Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Guest
Forums  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 22 Feb 2011 (Tuesday) 19:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

Advice needed:How do YOU process RAW in DPP?

 
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 570
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 24, 2011 23:26 |  #16

Hi Diane!

Well, if what you heard is in fact what you are relaying here -- that is if the guy told you that Elements was only 8 bits per channel, then I'd say he was all messed up!

But, it can be easy to get our signals crossed and not fully understand what someone is trying to tell us, so I won't unleash an internet rant about him, just get some facts straight.

First of all, when you open a Raw file in Elements' Camera Raw, it has not yet been rendered or rasterized into an image, the Raw data is what came out of the camera still and you are looking at a preview/temporary image. Camera Raw lets you click that little link and set some meaningful uptions for how the final image is rendered -- you can choose to open an image in Elements that is 8 bits per channel or 16 bits per channel, and that's what you will get to work with. You also will need to designate a color space (sRGB, aRGB, ProPhoto, whatever choices Elements gives there). Also, something that has always seemed a bit odd to me is that you can choose from a number of resolutions but that's there as well.

All Raw processors that I know of give you the choice of using 8 bit or 16 bits per channel, whether converting and saving in DPP or exporting out of Lightroom, or using the Edit in Photoshop functions. As far as Lightroom offering 32 bits per channel, by the way, I don't know of any LR option to do that, so that's something else I'd take with a grain of salt (although HDR software often can present a 32-bit image to Photoshop to do whatever preliminary adjustments you need to make before converting to say a 16 bit tiff).

Now as to Elements, here's the scoop: once you open in image from the Raw processor, or Lightroom or DPP as a 16 bit tiff or psd, then yes it opens as a 16 bit image but Elements has only a pretty significantly limited range of operations that it can do with a 16 bit image. At some point you will try to do something and a message box will pop up saying you can't do this operation on a 16 bit image -- do you want to convert this to an 8 bit image?

Actually, Photoshop CSx has always had some things that didn't play in 16 bit mode, but they are much fewer in number than are in Elements and CSx tends to be pretty aggressive in upgrading things. Elements will tend to run against that wall quite a bit quicker.

So, as to your workflow, you want to give some thought to this: what do you want to do in 16 bit mode? In general 16 bits gives you more latitude in color and luminance tones to make broad adjustments -- there is more data to work with so you can do more stuff without risking artifacts. In this sense an 8 bit tiff has the same narrower 8 bit "space" as an 8 bit jpeg, although the tiff has not undergone jpeg compression and so avoids the additional pitfalls.

But, there are a lot of things you can do without needing 16 bits per channel -- plenty of adjustments and filters that just don't need the "space". The key is to determine what you want to do that could benefit from being in 16 bits, do all that, then convert to 8 bits and do the other stuff.

Now, I hope you see things a bit more clearly: this is not a Raw thing and Lightroom vs. Elements vs. DPP -- they all deliver the goods according to very similar preferences that you choose whether 8 or 16 bits, and having the two "common" color spaces (sRGB, aRGB) as well as each offering one or more "wide" color space for "special" purposes (in fact, Lightroom uses a wide color space for its internal processing, called MelissaRGB, whereas Camera Raw and DPP will change their working color space when you change that color space output direction.

Umm, OK, did I hit the bases, or miss something? Well, I hope I covered them, but chime in for more questions!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DianeK
Senior Member
Avatar
603 posts
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Western Canada
     
Feb 24, 2011 23:39 as a reply to  @ tonylong's post |  #17

Tony, that was just great - thank you. I hope you don't have a day job as you seem to be kept fully "employed" here!

The fellow in question just said that Elements was very basic as it was only an 8-bit channel processor and that I should really consider Lightroom. Not knowing enough to question him further, I just let it go at that...I had no intention of causing my head to explode by adding yet another software (i.e. Lightroom) to the mix at this point. The steep learning curves of DPP and PSE9 are looking a lot like the blown-out hightlight area of a histogram!

And yes, I was mostly concerned about have 16-bits when working with color and luminance so thank you for confirming that maybe, just maybe I'm making baby steps towards understanding some of this stuff.

Thanks again.
Diane


Diane
7D | 60D | EF 100mm f/2.8 macro | EF 70-300L IS | EFS 15-85 IS | EFS 10-22 | 430 EXII's | Pocket Wizards | Sony RX100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 570
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Feb 25, 2011 00:46 |  #18

Heh! Glad I could help:)!


