Working with raw

A discussion has been fermenting within our camera club recently regarding how to deal with raw images.
Assuming images have been taken correctly regarding white balance/exposure why not simply convert the raw images into tiffs via nikon capture or whatever programme you use and then work on them in photoshop?
Is there any benefit in doing anything at all while images are still in raw format before converting them to tiffs?
I have tried both and still have no answer !

RAW has huge advantages! The biggest mistake i ever made as a photog was not shooting in RAW from the outset. What you see in your software program is not the RAW image, per se, since the RAW is simply that--it's raw/unprocessed black and white! Once you convert to TIF, jpeg or whatever, you've lost a large amount of leeway that you would have had with the RAW file. The benefits are enormous. Besides the fact that your assumption (that the WB exposure etc are 'correct'--if there is such a thing as correct!) is huge, you can do things with RAW that simply cannot be accomplished with the converted TIF or whatever, with no degredation in the image quality (global sharpening, exposure control, rotation etc). The only advantage i can think of in not processing the RAW is to save a little time and disc space. Not worth it--there's your answer!

I use Lightroom or camera raw for all my conversions with some work done to the image pre-conversion. If I could get everything right at exposure every time I would not even shoot in raw. An example for me is white balance I shoot on a manual K setting for daylight always. This I know will give me an image like I am used to from the daylight slide films I used. I do often change the settings in lightroom to fit my view of the image. On the conversion in my opinion (no facts) I get a better final image doing some adjustments in camera raw or lightroom over making the same adjustments later from a tiff. The advantage of working from the Raw allows for much more to be done with every bit of information from the capture. It is like major editing is better from a 16bit tiff than an 8bit and Raw is better than either.

I'm actually a bit surprised that this is a point of debate any longer, except maybe for people who are new to photography and don't yet know the benefits of RAW.

As Stan said, the benefits of RAW are substantial. When you're working with a RAW file you're not altering pixel level data. You're changing the information that will eventually make up the pixel level data. Because you're not pushing pixels around working with RAW files is completely non-destructive. When you work with a TIFF file (we'll ignore JPEGs because they can't be saved with layers intact), unless you use layers you are altering actual pixel data. Even then, not all PS tools can be done with layers. Unless...... you use Smart Objects and preferably open your RAW file in PS as a Smart Object. Smart Objects can't be edited directly. You're forced to use adjustment layers and any tool that can't be done as an adjustment layer is applied as a Smart Filter; which works like and adjustment layer. If RAW weren't that powerful an option, it's unlikely that Adobe would have included the Smart Object functionality.

Stan's also right that assuming everything is perfect at the time of exposure is a pretty big leap. RAW files often have dull colour and contrast needs to be adjusted at a minimum. If you have to make changes beyond that, then shooting RAW is vital.

The photo in this thread is by no means perfect, http://forums.popphoto.com/showthread.php?t=609692 but it's illustrative of the value of shooting RAW compared to working with a JPEG.

I suppose I should not have been so brief. I realise there is no definite 'taken correctly' photo and I am fairly aware of the power of Raws especially when things go wrong but when asked the question, why do anything in raws with an ok pic 'correctly' exposed and colour balanced I find it difficult to answer.
The very best photographers certainly seem to carry out at least a few changes to every image before converting to tiffs and so there must be more to it than I currently understand but no one seems to be able to give a good reason for or against any of the two methods.
I should perhaps mention I was a slide film user, used slide film since the 60's and lots of it so no beginner but certainly 'dog paddling' in this digital age right now so forgive the slowness of the little grey cells.

Colin - I would say that if an image is exposed exactly the way you want it (as opposed to "correct"), and the white balance is perfect in camera, and you don't want to do any global edits like overall color or saturation adjustments, and you don't want to do any noise reduction, and you don't want to sharpen - then by all means just do everything in PS.

But if you're going to do any sharpening, color correction, or noise reduction, they are better done at the raw level prior to pixels data. It's simply a quality issue. Of course you can get close by just editing the TIFF or JPG, but it won't be as good.

That being said, if you find yourself converting you're raw files and thinking that that last couple of percent of quality doesn't matter to you - then don't worry about it. I know sometimes I don't, despite really liking working with raw images. Heck - sometimes I shoot jpgs.

RAW is the way to go as long as you realize any changes made in ACR is global. One the big benefits of RAW processing in ACR is the ability to control blown highlights(and shadows for that matter). In PS,editing a TIFF can create blown hightlights quite easily without knowing it. I always check it using a levels layer, holding the Alt key down and clicking on the hightlight arrow in PS when working on a TIFF, usually the blown out highlights are a result of an exposure increase using a curves layer or a saturation layer. When that happens those areas can be corrected using a brush on that layer.

...any changes made in ACR is global.

While this is generally true, the new ACR in CS4 does have a new adjustment brush, so that some changes (exposure, contrast, brightness, saturation, clarity, vibrance, sharpness) can be changed in local areas of the image...

Yeah, the latest versions of ACR do allow for some local adjustment.

Colin, I guess the question is what's an 'ok image'? And are you satisfied with just OK? I only moved to digital a little over a year ago (Sept '07). I haven't taken that many photos in the intervening period, maybe 20,000 or so, but there isn't a single RAW file I've shot that I don't want to do something with. No matter how 'correct' I got it in camera. Assuming WB and exposure are fine; the colours probably still aren't as vibrant as they were in reality, contrast might be off a little, it'll invariably need to be sharpened. Even the ability to do those few things without affecting pixel level information is important - to me.

When all is said and done it's a personal decision. If you're happy with what comes straight out of the camera then no argument anyone can make in favour of RAW is going to convince you. The major arguments in favour of RAW have been outlined by others in this discussion and elsewhere. If those reasons and benefits aren't convincing to you, then so be it.

Compare to slide film. Many people use different films for different effects. A low contrast, mid-saturation film like Fuji RMS 100/1000 for one purpose, a high contrast, high saturation film like Velvia for a different purpose and Kodachrome for a different purpose yet again. In general, if you wanted puncher reds/yellows you shot Kodak and if you wanted more kick in the greens/blues you shot Fuji. You may have altered exposure slightly to enhance or diminish contrast or colour saturation. You may have shot for push/pull processing for effect. You shot daylight film outdoors, tungsten and fluorescent film indoors (depending on the lighting condition) or you used filters to alter the colour temperature of the film. You had what you had when you got the slides back from processing but that doesn't mean what went into the shot didn't make a difference. With digital and RAW, you simply make your adjustments more after the fact than before. Not a lot of difference really.

Hi guys
Yes I too work on every single image but I seem to have got into the habit of doing it all in PS, USM, levels, Hue/sat etc. I would never have been happy with any unmanipulated or shall we say "worked on" image, of course not, the mechanics of a digital camera require USM at the very least for every pic, yes I do understand that. It's just that there seems little to choose from between working on a converted raw to tiff image in PS and working on it in something like Nikon capture.
However, you guys are so sure about working on image in raw before converting I really must have another look at it. Some of the pics on this site are of incredible quality, hopefully you will have helped me up a few steps in this digi age.

Thanx guys.

Colin, I went through the same thought process when I first went to digital last spring. I skipped the raw process mainly because it was new to me and I didn't understand it. However once I got the hang of it many images have been saved that I might have discarded in the past. I also shot slides for many decades and still do at times but am quickly weaning off due to the advantages digital offers.

Colin, it also depends on your final output. If you're viewing small photos on a computer screen or making small prints, the differences won't be overly evident. When you make larger prints then the differences will become more evident.

If you're doing your TIFF adjustments as adjustment layers - where possible - and saving the TIFFs with layers intact then you're doing what you can to maintain quality at that level as well.

The point is to do as much as you can without pushing pixels around. It's when you begin altering pixel data that the most degradation begins to occur. That's why working with TIFFs is preferable to JPEGs because TIFFs can be saved with layers where JPEGs can't (among other downfalls of the JPEG file format).

I've kind of joked that jpegs are what you shoot when you don't know what you are doing. Okay, that is a bit of an exaggeration, but there is some truth to it. They may look great out of the camera, but can't be pushed anywhere near to what you can do with a RAW file.

In terms of workflow, there really isn't all that much more RAW adds. At least in CS2, they only add the RAW converter step, which you can always leave at the default settings. You'll lose a little bit because there won't be the default jpeg sharpness and color settings, but since you are going into PS, you can always bring that back up a bit.

Actually, there is one area where shooting jpegs may not be such a horrible idea: studio settings where you control ALL of the light, shadows and highlights. In this case, you'll have complete control over exposure, shadows and highlights. I know a couple of studio portrait photographers who shoot nothing but jpegs in this case. But, and this is a big but, they know exactly what they are doing, have years of experience and most importantly, have complete control over the situation. Their work, in the studio setting, has been so refined that there are no errors made. Once they get out of the studio situation it is a RAW workflow.

Look at it this way: do you have such good control of the photographic situations you encounter that you *know* everything is dead on, rather than believe everything is dead on? (That is not directed at the OP in particular, just anyone who may read this.) I wouldn't trust the lcd in the back. It is great for telling you if you blew the shot, but not necessarily for telling you that you got the shot. In camera, in the field, it simply isn't good enough, although they are getting good. RAW makes allowances for small mistakes, even large mistakes if you are desperate enough to make a shot work.

Of course, it is best to get everything right the first time in the field and put yourself in a position where a jpeg is an okay format, but why push your luck? It doesn't add much to the workflow and hard drive space is is essentially free now.

Hey guys, I was lucky enough to have someone say "only shoot raws" when I bought my first Digicam, the Nikon D100. I shoot with a Nikon D3 now and except on one occassion and purely by accident, I have never shot one pic in jpeg. The one time I did was a pic of a common tern, the camera shot raws +jpegs and the bird's eye in the jpegs could not be seen but was spot on in the raw files so, whooah no jpegs for me.
Another thing I have always done is treat my raws like negs and kept them, burned to CD's DVD's.
I think I must renew my NP membership and get some pics on here, it is a super site and so informative and helpful so, catchya later guys (and gals).