RAW

[DJ72]

Hello All

Hope everyone is well.

 

My current process (if it can be called that) is to shoot in RAW. I then go to Phase One to convert them to JPG. A few minor adjustments are made at this stage. I then export them to PSE where I make changes depending on the picture.

 

I then wondered - why am I using RAW? If all I do is immediately go and convert to JPG and then do post work in PSE on the JPG. 

 

Just doesn't make much sense.

 

Before my new Sony A7iiR came along I was able to use Lightroom, but now with Phase One I dont do much with the RAW files except import/export.

 

Am I missing a step here?

 

Thank you!

 

David. 

[dustydingo]

I believe you are not missing a step, but you do have them out of sequence . . .

 

If any are necessary, I do primary adjustments in RAW.

 

_Then_ I convert to jpg for submission.

 

You really are restricting the scope and breadth of adjustments possible if you do them to a jpg instead of to a RAW.

 

DD

[DJ72]

Yes thanks I thought that too. Maybe I need to get my head deeper into Phase One then. I dont like it compared to Lightroom. 

[spacecadet]

I assume the problem is that the new RAWs are not recognised by your version of Lightroom.

It's probably a bit of a faff, but you could convert to DNG and work on that in LR.

https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/photoshop/using/adobe-dng-converter.html

[MDM]

Presumably the reason you are converting to jpeg is that you can't use whatever raw converter is available in the version of PSE you are using. The PSE raw converter is limited in any case compared to Capture One (Phase One)  or Lightroom.

 

You have a few options. You could do as much editing as possible in Capture One as DD suggests and, if necessary, finish up in PSE after converting to JPEG (or TIFF). Or you could subscribe to the Adobe Photography package which gives you Lightroom and full Photoshop if you need to do pixel editing. One advantage of this is the integration and you say you prefer Lightroom to Capture One in any case. 

 

Whatever the case, it is best to work as much as possible on the raw file before converting to JPEG as you have total control over white balance, highlight and shadow recovery, noise reduction and other parameters. Another major advantage of shooting raw is that you can go back and rework images down the line as the raw converters are always improving pver the years.

 

 

.

Edited June 5, 2019 by MDM

[spacecadet]

If you do want to stick with LR, I've just given the DNG converter a try and it only takes a couple of seconds per file. You'll need a bit more storage of course but the DNGs are no bigger than the RAWs.

[DJ72]

Thanks to all for those replies. I didnt spend much time with the DBG converter. Are there any drawbacks to using that? Thanks again. 

[Joe Gaul]

As Mark says above the obvious step is to convert your camera raws to dngs using the free dng converter. That's what I used to do but now use dxo as my raw converter from which files can open directly into Lightroom. Hope this helps.

Joe

[MDM]

10 minutes ago, DJ72 said:

Thanks to all for those replies. I didnt spend much time with the DBG converter. Are there any drawbacks to using that? Thanks again. 

 

Using the DNG (means digital negative) converter (or any other converter) with an older version of Lightroom means that you are missing out on a huge range of updated features in the latest version of Lightroom as well as very significant speed enhancements.

Edited June 5, 2019 by MDM

[Ed Rooney]

You've got yourself a costly good camera there, David. Now you want to save money on editing? A mistake. Get Adobe CC and always have the latest in LR and PS and a few other programs. 

 

I always shoot RAW and go from RAW to a tiff to the final jpeg, moving from LR to PS with an occasional stop in NIK.

[MDM]

14 minutes ago, Ed Rooney said:

You've got yourself a costly good camera there, David. Now you want to save money on editing? A mistake.

 

Totally agree with that. 

[spacecadet]

44 minutes ago, DJ72 said:

Thanks to all for those replies. I didnt spend much time with the DBG converter. Are there any drawbacks to using that? Thanks again. 

 

I haven't done it, but I've considered DNG when changing cameras so as to stay with a version of lightroom (5.7) which I consider more than adequate for stock, and I don't have the money for subscriptions.

There's the story of the farmer in a field asked for directions who says "well, I wouldn't start from here". From where you are, having used LR until recently, and without buying anything else, it seems a fair option. As I understand it you can embed the RAW with the DNG so they stay together and keep the metadata.

[Martin Carlsson]

Have for as long as I can remember had Lightroom set to automatically convert RAWs to DNGs at import, together with some basic metadata. DNGs with everything embedded into them, both images edits/setting, as well as metadata, has caused zero issues compared to back in the days when lost sidecar files threw spanners in the works from time to time. This works great, especially if working on multiple computers. I don't embed the RAW in the DNG.

Edited June 5, 2019 by Martin Carlsson

[spacecadet]

4 minutes ago, Martin Carlsson said:

Have for as long as I can remember had Lightroom set to automatically convert RAWs to DNGs at import, together with some basic metadata. DNGs with everything embedded into them, both images edits/setting, as well as metadata, has caused zero issues compared to back in the days when lost sidecar files threw spanners in the works from time to time. This works great, especially if working on multiple computers. I don't embed the RAW in the DNG.

OP's version of LR won't read his new RAWs.

[DJ72]

Thanks to every one as always for the superb responses. Yes the camera and lens cost me dearly. But I am not a pixel level kind of guy - paying a subscription isn't really viable given I will spend the next two years paying back for the new Sony.

 

My version of LR is 5.7.1. As it stands this isn't good enough to read the RAWs from my Sony A7ii.

 

So I took the lead from others on this thread and I have downloaded the DNG converter. It is currently converting all the files from my memory card.

 

Once I have them all converted I need to import them into LR and then I should be good to go. 

 

One basic question - having to convert then import, this seems to mean that I have one folder ("DNG") where I have saved the converted files. Then when I import these using LR, another folder is created to contain these. Clearly I dont want duplicate copies - how do others handle this? Am I ok to delete everything in the DBG folder once LR has imported them? This is vital as with the Sony the files are around 45Mb each. 

 

Also, I ran into this, regarding the drawbacks.

However, it takes a long time to convert RAW files into DNG. The format also removes unrecognized metadata from RAW files, making it virtually impossible to retrieve such data from DNG files in the future. Finally, since any alteration is written directly into the DNG file, you have to back up the entire file each time a change is made.

 

Actually I found the conversion to take a few minutes for several hundred photographs so no problem there.

 

David. 

[spacecadet]

I'm still on 5.7 so we're singing from the same sheet. I would certainly want to continue with LR when changing cameras.

There is an import option in LR to delete the originals after conversion, but I wouldn't be happy doing this. I would keep the RAWS on an external drive.

Here's a summary which seems useful- I think it says that LR stores DNG edits in the normal way, in the catalogue,, rather than changing the DNG as your quote suggests.

Edited June 6, 2019 by spacecadet

[John Mitchell]

You could check out DxO PhotoLab for RAW conversion. It probably supports your camera. I use an earlier version (DxO OpticsPro) of this software for RAW conversion. It's uncomplicated and does a very good job IMO. After adjustment in RAW, I save files as 16-bit TIFs for tweaking in PSE, converting them finally to 8-bit TIFs for storage and later conversion to JPEGs.

[Chuck Nacke]

Quick "workflow" note.

 

Don't know how anyone can live without subscribing to Adobe CC, just $9.99 PM.

 

I always shoot RAW, save the entire folder to an external drive, then start selecting

and deleting, then LR to TIFF and IPTC (file info).  Final adjustments in PS and save

as a JPEG's for upload.

 

Chuck

Edited June 7, 2019 by Chuck Nacke
gramer

[Marianne]

You can import photos into LR at their current location, which means you won't need to make a second copy if the DNG files are in a folder you want to work from. Remember that Lightroom points to your files, they are not actually in the catalog. Be careful what you delete.

 

I always work in RAW ( I have the LR/PS CC subscription as well as Capture One - free for Sony owners unless you upgrade to get the RAW converter for other cameras). Capture One does a really nice job on RAW files - I got the A7rii last year then spent a small fortune upgrading my computer, which saves tons of time and aggravation - unless I'm using Capture One which  I found terrific for edits but so cumbersome and it kept dragging in whole folders, so I went back to using Lightroom - with the latest upgrades I only take my photos into Photoshop if I'm doing compositing or need to use layers for some other types of edits. I can even access all my Nik filters in LR. The newest changes make it so much better than older versions. $10 a month is two cups of fancy coffee (or your share of 2 presentation sales)  You should consider it, but glad you found a workable solution.

 

QUESTION: Once I edit a RAW file in LR, I might just export as a jpeg for upload, but I sometimes save a TIFF, since, like RAW files this is a lossless format -  You can't go backwards with a TIFF the way you can with a RAW file, but even if you use ZIP or LZW compression, it is a lossless format, unlike jpegs which compress each time you save them and begin to lose quality. With a TIFF file you can also work on regaining lost highlights and  bringing up shadows.

 

What is the advantage to converting to a DNG rather than just saving as a TIFF? DNG files don't store info in a sidecar like RAW files, so I'm guessing that you can't convert them back to their original state if you want (unless the RAW file is embedded), or am I missing something? 

