First shot with 5D mark II - raw file processing

[Yan Zhang]

Dear all,

I just got my new 5D Mark II two days ago, and yesterday afternoon I went out to try it.
I am very happy with the camera.

When I process raw files from 5D Mark II, I find that eventually I get a huge tiff file: around 120MB! Since I started to work on raw files, I have always saved the final image in both tiff format (for print) as well as jpeg format (for web view). With 5D Mark II's 21 MP resolution, its tiff file is so big.

What I did is: covert CR2 file into DNG, do adjustment on DNG file in Photoshop CS (I am going to upgrade to CS4 soon), then save in (16-bit) tiff (about 120MB), and also save in (8-bit) jpeg of quality 7 (which is about 1MB).

Any suggestions?

[Colin Southern]

Any suggestions?

Hi Yan - yes - Save in Photoshops native *.PSD format - should make the files about 30% smaller.

[Yan Zhang]

Hi Yan - yes - Save in Photoshops native *.PSD format - should make the files about 30% smaller.

Colin,

Thanks for your advice. If I save in .PSD, will it be recognised by normal commercial printing machines?

[Colin Southern]

Colin,

Thanks for your advice. If I save in .PSD, will it be recognised by normal commercial printing machines?

Not usually - probably easiest just to flick a jpeg at max quality onto a memory stick for those occasions.

[McQ]

When I process raw files from 5D Mark II, I find that eventually I get a huge tiff file: around 120MB! Since I started to work on raw files, I have always saved the final image in both tiff format (for print) as well as jpeg format (for web view). With 5D Mark II's 21 MP resolution, its tiff file is so big.

Sounds good. Everyone has a different philosophy with saving their digital images, so here's another perspective:

If you are (a) really tight on space, (b) the 16-bit TIFF file is only for direct printing and (c) photo editing typically consists of levels, curves, saturation, etc., then you could avoid the TIFF file entirely for most shots (and save all photo editing as an xmp sidekick file to the DNG raw file). You would likely have to do some sharpening or other touch-ups after converting the DNG+xmp to a TIFF for printing, but I guess that's just the price you pay for conserving disk space. You'd also probably still want to save a 16-bit TIFF for select images, depending on the type of photo editing performed and use/importance of the image, but at least you're no longer doing that with every single file. And as Colin mentioned, you can always have a full res high quality JPEG for those situations where you are concerned about whether the commercial printer will recognize the file.

It all comes down to what you want the role of the TIFF file to be. For me, 16-bit TIFFs are only used when I want to preserve a particular sequence of post-processing steps, for stitched photographs, for prints which have been made in the past and need to be preserved exactly as they were done (but may need the occasional color space conversion), and for images that need easy and immediate access for potential additional post-processing right before they are printed.

However, this workflow would likely not work as well for landscape photography, as say in product or people photography, due to the type of post-processing that is frequently involved. It's just something else to bounce around...

[Yan Zhang]

Dear McQ,

Thanks very much for your helpful information and advice. I have got some ideas now.

[Colin Southern]

Far more helpful than "that other site" eh Yan?

[Hansm]

Hi Yan
You convert RAW to DNG.
I work in the same way. Makes renaming also much easier.
I don't know if you are aware about folowing setting in the DNG Converter preferences:
It's called: Embed original RAW file.
If this one is dashed on you DNG File will be much bigger also.
I undashed it because I keep the original RAW on a sep Hdisk and DVD.

[Colin Southern]

Or perhaps "plan C" is simply to invest in a bigger hard drive

[Alis]

And as Colin mentioned, you can always have a full res high quality JPEG for those situations where you are concerned about whether the commercial printer will recognize the file.

So, I take it JPEG here is used as a "just in case" file but not really preferred.

Could one of you please lay out the typical workflow he uses if there is not limitation on disk space and the only concern is print and web image quality. DNG? RAW? DNG+imbeded RAW, TIFF, PSD? I think the other factor is long term compatibility but that may complicated the discussion?

