Blog Archive

Raw Conversion: Better Never Than Late

And can we please stop calling them raw converters?

Most Digital SLRs, the Leica M8 rangefinder, and a few mid-priced non-SLRs (Canon G9, Leica D-Lux 3/Panasonic DMC-LX2, Sigma DP1, Ricoh GX100) can capture raw data, as well as JPEGs. A raw capture is taken straight from the sensor, so, unlike a JPEG, it has to be processed before you get a useful image. Raw captures are stored in files that end in .NEF, .CR2, .RAW, .DNG, and so on.

Operationally, the main difference between raw and JPEG is that with raw you process the data on your computer to form the image, not in the camera using preset controls (white balance, saturation, etc.). That gives you a lot more flexibility, since you can tailor the processing to the specific image, instead of having to make decisions before you've pressed the shutter. Processing is interactive—you can immediately see the effects of various adjustments.

Rather than say that a raw capture has to be processed with a computer, as though it's a disadvantage, it's better to say that it can be processed, which is an advantage. Or, to say it another way, if you edit images on a computer anyway, you're better off editing a raw capture rather than a JPEG, just as a baker can bake a better cake from raw ingredients than from an all-in-one cake mix.

(It used to be true that processing raw captures was more complex than processing JPEGs but, with modern raw processors, this is no longer the case. With some applications like Lightroom, Aperture, and Adobe Camera Raw, there's no difference at all other than file size and, of course, the results you can achieve.)

Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape web site has written an excellent article that shows why editing a raw is better than editing a JPEG. You'll also want to read Thom Hogan's Quick & Dirty Guide to RAW.

Unfortunately, the most common term used to describe raw processing is "raw conversion", which implies that the purpose is to convert the raw data to a more accessible format, typically JPEG or TIFF. But as soon as you've converted you've baked in the adjustments you've made (color balance, saturation, sharpening, contrast, brightness, etc.). You may have benefited from the advantages of shooting raw while processing initially, but once you have a JPEG or a TIFF those advantages are gone for good, unless you go all the way back to the original raw and start completely over.

Raw conversion isn't the purpose of raw processing—it's an unnecessary evil. It's better not to convert at all, as I will explain.

It's useful to classify raw processors into three types, two converting and one non-converting. I'll add in-camera processing for completeness. They're listed from worst to best.

The most common industry term for what I call non-converting parametric raw processing is non-destructive, but I don't like that term because early- and late-converters (rows 2 and 3 in the table) are also non-desctructive, in the sense that the raw file isn't modified.

Peter Krogh has written an excellent white paper, Non-Destructive Imaging: An Evolution of Rendering Technology, that explains what parametric editing is and how it works.

The difference between parameterized and non-parameterized raw processing is the same as the difference between keeping a word-processing document file or just keeping a PDF that you've rendered. If you want to make edits later, it's much easier if you can work from the original document instead of only from the already-formatted image.

Even with a parameterized raw processor, you can't stay parameterized forever for every image. If you have to go to Photoshop, you'll have to save your work as a derivative TIFF or PSD. Then it's fully baked and any further processing will be from the derivative. (Although if you're careful you can keep the layers, which gives you some benefits of parameterization.)

So, the goal is to stay raw as long as possible. If you have a non-parameterized raw processor, do as much as possible in the raw domain before you have to save your work and exit the program. With a parameterized raw processor, you can stop editing, exit the program, and pick up where you left off (perhaps rolling back some changes) at any time.

What you want to avoid as long as possible is raw conversion. And better never than late.

Link to this entry

Surge Protectors Actually Work!

I was never really sure. I have two high-end $200+ Brick Wall protectors, for my home theater system and for my computers and external drives, and the usual household assortment of cheap $20 so-called surge-protecting power strips. I had never had any surge damage, not even to a dozen or two of miscellaneous gadgets connected without any protection at all. I don't even know if I ever had a surge for which protection was needed.

So, as far as I knew, my surge protectors were working just as well as my elephant protectors. I never saw any elephants around the house, either.

Well, still no elephants, but a couple of weeks ago I really did get a surge. My alarm woke me up, running on its battery. (Nice feature!) The house had power, but the GFI in the bathroom had tripped, cutting off power to the adjacent bedroom. My computers started up OK, so one Brick Wall had worked. A few things didn't go through the Brick Wall. My DSL modem had no power at all. After I replaced its external power supply it powered up, but couldn't acquire DSL. Some cheap powered speakers were dead, too. The home theater downstairs was OK (another Brick Wall).

But the TV equipment (TV, satellite box, Sony PS2, DVD player) in a cabinet on the main level was without power. Those were connected to a cheap Belkin surge protector, which obviously had taken a big hit, as shown above. Even the case blew apart, as you can see from the damage to the seam on the side. It smelled of smoke, too.

All the equipment behind that Belkin was saved and is working OK. Way to go, Belkin!

So, now I believe in surge protectors, and I'm going to spend more than $20 on them, too. I'm not sure if I want to spring for Brick Walls all around the house, since not everything I have is even worth $200. But, if I don't, I'll probably get Belkins.

Update: Just after I posted this, I found a bunch of Belkins on Amazon, and decided to get two of these and another Brick Wall for that TV cabinet:

If you click the link below to buy your own Belkin, I'll get some money from Amazon, and it will cost you nothing extra:

Link to this entry

Enter These Characters Correctly to Win $1000

I am so annoyed by those enter-the-characters tests I have to take to prove I'm not a robot, like this one:

I recently sent out some email about a new product of mine (LRViewer), and was confronted by such a gatekeeper in order to get by someone's spam filter. I failed on my first two tries, and then switched to audio, which I thought was a cute feature. That didn't work either. So, sorry you didn't get the email... you'd really like LRViewer!

Here's my version of the test: Email me the characters you see in the figure at the top of this article and I'll send you $1000 if you're correct. I'll post the answer on Tuesday. One entry per person, and all entries must be received by next Monday. (Robots are not eligible. I am the sole judge of whether you are correct.)

In all seriousness, the only decent one I've seen is Jeffrey Friedl's:

Why can't everyone do it Jeffrey's way?

Link to this entry