Raw workflow using different p.p. programs

[Claudio Galli]

I am just trying to convert myself from JPG to RAW, but I have just a question.

Usually I use Aperture (Mac) because 90% of the time I make photo books from my photos and for this job this program works very well.

I can use, to convert the RAW images, a few programs:

Aperture

DxO Optics Pro

Capture One 8.1 (Sony version)

Photoshop Elements 12

And, just added, LightZone

Apart from Aperture, which is, in my opinion, the weakest one to handle the RAW format, all the others have different good points. (Not all the programs are equal!)

The problemi is that, if I use one of them, for instance DxO for the Prime Noise Reduction, I cannot use the RAW processing capabiliets of the others because, exporting the processed picture (from any of them) I end up with a non RAW file.

What are your suggestions?

How do you operate if you want to take advantage of, let’s say, the strongest feature of two of them on your RAW file?

Thanks,

Claudio

[FrankMi]

Hi Claudio and welcome to CiC!

You didn't mention the camera you are using and even within a single manufacturer there can be multiple versions of RAW files so knowing which RAW file you are trying to convert would be helpful.

You indicate that the output of you current RAW converter is a non-RAW file but you don't indicate what version of Aperture you are using. Some versions of Aperture can read some RAW files so this could be helpful as well.

I use the free Adobe RAW file converter that outputs in Digital Negative (DNG) format is an industry acceptable common RAW file format that many post processing applications will accept so it retains the benefits of RAW file post processing. I'm not sure that Aperture supports DNG but if so, that might be an option for you.

[Claudio Galli]

Hallo,

I use a Sony A77 and Sony RX100 II.
As far as I know, and from my experience, once you exit from any of the programs I have mentioned, the output file is usually a TIFF file, and not a RAW file anymore (and this can be obvious). So if I want to use this output file in another p.p. program I cannot use sone additional adjustments that can be applied only to a RAW file.

For instance, if I enter a RAW file in Aperture (version 3.5.1), I cannot export it to use the Prime Noise Reduction of DxO Pro which is active only for Raw Files. Not to mention the lens corrections, which Aperture does not have and other programs have.

I try to make a long story short. The various programs that convert the Raw files have their own strong and weak points. Once you start with one of them, you cannot use the Raw strong points of the others.

Do you have any workflow to suggest when dealing with Raw files?

Many thanks and all the best,
Claudio

[DanK]

I try to make a long story short. The various programs that convert the Raw files have their own strong and weak points. Once you start with one of them, you cannot use the Raw strong points of the others.

For the most part, that's right. You make some edits in the raw conversion software, and if you need other edits, you do them in other software, but not in other raw conversion software.

You are right that the various raw conversion software packages have different strengths and weaknesses. I use Lightroom, for several reasons. It has good database management capabilities. It has quite a strong editing set of editing functions. It integrates to some degree with any external editor and very well with photoshop. (I have never used elements). Photoshop lets you access the editing tools that are in lightroom because it contains the same raw processing engine (Adobe Camera raw).

My workflow depends on the image, but often it is this:
1. Import to Lightroom. Make all of the edits there that I can do well in that software. In many cases, that is all I need.
2. If I need more, I call up 'edit_in_photoshop' from the lightroom menus and continue editing in Photoshop. When I save the result, I have to save it as either PSD or TIFF. I generally save as TIF. The edited TIF then appears in Lightroom, where I can take advantage of LR's database and printing functions.

[xpatUSA]

I will make a general suggestion which will represent my personal philosophy.

I would choose a raw converter that can create a neutral but high quality output and I would make that output a 16 bit per channel TIFF with an embedded ProPhoto ICC profile. I would not mess around in the converter to create a pretty picture (colorful, sharp, etc) - only the very basics like exposure correction and scene white balance.

I have long ago ceased trying to find the perfect editor with a perfect converter

I used Elements for a long time and it's system of an already plugged-in converter (Adobe Camera Raw) which has a seperate set of controls to the Editor might suit you quite well. And ACR does not edit the RAW file, of course, but leaves a separate editable (.xmp) file which you can keep, edit or dump as you wish.

Just my two cent's worth . .

[FrankMi]

Do you have any workflow to suggest when dealing with Raw files?

Thank you for the additional information Claudio.

I work with the RAW files in DNG format and do non-destructive edits in Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom before bringing them into Photoshop CS5. In CS5 they are edited and saved in PSD format to preserve the changes made so that I can backtrack to previous points even after saving and reloading. When completed, I export as a Jpeg sharpened for the output media.

In effect, I do most of my work in RAW until the final steps.

[Claudio Galli]

First of all, thanks to all of you who have answered my questions.

After additional thinking, I believe that for me the best solution could be to shot in Raw+Jpg mode. If the jpg version is satisfactory, even after some adjustments (if necessary), I will stick to this version. For difficult situations (e.g. extremely low light, various light sources, etc.) I will use the Raw version for the more ample processing capabilities.

All the best,
Claudio

[Manfred M]

Claudio - Aperture appears to have been discontinued by Apple, so one of these days the product is just going to die, so finding an alternative is probably a good idea.

I use four different RAW converters, and each has advantages and disadvantages.

1. Adobe Camera RAW - ACR / Lightroom - these are the same engine with a different user interface. Decent quality, decent lens corrections but best of all, great integration with Photoshop. I use this for most of my "normal" workflow. Sometimes the output is questionable, especially when looking for accurate skin tones.

I'm not a Lightroom fan, but it has some great automation features. I never use the .dng format, because I don't have access to the original RAW data anymore and if I don't like the RAW conversion, I have to stick with the Adobe solution. I made that mistake once; and I won't repeat it.

2. DxO Optics Pro 10 - By far the best RAW converter. Outstanding quality conversions, best lens corrections (including CA elimination). Most awkward of the ones I use. I will turn to this when I don't like the ACR results.

3. Nikon View NX2 (I haven't tried Capture NX-D yet) - for Nikon cameras only - the least talented of the converters, but it really does skin tones well. If ACR is acting funny, this software nails the skin tones perfectly. I suspect this is the best converter for Nikon as this is the only converter that is not reverse engineered. All of Nikon's lens and sensor data is built in up front. Not my favourite, but it comes through when needed.

4. Phase 1 Capture One - Frankly, this is what Lightroom should have been. I'm still learning it, so can't make a final call on it, but my first impressions are very positive. This is how a photographer would want his / her file management and RAW convertor software to work like. ACR / Lightroom's design is how a software engineer would design a RAW converter.


Workflow - I will use the RAW convertor for global adjustments only. I adjust contrast, sharpen, do lens corrections, etc. in the RAW convertor, i.e. all parameters I can go back and easily change if I don't like where the edit is going. Setting black point, white point, input sharpening, colour temperature, gamma and the colour space I will be using in the edit (usually ProPhoto) are all set before I export to Photoshop for other work.

I virtually always shoot jpeg (basic) + RAW. Snapshots and quick posts are usually SOOC jpegs. Any serious images start off as RAW files.

[xpatUSA]

I virtually always shoot jpeg (basic) = RAW.

Pardon my pedantry Manfred but, for Claudio's benefit, that should read "RAW + jpeg", I think. Since Claudio felt that he might use the jpeg if it's good enough, one hopes that he would elect to shoot RAW+jpeg 'fine', not 'basic' - although I do realize why you yourself would use 'basic'.

[Richard Lundberg]

You can do all the same corrections to a tiff or jpg in ACR after conversion and in most of the others. DxO doesn't do ProPhoto or DNG so for me it's a loser despite its lens correction and noise reduction. They do have a free app called DxO Perspective that is excellent. I hate forced cataloging so Capture One is out even though I have ver 7, I haven't taken advantage of their ver 8 upgrade. The SilkyPix that came with my camera doesn't do ProPhoto. I like Iridient Developer and ACR most of the time. There are probably a dozen RAW converters with a range of capability and prices ranging from free to the rent.

[george013]

You can do all the same corrections to a tiff or jpg in ACR after conversion and in most of the others. DxO doesn't do ProPhoto or DNG so for me it's a loser despite its lens correction and noise reduction. They do have a free app called DxO Perspective that is excellent. I hate forced cataloging so Capture One is out even though I have ver 7, I haven't taken advantage of their ver 8 upgrade. The SilkyPix that came with my camera doesn't do ProPhoto. I like Iridient Developer and ACR most of the time. There are probably a dozen RAW converters with a range of capability and prices ranging from free to the rent.

I think so to. After the raw-converter has created a rasterimage, all the editing is done on that.

George

[Manfred M]

Pardon my pedantry Manfred but, for Claudio's benefit, that should read "RAW + jpeg", I think. Since Claudio felt that he might use the jpeg if it's good enough, one hopes that he would elect to shoot RAW+jpeg 'fine', not 'basic' - although I do realize why you yourself would use 'basic'.

Thanks for pointing out that typo. Yes I did mean RAW+ jpeg. Both are the same key on my keyboard; I guess I hadn't pressed the <Shift> key and got the "=" instead of the "+"; which = totally confusing answer..

[xpatUSA]

Thanks for pointing out that typo. Yes I did mean RAW+ jpeg. Both are the same key on my keyboard; I guess I hadn't pressed the <Shift> key and got the "=" instead of the "+"; which = totally confusing answer..

Yep, I knew you did; my post was of course more for Claudio's benefit than yours because, after all, we already know everything, eh?

[Manfred M]

Yep, I knew you did; my post was of course more for Claudio's benefit than yours because, after all, we already know everything, eh?

So I try to tell people. It doesn't always work, though.

I get the "bloody engineers, they think they know everything" comment all too often. That is usually the first indication that they've figured out I was right all along...