tbcass
Forum Pro
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What do you convert your RAW files into?
- Thread starter smallegret
- Start date
To me, the biggest win is I can go from imported images to final output with PhotoLab, now that they have local editing, watermarking, cropping, rotation and so many more things which I used to do in Photoshop.
ppage
Senior Member
I have my own cataloguing system too; which is exactly why I convert to TIF. The problems I described have nothing to do with the cataloguing system. If you ever want to re-edit an image and the only copies you have are a RAW file and a JPEG, you either have to start all over with the RAW file or try to edit the JPEG, which has a lot less data to work with than a TIFF because the JPEG has only an 8-bit file format, whereas TIF is a 16-big file format. Bits are binary, so 16-bits isn't twice as much data as 8-bits, it's 256 times more data. Furthermore, every time you save the JPEG you lose image quality because JPEG is a lossy compression format. A lossy compression format for images is a type of data compression that significantly reduces an image's file size by permanently discarding some of the original data. This method uses inexact approximations to represent the image content. Every time you save a JPEG file you lose some information permanently. Do if often enough and your image will become unusable. It all depends on what you do with your images. If you are sure you will never edit them a second time, JPEG is fine. I've recently re-edited some images of Death Valley that I took 8 years ago. My ideas of what makes a good photograph have changed a lot in the intervening years because I've learned a lot since then. The difference between the 2017 edits and the 2025 edits of the same images are significant and I could not have achieved the results I'm getting if I was working from JPEG files.
--
Peter Pagé
Montreal, Canada
https://peterepage.myportfolio.com/
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
I would rather re-edit starting with the RAW file. You are free to do it your way if you so choose.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
If your editing ideas have changed a lot in eight years, why not just start again from the raw image?
With PhotoLab, I always keep the tiny sidecar files with the raws, so I can always re-edit the raws with all the previous edits in place. But after an eight-year gap, I’d more likely prefer to start again, as both the software and my preferences will have changed significantly.
Jim B (MSP)
Forum Pro
If I use a catalog, like Lightroom Classic, Capture One, ACDSee, etc, I don't have to start all over. They keep all the edits in a side card file for you.
I generally start all over with the RAW, though, because as time has gone by the raw editors have changed and all gotten better. Since I use LRC, I just open up the RAW, reset everything and proceed.
If I started with a tiff I might have, all the original edits are baked in.
ggbutcher
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,842
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 1,487
I batch convert all my NEFs to 800x600 JPEG "proof" images. That sits on my desktop computer, with a web server interface that my wife can get to. Most of my images never make it past that.
If I need a full-resolution rendition or have the need to do downstream processing, I'll save a linear 16-bit TIFF, do the work, and export to 8-bit JPEG.
Haven't done any printing but I'll probably re-open the NEF and process to whatever the printing service needs. My proof JPEGs contain the processing toolchain that made them in the metadata, and my software lets me open the original raw and apply that toolchain as a starting point. I wrote my own raw processor to do this.
If I need a full-resolution rendition or have the need to do downstream processing, I'll save a linear 16-bit TIFF, do the work, and export to 8-bit JPEG.
Haven't done any printing but I'll probably re-open the NEF and process to whatever the printing service needs. My proof JPEGs contain the processing toolchain that made them in the metadata, and my software lets me open the original raw and apply that toolchain as a starting point. I wrote my own raw processor to do this.
LarryRC
Senior Member
Why? I open the RAW usually in LRC and can print directly or send it to PS to print. If I really like the print I save the file as a PSD. I can also use snapshots in LRC to keep different moods to be printed.You have to convert to something first to print.Photos.
LarryRC
Senior Member
And in LRC you can easily save versions with a snapshot so if you start all over the old edits are still available.
Digital Nigel
Forum Pro
Yes, I frequently use virtual copies. They all share the same, tiny dop file, so they effectively take almost no space at all unless you export a JPEG.
But I do wish you could enter a description or comment for virtual copies.
tbcass
Forum Pro
The file you chose to print has been processed by LRC but apparently you choose not to save the processed copy. That makes sense if you are trying to save HD space.Why? I open the RAW usually in LRC and can print directly or send it to PS to print. If I really like the print I save the file as a PSD. I can also use snapshots in LRC to keep different moods to be printed.You have to convert to something first to print.Photos.
--
Tom
Last edited:
Jacques Cornell
Forum Pro
As an event pro and a landscape enthusiast, I have two different strategies.
For my personal and landscape images, I keep RAW files and export JPEGs online display and printing. I want those RAW files so I can reprocess them with better tools and techniques years down the road.
For my event work, I have long kept the RAW files and exported JPEGs for delivery to clients, but I'm shifting gears, replacing the RAW files with finished lossy DNGs, at least for old work, to slow the growth of my archive. Adobe now uses the JPEG XL engine to make lossy DNGs, which preserves much of the dynamic range and color malleability of the RAW file. I tested this on an underexposed capture from an exposure bracket and found that I could apply very strong adjustments (WB and +5 EV exposure) and get results that looked exactly the same from the RAW and DNG. This kind of abuse would ruin a standard JPEG, but the lossy DNG gave me all the adjustment flexibility I expect from my RAW files, and it's roughly 1/3 the size, in megabytes. I rarely have occasion to revisit my event images more than a year later, and lossy DNG certainly gives me more than enough latitude to rework them if I need/want to in the future. Oh, and I make sure to Denoise the RAW before generating a lossy DNG from it.
With the advent of the JPEG XL engine, lossy DNG is now an excellent alternative for archiving.
But, I'm still keeping RAWs of my personal work because they're much smaller in number and, you know, they're my babies.
For my personal and landscape images, I keep RAW files and export JPEGs online display and printing. I want those RAW files so I can reprocess them with better tools and techniques years down the road.
For my event work, I have long kept the RAW files and exported JPEGs for delivery to clients, but I'm shifting gears, replacing the RAW files with finished lossy DNGs, at least for old work, to slow the growth of my archive. Adobe now uses the JPEG XL engine to make lossy DNGs, which preserves much of the dynamic range and color malleability of the RAW file. I tested this on an underexposed capture from an exposure bracket and found that I could apply very strong adjustments (WB and +5 EV exposure) and get results that looked exactly the same from the RAW and DNG. This kind of abuse would ruin a standard JPEG, but the lossy DNG gave me all the adjustment flexibility I expect from my RAW files, and it's roughly 1/3 the size, in megabytes. I rarely have occasion to revisit my event images more than a year later, and lossy DNG certainly gives me more than enough latitude to rework them if I need/want to in the future. Oh, and I make sure to Denoise the RAW before generating a lossy DNG from it.
With the advent of the JPEG XL engine, lossy DNG is now an excellent alternative for archiving.
But, I'm still keeping RAWs of my personal work because they're much smaller in number and, you know, they're my babies.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum