Raw File conversion.

[jerry1]

I hope this is not a repeated question. When is a raw file no longer a raw file? If you start processing a raw file,
making any adjustments basic, etc., at what point/stage is it not a raw file? For example, if you process it in say
Lightroom, then send it to Photoshop for further processing, is it still a raw file at that time, or has it been converted before it gets to Photoshop? Just curious?

Thanks,
Jerry

[Dave Humphries]

I hope this is not a repeated question. When is a raw file no longer a raw file? If you start processing a raw file, making any adjustments basic, etc., at what point/stage is it not a raw file? For example, if you process it in say
Lightroom, then send it to Photoshop for further processing, is it still a raw file at that time, or has it been converted before it gets to Photoshop? Just curious?

Hi Jerry,

As a 'general rule', the raw file usually won't ever be changed.

When you move the image that is in the computer's memory in to PS, you will eventually save that to be file of a different format/type; e.g. psd, jpg, tiff, or something else. If you just close PS without saving, what you did in PS will be lost.

If you work on the RAW file only in LR or ACR, then don't open in PS (or do, but close PS without saving), your LR/ACR edits will (automatically and invisibly) be saved as a list of 'commands', either in to the database (in LR), or usually to a side-car file (of .xmp suffix, if ACR -and LR can also be set to do this as well).

So 'the file' will always be a raw file, other image files will usually get created after you have edited and they're not raw files.

As with anything in life, there's a whole series of exceptions to the general rule, the primary one applicable is ...
if you converted your camera's proprietary raw file to DNG on import to LR, that is considered a raw file and it has the ability to internally store the list of LR edit commands, but it's still a raw file.

Clear as mud?

Cheers,
Dave

[pnodrog]

If you edit and save in Photoshop the existing RAW file (plus any side-car file) will be left as is and the type of saved file will depend on your settings and how you save it.

[Manfred M]

A raw file will always be a raw file as the data in that type of file is never changed to anything else.

When a raw file is read by a raw converter, that is where the data is turned from the RGGB data from a Bayer sensor (there are a few exceptions here like Sigma cameras that do not use a Bayer array) and turned into a single pixel data through a process known as de-mosaicing. In order for this data to be turned into an image, a white balance, colour space and gamma have to be "baked" into the data. At this point it can be saved as an image file.

The original raw data remains untouched.

[DanK]

Thanks for writing "raw" rather than "RAW"

Good comments so far, but it might help to distinguish between the raw data and the raw file. A raw file (with the few exceptions Manfred noted) is not an image file that you can view. So, if you are looking at it, something has been done with the original raw data, but not necessarily with the original raw file.

In the case of Lightroom--which I assume from your post--nothing is done to the original raw file. However, the data are interpreted to create a visible image. Manfred noted that process. However, this could be misleading:

In order for this data to be turned into an image, a white balance, colour space and gamma have to be "baked" into the data. At this point it can be saved as an image file.

At point, these attributes have been imposed on the data you are viewing, but nothing has yet been baked into any stored file, raw or otherwise. As you edit, you are altering that conversion from the raw data to the rendered image you are viewing on screen. As Dave pointed out, these changes are stored as commands; nothing is baked into the original raw file or any other rendered file during these edits either. If you set LR to save edits as "sidecar" xml files (a prudent choice, but that's a different thread), you can see this by opening a file browser. The original raw file just sits there, but the xml file will be updated and will gradually grow bigger. You won't see any other file at that point.

In fact, if you limit your editing to LR (not that I recommend this), you can maintain your storage completely free of anything other than the original raw file and the xml sidecar file. You can print directly from this, without creating any other file that remains on your disk. Likewise, you can export the data without leaving any trace. I post my images on Smugmug, and I use a plug-in by Jeffrey Friedl (http://regex.info/) that creates a jpeg file to my specifications, uploads it to the Smugmug directory of my choice, and then deletes the scratch copy from my hard drive, leaving no trace. If I want another, it's no problem: I have the editing history, so I just re-export or re-print.

Pixel editors like Photoshop don't work that way, so when you export an image for editing in Photoshop, it converts it to another format for it's own scratch files. When you save the file, a file in a different format (you can select which one) will be saved and imported into your LR database. It's at the point where you save a file from Photoshop or another pixel editor that I would call the changes 'baked in': they are an attribute of the stored file. From then on, if you edit it further (as I often do), you are editing the file saved by Photoshop, which in my workflow is a TIFF file.

[jerry1]

Thanks Guys for replying. As Dave said, it is in deed clear as mud! Actually I just used Lightroom and PS as an example. I want to keep my life as simple as possible ( it's an age thing ), so I just purchased Luminar 2018. I don't plan on doing anything too complicated, most of my picture taking has been jpegs, but I would like to do some simple editing, and Luminar looks like it is my cup of tea. I am not the kind to spend hours on the computer. I have read that photographers shoot hundreds or thousands of photos in a day! I am lucky if I shoot 50 or so.
I appreciate all of your comments.
Jerry.

[DanK]

I have read that photographers shoot hundreds or thousands of photos in a day!

I wouldn't take this as the mark of a "real" photographer. On the contrary: the pros often think so carefully about a shot beforehand that they don't take many captures. When I come home with lots (150 is a lot for me), it's often because my skills are such that I make more mistakes than I would like.

I want to keep my life as simple as possible

I sympathize with your interest in keeping it simple. On the software side, there is a bewildering array of options, and many of the packages take quite a bit of time to master. So my approach has been to develop a workflow using a few software packages and then spend my time becoming reasonably fluent in my use of those. At this point, when I don't do focus stacking, the great majority of my editing is in LR and Photoshop. I suspect I would be perfectly happy with some of the alternatives to these, but I wouldn't be happy at all to have to start with new software.

However, I decided early in my years doing digital that shooting jpeg was one major simplification too many. There have been many threads devoted to this on this site over the years. In certain circumstances, shooting jpeg makes a lot of sense--for example, if you have to do a large number of shots and are in lighting that works fine with a particular jpeg conversion recipe. However, it can be problematic. I learned this early on when I shot a bunch of flash candids in jpeg and got the white balance messed up. I found that I wasn't able to get skin tones right in postprocessing. A cousin of mine who teaches photography at the university level responded by saying that it is a total nonissue for her because she shoots raw. The bottom line is that shooting jpeg isn't avoiding postprocessing; it's telling the camera to do the first rounds of processing for you, using a recipe that the company's engineers thought would work OK for a given class of photos. That developing is baked into the file, and a considerable amount of data is discarded in the process, so while you can edit again, your subsequent editing is limited. Shooting raw avoids all of this.

For me, the key was becoming comfortable with a raw processor--in my case, Lightroom, but it could be any of them. Once I was comfortable with it, the additional time required when lighting, etc., was fine became trivial, and the time needed to fix mistakes shrank dramatically.

For example, I do a lot of candids of young kids. Most often, these are indoors, with a mix of lighting, which can be seriously problematic. it's not rare to have 3 (or even more) substantially different WB settings for shots in a single room. It's trivial to take care of this in LR once one is comfortable with it. So most of the time, I just set the camera for AWB and figure I will take a few minutes later to fix whatever is wrong.

[jerry1]

Thanks Dan. I have just recently started shooting raw + jpeg. I know from all the forums that raw is the way to go, and that is why I purchased Luminar. With the limited images that I shoot, I don't think I will get to be a slave to editing. I don't want to get involved with cataloging and all that ( keep it simple ). Most of my photos are parked on a flash drive. My goal is to get some prints made for hanging on the wall. By the way I went to every ones photo sites, and am impressed with the beautiful images.
Thanks again for your advice.
Jerry.