Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Photoshop files?

Discussion

13 replies
Posted by Kyle Quattromani on March 2, 2007 at 7:36 PM
So I downloaded the trial version of CS3 and noticed that you have to save your file before you can "reopen" it and use all the adjustments and filters and such in photoshop....does this mean that the actual photoshop program (with unsharp mask and the like) has to be used with tiff and jpeg files and not with RAW files? I was under the impression that it would process a RAW file from beginning to end....is this not true?
Posted by Guy Tal on March 2, 2007 at 8:03 PM
Kyle, RAW is not really an image format. It's just the digital signals read from the sensor. The converter maps these signals to actual image detail and color data which you can then process and save in an image format.

You shouldn't need to save the file first and then reopen it. You should be able to bring up your raw files in Bridge, then double-click on a file to convert and import it directly to Photoshop.

Guy
Posted by Kyle Quattromani on March 2, 2007 at 8:16 PM
So photoshop isn't actually using the RAW file then?
Posted by Preston Birdwell on March 2, 2007 at 8:31 PM
Kyle,

I'm pretty raw at the digital camera thing (since I shoot 4x5), but as I see it, the file is converted into a format that PhotoShop can read. Your original RAW file is unaffected.

Once the file is imported into PS, you should save it as either a PSD or TIFF file type.

-PB
Posted by Steve Foss on March 2, 2007 at 8:49 PM
Photoshop recognizes, reads and uses the camera RAW file to open an image file but doesn't alter the camera RAW file. The best thing to do is save the image as a photoshop TIF or PSD as soon as you open it, and then you're immediately working with a photoshop image file.

You can also save it as a photoshop RAW file and work with that. I've toned and printed photoshop RAW files with very nice results, although I can't for the life of me remember where I read that sometimes photoshop RAW is a better image format option than TIF or PSD. Anyone? :confused:

At any rate, whether you save the photoshop file as a PSD, TIF or PS RAW, you're good to go.
Posted by Guy Tal on March 2, 2007 at 9:03 PM
Kyle, you're right. The Photoshop "main" program does not use RAW. It relies on ACR to convert the digital readings into image data. Then again, ACR is part of the Photoshop distribution so it really depends on where you draw the line.

Guy
Posted by Pete D on March 3, 2007 at 1:21 AM
A RAW file contains all the information that was recorded when the shutter was released. It isn't complete, but is all that was recorded. Photoshop can often translate those data into something visible on your display. Photoshop can save data in file formats (e.g. TIFF and JPEG) which are legible to a variety of programs or in a format (i.e. PSD) especially well understood by Adobe products. It really wouldn't make sense for Photoshop to write RAW files, but it can certainly read some/most/many of them. So, does Photoshop use RAW files? Sure, no input no output. Does Photoshop create new RAW files? No. Cameras create RAW files. Photoshop creates confusion (and TIFFs, JPEGs, PSDs and probably more)

Pete D.
Posted by Kyle Quattromani on March 3, 2007 at 7:46 AM
So photoshop translates RAW files and then you modify that new translated file in photoshop?
Posted by May Haga on March 3, 2007 at 8:34 AM
I have a Nikon D70S which shoots NEF (their version of RAW). I have Photoshop CS2, Do I need another program to convert the NEF to files that Photoshop can read? Thanks for taking the time to reply. :confused:
Posted by Pete D on March 3, 2007 at 10:34 AM
Kyle - that's the way I'd describe it. Not to confuse the issue, but you could save a file with the exact same name, but it wouldn't be a RAW file.
May - I'd bet a chocolate-covered doughnut that CS2 will open your NEFs without a problem. You might find the "translation" options rather limited, but you'll get something you can work with. I use a D200 that predates my version of Photoshop (CS). Nevertheless, I can directly open a RAW file. There are very few options in that conversion process. In contrast, I'm just now starting to use Lightroom and there many choices before I "Develop" the RAW file.

Pete D. hoping he's not just muddying the water...
Posted by Rod Barbee on March 3, 2007 at 11:46 AM
May,
CS2, which uses Adobe Camera Raw (a plug-in that comes with CS2), will open virtually any RAW file. If it doesn't open yours, then you need to get the latest version of ACR, which is ACR 3.7. The easiest way to do that is to go to Help in either Bridge or Photoshop and click on Updates.
ACR gives you a wide range of control over your RAW files: from white balance, to exposure, to saturation, to dealing with lens issues like vignetting.
One of the best guides to using ACR is Real World Camera Raw by the late Bruce Fraser.
Posted by Kyle Quattromani on March 3, 2007 at 12:02 PM
So then it's quite beneficial to me if I stop using Rawshooter 2006 to "develop" my RAW files and get a version of Photoshop that I can also "develop" my raw files with? Like CS2 or CS3 when it comes out? Right now...with Photoshop 7, I have to develop my RAW file with Rawshooter and upload that new file into Photoshop. Photoshop 7, my version at least, won't open up any RAW files. Thoughts?? Thanks for taking the time to help me out guys and gals.
Posted by Tom Webster on March 3, 2007 at 1:47 PM
Kyle Quattromani wrote:
So then it's quite beneficial to me if I stop using Rawshooter 2006 to "develop" my RAW files and get a version of Photoshop that I can also "develop" my raw files with?

Not necessarily. I find Raw Shooter Pro to be a better RAW conversion program than ACR. I use Adobe Lightroom (which incorporates features from Raw Shooter Pro) to convert my RAW files and then I export the converted image files as 16 bit .tif files directly to Photoshop 7.0.1.
Posted by Kyle Quattromani on March 3, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Thank you sir...hit the nail on the head with that post. Just what I was trying to figure out. Much appreciated.