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,497 posts
Likes: 213
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Feb 25, 2011 03:58 |  #19

Diane,
I would add just one little note to Tony's post.
The RAW data is written by the camera with 14 bit accuracy and any RAW converter, including DPP, Element's version of Adobe's converter and Lightroom itself, will work the data in that depth. 14 bits is very deep, trillions more colors than the human eye can see, and every bit as good as 16 bit depth. (If you want to really one-up that guy, you can casually mention that actually Photoshop works in 15 bits encapsulated in a 16 bit container.) My point is that you get all the benefits of high bit editing if you do all the major stuff in DPP or PSE9/ACR and use the main body of PSE for the final touch-ups, like sharpening, noise reduction, cloning, skin smoothing, etc., all of which can be done perfectly well in 8 bits.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cmh512
Senior Member
267 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 07, 2012 00:44 |  #20

I just started learning about post processing and thought I'd work with DPP and Gimp. I opened some raw files, and saved them after adjustments as 16-bit tiff. I was really surprised that the ~24Mb raw file converts to a ~70MB tiff at 16 bits. Then Gimp tells me it can't work with 16 bits anyway and asks if I want to convert to an 8 bit tiff. I guess I'll be using 8 bit tiffs instead of 16.

I'm also not sure yet if I'll use DPP or the raw convertor plug in that comes with Gimp. I'm still not decided on that.

Chris


Fuji XT-3, 18-55 F2-4, 10-24mm, 100-400mm.
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,497 posts
Likes: 213
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jan 07, 2012 02:08 |  #21

cmh512 wrote in post #13661602 (external link)
I just started learning about post processing and thought I'd work with DPP and Gimp. I opened some raw files, and saved them after adjustments as 16-bit tiff. I was really surprised that the ~24Mb raw file converts to a ~70MB tiff at 16 bits.
Chris

You don't say what camera you have, but from the number 70 MB I deduce a 12 MP camera like the 50D. The difference between the CR2 and the tif is because of two factors. First, the RAW is compressed and the tif isn't (although some applications do have an option to compress it). Second, the RAW is 14 bits in a single channel while the tif is 16 bits in each of three channels, total 48 bits.

The math is simple:
48 bits = 6 bytes.
1024 bytes = 1 KB.
1024 KB = 1 MB.
12 MP x 6/1.024/1.024 = 68.7 MB


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lowner
"I'm the original idiot"
Avatar
12,924 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Salisbury, UK.
     
Jan 07, 2012 03:32 |  #22

I only use DPP as a RAW converter and nothing more. I do ALL my post processing via Photoshop and third party PS plug-ins.

Given that the OP has Elements, he could easily do the same, then the adjustment file would not exist to clog up the system. Computers seem purpose designed to fill themselves with unwanted junk and I find it is a constant battle to keep mine "lean and mean" and fit for battle.


Richard

http://rcb4344.zenfoli​o.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,497 posts
Likes: 213
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Jan 07, 2012 04:46 |  #23

cmh512 wrote in post #13661602 (external link)
I just started learning about post processing and thought I'd work with DPP and Gimp. I opened some raw files, and saved them after adjustments as 16-bit tiff. I was really surprised that the ~24Mb raw file converts to a ~70MB tiff at 16 bits. Then Gimp tells me it can't work with 16 bits anyway and asks if I want to convert to an 8 bit tiff. I guess I'll be using 8 bit tiffs instead of 16.

I'm also not sure yet if I'll use DPP or the raw convertor plug in that comes with Gimp. I'm still not decided on that.

Chris

If you will be limited to 8 bit editing after conversion from RAW, you would be well advised to do as much as possible in the converter while you are still working with high bit data. This is especially true for any editing that involves large tonal changes, like brightening an underexposed image, and doubly true for lightening shadows to bring out detail in them. Edits that don't involve large tone changes, like sharpening or NR, can safely be done in 8 bits. Also, you should output the conversion in sRGB space or perhaps Adobe RGB if you need it, but not Wide Gamut RGB or ProPhoto RGB because these wide spaces need 16 bit depth.


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
cmh512
Senior Member
267 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 276
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Oregon
     
Jan 07, 2012 10:27 |  #24

tzalman wrote in post #13661985 (external link)
If you will be limited to 8 bit editing after conversion from RAW, you would be well advised to do as much as possible in the converter while you are still working with high bit data. This is especially true for any editing that involves large tonal changes, like brightening an underexposed image, and doubly true for lightening shadows to bring out detail in them. Edits that don't involve large tone changes, like sharpening or NR, can safely be done in 8 bits. Also, you should output the conversion in sRGB space or perhaps Adobe RGB if you need it, but not Wide Gamut RGB or ProPhoto RGB because these wide spaces need 16 bit depth.

Thanks - this is good advice. I was just surprised when I opened the file in gimp and was asked to convert to 8-bits. I rarely do anything more processing than adjusting exposure, shadows and highlights and color balance. So I may as well do that all in dpp. I do want to learn to do more, so I'm looking into gimp, at least for now.

Thanks also for the file size calculation - I didn't realize a raw file is compressed and didn't bother to do the math. I have a T3i but the 70MB files I referred to were cropped.


Fuji XT-3, 18-55 F2-4, 10-24mm, 100-400mm.
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links (only for non-logged)

6,381 views & 0 likes for this thread, 9 members have posted to it.
Advice needed:How do YOU process RAW in DPP?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Forums   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset   •  Home

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.58forum software
version 2.58 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is vinceisvisual
940 guests, 174 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.