Camera Raw workflow options

16 bit is unnecessary most of the time.

... unless you use a wide gamut color space and / or do (relatively) aggressive luminance / color adjustments in PS....

tim wrote in post #10966415
16 bit is unnecessary most of the time.

René Damkot wrote in post #10966493
... unless you use a wide gamut color space and / or do (relatively) aggressive luminance / color adjustments in PS....

My sentiments exactly!

Prophoto 16bit looks the best for post processing... nice thread

peter173 wrote in post #11633724
Prophoto 16bit looks the best for post processing... nice thread

Seems like a good idea to re-read the thread.

If intended output is sRGB, I'd use sRGB from the start.

If intended output is whatever gamut, but the subject is a subtle light gradient on a white subject, I'd use sRGB, 8bpc if I can get away with it, to minimize system recourses.

Been there, done that in both cases.

Bigger is not always better.

ChasP505 wrote in post #10964197
Depends on the image content and color space. If I need to do a lot of pixel level editing in Photoshop, I'll select 16 bit and stay in 16 bit until all editing is done. Then I'll save as a TIFF and convert to 8 bit.

If the image has no really electric, vibrant colors (like a portrait shot), I'll stay in sRGB and 8 bit. If it has really vibrant colors, I'll use ProPhoto and 16 bit, but then convert down to Adobe RGB and 8 bit when editing is done.

René Damkot wrote in post #11634089
Seems like a good idea to re-read the thread.

If intended output is sRGB, I'd use sRGB from the start.

If intended output is whatever gamut, but the subject is a subtle light gradient on a white subject, I'd use sRGB, 8bpc if I can get away with it, to minimize system recourses.

Been there, done that in both cases.

Bigger is not always better.

First lets say iam a beginner, only tried sRGB so far. Said that, Chas looks pretty convincing to me... when u want/need max quality prophoto16/adobeRGB16/​8 offer the best, in this order. Otherwise sRGB but it's the worst of them (i think differences are so soft u cant even notice, but still... if u're looking for the best that's the way)
That's all imho, but supported by this:

http://www.gdgphoto.co​m/articles/

PS: i agree that minimizing system recourses may be a reason to work in 8 with "worse" profiles, but if the pc can handle it i'll stick with prophoto16 :P thanks for the tips though

Well of course that's another reason lol, but what happens if u want to print it later? You need to be damm sure to use this approach...

Ok, now I have a question , I use MPIX as my printer. They indicate that the files need to be Jpegs. How does using Pro/ Adobe/ 16bit make the print better when you have to convert to Jpeg to send to the printer.
Seems that doing it all as S/RGB from the start would be the way to go thus saving time/steps.

Color space and image format are different things. The final step of your processing is to convert to the proper color space if needed, 8 bits if needed, and a high quality jpeg.

The advantage of doing your early work in 16 bits (tifff/psd) is to give you the maximum amount of latitude in making adjustments to your tones and colors without risking artifacts (such as noticeable color banding or highlight banding).

The color space is usually no big deal -- for most images you can work in sRGB all the way through (although if you shoot Raw you start with a wide gamut image by nature of the original capture).

There are tradeoffs in all of this -- a 16 bit tiff/psd will have a very large file size that can strain the resources of an older system or a laptop. Also, Photoshop Elements (and other software apps) has a limited ability to work with 16 bit files. So, you may in fact do fine with 8 bit tiffs, or even jpegs, but each step in that direction does give up some range to work with in your processing.