in 16 bits, that's only an advantage
for processing, 8 bits is good enough for the final image and is what
publishers require. It also saves at a much smaller size as a
compressed TIFF.
Note: Do not sharpen the master file! There are three good reasons for
this. The first is that sharpening degrades the image - it's important
to keep the master at the highest quality. Secondly, publishers
generally don't want sharpened files, they prefer to do it themselves.
Thirdly, sharpening is best done after resizing, not before (see the
next two points).
5. THE PRINT FILE. For best print results it's necessary to resize the
master file to the size required at the chosen dpi, then sharpen
appropriately. For example, I like to print at 300dpi (which seems to
be pretty standard amongst publishers), so I set the image dpi to 300,
then resize it to fit the paper I want to print on. Then I sharpen it,
it's very important to do this last of all. If you sharpen before
enlarging an image, you'll be enlarging the sharpening artefacts making
them more visible in the print. Not good! (This is also why you
shouldn't do any in-camera sharpening or sharpening at the RAW
conversion stage.)
Print sharpening should be stronger than sharpening for onscreen
viewing, and can be hard to judge. What looks good onscreen may look a
bit soft on the print, but what looks horrible onscreen can look good on
the print - best to experiment and do some small print tests first. I
save this file as a TIFF with the print size appended to the filename,
so that I know it's a print-ready file, as distinct from the master
file.
6. THE WEB FILE. For web use, sharing and wallpapers I reduce the
master to the required size, sharpen, then save as a jpeg with an
appropriate suffix. I still haven't decided on a naming system that I'm
completely happy with yet though.
So here's an example of all the different files that may relate to a
single image (taking my watermist blended photo as an example);
0501020135.CRW & 0501020136.CRW - The digital negatives.
0501020135.JPG & 0501020136.JPG - The JPEG reference files.
0501020135.PSD - The working file, 16 bits with layers and masks.
0501020135.TIF - The master file, 8 bits, no layers, no sharpening.
0501020135_A4.TIF - Resized and sharpened for printing at A4.
0501020135_A3+.TIF - Resized and sharpened for printing at A3+.
watermist.jpg - Web/sharing file.
watermist_t.jpg - Thumbnail file.
watermist_wall.jpg - Wallpaper file.
Of course, not all images will generate this many files. Most generate
no more than a batch processed JPEG reference file, I only bother to
work on the best images. I'm into quality rather than quantity, it
saves a lot of work. :-)
Quoted message said:However this does mean that I'm considering buying myself some
network attached storage to cope with the volumes!!
RAW files and JPEGs aren't that big, I suspect it's the 16 bit TIFFs
that are causing the problems. 8 bit compressed TIFFs aren't that much
bigger than the RAW files.
My 6MP RAW files tend to average around 5 meg each, my JPEG reference
files slightly less than 4 meg each. My "watermist" and "cloudrays"
shots, when saved as compressed 8 bit TIFFs weigh in at 4.5 and 5 meg
respectively, no bigger than the RAW files.
Shots with large smooth areas (like sky) tend to compress better, as do
unsharpened shots, which is another good reason for not sharpening the
master files. I chose a shot with a lot of detail and no smooth areas
(the surfers shot) and saved it in a few different TIFF formats. Take a
look at these numbers;
16 bit uncompressed - 36 meg
16 bit compressed - 45.7 meg !!!
I have no idea why the compressed TIFF is larger than the uncompressed
one! Very strange!
8 bit uncompressed - 18 meg
8 bit compressed - 7.25 meg
8 bit compressed & sharpened - 9.9 meg
As you can see, the 8 bit compressed file is only 50% larger than the
RAW file, but that's an exception since this is a very detailed image.
Sharpening the image added nearly another 3 meg!
Quoted message said:2. software to use to process the RAWs (preferably without incurring
cost). Using the Canon software works... to a fashion, but it is
clunky to use and the previews are very slow to refresh, making it
hard to compare the effect of changes 'before & after'.
I never bothered looking at the previews with the Canon software, far
too slow. I'd just check the histogram. Provided you don't lose any
highlight or shadow detail it's much quicker to do a straight conversion
then make alterations afterwards in PS or whatever. So long as you're
working in 16 bit mode you don't lose any quality. There's no advantage
in getting it to look good with the RAW converter, and it's much easier
to do that afterwards (rather than using the Canon software). The only
reason to fiddle at the RAW conversion stage is when you have a very
high contrast image and you need to adjust the exposure and contrast to
claw back some highlight or shadow detail.
Quoted message said:And on first
glances it doesn't seem to do batch work.
It does, just select all the images (Control-A). That's how I batch
process all my JPEGs. Select all, convert, then leave it running in the
background. But whatever you do, don't change any of the image settings
after you've selected all the images or you'll be waiting forever for it
to update!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
