Raw question.

I'm just about to convert to shooting in raw.

I like the idea of being able to make minor alterations in RAW but just have a question about converting the Raw file.

Just say I make an edit to the White balance, nothing else needs changing.

What is the best way to save this file. JPG is popular amonst the majoirty when sharing photo's and I like to let a camera shop print off my pictures. I guess they would prefer JPG too?

I've just read: http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/why-shoot-raw and understand that RAW is unprocessed and a larger file, thus holding more information etc.

Basically what I want to know is that if I saved my tweaked RAW file to Jpeg would it have the same quality as if I shot JPEG? (and processed within the camera). Of course the WB would have changed. Or would some more detail be added to the JPEG as it's been pulled out as a RAW file?

Would saving as a TIFF be better? Not really done much research on TIFF but I understand that further edits can be done to a TIFF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chopperward

I'm just about to convert to shooting in raw.

I like the idea of being able to make minor alterations in RAW but just have a question about converting the Raw file.

Just say I make an edit to the White balance, nothing else needs changing.

What is the best way to save this file. JPG is popular amonst the majoirty when sharing photo's and I like to let a camera shop print off my pictures. I guess they would prefer JPG too?

I've just read: http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/why-shoot-raw and understand that RAW is unprocessed and a larger file, thus holding more information etc.

Basically what I want to know is that if I saved my tweaked RAW file to Jpeg would it have the same quality as if I shot JPEG? (and processed within the camera). Of course the WB would have changed. Or would some more detail be added to the JPEG as it's been pulled out as a RAW file?

Would saving as a TIFF be better? Not really done much research on TIFF but I understand that further edits can be done to a TIFF.

---

If you are editing the RAW file in a non-destructive editing program (like Lightroom):
- You don't need to Save the edited file. It will save the editing information in a 'sidecar' file (small .XMP file that LR will keep along with the RAW file). Remember that you have to move this sidecar file if you move the main file.
- If you are going to edit it again, make a 'virtual copy' and edit the copy. Again, as long as you stayed non-destructive', you do not need to Save the file.
- Export a TIFF or JPG as you need it for web, printing, etc. You can delete this file after using it since you can export another any time you need it.

If you are using destructive editor (like Photoshop or Elements):
- Save the edited file as a TIFF.
- If you edit it again, Save the edit as another TIFF (new name).
- Convert this file to a JPG (or whatever you need) when you need it. Again, there is no reason to keep this file.

The quality of a RAW file converted to JPG on the desktop can (should) be better than a jpg that was converted from RAW by the camera. Whether it is or not, depends on how you process it.

Terry

It is more about the manageability of the exposure and post processing that raw offers, saving it as a jpeg as a final end point is typically what is done. If you want to save it in an uncompressed format for your printing lab, you can save as tif (though many will just convert the tif to jpeg, then print anyway).

tiff and jpeg are both end points for an image, if you are using photoshop, PSD is the working file format, this is an uncompressed format that saves layers as well.

*edit - just saw terry's response, looks like we disagree on the purpose of tiff. Terry, why do you choose TIF as an editable format over PSD? I choose PSD because it works with layers and requires a (relatively, esp to layers) smaller file size, still uncompressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

It is more about the manageability of the exposure and post processing that raw offers, saving it as a jpeg as a final end point is typically what is done. If you want to save it in an uncompressed format for your printing lab, you can save as tif (though many will just convert the tif to jpeg, then print anyway).

tiff and jpeg are both end points for an image, if you are using photoshop, PSD is the working file format, this is an uncompressed format that saves layers as well.

*edit - just saw terry's response, looks like we disagree on the purpose of tiff. Terry, why do you choose TIF as an editable format over PSD? I choose PSD because it works with layers and requires a (relatively, esp to layers) smaller file size, still uncompressed.

---

I do use PSD when I'm using an Adobe product, but specified TIFF as a general non-compressed file. TIFF does save the layers, etc. from Photoshop and I can not tell any difference when bringing them back into PS. The only difference that I'm aware of (did not know PSD was smaller) would be for possible future compatibility with Adobe products???

Terry

From Oldclicker:

The quality of a RAW file converted to JPG on the desktop can (should) be better than a jpg that was converted from RAW by the camera. Whether it is or not, depends on how you process it.

So if I just changed the WB and saved it as a jpeg it would be the same quality (except WB change) as a jpeg processed in camera?

I think if I saved these RAWs if my PC packed (back up in external hard drive, CD etc) I would save as a jpeg as wouldn't fancy having back up of a load of raw files that may all need editing again.

Thanks for replies

I set the camera to shoot RAW + basic JPG. That way I have a second copy on the card if anything happens to the RAW file.

When I get home I delete the JPG's done by the camera and use a RAW editor adjust the RAW files so the technical parameters are right (exposure, white balance, contrast, etc.)

If I need to modify the image itself (remove bags under eyes, smooth skin, etc.) I make a TIFF or a PSD from the RAW file and do the modifications in an image manipulation program (Paint Shop Pro/Photoshop).

When I'm finished I convert the image into a JPG. This is the finished product. I never modify the JPG because each time you save it the compressed image degrades a little more.

Finally I move everything to offline storage - RAW, PSD, JPG I keep it all.

I'm just in the process of switching RAW editors from Nikon NX2 to Lightroom. I just made a pixel-peeping comparison of the result of converting a RAW image shot at 3200 ISO to JPG:

- out-of-the-camera basic JPG
- Nikon NX2 JPG
- Lightroom JPG

Quite different.. Lightroom in particular seems to take the image and render it the way it thinks it should be, even ignoring some of the settings you entered on the camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chopperward

From Oldclicker:

The quality of a RAW file converted to JPG on the desktop can (should) be better than a jpg that was converted from RAW by the camera. Whether it is or not, depends on how you process it.

So if I just changed the WB and saved it as a jpeg it would be the same quality (except WB change) as a jpeg processed in camera?

I think if I saved these RAWs if my PC packed (back up in external hard drive, CD etc) I would save as a jpeg as wouldn't fancy having back up of a load of raw files that may all need editing again.

Thanks for replies

---

I guess I better ask what you are calling 'quality'. I have been assuming you mean the overall image - WB, color, sharpness, etc. (If you mean amount of detail captured by the different file types, that's not what I have been talking about.)

When the camera renders the RAW to a JPG, it uses the settings that the manufacturer thinks most people will want. You can modify these somewhat with the camera settings.

If you render the RAW image on your computer, the program may use the same settings as the camera (more likely with the manufacturer's software) or it may use its own default. If you find settings that you like, you can save these as a preset and have the software use these every time it converts a RAW image.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a range from shooting JPG and using the default settings in the camera, shooting RAW and accepting the default software settings, shooting jpg and adjusting the camera settings, to shooting RAW and adjusting everything on the desk top (and many levels in between). The more you move away from the default settings, the more it is up to you to get it right.

TF

Oldclicker, yes I meant detail captured by the different file types.

This query came up after reading http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/why-shoot-raw and seeing the photo examples. It shows the raw straight from the camera and jpeg straight out of the camera, and it talks about the better quality of raw.

Do you know where these JPEG default settings are within Lightroom?

I'm not looking for photo perfection (surely not possible anyway). Just curious as to how things work.

Franglais, thanks for post. I may shoot Raw & jpeg just to see what the differences are.

The default setting are what shows up when you render a RAW image without using presets. You then adjust the image in Develop and save these settings as a Preset (Menu>Develop>New Preset...). (They are not JPEG settings. It is just a rendered RAW until you save it as something - jpg, tif, etc.) Then when you Import the file from your camera memory card, you can choose that preset.

Terry

Charles - the jpg I think looks the best. Sure its less detail, but thats some coarse grain. This is more an example of the automatic process of noise reduction applied to that cameras jpegs at 3200 ISO. Washed out texture is still better then that grain, especially in print, my flavor anyway.