16 Bit

R
Posted By
rdoc2
Jan 29, 2010
Views
949
Replies
16
Status
Closed
If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

MR
Mike Russell
Jan 29, 2010
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:23:30 -0800 (PST), RDOC wrote:

If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

My recommendation is to get it fairly close in raw, save it as an 8 bit psd or tif, and do the more extreme color and other edits in Photoshop.

If you do experiment with 16 bits, and find an image that color corrects or otherwise edits better than in 8 bits, I’d be very interested in getting a copy of the image.

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
N
N
Jan 29, 2010
"RDOC" wrote in message
If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.
R
rdoc2
Jan 29, 2010
On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message

If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.
R
rdoc2
Jan 29, 2010
On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message

If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

I already have Photoshop, is there an advantage to using Nikon software in your opinion besides cost?
S
Stefan
Jan 29, 2010
Am 29.01.10 15:56, schrieb RDOC:
Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that.

If you have to ask, you don’t need Raw.
MR
Mike Russell
Jan 29, 2010
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:56:03 -0800 (PST), RDOC wrote:

On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message

If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that.

LOL, yes as far as this one point goes. OTOH, I have a problem associating myself with Ken Rockwell. By injecting jis personality into the discussion, he does more harm than good by muddying the waters.

The only difference I saw was there
is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

There are some convenient adjustments in Camera Raw, however they are visually oriented, and I advocate Dan Margulis’s "color by the numbers" approach. Photoshop is still a better platform for systematic color correction than ACR.

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
N
nomail
Jan 29, 2010
RDOC wrote:

On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message

If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

If you don’t do any editting, than Ken Rockwell is right that the file format doesn’t matter much. However, if you shoot in JPEG you get lesser image quality than if you shoot in RAW and take the time to learn how to wirk with RAW files. It’s up to you if that matters…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
R
rdoc2
Jan 29, 2010
On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
RDOC wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message


If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

If you don’t do any editting, than Ken Rockwell is right that the file format doesn’t matter much. However, if you shoot in JPEG you get lesser image quality than if you shoot in RAW and take the time to learn how to wirk with RAW files. It’s up to you if that matters…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!
MR
Mike Russell
Jan 29, 2010
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:15:02 -0800 (PST), RDOC wrote:

On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
RDOC wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message


If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

If you don’t do any editting, than Ken Rockwell is right that the file format doesn’t matter much. However, if you shoot in JPEG you get lesser image quality than if you shoot in RAW and take the time to learn how to wirk with RAW files. It’s up to you if that matters…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!

Try experimenting with raw files and see if you can tell the difference. I don’t agree with those who completely reject jpeg files as originals, but jpeg can have quality disadvantages compared to a raw image. The compression artifacts can occasionally shop up for files that are greatly modified in Photoshop, and skies will sometimes show banding that would not occur with a raw file. This is not enough of a difference for me to switch to raw for everything, but YMMV.

Mike Russell – http://www.curvemeister.com
R
rdoc2
Jan 29, 2010
On Jan 29, 1:54 pm, Mike Russell
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 10:15:02 -0800 (PST), RDOC wrote:
On Jan 29, 12:26 pm, (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
RDOC wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message


If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

If you don’t do any editting, than Ken Rockwell is right that the file format doesn’t matter much. However, if you shoot in JPEG you get lesser image quality than if you shoot in RAW and take the time to learn how to wirk with RAW files. It’s up to you if that matters…


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!

Try experimenting with raw files and see if you can tell the difference. I don’t agree with those who completely reject jpeg files as originals, but jpeg can have quality disadvantages compared to a raw image. The compression artifacts can occasionally shop up for files that are greatly modified in Photoshop, and skies will sometimes show banding that would not occur with a raw file. This is not enough of a difference for me to switch to raw for everything, but YMMV.

Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Thanks Mike, your opinion is always honest and good.
N
nomail
Jan 29, 2010
RDOC wrote:

Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

If you don’t do any editting, than Ken Rockwell is right that the file format doesn’t matter much. However, if you shoot in JPEG you get lesser image quality than if you shoot in RAW and take the time to learn how to wirk with RAW files. It’s up to you if that matters…
I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!

Look at RAW files as the eggs, and JPEG’s as an omelet. If you like the omelet the way it is; fine. But you can never make eggs from an omelet, so if you want a different omelet you better start from the eggs.

RAW files contain all the 12 or 14 bits information the sensor generates. JPEG’s contain only a fraction of it, because they are 8 bits files, were compressed with a lossy compression, and have a smaller color gamut. There is a vast difference between the two, even though you may not need that difference for each and every photo. If you shoot under controlled lighting conditions and your subjects do not have much contrast, you probably won’t need RAW. If you shoot outdoors, RAW is much better as a starting point.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
R
rdoc2
Jan 30, 2010
On Jan 29, 4:46 pm, (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
RDOC wrote:
Thanks Mike, I will do that. Ken Rockwell says that shooting in Raw is to no advantage over jpeg unless one does a lot of Photoshop adjusting? Do you agree with that. The only difference I saw was there is more choices in raw for white balance adjustment which one can do manually in photoshop as a jpeg.