And I agree, whatever that other site is, this one is way more helpful

Thanks!

[Hansm]

My workfolw is as follows:
I shoot in RAW only.
Convert to DNG without embedded RAW file. Sametime rename to logical name.
I store the RAW on DVD and external Hdisk
Open in Ligfhtroom and adjust colourtemperature exopse and if needed cloning and sharpen.
Export in PSD 16 bits
For finetuning I use PSCS3 and finaly save it in PSD. Save on external Hdisk
If it needs to be printed I convert it to JPEG highest quality and transfer via internet to the printshop with embedded profiles.

[Colin Southern]

So, I take it JPEG here is used as a "just in case" file but not really preferred.

The quality of JPEG for displaying an image is just fine - it's just not a suitable format for editing because it only supports 8 bit, and it uses a lossy compression algorithm. Whereas a 16 bit PSD of a TIFF are perfect for editinag and storage, but many print shops can't handle them - so it's horses for courses

[dan88]

Or perhaps "plan C" is simply to invest in a bigger hard drive

... Or better yet, a NAS box!

[Firas]

might not camera raw in CS4 read raw files to the 5D Mark II?

[Colin Southern]

might not camera raw in CS4 read raw files to the 5D Mark II?

Hi Firas,

Welcome to CiC - great to have you with us

I'm not sure if you're asking a question, or trying to contribute to thie (very old) thread. If you need help then it's probably easiest if you just start a new thread so that everyone sees it.

[Blazing fire]

The quality of JPEG for displaying an image is just fine - it's just not a suitable format for editing because it only supports 8 bit, and it uses a lossy compression algorithm. Whereas a 16 bit PSD of a TIFF are perfect for editinag and storage, but many print shops can't handle them - so it's horses for courses

Hey Colin, can you tell the difference between a 16bit TIFF and an 8-bit JPEG on prints/monitor? I personally can't tell the difference, so converting to JPEG or leaving it in TIFF does not matter to me, quality wise. I would like a second opinion on this issue.

However, I can occasionally tell if a photo has been edited using a RAW/TIFF or JPEG file.

[Colin Southern]

Hey Colin, can you tell the difference between a 16bit TIFF and an 8-bit JPEG on prints/monitor? I personally can't tell the difference, so converting to JPEG or leaving it in TIFF does not matter to me, quality wise. I would like a second opinion on this issue.

However, I can occasionally tell if a photo has been edited using a RAW/TIFF or JPEG file.

Yes / No / maybe

If you edit a 16 bit file then save a copy as a high-quality jpeg, then no, you won't be able to tell the difference - if you save it as a medium quality jpeg then you may be able to tell the difference. If you open a jpeg and make big levels changes you WILL be able to tell the difference.

I think JPEGs get a bad reputation, but it's horses for courses; I'm sure if we all posted 70MB TIFF files on sites like this then people would be chanting "come back JPEG, all is forgiven" within about 5 minutes

[Blazing fire]

"If you edit a 16 bit file then save a copy as a high-quality jpeg, then no, you won't be able to tell the difference". At least I'm not the only one feeling the same way. Thanks for ascertaining!

[proseak]

" "If you edit a 16 bit file then save a copy as a high-quality jpeg, then no, you won't be able to tell the difference". At least I'm not the only one feeling the same way. Thanks for ascertaining! " - my thoughts exactly - Jpeg is great as a "sign-off" format. Reasonable file-sizes, excellent quality, and universally recognised.

One thing I try to avoid is opening/editing/saving Jpegs repeatedly. The reason is that every time you save a Jpeg, there is some loss of quality, even at the highest quality settings...just like re-recording analogue tape; eventually the degradation becomes obvious.

One thing which i've not(yet?) seen here is the start of my workflow - copy the RAW files to disc, burn to DVD and verify and only then format the card. Just time for a cup of tea..

HTH

Peter