 

I usually upload my RAW files to Photoshelter as a backup (I do 90% of my ITPC info on import into LR,  just tweaking before upload). Unfortunately, this means I lose most of the metadata since the xmp files don't upload so I have to remember to do some keywords on the site so I can find them if needed later - if I converted to DNG beforehand, would that mean I'd have RAW files with metadata backed up?  

Edited June 7, 2019 by Marianne

[MariaJ]

I use DNG converter for my Raw files for my current cameras because my ACR software is out of  date (as in my operating system, etc, etc).   I don't convert the whole batch to DNGs, I usually look through them and select the most promising ones to be converted ( a small subset).   Once I've manipulated the DNG file in ACR, I save it as a TIFF to use for further editing and eventually a jpg for submission.  So I always keep the original RAW or DNG file that hasn't been manipulated.

[Alex Ramsay]

I'm still happy with standalone LR6 - shoot Raw, always, import and convert to DNG in Lightroom, correct, then possibly export to Photoshop for anything I can't do in LR, and save as JPG for submission to clients or Alamy. I occasionally keep finished TIFFs for exhibition prints. I'm unlikely now to buy any new equipment that LR6 won't recognise. If any one can convince me of the benefits of the latest version of LR, I'm happy to listen!

 

Alex

[Allan Bell]

1 hour ago, Alex Ramsay said:

I'm still happy with standalone LR6 - shoot Raw, always, import and convert to DNG in Lightroom, correct, then possibly export to Photoshop for anything I can't do in LR, and save as JPG for submission to clients or Alamy. I occasionally keep finished TIFFs for exhibition prints. I'm unlikely now to buy any new equipment that LR6 won't recognise. If any one can convince me of the benefits of the latest version of LR, I'm happy to listen!

 

Alex

 

I'm interested to know if LR6 would recognise the RAW files from your camera if they were to be uploaded as such without conversion.

If not then don't you need to convert to DNG files before loading to LR6.

 

Allan

 

 

[Alex Ramsay]

4 minutes ago, Allan Bell said:

 

I'm interested to know if LR6 would recognise the RAW files from your camera if they were to be uploaded as such without conversion.

If not then don't you need to convert to DNG files before loading to LR6.

 

Allan

 

 

 

It wouldn't recognise files from any recent camera introduction, I think - my most up-to-date camera is an X-T2 which it can't recognise, but in any case for that I do the DNG conversion using X-Transformer

 

Alex

[NYCat]

I am finally convinced that the subscription is worth overcoming scruples but my dentist has nixed it for now. I can't get it for my old MacBook Pro and El Capitan. I was going to buy a new computer this year but now I need a dental implant. I have had one before and they are great. A whole new tooth that will never decay. HOWEVER they cost more than a new Mac. And you can't process pics with them. So the new computer and the subscription will wait until next year when I take my next withdrawal from an IRA. I'm just lucky to be able to do all of this. As Edo says "poco a poco".

 

Paulette

[MDM]

2 hours ago, Alex Ramsay said:

I'm still happy with standalone LR6 - shoot Raw, always, import and convert to DNG in Lightroom, correct, then possibly export to Photoshop for anything I can't do in LR, and save as JPG for submission to clients or Alamy. I occasionally keep finished TIFFs for exhibition prints. I'm unlikely now to buy any new equipment that LR6 won't recognise. If any one can convince me of the benefits of the latest version of LR, I'm happy to listen!

 

Alex

 

There have been so many enhancements and it is so long now since I used LR6 that it is getting difficulty to compare but here are a few:

 

1 LR Classic is much faster in the Develop module and in generating initial previews for examining and culling images than LR6. Depends on RAM and may not be significant if less than 12GB of RAM. 

 

2 The universal and local Dehaze controls - can be very useful if shooting into the light. I certainly use this at times and it is very useful. I have rescued picturees at a single touch that would have required a lot of messing about otherwise.

 

3. The new texture control. This is brand new and I suspect it will be overused and abused as it gives this really sharp textured look withot looking too overhsharpened. I would say it is not advisable to overuse but it is interesting as it is also a softener when used negatively and could be great for softening skin. It was orignally developed for this purpose in fact. Not had time to try it properly yet.

 

4. Local luminance and colour masking controis - really useful. For example,  it allows one to darken blue skies very easily withlout affecting clouds.

 

5. Local control of whites and blacks, not just highlights and shadows/

 

6. Enhancements to photo merging

 

7. Much enhanced perspective correction tools.

 

8. New Process 5 raw converter - supposedly better renedering for high ISO images.

 

9. Full Photoshop frequently updated - some seriously good enhancements there too.