How much work in raw

I have been using C1. It makes sense to change white balance and rotate out of aligned images in C1, but I am wondering if people
1)sharpen and
2) reduce noise
3) use levels and curves
in their raw converters or feel it is better to do that in PS.

Also, Bibble has fill light and highlight recovery. Are they any better than PS' shadow highlight?

Allan

1) No 2) Yes 3) No

I don't know about Bibble, but RawShooter's fill-light feature is better than Photoshop's shadow/highligt (which seems very crude to me despite the many options). Either way, I have not yet found an automated tool that can replace careful masking and tweaking for optimal results.

Guy

I'm VERY new at using these raw converters, so take my comments with that in mind. I recently tried the trial versions of Raw Shooter Essentials, Nikon Capture 4, Bibble and Capture One. Capture One was best hands down for sharpening and color adjustments. I tried the noise reduction in Bibble, and it looked great at first, but when I pulled up the converted TIFF file in PS it looked really weird, not at all the same. The fill light feature also looked promising until I pulled up the converted image. I'm very pleased with the results I get in C1 for sharpening, exposure and color control. But I am not very good in PS, so others more experienced may advise you differently. I usually adjust white balance, exposure, and sharpening in C1 and make more adjustments in PS as needed, but, again, I'm still new at this and still learning!

I haven't spent a lot of time with Bibble, but I haven't found the highlight and and fill light to be what I want. Like you, when I bring the image into PS I do not like the results.

I still wonder, however, if it is best to sharpen at the raw stage - like, does it reduce artifacts and haloing, or does it not make any difference as long as long as I sharpen carefully. I would like to come up with a consistent sharpening plan.

Allan

1. Never. Much better control in PS
2. Only on high ISO (above ISO 400) images
3. Never. Again, much better control in PS

Don't know a thing about Bibble, but I sure like PS s/h when used correctly.

I use C1 LE - have never tried any of the others that have been mentioned.

1. No - I use PK Sharpener for sharpening - truly amazing tool.
2. I use the noise reduction for most images.
3. No - the graphs in CS2 seems easier to see than C1. Too much squinting in C1.

Allan,

If you truely like you images, Never...Never...Never...Never use your RAW converter to adjust anything. If you have the option in your converter to shut off any automated features.. do so. With the exception of possible noise reduction. I use CS2 and have made sure that no modifications are done there except to save the file in a format I intend to work with in PS.

Once you have saved the image in a PSD, TIFF or whatever format floats your boat, make all necessary adjustments in your image editor of choise.

Martin

Wait a minute. I am confused. If Martin, Bob, and Bill basically just convert, why bother to shoot in raw. DO you use raw adjustments for problem images?

Allan

Well, there are at least a couple things you do want to adjust in your RAW converter, just not typically the ones listed in the original post. ALWAYS make adjustment to Color Temperature (White Balance). Exposure adjustments are better roughed in prior to RAW conversion as well.

I'm really new at this and would appreciate some clarification too...I don't have CS2, just Elements (maybe that's the problem?) but I find the sharpening results far better in Capture 1 LE that in Elements. Why is that, and what am I missing in Elements that would help my sharpening if I sharpen there instead of in C1? I use the filters>unsharp mask. Maybe I just don't understand how to set it to get best results...

I do all of the white balance, small curves adjustments, as well as exposure, and most important rezzing-up of the image in CaptureOne Pro. All of my sharpening is done with PK Sharpener. All other color work is done in PS using Joe Holmes Color Space w/ variants.

From this series of coments I am curious. Do people sharpen images as part of the procesing of a raw file? I thought that was no a good practice, one should only sharpen just prior to output of a file as sharpening is dependent on the size of the file. Or am I missing something?

Scott,

I use PK Sharpener for all my sharpening needs, from web to offset press. This sharpening is done in PS. PK Sharpener has three modes, a specific capture sharpen, a creative sharpen and an output sharpen. All of these are done on each image processed. In other words, each image gets a minimum of two and some three sharpens. It's an awesome program!

I do a very minor sharpening of the converted RAW file as a first operation. This is per Canon recommendation to eliminate the effects of the AA filter that sits on top of the CMOS detector. My typical sharpening is USM at 300/0.3/0 (again, per Canon). This works perfect nearly every time, but is easily adjustable for images that require slightly more or less. It is very subtle and induces no artifacts. Additional sharpening is output dependent(print, web, stock, etc.) and is done as a last step.

For any 1D series camera owners who wish to read Chuck Westfall's (Canon) discussion on this subject, click here.