If you don’t do any editting, than Ken Rockwell is right that the file format doesn’t matter much. However, if you shoot in JPEG you get lesser image quality than if you shoot in RAW and take the time to learn how to wirk with RAW files. It’s up to you if that matters…

I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!

Look at RAW files as the eggs, and JPEG’s as an omelet. If you like the omelet the way it is; fine. But you can never make eggs from an omelet, so if you want a different omelet you better start from the eggs.
RAW files contain all the 12 or 14 bits information the sensor generates. JPEG’s contain only a fraction of it, because they are 8 bits files, were compressed with a lossy compression, and have a smaller color gamut. There is a vast difference between the two, even though you may not need that difference for each and every photo. If you shoot under controlled lighting conditions and your subjects do not have much contrast, you probably won’t need RAW. If you shoot outdoors, RAW is much better as a starting point.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Thanks Johan I see this in the white balance but does it show anywhere else?
N
N
Jan 30, 2010
"RDOC" wrote in message
On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message

If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

I already have Photoshop, is there an advantage to using Nikon software in your opinion besides cost?

Difficult to say without knowing what you like to do with your files. I always use Nikon for conversion from RAW. I set the camera so it gives me a reasonable jpg conversion to view on the camera LCD, but that isn’t always the conversion factor I want, and that’s why I shoot raw.

Nikon raw conversion starts out looking like the JPG because it reads the camera settings from the raw file. For landscapes I use a landscape picture control, which of cause is just a predetermined bunch of settings.

When I was using ACR I could never get the same result as the Nikon JPG, maybe I didn’t know enough about ACR, but I gave up.

I still use Photoshop and I always use Bridge for keywording.
R
rdoc2
Jan 30, 2010
On Jan 30, 8:13 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message

On Jan 29, 3:10 am, "N" wrote:
"RDOC" wrote in message


If I am shooting in raw, and working on an NEF file now that I have opened it in Photoshop what is the best bit size to work on it, 8 or 16? Also should I work on it in PS as a NEF file or immediately convert it to a psd file.

Why not use Nikon software? It’s a lot cheaper than Photoshop.

I already have Photoshop, is there an advantage to using Nikon software in your opinion besides cost?

Difficult to say without knowing what you like to do with your files. I always use Nikon for conversion from RAW. I set the camera so it gives me a reasonable jpg conversion to view on the camera LCD, but that isn’t always the conversion factor I want, and that’s why I shoot raw.
Nikon raw conversion starts out looking like the JPG because it reads the camera settings from the raw file. For landscapes I use a landscape picture control, which of cause is just a predetermined bunch of settings.
When I was using ACR I could never get the same result as the Nikon JPG, maybe I didn’t know enough about ACR, but I gave up.

I still use Photoshop and I always use Bridge for keywording.

Thanks for the info, now if I can put it all together and work it out.
N
nomail
Jan 30, 2010
RDOC wrote:

I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!

Look at RAW files as the eggs, and JPEG’s as an omelet. If you like the omelet the way it is; fine. But you can never make eggs from an omelet, so if you want a different omelet you better start from the eggs.
RAW files contain all the 12 or 14 bits information the sensor generates. JPEG’s contain only a fraction of it, because they are 8 bits files, were compressed with a lossy compression, and have a smaller color gamut. There is a vast difference between the two, even though you may not need that difference for each and every photo. If you shoot under controlled lighting conditions and your subjects do not have much contrast, you probably won’t need RAW. If you shoot outdoors, RAW is much better as a starting point.

Thanks Johan I see this in the white balance but does it show anywhere else?

It shows in two more areas. First, you can often recover highlights which seem to be blown. Try to do that in an 8 bits JPEG! And secondly, you will see less noise and less banding if you brighten the shadows.


Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com
R
rdoc2
Jan 30, 2010
On Jan 30, 11:56 am, (Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:
RDOC wrote:
I edit all my jpeg files in both ACR and Photoshop so is there anything different in editing RAW files and would I get a better quality file if I use a RAW file? To answer your question, yes I want the best quality image I can get!

Look at RAW files as the eggs, and JPEG’s as an omelet. If you like the omelet the way it is; fine. But you can never make eggs from an omelet, so if you want a different omelet you better start from the eggs.

RAW files contain all the 12 or 14 bits information the sensor generates. JPEG’s contain only a fraction of it, because they are 8 bits files, were compressed with a lossy compression, and have a smaller color gamut. There is a vast difference between the two, even though you may not need that difference for each and every photo. If you shoot under controlled lighting conditions and your subjects do not have much contrast, you probably won’t need RAW. If you shoot outdoors, RAW is much better as a starting point.

Thanks Johan I see this in the white balance but does it show anywhere else?

It shows in two more areas. First, you can often recover highlights which seem to be blown. Try to do that in an 8 bits JPEG! And secondly, you will see less noise and less banding if you brighten the shadows.

Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Thanks Johan those are the answer that I was looking for.

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections