Raw processing question?

[mapollo]

I'm just finding my feet with the RAW format using Rawshooter mainly and CO.

I'm finding that after I correct the image in Rawshooter and process to Tiff that I am still leaving myself a "levels" adjustment to do in Photoshop .Is this "normal"??

So the question is do you generally have to use the levels command in PS after a RAW conversion.

TIA David...

[Scottes]

You can do the Levels in CO, but I like doing the final bits in PS. I don't like to push C1 to the absolute edges of black or white if possible, as I find that PS does a better job with a little more control. This also gives me some room for Shadow/Highlights adjustment in PS.

That's just my opinion, and it probably has something to do with the fact that I'm more knowledgable in PS than C1. But it's up to you, really.

So "normal" - yes, for me anyway. "Wrong" ? Absolutely not.

[Bodog]

If the color channels are all pretty well even and one is not "off the scale", then I set the sliders in CO, otherwise PS is best. I figure it is one less step that way...

[PacAce]

You can do the Levels in CO, but I like doing the final bits in PS. I don't like to push C1 to the absolute edges of black or white if possible, as I find that PS does a better job with a little more control. This also gives me some room for Shadow/Highlights adjustment in PS.

That's just my opinion, and it probably has something to do with the fact that I'm more knowledgable in PS than C1. But it's up to you, really.

So "normal" - yes, for me anyway. "Wrong" ? Absolutely not.
I totally agree with Scott about not adjusting the black and white points until you're well into your editing workflow in PS. The only time I would adjust the b.b. and w.p. in the raw converter would be if they were way off but I would still leave room at the ends for "expansion". The reason for this is that when get to the point in your editing where you adjust your image contrast, that adjustment is going to push into your white and black points and unless there's a little leeway there, you're going to blow out the data at those points, especially at the white point.

The first thing I used to do when editing my images was to adjust the white and black points before anything else (but still leaving room at those points for expansion). And the last thing I used to do was to sharpen the image. I've since changed my work flow so that the second to the last thing I do is the sharpening and the last thing I do is adjust the black and white points, if it still needs adjusting. This is because sharpening also affects those points and can lead to blown highlights. This was just a recent development so I'm still evaluating my new workflow to see if I want to make it a permanent change. :)

[chris.bailey]

Surely part of the benefit of shooting RAW is to use the full dynamic range in a way that is lossless. Though 16 bit helps, subsequent spreading of the histogram in photoshop will be destructive to a degree. Particularly at the white end I will try to develop from RAW to just clip the top of the histogram.

[PacAce]

Surely part of the benefit of shooting RAW is to use the full dynamic range in a way that is lossless. Though 16 bit helps, subsequent spreading of the histogram in photoshop will be destructive to a degree. Particularly at the white end I will try to develop from RAW to just clip the top of the histogram.
If you are going to be adjusting the white and black points, does it really matter where you do it. You are already spreading out the data (and we're talking digital data, not analog) and hence using less than the full dynamic range that was available. Just because you're doing it within the raw converter program doesn't mean that it's not destructive (actually more like putting "holes" in the data, i.e. the comb effect). To make full use of the dynamic range of the camera, your image would have to go take up the entire tonal range of the camera without the need for further adjustment of the black and white points.

[chris.bailey]

If you are going to be adjusting the white and black points, does it really matter where you do it. You are already spreading out the data (and we're talking digital data, not analog) and hence using less than the full dynamic range that was available. Just because you're doing it within the raw converter program doesn't mean that it's not destructive (actually more like putting "holes" in the data, i.e. the comb effect). To make full use of the dynamic range of the camera, your image would have to go take up the entire tonal range of the camera without the need for further adjustment of the black and white points.

I do agree with your logic but if you do a RAW conversion both ways, there is less comb effect if you adjust the WP and BP in the RAW converter than if you do it in PS suggesting either that the RAW converter does a better job of it or that more data is available to 'choose' from in the RAW file itself that PS is not able to access once the conversion has taken place.

Interesting thread :-)

[PacAce]

I do agree with your logic but if you do a RAW conversion both ways, there is less comb effect if you adjust the WP and BP in the RAW converter than if you do it in PS suggesting either that the RAW converter does a better job of it or that more data is available to 'choose' from in the RAW file itself that PS is not able to access once the conversion has taken place.

Interesting thread :-)
I would agree with you if we were converting to 8-bit TIFF or JPEG but we're converting from 12-bit raw to 16-bit TIFF. I can't see where the data is being lost whether it's in the raw converter or the PS editor.