Samer as Bob and Jerry I also use capture sharpening - it makes a big difference.

Guy

Thanks for the information. Have any of you seen the recommendations for Nikon DSLR's?

Maybe I should look at PKsharpener.

Allan,

The RAW converter is an application that gathers all of the data the is embedded in your RAW image. Some and I say some RAW converters are better then others... But do you want to trust your shot to how a particular converter reads and modifies your shot... NO. You have more control of the final images in Photoshop or whatever image editing software you use then a typical RAW converter can do.

Now as to why bother to shoot RAW.... A RAW image file has more data embeded in it the the highest RES JPEG file. By allowing your camera set at fine JPEG to decide what to record is a waste.. Why bother spending big bucks on a semi-pro DSLR if you are going to shoot JPEG.. You could have saved yourself some money in the first place by just buying a typical consumer POINT-N-SHOOT camera.

Here are several links that go into great detail as to why shoot RAW:

http://www.lonestardigital.com/shooting_raw.htm

another:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

another:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

All you need to do is plug in RAW vs JPEG in your search engine and you will come up with tons of hits explaining why.

Read them...

Also I suggest that you get this book... A must have for anyone who has a professional DSLR or Pro-sumer DSLR...

The book is titled... "REAL WORLD CAMERA RAW with ADOBE_____" there are several versions one for CS and one for CS2.. It too explains why you should shoot RAW.

Martin

Allan,

Also read this thread that was started here at Nature:

http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/bbs.cgi?a=vm&mr=6453&b=vf3&st=0&la=414&ph=3&sid=24818&u=24818

If you set your RAW converter to automatically modify your images. It does an AVERAGE job at best. And AVERAGE just ain't good enough.

Martin

You did not seem to read my beginning posts where I said I always shoot raw. I don't need to read anything as to why shoot raw. I am wondering why so many people do so much of their work in PS that could be done in raw. It seems that a level of sharpening, wb, levels correction, curves, applied before conversion, would make better tiff images to begain with.
I never suggested setting the converter to automatically convert images. It seems to me that others do less in raw converters than I do. As this thread develops I am surprised by that. Maybe it is only because companies like Bibble (and others) keep adding features like fill light and highlight recovery to their converters that I am assuming it is a good idea to make adjustments to the raw.

Allan

Allen,

It really depends on your workflow. Like in my workflow, I never touch the saturation slider, NEVER! Using the saturation slider damages the file in PS. I use a custom working space with variants to apply my level of saturation, this is done by assigning (not converting) specific custom profile variants to the image file.

Allan, as with pretty much everything, there's always more than one way to skin the proverbial cat. Do whatever you are most comfortable with. For me, and many others, the control of many adjustments in PS after conversion is much better that doing it in a RAW converter. If you use a RAW converter that has similar functionality of PS, like the RAW converter that's part of Photoshop, it probably doesn't matter much when you make most initial adjustments. OTOH, if you use a bare bones converter like BreezeBrowser (that's what I use), then you pretty much have no choice in when to make many adjustments.

A few people I know have been telling to use Bibble instead of C1. Part of the reason is they tell me the additional features it has over C1. They say it is better to work with the raw image - less destructive - than with the PS tiff.
I wonder if there is a correct answer to that, or as you say, a matter of preference.

Allan

My D2X workflow (admittedly limited by still using PS7 for final workup) includes the following steps in RAW:

* Exposure adjustments
* Sharpening adjustment (Capture equivalent of in-camera sharpening, NOT USM!)
* Occasional use of D-Image (Kind of an in-RAW HDR mode...)
* CA removal/reduction

I do my noise reduction in Noise Ninja, which does a better job than Capture (which bogs completely when you add noise reduction...)

My process is probably a little unusual: The only adjustments I make to my bracketed RAW files are for color temperture and chromatic aberration correction. Everything else I do in Photoshop, using custom actions/scripts to blend my exposures and adjust brightness and contrast (www.farrarfocus.com/ffdd).

Why this aternative workflow? Because RAW converters and Photoshop itself use linear curves to adjust brightness and contrast, which can result in blown highlights and shadows. I find a much more pleasing effect can be achieved by using nonlinear curves to adjust brightness and contrast. Not to mention, nonlinear curves won't clip high- and lowlights. And I don't do any noise reduction, because blending my bracketed exposures virtually eliminates noise.

Finally, I don't sharpen until the very last step before printing.

It's interesting to note how many different workflows can lead to the same result: a beautiful print!