The new world of RAW processing software - some observations.

[pvonk]

After reading the DAM book, I've been using Bridge, ACR, DNG Converter, and iView, and am okay with these apps - for now.  I've also kept one eye on evolving software like Lightroom, RAW Developer, and LightZone.  Having followed numerous forums, it appears to me that the big issue in RAW/DNG processing is how and where the the editing information is stored.  Most people who have jumped on the DNG bandwagon expect this data to be stored in the DNG file itself.  Unfortunately, as I've discovered, the format used to describe photo editing is not standard, and reading this data requires the software to be familiar with that which wrote it.  For example, Bridge/ACR can't read Lightroom's code (although Adobe is focusing on this).  There's also the issue of whether an editing program modifies the DNG's preview file.

Yesterday I came across LightZone, and I was really intrigued by it.  It seems to have some new approaches to tweaking pictures.  While the app works with RAWs and DNGs, it keeps editing changes in separate files, like sidecars.  Once again, these are proprietary.

It seems to me that while one product may offer great features, the long-range question is... will it be around in 5 years, and will other apps, like iView, be able to read the sidecars and display the proper image.  (BTW, LightZone does not yet change the DNG preview picture.)  I fear that, while one app such as this looks promising, the prudent thing to do is stick with an industry leader - one whose proprietary formats become "standands" that other companies support.  I'm sure that when Lightroom version 1 comes out, others like iView will be soon able to read its embedded edit metadata (either inside a DNG or in a sidecar file).  And as much as I'd like to spend more time with something like LightZone, I think it may be a waste of time and money to use it.

Of course there are the other heavyweights like Capture One (I confess that I'm not sure whether this is just a converter or whether it offers editing of RAW files using the new approaches that improve on Photoshop's command structure) - if they survive, then perhaps we should consign ourselves to nonstandard code formats and choose one company's product(s) that will be around in five years.  I dread the thought of migrating from one app or family of apps that support one format to another set of apps (I still have some AmiPro wordprocessing files but not the application - a lot of good they do me now!).

These are just some thoughts of mine, but I'm hoping to stimulate some discussion about the direction of the RAW editing software field.  As for Lightroom, I'm giving up on its DAM support, at least for now.  I'm just looking for a Bridge/ACR/DNGconverter replacement, one that uses photo-specific commands, not one like PS that supports the needs of graphics artists, photographers, and others who work with graphics files.

Thoughts?....

- Pierre

[Mike Guilbault]

I'm quite happy with the Bridge/ACR/CS2 workflow.  I was using Nikon Capture, but as others have stated, it's way to slow.  I haven't used NC since version 3.5.  I'm getting far better results out of Bridge/ACR than I ever was.  I really like the workflow and now with the Pro version of ImageIngester(Pro), my life is sweet.  Best work I've ever produced and my clients love it.  What more do I need?

[peterkrogh]

Pierre,
I think you sum the issues up pretty well.  A few notes:

Expect Lightroom and ACR to converge much better, and hopefully completely.

Expect applications like Lightzone to fully support DNG in the future, including an embedded preview.  Until then, I would not be using these applications to do the bulk of my adjusting work.

Realize and make peace with the fact that different RAW file converters will use different tools to adjust files, and store these changes in differing syntaxes, and therefore the adjustments will not be portable between applications, except as represented in the DNG preview. This certainly does impact your choice of RAW file converter.

Peter

[bcf]

What I do not understand is how a raw converter other than ACR or Lightroom can save its editing instructions as metadata in the DNG file, and have these metadata read and _understood_ by another raw converter? I assume that different raw converters use different editing methods, and therefore that their instructions are not interoperable. Even between ACR and Lightroom, interoperability will require work on Adobe's part.

What if say Capture One saves its instructions in a DNG some day - only Capture One will be able to understand them later anyway, I guess. So the advantage of DNG is this case is only that it avoids having to carry around a sidecar metadata file. But no interoperability, not any more than we have now. Unless we all live in a brave new world where every one uses ACR or Lightroom, on Canon or Nikon files. For my Olympus raw files, for instance, Iridient Raw Developer (and to a lesser extent Capture One) are very clearly better than ACR.

[johnbeardy]

Bernard

That's a counsel of despair! Try opening up a DNG or sidecar and, while not everything is understandable, there's plenty that you can understand without much effort. So CaptureOne might soon save WB settings in the XMP data, and it wouldn't that difficult a job to script that information across to the field used by ACR or vice versa. Some of the processing metadata might not be meaningful in another converter, but there's a lot of common adjustment work that shouldn't need to be redone each time you switch converter. After all, it's our work, not theirs.

Compare DNG's flexibility with Nikon Capture NX that hides its processing instructions in the NEF file.

John

[bcf]

John, I was a bit provocative... 
I guess you are right - let's hope for the best!

[peterkrogh]

Bernard,
Don't forget the most important part.  You can put a fixed rendering of the adjusted file in the DNG, so even if the application does not understand the syntax the corrections are saved in, it can extract and use the embedded preview.

While it's possible today for multiple renderings to be put in the DNG, hopefullly in a future spec we will see even more robust support for multiple renderings.
Peter

[bcf]

Peter,

Yes, that's an important point. The preview is jJPEG though... how large can it be? Do the DNG specs specify a limit to the preview size?

Cuuerntly, as far as I know, only ACR embeds the preview in DNG, right?

[peterkrogh]

Bernard,
While the preview is an sRGB JPEG, I find that 80% of professionals I have shown them to cannot tell the difference between a 24 inch print made from the embedded preview and a print made from a 40 MG ProPhotoRGB TIFF file.  It really is a great print.

I make the previews full size, which is the full pixel resolution of the original image.

While adobe is the only software that currently puts in the preview, anybody can do it since it is an openly documented format.
Peter

[bcf]

Thanks... I will lobby the developer of Raw Developer to do it... ;-)

[Michael_S]

Peter,
I'm asking this not to be combative.  But if the sRGB JPEG preview in a DNG file is of such excellent quality, then what are most of us doing shooting raw anyway?

Workflow on JPEG gets so clean and easy compared to raw formats.  And if the quality is virtually indistiguishable to seasoned professionals when blown up to such large sizes, as you mention, I have to stop and ask why am I "killing" myself with NEF, DNG, and 16bit TIFF?

JPEG is ubiquitous and open to all.  I'm shooting with a Nikon D50 today and will be shooting all my pictures for the next day or two in Large Fine JPEG with some in-camera sharpening.  This will be something of a test.

I've read theory about raw capture from Bruce Fraser, Tim Grey, and others (12 bit linear, although about 10 bit for my camera, versus 8 bit gamma corrected).  Yet, it sounds like you are saying it mostly does not matter when you finally get to the presentation image.  At least for the majority of circumstances.  Am I "over-reading" your statement on the DNG preview?

Thanks,
Michael

[peterkrogh]

There's a huge difference between the information you would like to capture annd save, and the information needed to deliver a file.  If you get everything perfect in capture, then you would have much less need for RAW files.  But if, like me, you like to do adjustment in post processing, then you will want to start with a larger paintbox.

At the moment, almost nothing can actually represent more than an 8 bit image accurately, so in a delivery or proofing file, anything more than 8 bits is generally superfluous.

The embedded preview in a DNG is an adjusted file, ready for proofing.  It is not the image I would want to bring into photoshop for Master File creation.

Does this make sense to you?

Peter

[Michael_S]

Hello Again Peter,
Yes, your reply made sense to me.  My way of interpreting what you said is that shooting raw can expand the opportunity set for final output data.

Given that I have read about D50 NEFs having some losses in compression (to about 10 bits), I was wondering what am I gaining by shooting raw.

Lightroom seems to work on JPEGs (for future edits), maybe I could set up in-camera defaults I like, etc., etc.  And wrestling with raw workflows is getting annoying.  Maybe I let my frustration get the better of me?  With this specific camera and its compressed NEF, I wonder how much extra useful information I really get with raw; besides highlight recovery.

But for my wife and her D50, my recommendation will be to get her photoshop elements 4 and let her shoot JPEGs.  I want nothing to do with her raw files.

If nothing else, my short JPEG experiement should be educational.

[peterkrogh]

If you want to see the difference.  Shoot a JPEG on the wrong color balance (tungsten in daylight, for instance) and maybe give an under or overexposure.  Then take this into Photoshop and try to correct.  When you compare the results of a JPEG to a NEF you ought to see a real difference.

RAW provides huge advantages if you need to adjust many frames.  Once you get the workflow down, it's actually much faster than shooting JPEGs.

You will probably make your wife's photography experience more fun if she starts out by shooting JPEGs.
Peter

[Ken]

While the preview is an sRGB JPEG, I find that 80% of professionals I have shown them to cannot tell the difference between a 24 inch print made from the embedded preview and a print made from a 40 MG ProPhotoRGB TIFF file.  It really is a great print.

I make the previews full size, which is the full pixel resolution of the original image.

While adobe is the only software that currently puts in the preview, anybody can do it since it is an openly documented format.
Peter

Forgive me for reviving an old post, but its a topic that I am still trying to get my mind around as I now consider moving from a JPEG only workflow to a JPEG/RAW (and possibly TIFF) workflow.  I would like to start shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG so I too can have the ability to correct or perfect those select images in need of my attention.  But, not every image needs to be attended to, and having a usable JPEG along with my RAW (currently NEF format) file is where I am currently spending my already taxed brain cells.

It appears that Nikon's JPEG that is produced in RAW+JPEG is somewhat highly comrpessed.  And, it is not clear to me, or I have forgot, what parameters are used to create this image when the RAW image is captured.

Now, assuming that I use Adobe's free DNG converter, what parameters does this program use to create its embedded JPEG?  And, without a full converter program, can I control how this file looks, besides its size?  In other words, what does it take to easily get a good JPEG from a RAW file that is not needed for highly critical use (e.g. a very small photo for a web site or newsletter)?

I was all set to purchase Lightroom because it seemed like a reasonable all-in-one package that could front-end a DAM program.  However, after spending a few minutes in their User to User Forum (I could not find a direct technical support forum board), I was completely turned off.  I can handle the buggy forum software, and I can put up with the cranky posters, but I could not tolerate what I perceived as rude behavior by the moderators and by several frequent posters who, while not Adobe employees, are strongly connected to the company and its products.  They could learn a thing or two about manners from Peter, John and others here and at IDImager and Digital Light and Color.  Customer service and support are important to me, and I try to support those who understand its importance.  So, I am now considering if I want to buy Lightroom and figure it out without help from Adobe, or see if I can put together the front end of a workflow with another RAW converter and something like PhotoMechanic.

Any words to the wise would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

--Ken