I wonder how much better RAW is. I use 16 bit TIFF Prophoto RGB and can't say I notice much difference when either processing the initial RAW or a TIFFed version in LR.
Which software do you use to edit your pictures
- Thread starter paul04
- Start date
I wonder how much better RAW is. I use 16 bit TIFF Prophoto RGB and can't say I notice much difference when either processing the initial RAW or a TIFFed version in LR.
sonicbuffalo_RIP
Senior Member
Well....I'm not sure if I've got this right, but the way I understand it, the RAW image is the negative that is the exact extraction of the image you took. TIFF on the other hand (correct me if I'm wrong here) would be like a second processing of the image. RAW would be the first processing of the image, therefore, more accurate (even if not by much).
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
You might find this an interesting read. It's a Canon based conversation but I think you'll be able to extract the relevant information.
....
....
Thanks for the link. It makes me curious what color space NEF uses.
LR uses Prophoto which has more variation than a- or sRGB and I use that to save the TIFFs. Basically in LR, RAW or an uncompressed 16 bit PP-RGB, should make little difference since whatever the RAW initially was, it has been converted to the LR standard. At least that's what I assume.
It's simply an easy "fix" for me since I can further process the shot without all the previous settings in memory.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
To my understanding (!) this is correct.
Also I have heard that NEF does not actually specify a color gamut, such as s- or a- RGB, but I can not confirm this.
EDIT: I've been trying to Google what color gamut NEF uses, but I am not finding a source that gives a clear answer. That makes me want to think the above may be true; that NEF does not assign a color space but rather lets the software use it's preferred/default color space (??) instead. I would think if NEF did assign a specific color space it would be a known quantity. Not a very satisfying answer...
Edit II: My philosophy regarding this is pretty simple... I shoot as wide as I can (meaning gamut-wise), process as wide as I can and save with as little compression as possible. Unless it's going live on the web, in which case sure... JPG will be fine. My camera uses aRGB, I process in Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop using aRGB and switch to sRGB when/if needed. It's kind of a middle of the road approach I'm comfortable with.
....
Last edited:
From what I find it seems RAW stores data in quantity; n amount of whatever it records for each pixel. Only when processing those amounts are converted according a color space. The larger the range of that color space, the more diversity.
I have set the cam to sRGB since I doubt it matters much for anything else but JPEG but all the rest I do in ProPhoto. Mainly because that's what LR uses and I see no advantage to constantly switching color spaces while processing. From what I read Pro is even wider than aRGB. I even set PS to adjust to Pro. If I used PS most, I'd probably use aRGB.
In the end when degrading all to a JPEG, I see too little difference between them all.
I have set the cam to sRGB since I doubt it matters much for anything else but JPEG but all the rest I do in ProPhoto. Mainly because that's what LR uses and I see no advantage to constantly switching color spaces while processing. From what I read Pro is even wider than aRGB. I even set PS to adjust to Pro. If I used PS most, I'd probably use aRGB.
In the end when degrading all to a JPEG, I see too little difference between them all.
Last edited:
I wanted to check if there was a difference so I saved one shot as JPEG 100% quality using aRGB, sRGB and PPRGB and then ran all three through an image color analyzer. What I directly noticed was a file size difference; sRGB largest and ppRGB smallest but there are quite some differences at every level between all color spaces even while it is hardly visible to us.
You can test it here:
Image Color Summarizer - RGB and HSV Image Statistics
You can test it here:
Image Color Summarizer - RGB and HSV Image Statistics
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I understand your sentiment.
I guess I would say of myself, I hate PP too much to ever consider myself fanatical about it. Since post processing comes part and parcel with shooting RAW, though, it seems to me the more I know about it the more I'll get out of doing what has to be done. Hopefully in less time. I don't think that makes me any less a photographer.
.....
There's no escaping PP. When I started shooting digital I was convinced I'd not need PP and would do fine without. That didn't work out as planned. I had to accept PP is an as integral part of digital photography as the dark room was of classical photography. I'm pretty sure those too had their fanatics.
Thinking about it; we photographers read fifty reviews and watch 20 videos deciding if or if not we're gonna buy that specific lens and then decide for the other because it scores 87 on sharpness when used at f/4 @155mm while the first only scored 82. And then we look at the post-processors and think; "Ha fanatics, you'd better be busy doing photography!"
That lens = PP.
That lens = PP.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Indeed.Thinking about it; we photographers read fifty reviews and watch 20 videos deciding if or if not we're gonna buy that specific lens and then decide for the other because it scores 87 on sharpness when used at f/4 @155mm while the first only scored 82. And then we look at the post-processors and think; "Ha fanatics, you'd better be busy doing photography!"
That lens = PP.
What I see is that there is a certain "geek factor" that is inherent in photography. There is a certain "art factor" inherent in photography. I think to be really good at digital photography overall requires a balancing of these two aspects. My GF who is also an avid photographer has the better, more artistic eye for photography (at least for now!) between the two of us but she's weak in her understanding of the technical aspects and that hurts her photography overall (and by her own admission). I, on the other hand, have a pretty good grasp on the technical aspects (I think) but learning to See The World as an Artist is difficult for me. She and I both need to balance our understanding just in different ways. I have a feeling this is true for most people who seriously pursue photography as an art form.
....
....
The "geek factor" isn't limited to photography. Anything done by more than one human triggers endless debates and arguments on how it is best done using what. Whether it is photography or gardening.
I'm a bit of a split personality when it comes to these things. I can become obsessive about details and need to know certain things but the moment I start shooting or processing, I'm in some special place and work very intuitive. A lot of processing I couldn't tell you what exactly I did and I'd have to check the history myself to find out. The same is true when taking shots, I see something and start shooting adjusting the cam to whatever comes up in my mind.
The downside is that it isn't uncommon I arrive home and after upload notice I've shot everything with some setting I used the day before doing something completely different and all shots are ruined. Occasionally however I am pleasantly surprised by that foolishness and learn something new.
I'm a bit of a split personality when it comes to these things. I can become obsessive about details and need to know certain things but the moment I start shooting or processing, I'm in some special place and work very intuitive. A lot of processing I couldn't tell you what exactly I did and I'd have to check the history myself to find out. The same is true when taking shots, I see something and start shooting adjusting the cam to whatever comes up in my mind.
The downside is that it isn't uncommon I arrive home and after upload notice I've shot everything with some setting I used the day before doing something completely different and all shots are ruined. Occasionally however I am pleasantly surprised by that foolishness and learn something new.
There's a funky GIMP version out there that got nothing to do with the "real" GIMP. Something with the "photoshop" look.
Fortkentdad
Senior Member
I've started out using Elements but have converted to Corel Paintshop - just recently upgraded to version 7 and added Aftershot (LR competitor) in the process.
Prefer to actually own (in as much as we 'own' software) rather than subscribe for a fix period of time (aka renting). And I didn't find Elements all that Windows 8 friendly. Corel products are 64 bit - Adobe Elements is not. Once you get used to a system switching is such a bother.
I also use some freebies, including giving GIMP a go, Picasa and others. But Corel is my 'go-to' pp software and it works for me. Does not hurt that it is much less expensive product - and just as capable (IMHO).
I guess I just like being a different.
Prefer to actually own (in as much as we 'own' software) rather than subscribe for a fix period of time (aka renting). And I didn't find Elements all that Windows 8 friendly. Corel products are 64 bit - Adobe Elements is not. Once you get used to a system switching is such a bother.
I also use some freebies, including giving GIMP a go, Picasa and others. But Corel is my 'go-to' pp software and it works for me. Does not hurt that it is much less expensive product - and just as capable (IMHO).
I guess I just like being a different.
Last edited: