Digital BW, The Print

As a digital photographer for 10 years now, I'm on my 30th digital camera.  
Starting with the 200 series Kodaks, we were forced to shoot RAW (it wasn't  
called that back then, Kodak stupidly called it a .TIF). This moronic naming  
convention was copied by Canon (a Kodak partner for the 500 series of cameras)  
up until very recently.
 
In tethered event photography or doing pictures of kids with Santa at the  
mall requires SPEED, while maintaining quality. This also applies to coporate  
parties where couples wearing evenening clothes are photographed with instant  
delivery of 5x7 dye sub prints in folders.
 
By having a modern digital camera with Firewire that does "Jepegging" in  the 
camera, the image would come up on the screen in about 3 seconds vs. 10.  
Muliply that number times 7,000 customers and you can see why Jepeg is  superior.
 
I have printed, on a 4000, with BO, a Jepeg of a beach scene in Pacifica,  
CA. The original from a 50mm prime lens on a Canon 1D Mark II, handheld at 1/800 
 s. was a perfect exposure with K values ranging from 0-100 percent. After  
using my faovorited color to BW conversion, I applies a whisper of USM and a  
Tri-X curve sag. I then hit the print button. My older Zoner friends looked at  
this print in disbelief, thinking it had been done with a 4x5 or MF camera on 
 tripod.
 
The main reasons to shoot RAW is to have the ability to use the full  dynamic 
range of the sensor for luminance compression in the image, do a  different 
"emulsion characteristic" than what is offered with camera controls,  or to 
correct for lens aberrations.
 
Other than architectural or landscape work, I can't see why the extra time  
is ever needed for RAW workflows. Photos under controlled flash lighting and  
custom white balance to compensate for system color shifts in the ambient  
environments are just fine from high quality Jepegs, even when printed on large  
format inkjets. Jepeg is data lossy, but not visually lossy when "done  right."
 
Claude


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Other than architectural or landscape work, I can't see why 
> the extra time  
> is ever needed for RAW workflows. Photos under controlled 
> flash lighting and  
> custom white balance to compensate for system color shifts in 
> the ambient  
> environments are just fine from high quality Jepegs, even 
> when printed on large  
> format inkjets.

Raw captures what the sensor sees. Set your ISO in the camera, set aperture
and shutter. Shoot raw. Then do everything else in photoshop, a la
traditional photography.

OR

Shoot jpg and let the camera make all the decisions (I will admit this a
huge generalisation, but it still sticks to an extend with a dSLR).

Chris


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

At 12:50 PM -0400 7/1/05, claudej1@... wrote:

>%< ...snip... >%
>
>Starting with the 200 series Kodaks, we were forced to shoot RAW (it 
>wasn't called that back then, Kodak stupidly called it a .TIF). This 
>moronic naming convention was copied by Canon (a Kodak partner for 
>the 500 series of cameras) up until very recently.
>
>%< ...snip... >%


I feel that I have to correct this totally erroneous assertion, lest 
someone get the wrong idea.

.TIF is __NOT__ the same as RAW.

.TIF (or .TIFF, etc.) is a standardized _lossless_ format for storing 
images. That is, it is an encoding which stores values that are 
derived by the recording instrument's hardware _and_software_ for 
each pixel. The data is _not_ compressed.(*)

.JPG (or .JPEG, etc.) is a standardized _lossy_ format for storing 
images. That is, it is an encoding which evaluates values that are 
derived by the recording instrument's hardware _and_software_ for 
each pixel. It performs a compression on them which analyzes adjacent 
(and other) pixels, discards certain differences, and then encodes 
the image. Depending on the image, and the level of compression, a 
lot of information can be discarded.

.RAW is an encoding of the _actual_, and unmodified, response of each 
individual pixel on the sensor. Its encoding format varies between 
manufacturers.

The difference between .TIF and .RAW is that a .TIF image has been 
manipulated by the software in the recording device and has thus lost 
any retrievable connection to the original sensor data; .RAW has not.

.RAW data is the data exactly as it was as recorded by the sensor. It 
has not been modified by the software in the recording device. This 
allows you to interpret the data (in Photoshop, etc.) without 
correcting for the mistakes and biases of the recording device's 
software (as if such correction were even possible...).

The advantages of .RAW over .TIF are essentially the same as the 
advantages of having multiple, original, unprocessed, negatives over 
having just a single processed negative.

With .RAW you can do any "development" of the "negative" anytime you 
want; including the option of combining multiple "developments" and 
layering them to improve shadow and highlight detail, or etc., etc.

With .TIFF you are committed to whatever "development" your camera 
thought was appropriate.

Moral:

.TIF is usually a bad idea, because the camera's software often makes 
bad decisions.

.JPG is almost always a worse idea, because it takes bad decisions 
and throws away a lot of data. It also takes good decisions and 
throws away a lot of data. It's an equal-opportunity 
information-rapist.

.RAW lets you look at the original data and make your own decisions. 
This is more work, but usually your decisions will be better than the 
camera's.


-=-Dennis


*  There are compressed .TIF "variations." All compressed .TIFs are lossless.



























.

>> %< ...snip... >%
>> 
>> Starting with the 200 series Kodaks, we were forced to shoot RAW (it
>> wasn't called that back then, Kodak stupidly called it a .TIF). This
>> moronic naming convention was copied by Canon (a Kodak partner for
>> the 500 series of cameras) up until very recently.
>> 
>> %< ...snip... >%
> 
> 
> I feel that I have to correct this totally erroneous assertion, lest
> someone get the wrong idea.
> 
> .TIF is __NOT__ the same as RAW.

The point was not that .TIF and .RAW are the same, it's that some camera
companies gave the RAW files a .TIF extension. My Canon 1Ds saves RAW files
as .TIF even though they are not really TIFF files.

Wendel

> From: Wendel White
>
> The point was not that .TIF and .RAW are the same, it's that some camera
> companies gave the RAW files a .TIF extension. My Canon 1Ds saves
> RAW files as .TIF even though they are not really TIFF files.

Actually, they probably are TIFF files, just not the kind most software
expects. TIFF is a packaging format for image data, and can encapsulate
anything including proprietary data. In that respect, it's like AVI for
video files. You can wrap JPEG compressed data in a TIFF file if you want.
And indeed, the new Adobe DNG format is a TIFF file. It's just that the most
common use of TIFF is to wrap uncompressed or losslessly compressed image
data, so that's all most software supports.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

>> From: Wendel White
>> 
>> The point was not that .TIF and .RAW are the same, it's that some camera
>> companies gave the RAW files a .TIF extension. My Canon 1Ds saves
>> RAW files as .TIF even though they are not really TIFF files.
> 
> Actually, they probably are TIFF files, just not the kind most software
> expects. TIFF is a packaging format for image data, and can encapsulate
> anything including proprietary data. In that respect, it's like AVI for
> video files. You can wrap JPEG compressed data in a TIFF file if you want.
> And indeed, the new Adobe DNG format is a TIFF file. It's just that the most
> common use of TIFF is to wrap uncompressed or losslessly compressed image
> data, so that's all most software supports.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Except that the TIFF part is a 288x192 pixel preview image which is
essentially useless. The rest of the 11 megapixel image must be opened by a
RAW converter, so while you are right that there likely is TIFF data, the
real image is not accessible as a generic TIFF or limited by the nature of
TIFF images as Dennis' the statement implied. It seemed to me that Dennis
did not understand Claude's point about the use of the TIFF extension for
RAW files. I fully understand your point (though I know very little about
how it is done) but at least the DNG file uses .DNG so as not to confuse the
file with a regular TIFF.

Wendel

Paul,

Here is some info that supports that:

"NEF files are often referred as a proprietary format, but this is not 
completely true: indeed they are

compliant with the TIFF 6.0 specifications. Basically TIFF files are 
composed by a set of Image File

Directories (IFD), which are small data blocks describing the contents of 
the file (not only graphics

information such as resolution, size and so on but even photographic 
information such as shutter

speed, aperture, comments, copyright notices and so on). They usually 
contain a single image, but

they can hold more than one (most of times the secondary images are 
thumbnails, reduced-size

copies of the main image which can be previewed quickly). Manufacturers can 
add proprietary tags,

which Nikon did, so the proprietary part in NEF files is actually a small 
part."



- from http://www.tidalwave.it/projects/nefio/NEF.pdfage



So they are 'tiff' files, which is presumably why Canon called them so to 
start with.



Bob Frost

From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Actually, they probably are TIFF files, just not the kind most software
expects. TIFF is a packaging format for image data, and can encapsulate
anything including proprietary data. In that respect, it's like AVI for
video files. You can wrap JPEG compressed data in a TIFF file if you want.
And indeed, the new Adobe DNG format is a TIFF file. It's just that the most
common use of TIFF is to wrap uncompressed or losslessly compressed image
data, so that's all most software supports.

Paul,

This is not quite on point with the thread, but perhaps you can shed some
light.  I recently did a project in CRW, converted to 16-bit tif.  The
printer wanted me to do the CMYK conversion according to their press specs,
which I did.  The design consultant says the CMYK images have excess noise
when converted from 16-bit to 8-bit to lay out in Quark.  I said fine, I'll
convert the 16-bit RGB files to 8 and send to you, and you can have the
press do the CMYK conversion.  I'll be there with match prints at the press.
The design consultant indicates that any conversion from 16 to 8 adds noise
and banding because an extra 1/2 bit of noise is introduced in the PS
conversion, and that for press work it is preferable to shoot in 8-bit jpg
initially.  Well, there goes my custom white balance (WhiBal cards applied
to the same image in Capture One).  I tried these conversions and on my
screen (OptiCal calibrated LCD) could see no differences of any kind.  Do
you or others on the list by chance know if this is BS or if there is
something I'm missing?  Thx for any help.

Best regards,

Ken Carney
www.kencarney.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Paul D. DeRocco
> Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 8:59 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] jpg vs. raw
> 
> > From: Wendel White
> >
> > The point was not that .TIF and .RAW are the same, it's that some 
> > camera companies gave the RAW files a .TIF extension. My Canon 1Ds 
> > saves RAW files as .TIF even though they are not really TIFF files.
> 
> Actually, they probably are TIFF files, just not the kind 
> most software expects. TIFF is a packaging format for image 
> data, and can encapsulate anything including proprietary 
> data. In that respect, it's like AVI for video files. You can 
> wrap JPEG compressed data in a TIFF file if you want.
> And indeed, the new Adobe DNG format is a TIFF file. It's 
> just that the most common use of TIFF is to wrap uncompressed 
> or losslessly compressed image data, so that's all most 
> software supports.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney"
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> Paul,

I'm not Paul, but I'm curious...

>...The design consultant says the CMYK images have excess noise
> when converted from 16-bit to 8-bit to lay out in Quark.

Did he say that as just a general comment? Or was it a direct
observation about your files?

If the 2nd, and there is some noise problem, I seriously doubt it was
introduced during your bit depth conversion.

If it's the first, all I can say is I doubt it, nor have I ever heard
of it. But considering Adobe cheats a bit with regard to high bit,
conversions to and from could be somewhat less straightforward in PS
than one might think.
Tyler

Ken,

Why not just go to 8 bit in C1 and convert to proof destination (make 
sure you set this up as CMYK, preferably using the ICC profile supplied 
by your printer, on color management preferences) and not even bring the 
images into Photoshop?

Joe L

> This is not quite on point with the thread, but perhaps you can shed some
> light.  I recently did a project in CRW, converted to 16-bit tif.  The
> printer wanted me to do the CMYK conversion according to their press 
> specs,
> which I did.  The design consultant says the CMYK images have excess noise
> when converted from 16-bit to 8-bit to lay out in Quark.  I said fine, 
> I'll
> convert the 16-bit RGB files to 8 and send to you, and you can have the
> press do the CMYK conversion.  I'll be there with match prints at the 
> press.
> The design consultant indicates that any conversion from 16 to 8 adds 
> noise
> and banding because an extra 1/2 bit of noise is introduced in the PS
> conversion, and that for press work it is preferable to shoot in 8-bit jpg
> initially.  Well, there goes my custom white balance (WhiBal cards applied
> to the same image in Capture One).  I tried these conversions and on my
> screen (OptiCal calibrated LCD) could see no differences of any kind.  Do
> you or others on the list by chance know if this is BS or if there is
> something I'm missing?  Thx for any help.

> From: Ken Carney
>
> This is not quite on point with the thread, but perhaps you can shed some
> light.  I recently did a project in CRW, converted to 16-bit tif.  The
> printer wanted me to do the CMYK conversion according to their
> press specs,
> which I did.  The design consultant says the CMYK images have excess noise
> when converted from 16-bit to 8-bit to lay out in Quark.  I said
> fine, I'll
> convert the 16-bit RGB files to 8 and send to you, and you can have the
> press do the CMYK conversion.  I'll be there with match prints at
> the press.
> The design consultant indicates that any conversion from 16 to 8
> adds noise
> and banding because an extra 1/2 bit of noise is introduced in the PS
> conversion, and that for press work it is preferable to shoot in 8-bit jpg
> initially.  Well, there goes my custom white balance (WhiBal cards applied
> to the same image in Capture One).  I tried these conversions and on my
> screen (OptiCal calibrated LCD) could see no differences of any kind.  Do
> you or others on the list by chance know if this is BS or if there is
> something I'm missing?  Thx for any help.

Well, I don't see how shooting 8-bit JPEG in the first place could possibly
help.

8-bit might cause posterization, but PS at least claims to have an option
that adds dither noise when doing color space conversions in 8-bit mode,
which should avoid posterization. I have no experience with CMYK, so I don't
know if there are any special issues there.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Since when did Photoshop introduce noise into a digital image. Surely it has
to be there in the first place.

Richard

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken
> Carney
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 2:27 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] jpg vs. raw
> 
The design consultant says the CMYK images have excess noise
> when converted from 16-bit to 8-bit to lay out in Quark.  


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

> From: Richard
>
> Since when did Photoshop introduce noise into a digital image.
> Surely it has to be there in the first place.

In the color management settings, there's a checkbox for enabling dithering
in 8-bit mode. This causes it to add a tiny bit of noise when doing color
space conversions, so that you don't wind up with posterization. I don't
know the exact algorithm, but could make some semi-educated guesses. It's
not enough noise that you'd actually notice it. And it doesn't do this in
16-bit mode.

There's also a dither option in the gradient tool, which is generally a good
thing to turn on.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...