RAW correction vs. Photoshop 16 Bit

[lcoleman]

I am new to RAW conversion (Canon 10D, Photoshop CS) but quite familiar with Photoshop. Since I am familiar with PS and have developed a workflow and techniques that work for me as far as color correction, contrast, levels, sharpening, etc., how much correction should I be doing in my RAW conversions vs. doing it in 16 bit mode in PS? Is the RAW process less destructive than 16 bit PS and if so how much? Is there a problem doing all correction in PS or should I be getting as close as I can in the RAW conversion process?

Thank you.

[iwatkins]

I am getting much better results by spending a lot of time in the RAW widget, including sharpening, noise reduction and colour balance adjustments before bringing into PS CS itself.

If that is the right or wrong answer, I don't know, but works for me. :D

Cheers

Ian

[msnow]

I agree. Making these adjustments BEFORE you convert it to 16-bit TIFF has to be better than making them after conversion.

[defordphoto]

Working with RAW files can be an absolute pleasure, or a hair puller. There are different software packages that can assist you in the process. There are actions and plug-ins and all kinds of decisions to make to develop a workflow that works for you.

There is really no right or wrong way as Ian points out. Search the web for different workflows and then experiment. It takes some time but once you get your workflow developed it's a blast to work with. And really it's not all that difficult.

[DaveG]

I am new to RAW conversion (Canon 10D, Photoshop CS) but quite familiar with Photoshop. Since I am familiar with PS and have developed a workflow and techniques that work for me as far as color correction, contrast, levels, sharpening, etc., how much correction should I be doing in my RAW conversions vs. doing it in 16 bit mode in PS? Is the RAW process less destructive than 16 bit PS and if so how much? Is there a problem doing all correction in PS or should I be getting as close as I can in the RAW conversion process?

Thank you.

My understanding is that the corrections you make in RAW are the same as the camera usually makes with jpegs in the field. But YOU have the chance to control these corrections right from the source information and that's the strength of RAW. The conventional wisdom (seems to be) to do as much as you can in RAW, with the exception of sharpening.

I do know that for my work the changes that I make in exposure and colour are much better than what I get from the adjustments in the regular part of Photoshop.

[Belmondo]

The conventional wisdom (seems to be) to do as much as you can in RAW, with the exception of sharpening.

I seem to have better luck doing some of the sharpening in RAW, too. I can't possibly telly you why, but the effect seems much easier to control without over-sharpening. Occasionally I will 'touch up' the sharpening in PS, but only rarely---I usually do it all in the RAW converter.

[defordphoto]

Tom: Most folks choose to do their sharpening last. If you have any noise, you will be sharpening the noise. If there are any defects in the photos those will also be sharpened. Unless you need to adjust exposure, WB or K then pretty much you convert flat across the board and do your post-processing in Photoshop with sharpening being last on the list.

[Belmondo]

Tom: Most folks choose to do their sharpening last. If you have any noise, you will be sharpening the noise. If there are any defects in the photos those will also be sharpened. Unless you need to adjust exposure, WB or K then pretty much you convert flat across the board and do your post-processing in Photoshop with sharpening being last on the list.

DOH!! Demote me back to newbie third class. That makes sense, Jim. I would say it's probably especially true if you're going to do significant cropping/resizing of an image after you convert it. In my case, I don't do a lot of that, so the effect is probably not so noticeable. It does inspire me to go back and play around with a few where I have done some just to see what the differences are.

Thanks for the advice. I’ll see if it helps.

[iwatkins]

See my post here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23454&start=63)

I'm actually getting most of my work, including sharpening done in the RAW converter. I'll do the sharpening and then reduce the noise all there before bringing into PS. Getting good result that way.

But if I know I'm going to do lots of masked changes to contrast/brightness etc. I'll leave sharpening at 0, bring into PS and then do sharpening and noise reduction as the last stage there.

No right answer. :)

Cheers

Ian

[chris.bailey]

I am new to RAW conversion (Canon 10D, Photoshop CS) but quite familiar with Photoshop. Since I am familiar with PS and have developed a workflow and techniques that work for me as far as color correction, contrast, levels, sharpening, etc., how much correction should I be doing in my RAW conversions vs. doing it in 16 bit mode in PS? Is the RAW process less destructive than 16 bit PS and if so how much? Is there a problem doing all correction in PS or should I be getting as close as I can in the RAW conversion process?

Thank you.

I do as much as I can in the RAW converter (CS) other than sharpening. In my mind sharpening should be done to suit the size of the print, I leave it then until I re-size for print. I leave my original without sharpening so may have a file called subject_10x8 and subject_7x5. Each will have slightly different sharpening levels. I also stay in 16-bit as long as I can which in CS is most of the time.

[chris.bailey]

I am new to RAW conversion (Canon 10D, Photoshop CS) but quite familiar with Photoshop. Since I am familiar with PS and have developed a workflow and techniques that work for me as far as color correction, contrast, levels, sharpening, etc., how much correction should I be doing in my RAW conversions vs. doing it in 16 bit mode in PS? Is the RAW process less destructive than 16 bit PS and if so how much? Is there a problem doing all correction in PS or should I be getting as close as I can in the RAW conversion process?

Thank you.

I do as much as I can in the RAW converter (CS) other than sharpening. In my mind sharpening should be done to suit the size of the print, I leave it then until I re-size for print. I leave my original without sharpening so may have a file called subject_10x8 and subject_7x5. Each will have slightly different sharpening levels. I also stay in 16-bit as long as I can which in CS is most of the time.

[samdring]

Tom: Most folks choose to do their sharpening last. If you have any noise, you will be sharpening the noise.

Am I right that the new C1 claims not to do this?
Am seriously looking at C1 SE but wondering whether PS needed as well

[dtrayers]

Here are some sharpening thoughts from Bruce Fraser, arguably one of the leading guru's on Photoshop:

http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/20357.html

[CyberDyneSystems]

I do a two pass sharpening most of the time,. a "smidgeon" in the RAW utitlity and then finalized at the end,. but at the end I sometimes use two passes at different radius .2-.5 for the Real sharpening and 50.0 for "Localized cantrast"