streamling digital workflow


Status
Not open for further replies.

skopio

New Member
Nov 26, 2006
730
0
0
#1
hi all,

i haven't ironed out a standard workflow but since i've gotten a new computer thought i might start off on a proper note.

i'm thinking of processing my pics this way:

RAW->TIFF-> archive-> photoshop->jpg

my question is whether i should actually archive in RAW or TIFF. considerations are file size and non-destructive editing. AFAIK, both RAW and TIFF are lossless formats so both should be the same for archival purposes (or am i missing smth out)? will i forgo anything if i archive in TIFF instead of RAW?
 

xziredmp

New Member
Oct 21, 2006
560
0
0
Singapore
#2
hmmm.. for me.... i still keep it in its RAW state...

i know some people would work with tiff..... (prolly because of prefernce)
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#3
my question is whether i should actually archive in RAW or TIFF. considerations are file size and non-destructive editing. AFAIK, both RAW and TIFF are lossless formats so both should be the same for archival purposes (or am i missing smth out)? will i forgo anything if i archive in TIFF instead of RAW?
yuh

you cannot change white balance.. that one quite obvious

maybe cannot change exposure as well too, but i'm not so sure about that point

keep in raw

raw is the rawest form after all
 

Feb 28, 2004
388
3
18
nns555.zenfolio.com
#4
hi all,

i haven't ironed out a standard workflow but since i've gotten a new computer thought i might start off on a proper note.

i'm thinking of processing my pics this way:

RAW->TIFF-> archive-> photoshop->jpg

my question is whether i should actually archive in RAW or TIFF. considerations are file size and non-destructive editing. AFAIK, both RAW and TIFF are lossless formats so both should be the same for archival purposes (or am i missing smth out)? will i forgo anything if i archive in TIFF instead of RAW?

Hi,

You should keep the RAW files and archive them after conversion. Convert to TIFF with your favourite RAW developer, C1, ACR, Silkypress, etc. Do your post processing in Photoshop in TIFF to your satisfaction. Save this TIFF file for printing and if you need to output to web, convert to jpg.

Should a better RAW developer comes along, you can still pull out the original RAW files and convert these to TIFF or JPGs again.

N.S.
 

skopio

New Member
Nov 26, 2006
730
0
0
#5
i see. so RAW is usually more preferred. how about your processing? do you usually save your processing (photoshop file) or just save the result (tiff/jpg)?
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#6
i see. so RAW is usually more preferred. how about your processing? do you usually save your processing (photoshop file) or just save the result (tiff/jpg)?
jpg. but i do not shoot for commercial purposes :dunno:
 

nemesis32

Senior Member
Oct 16, 2003
3,717
1
0
43
Singapore
Visit site
#7
I think someone mentioned that the best way is to do as follows:

Raw-->backup-->PS-->Save in PSD and JPG --> resize JPG for web

so you will actually have abt 3 set of backups, RAW, PSD (i recall he mentioned for impt shots only) and JPG.
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#8
The is the reason why I love Adobe Lightroom.
Whether one shoots in RAW or jpeg, when using Lightroom, the originals are untouched.
So you can do adjustments in LR, edit in Photoshop or export as jpeg with the knowledge that the originals are unaffected and there are less versions of your images floating around (something I used to do). Now I just keep the original RAW images.
 

skopio

New Member
Nov 26, 2006
730
0
0
#9
I think someone mentioned that the best way is to do as follows:

Raw-->backup-->PS-->Save in PSD and JPG --> resize JPG for web

so you will actually have abt 3 set of backups, RAW, PSD (i recall he mentioned for impt shots only) and JPG.
:eek: won't that take up a lot of space? PSD files are so huge!!!
 

skopio

New Member
Nov 26, 2006
730
0
0
#10
The is the reason why I love Adobe Lightroom.
Whether one shoots in RAW or jpeg, when using Lightroom, the originals are untouched.
So you can do adjustments in LR, edit in Photoshop or export as jpeg with the knowledge that the originals are unaffected and there are less versions of your images floating around (something I used to do). Now I just keep the original RAW images.
correct me if i'm wrong - Lightroom keeps the originals in stacks?
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#11
correct me if i'm wrong - Lightroom keeps the originals in stacks?
Stacking is a useful way to organize images that are stored in the same folder. This could be a watched folder or any folder that you want to import images from. Whether the images are in a stack or from a collection, Lightroom saves only the processing instructions, which means extra space is not taken up in the hard drive and one can have virtual copies to create multiple versions of the same image.

Aside from the processing controls, the value of LR lies in the usefulness of the metadata, keywording and rating (flagging) controls. It provides a very quick way of sorting through many different images taken at different times. For example if one does several macro shoots, a keyword search for "frog" can call up images of that subject from different collections. Set up properly it saves time trying to hunt a specific image.
 

Feb 28, 2004
388
3
18
nns555.zenfolio.com
#12
i see. so RAW is usually more preferred. how about your processing? do you usually save your processing (photoshop file) or just save the result (tiff/jpg)?
Hi,

After post processing, I will save the tiff files and only convert to jpg when necessary, e.g. posting to my home page.



N.S. Ng

http://nns555.zenfolio.com/
 

skopio

New Member
Nov 26, 2006
730
0
0
#13
Stacking is a useful way to organize images that are stored in the same folder. This could be a watched folder or any folder that you want to import images from. Whether the images are in a stack or from a collection, Lightroom saves only the processing instructions, which means extra space is not taken up in the hard drive and one can have virtual copies to create multiple versions of the same image.

Aside from the processing controls, the value of LR lies in the usefulness of the metadata, keywording and rating (flagging) controls. It provides a very quick way of sorting through many different images taken at different times. For example if one does several macro shoots, a keyword search for "frog" can call up images of that subject from different collections. Set up properly it saves time trying to hunt a specific image.
well i tried lightroom before and agree that it's very convenient as a library tool - very easy to edit quickly, diff versions stored, etc. but while it strives to be an all-in-one i feel it loses a bit on the functionality of processing.

of course you can always export to photoshop to process further, but that would mean extra files again.


is this the norm actually? saving RAW, PSD, and jpg. i feel it's very storage-intensive. or is it just me?
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#15
saving in compressed layered TIF instead of PSD can save alot of space... the layers and effects are saved while the lossless compression saves much diskspace especially if the files are very complicated...
 

skopio

New Member
Nov 26, 2006
730
0
0
#16
Yes, it's quite big, esp PSD.. thats why most people only save PSD for those key shots. Most prob save as tiff.
hmm.. might consider that. so for the rest you you process then save as uncompressed tiff?
 

emerald

New Member
Dec 17, 2007
253
0
0
Bukit Gombak
www.xbklhub.com
#18
Quote from Wiki: "Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits typically stored in processed TIFF and JPEG files; since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a color space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colors."

The higher intensity infomation is the key benefits from Raw format, the rest like white balance, color tune, sharpeness, all can be done almost equally through photoshop, but u will never be able to change a 8 bits intensity value to a 12 or 14 bits. So keep the raw, it's not that bigger anyway, and u can alway easily get a bigger harddisk. :)
 

Aug 31, 2005
457
0
16
Bt Timah
#19
My workflow
  1. Shoot in raw
  2. Import to laptop via LR, and immed duplicate a set into my portable drive under "Raw Photos" folder
  3. Work on the photos that are residing on my laptop, via LR
  4. Export 2 sets, high quality jpegs to be saved onto hard drive, low quality ones for laptop to save space
  5. Delete all raw files from laptop

the only chink in my armour is that say after i delete the raw files from my laptop, i lose all the changes..because by then i would only have the original raw files in my hard drive, untouched by LR, and the processed jpeg files
 

nemesis32

Senior Member
Oct 16, 2003
3,717
1
0
43
Singapore
Visit site
#20
My workflow
  1. Shoot in raw
  2. Import to laptop via LR, and immed duplicate a set into my portable drive under "Raw Photos" folder
  3. Work on the photos that are residing on my laptop, via LR
  4. Export 2 sets, high quality jpegs to be saved onto hard drive, low quality ones for laptop to save space
  5. Delete all raw files from laptop

the only chink in my armour is that say after i delete the raw files from my laptop, i lose all the changes..because by then i would only have the original raw files in my hard drive, untouched by LR, and the processed jpeg files
i think this method of skipping tiff file also mean you are limited by LR's ability to correct the photos as compared to CS.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom