Check my understanding - lossy vs lossless editing

I thought I knew the answer to this one but a guy I met - who's pretty on point on the editing side - challenged it recently. So. Let's say I open a RAW file in 16-bit. I make a few edits in Camera Raw (say, exposure, color tweaks, some brushing etc.) then open in Photoshop, do some more edits (e.g. cloning out defects, curves, stacking shots and masking, etc.), save as 16-bit TIFF file. Now let's say that at this part of the process I'm unhappy with the overall exposure or temperature of the image. For maximum quality, can I open the TIFF and make the edits in here, or do I actually need to go back to the original RAW, get my exposure/temp right and start over?

Reason behind this question: I have a shot I've spent a significant amount of time on. I'm now trying to make pretty drastic changes to temperature and tint, but I'm getting some banding. Before I start all over again and start out with the right temp & tint, I want to make sure that the order of edits (in a fully 16-bit chain) actually matters.

A 16-bit tiff or psd file is very robust. It'll be fine, as long as you've kept all your adjustment layers. Remember, never flatten layers during editing.

The non-destructive workflow

It's hard to say without seeing the image and what you are attempting to do with it at this stage. I have found that since I moved to a 16bit workflow, banding in the final image is extremely rare. Sometimes you can see banding in PS thats just due to how it previews layers, it can also be caused by working in a color space that's outside of what your monitor is cable of displaying. Prophoto RGB can definitely cause banding to appear on my screen that goes away when I convert the image to RGB 1998 for print, or to SRGB for web. I would first try to determine the source of the banding. I'm far from being a expert on this stuff, just relaying some of my own experiences and research.

I've been following Mark Metternich and Robert Park's printing info, as I'm wanting to do some Lumachrome prints. It's making me rethink a lot of my past workflow. I have been going through some of the older images, and reprocessing them. For me, it's proving to be worth the time.

This is an interesting article on it. https://gregbenzphotog​raphy.com …ding-in-the-sky-photoshop

A few thoughts. If you haven't merged/flattened layers (ie, you only have the original layer and then adjustment layers on top) then you could just go back to the RAW and make the temp/tint adjustments and then open that in photoshop and put it on the bottom layer of your edited image stack and hide/delete the original bottom layer.

Are you seeing the banding when viewing at 100% zoom? Sometimes you can see banding when viewing at different zoom levels that really isn't there and goes away when viewing at 100% (and when printing).

Selections are 8-bit, even when editing a 16-bit image. If you are making adjustments in say, a sky, by selecting part of the sky and then doing something like an HSL adjustment, you can sometimes see banding if you push the adjustment a lot. This isn't something I worry about myself and really only mention it because of your "... in a fully 16-bit chain" comment.

That's interesting actually, didn't know selections were 8-bit. It's not the case here but I do use luminosity masks sometimes, and that's handy to know.

It's a shot of northern lights and a foreground. The end result looks a bit radioactive green but to bring it back in line I have to lower temp by at least 500°K and increase tint towards magenta by like 50 or 60 - pretty significant adjustments on a picture that's already dark and noisy (but then noise-reduced) to begin with. If I do that to the final 16 bit image, the transitions in the sky become a bit wonky with some blocky structures appearing in the blue/green areas. It's not fake banding, it's just the file being pushed too far. Like I said, someone said I could get better results if I did these adjustments before everything else, but I thought that wasn't supposed to matter. Kind of don't want to spend another 4 hours working on it just to get to the same result...

edit: oh, and the edits are too significant now to just replace the bottom layer unfortunately. Hell, the first step was to stack 30 pictures and average them to reduce noise in the ground, then mask in the sky I wanted to keep and reduce noise. I guess I can keep the masks, but I'll still have to redo all the cloning, ugh.

Depends on how drastic. Do this experiment: Convert a raw file of a normal daylight image but use the Tungsten white balance option. Then try to fix it in Photoshop, and compare your result with the same image converted with the proper Daylight white balance.

The raw file will have more leeway for color/WB adjustment, but the 16 bit tif will need to be punished pretty severely for the difference to show. I'd save a copy of the tif and then go for it. If it doens't pan out, then no harm done.

From a strictly theoretically point of view, yes you are losing something when you move beyond the raw file and start making edits to a TIFF. It may not matter a LOT depending on what you do but you are affecting pixels at that point.

A raw editor doesn't affect the pixels until you export it, so changing or removing adjustments doesn't affect the base data at all. Therein lies the reason that RAW editing is so powerful.

On another note, if you open an image (after RAW adjustments) as a smart object/layer in photoshop the raw data still exists and can be edited as a RAW file in Ps. If you do other adjustments on separate layers you sort of get the same thing. You don't affect the actual pixels until you flatten or merge the layers. At that point you are back to having a TIFF file and further edits will be directly to the pixels.

armis wrote in post #18944106
That's interesting actually, didn't know selections were 8-bit. It's not the case here but I do use luminosity masks sometimes, and that's handy to know.

Yup, and it's really annoying. I just don't get it in this day. I have to smooth luminosity masks for some sky adjustments, but for snow (and white sand) and be careful.

If you kept the layers in the .tiff file (why not save the .psd), including any cloning/brushing, which should be in a separate layer, not on the actual image layer or just a copy, then you can just replace the underlying image.

Of course sometimes we are forced into destructive edits.

If you are getting banding by trying to change the WB, then if you are in a wide colorspace, like ProPhoto, you could try converting to sRGB first. Aside from that, it seems like you may been to go back to the raw.

HOWEVER (sorry about the caps, thought you might be getting bored by now)

IDK how you are trying to change the color, but you can overlay you new raw output on top of the image you have now and choose 'color' blend mode and you may not have to do much more editing.

ejenner wrote in post #18944486
If you kept the layers in the .tiff file (why not save the .psd), including any cloning/brushing, which should be in a separate layer, not on the actual image layer or just a copy, then you can just replace the underlying image.

I'm thinking any clone layers will retain the original source and not change by replacing the underlying image.

jcothron wrote in post #18944330
On another note, if you open an image (after RAW adjustments) as a smart object/layer in photoshop the raw data still exists and can be edited as a RAW file in Ps.

Not in old CS6 .

ejenner wrote in post #18944486
If you kept the layers in the .tiff file (why not save the .psd), including any cloning/brushing, which should be in a separate layer, not on the actual image layer or just a copy, then you can just replace the underlying image.

Well the cloned areas would still show as the old underlying image - colors, tone etc.

ejenner wrote in post #18944486
If you are getting banding by trying to change the WB, then if you are in a wide colorspace, like ProPhoto, you could try converting to sRGB first.

I'm in sRGB throughout the process as I export the RAWs to that format.

ejenner wrote in post #18944486
IDK how you are trying to change the color, but you can overlay you new raw output on top of the image you have now and choose 'color' blend mode and you may not have to do much more editing.

I... never thought of that . Might actually be exactly what I need here. I can even do a heavy pass of noise reduction to smooth out any issues left and I'll only need to check for color bleed. Oh I need to try this one, thanks!

jcothron wrote in post #18944330
On another note, if you open an image (after RAW adjustments) as a smart object/layer in photoshop the raw data still exists and can be edited as a RAW file in Ps.

armis wrote in post #18944557
Not in old CS6 .

I'm running CS6 and can open an image as a smart object into PS, do some stuff, right click on the smart object layer, choose edit contents and it will send it back into ACR where I can make changes and bring them back. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, isn't that the point of a smart object?

D Thompson wrote in post #18944606
I'm running CS6 and can open an image as a smart object into PS, do some stuff, right click on the smart object layer, choose edit contents and it will send it back into ACR where I can make changes and bring them back. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, isn't that the point of a smart object?

It is, or alternately you should be able to edit the RAW in Ps using Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) which I believe exists as a plug-in with Ps. Sorry I don't use RAW editing outside of Lr.

D Thompson wrote in post #18944606
I'm running CS6 and can open an image as a smart object into PS, do some stuff, right click on the smart object layer, choose edit contents and it will send it back into ACR where I can make changes and bring them back. Unless I'm misunderstanding something, isn't that the point of a smart object?

Wait what? I thought you selected the smart object then went to Filter -> Open in Camera Raw... Do I just do what you said instead?