[chris.bailey]

I would agree with you if we were converting to 8-bit TIFF or JPEG but we're converting from 12-bit raw to 16-bit TIFF. I can't see where the data is being lost whether it's in the raw converter or the PS editor.

Again I totally agree with your logic but on the half a dozen or so images I have just tried in both CS Raw and RawShooter, there is less combing of the histogram if the WP and BP are set in the Raw Converter than doing it post conversion in CS even maintaining 16 bits.

[CyberDyneSystems]

What's "CO" ?

I find that about 80% of the time or more I still tweek levels in PSCS ... With Rawshooter I am finding I need less "levels" afterwards.. but I still fine tune it in PSCS.

[Scottes]

CO = Capture One

I agree with PacAce here on adjusting B&W points. Both in combing and allowing for sharpening.

I've (usually) been doing a final tweak of B&W points after sharpening since I got tired of blowing out the white and getting hotspots. I haven't been doing this for too long, but long enough to notice a benefit. I adjust the points very early in the process, but I leave a bit of room for sharpening. How much room depends on the level of sharpening required and the contrast after the early adjustment of B&W points.

I also agree with him on combing/posterization - there'll be very very little difference between RAW conversion or "RAW to 16-bit TIFF and tweak in PS." I don't believe that anyone can detect the posterization if working solely in 16-bit mode, and that includes detecting it in the histogram. I'd love to see an image and the histograms where the difference can be seen.

[PacAce]

Again I totally agree with your logic but on the half a dozen or so images I have just tried in both CS Raw and RawShooter, there is less combing of the histogram if the WP and BP are set in the Raw Converter than doing it post conversion in CS even maintaining 16 bits.
Just out of curiosity, did you refresh the PSCS histogram after you did the adjustment? I have yet to experience any combing just by adjusting the B and W points in 16-bit (although I might have had a couple of spikes now that i think of it but I'm not sure :confused: ).

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ahh CO = C1 :)

Combing the histogram? It's a must,. wouldn't want your histogram to walk around with a bad case of "bedhead" !

I like to comb my histogram so it looks like a mohawk.. ;)

[mapollo]

OK so I have have answers to my original question.

It's like I thought.... I ask a simple question and get a complicated answer :)

It wouldn't be photography otherwise I guess..... Thanks to those who contributed..

[chris.bailey]

Just out of curiosity, did you refresh the PSCS histogram after you did the adjustment? I have yet to experience any combing just by adjusting the B and W points in 16-bit (although I might have had a couple of spikes now that i think of it but I'm not sure :confused: ).

Good point on the refresh (dooh). Will check when I get back home. Also now confused :-)

[Charlton Heston's Brain]

Associated but new topic from a fresh ignoramus. 'Scuse the interrupt.

Just got the outstanding 20D. Love it. Shoot generally in RAW format for higher res and greater editing possibilities for my art directors. However, when I load the images onto my Sony Vaio, each file comes up as two files - one 1-3MB jpeg that I can view and alter easily and one 5-7MB CR2 RAW image impossible to view at all and seemingly in need of some software that I ain't got. Question: how do I make it so that all the files just pop up as one simple large JPEG to make my life easier? Second, I burned CDs of all these files and sent them to various mags. They can't read them either, MAC or PC. Question: How can I burn the CD in order to make sure all images are copy-able and modify-able by all art directors on Earth? Third, I loaded the DPP program onto my Vaio and tried CR2-to-JPEG Batch Edits. It seems to do it just fine, but then I reopen the file afterwards and nothing has changed so far as I can see - all of the CR2 RAW files are still Microsoft Photo Editor-iconed and impossible to open. All of this started happening when I had to switch out my old 60GB hard drive when it fried itself recently. The new hard drive is good stuff, but my old simple CD-burning program didn't seem to make it into the software re-load. It's now Roxio Easy CD and DVD Creator 6.0. Help wanted urgently please.

[robertwgross]

The conversion utilities came on the CDR with your camera.

I understand that you are shooting RAW. Does that mean RAW only, or RAW+some JPEG?

What do you want to view, a small JPEG?

What do you want to end up with, JPEG, TIF, etc.?

By my own way of thinking, I want to shoot RAW only. I let the utilities convert to TIF, so that becomes the basic and fundamentally usable image file for editing and saving. Eventually, the best TIF files are converted to JPEG for web use or sending over the net. Each of the three types (RAW, TIF, and JPEG) are saved and archived separately.

---Bob Gross---