Camera Raw then more Raw!

R

RichieRich

Suspended / Banned
Messages
223
Edit My Images
No
Hi there,

I've finally got round to checking out a trial of CS3. In the past I've always just used Canon's software for my 50D shots, but it's time to move on.

I'm a bit curious though. I open the raw files in Camera Raw and make any tweaks which I like, then I have the option of opening them in photoshop where I can make more tweaks.

So, I'm a bit confused. Photoshop also allows me to work with raw in addition to camera raw....so why the separation.

I'm also trying to design a bit of a workflow - i.e, what tweaks should I perform where. Do I even need to open in photoshop or will raw suffice....or should I mess with curves in photoshop.

Any suggestions / answers would be appreciated.
 
Photoshop isn't working with a raw image, when you open it from camera raw it's converting it to something else, at the bottom in camera raw is I think it's blue writing theres an option, thats where you set your output.
I'd do the basic edits in camera raw, exposure, white ballance etc, then only mildly sharpen (go easy here) then in photoshop proper do any special effects, final tweeks and an output sharpen (depending on whether it's for print/web and size) Wayne
 
Question for you then Wayne since I don't use Camera RAW (just exploring the delights of CS4) yet. If you use Camera RAW to tweak exposure etc, then open the pic in Photoshop to do edits - if you then switch back to Camera RAW am presuming it won't reflect the Photoshop edits since thats done to a converted copy of the image?

I'm just thinking that if you're working on a batch of images it might get messy working with Camera RAW and Photoshop at the same time.

My flow is to tweak and convert from DPP in batches and then work in Photoshop after that. If I decide Camera RAW is a good substitute for DPP can it do the same batch conversions and (if necessary) resizing without opening Photoshop?
 
When you open a RAW image in Photoshop you are seeing a large thumbnail of the image. As you make adjustments it's the thumbnail that's being altered. Photoshop is saving the adjustments you make and does not apply them until you tell it to open the image. It will then render the image to a TIFF or JPEG file as per the instruction in blue at the bottom of the window.

As far as editing is concerned it is advisable to make exposure, contrast, and similar corrections in Camera RAW. I would suggest curve adjustments are a lot easier within this program. You can then open the image in Photoshop for pixel editing such as cloning out unwanted bits and pieces. If you don't need to do that just open and convert to whatever file format you want and save.

I run both Lightroom and Photoshop and find that the majority of images can be handled within Lightroom, which has the same image editing engine as Photoshop. I find that I am using Photoshop less and less nowadays, however it is useful for specific tasks that are outside the scope of Lightroom.

Have a look on the web for some Adobe Camera Raw tutorials. Be aware though the ACR version in CS4 has a number of improvements and features that are not in the CS3 version


AndyB

You are right that the edits in Photoshop won't be seen by Camera RAW, however you can open the Photoshoped file in Camera Raw and use that to edit the file. Could get a bit confusing with file names though !
 
As I suspected. I guess what I was pondering was whether to go to Camera RAW instead of DPP but I am so used to DPP I can work quickly with it.
 
Thanks,

That's all really useful actually. The thing that perhaps confused me the most was the fact that the raw files's name was still being used when I opened the file in Photoshop after tweaking in Camera Raw. Perhaps I'd expected some temp file name to be used. Still, it makes sense now.

Oh, I noticed that in Camera Raw when I open the sharpening window it appears that sharpening has already taken place - as the levels are not set to zero. Does this mean that Camera Raw has taken it upon itself to sharpen the file without my request?

Lightroom...I've been reading around and this program is extremely popular isn't it - some even saying that they'd drop photoshop over it if push came to shuv. Interesting...
 
Lightroom is totally different to photoshop in some ways..
Lightroom is pretty much camera raw with a better layout and easier batch processing, plus a sort of file management system thrown in, it doesn't do layers, you can't cut and paste, the clone tool is limited compared to photoshop, to put it simply you can't do the clever stuff in lightroom, but it's great for quick basic edits and fixing the odd dust spot.
Photoshop on the other hand is great for the clever stuff, swapping bits of images around, making montages, but is slow and clunky for batch editing.
I find they compliment each other, I use lightroom for the batch conversion and basic edit, but I'll open some images (from LR) into photoshop for the fiddly stuff, or the clever special effects.
Wayne
 
So light room would take the place of DPP or Camera RAW then as a converter and basic processor before the artwork begins? Is the basic processing better than DPP? I am guessing it should be for the money but I have read reports where people say otherwise.
 
I'm messing around with Camera Raw and photoshop for sharpening and I'm a bit disappointed. I seem to get better results just using Canon's software, which is far simply - simply select a mark on the scale from 0 to 10 (I go for 7 when I'm doing reductions).

Hmmm, I must be missing something. Still, having fun learning.
 
Thats the point i was making Rich. I like the limited options in DPP - they work well and it's free. So if lightroom doesn't do it better then it needs to have other selling points for me to get it.
 
I don't use DPP so it's hard to offer any comparrison.
In many case the cameras makers own software will have the edge quality wise, this is simply because they understand the RAW file better and don't have to worry about other makers cameras and generic conversions. Lightroom has pretty good sharpening opitions (in V2 anyway) Lightroom will work fine as a raw converter, and for the normal colour exposure corrections etc. Wayne
 
Well it obviously works for you Wayne so I think I might get a trial version and try before I invest in it. Thanks for the input anyway - and sorry if I've highjacked the thread a little!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top