Camera Raw Lab

[MikeFromMesa]

PSP offers users the choice of opening raw images in Camera Raw Lab or opening them directly in PSP itself. One of the results of using CRL is that the file path and name disappear from the file information making any script I write use a temporary path location for raw files opened in CRL. That then has to be corrected when saving the image.

That is not so bad and I can live with it, but is there any benefit to using Camera Raw Lab? I am new to PSP, but I have not seen anything that I can do in CRL that I can not also do in PSP itself, so is there any reason to use CRL? Or am I missing something? I know that most good photo editors provide a raw image front end, but the one PSP uses does not seem to offer anything that I can not just as easily do with the adjustment layers, so is there any reason to use it?

[LeviFiction]

I'm no expert and I'm probably wrong here.

Because the RAW data is essentially unprocessed data PSP can either apply just a standard import using the RAW libraries, and you get what you get, or you can use the CRL to make adjustments to the imported result. This is not meant as a replacement for the more advanced Edit mode but a supplement to it. If you're happy with the results that the standard import gives you then there isn't a need to use it. But you may find from time to time that things like recovering highlights or shadows from the RAW data is only possible with the CRL as it doesn't clip those colors at the same low values that a standard 8-bit image does. Or that adjusting for chromatic abbreation just looks better when done on the RAW data instead of on the result of the final import.

But it's on the final result that you'll be performing the biggest edits on.

Now, I'm not used to the RAW lab because for as long as I've been using PSP I've never heard good critiques on it. So I'm personally stayed away. I don't find much use in it myself. But all I listed above is why CRL might be used. Whether or not it's actually worth while to use, I can't say.

[MikeFromMesa]

> only possible with the CRL as it doesn't clip those colors at the same low values that a standard 8-bit image does

Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that PSP, in its standard edit mode, only does 8 bit color adjustments? I had assumed all Edit functionality worked in 16 bits for an imported raw or 16 bit tif. Is that not correct?

> But all I listed above is why CRL might be used.

Yes. And that was all I was asking. I have not seen any functionality in the limited number of tools in CRL that I can not also adjust inside PSP, but then I am still relatively new to PSP and have not had much of a chance to work on truly problem images. And, in any case, I normally use a workflow tool like Dxo's PhotoLab and only use PSP when I need some additional processing that can only be done in a pixel editor. I then have PhotoLab (or CaptureOne) send the partially adjusted tif to PSP.

[LeviFiction]

No, I'm saying I 'm not an expert and probably wrong. It was the first sentence man. xD

I don't know what color depth is default for RAW data. It does import at 16-bit but there is something about using the raw unfiltered uncompressed data that is supposed to be better in a RAW conversion utility (in general not specifically PSP's RAW lab) that kind of gets removed after final conversion. Something in the RAW data itself. Maybe meta data or the form it takes, I don't know. It's something I read once. Again, i don't use RAW. If all it took was saving the RAW data into a 16-bit TIFF then there would be no need for RAW specific formats to various cameras. Admittedly most of that is just camera engineers trying to get a leg up on the competition.

[JoeB]

This thread seemed like the appropriate place to ask a question I have had for some time. Nowadays I only shoot photos for personal/recreational purposes, not for professional clients, etc. So I generally do so with my smartphone (Galaxy S8) which can shoot jpg or dng raw files - or actually produce both a jpg and dng of the shot at the same time. Some I print myself, some are posted online, and some are printed at a consumer photo lab. The largest printed image would be about 8x10, with others 5x7 or 4x6.

Given the above criteria, would the average viewer of the images be able to tell any real difference between the images where I did my editing in PSP using the jpg images compared to those which I processed first in dng format using a capable RAW processor (maybe something better than Camera Raw Lab)? To put it another way - for the purposes and final outputs I have outlined above - would I get any actual perceptibly better looking image starting with the dng image in a RAW program and then tweaking in PSP than I would simply doing all of my editing/tweaking In PSP with the jpg image? "Perceptively different" meaning, for the most part, would one or the other image be less or more pleasing to the average viewer, or perhaps would they even see little difference even if compared side by side?

[LeviFiction]

Depends on the image. I doubt this is a strict yes or no. I did experiment with Raw on my Pixel phone once. It was very blown out, the Raw I could bring back a bit further than I could the JPG. Technically because of the filters and compression for maximum editing RAW is the way to go. But after you edit the image and save as jpg I could not say if all of your hard work will make enough of a difference. Again, one or two shots that looked bad as is in JPG were semi recoverable in RAW. So there is at least that benefit when it works out well.

[CHoffman]

FWIW, I get perfectly fine results with 8-bit jpegs most of the time. That's certainly what you want for the web. But, to take advantage of everything your camera can give you, you'd want to bring RAW files into a wide gamut color space (like Prophoto) and maintain 16-bit data. That means saving in tiff or whatever else supports 16-bits. Keep all warning messages turned on so you know if an undesired conversion is about to take place. The only downside here, that I've discussed in another post, is that PSP doesn't seem to print correctly from the wide gamut spaces. Until that gets figured out, one should use something like Qimage for printing.

[MikeFromMesa]

This thread seemed like the appropriate place to ask a question I have had for some time. Nowadays I only shoot photos for personal/recreational purposes, not for professional clients, etc. So I generally do so with my smartphone (Galaxy S8) which can shoot jpg or dng raw files - or actually produce both a jpg and dng of the shot at the same time. Some I print myself, some are posted online, and some are printed at a consumer photo lab. The largest printed image would be about 8x10, with others 5x7 or 4x6.

Given the above criteria, would the average viewer of the images be able to tell any real difference between the images where I did my editing in PSP using the jpg images compared to those which I processed first in dng format using a capable RAW processor (maybe something better than Camera Raw Lab)? To put it another way - for the purposes and final outputs I have outlined above - would I get any actual perceptibly better looking image starting with the dng image in a RAW program and then tweaking in PSP than I would simply doing all of my editing/tweaking In PSP with the jpg image? "Perceptively different" meaning, for the most part, would one or the other image be less or more pleasing to the average viewer, or perhaps would they even see little difference even if compared side by side?

I can only speak for myself and my ability to see differences, but I think the answer generally would be that I would see no differences between images processed from jpg or from raw. In fact my camera does a good job with jpg and I would probably save myself a lot of trouble and time if I processed from the jpg.

However if the photo had some serious problem, then I think raw would be better. Not too long ago I took some photos just walking around in my neighborhood and, being in a rush, did not check my settings before doing so. I was relying on the camera to make the adjustments and forgot that it was set on Manual. Some of them were so badly over-exposed that I could do nothing with the jpgs, but I was able to recover enough highlights with the raw that I could get a decent image. Without raw I would have had to throw them away. With raw I could salvage a decent photo.

[JoeB]

The replies to my question seem to have answered my concerns quite nicely. Basically, if the images are reasonably well exposed, etc., but perhaps you want to punch up (or mute) some colors, increase contrast and do similar manipulations with various adjustments and effects available in PSP then working from a good sized jpg would produce very similar results as would starting from RAW, which does take some extra work from what I gather. On the other hand, if the image has fairly serious exposure or similar issues because of wrong camera settings or perhaps even challenging lighting conditions then RAW processing would likely be the way to go to. Feel free to correct me if I haven't got the gist of it.

[MarkZ]

These comments don't address the original question directly, but . . .

I shoot using RAW. A few years ago when I was entering photo club competitions I experimented processing using Corel's AfterShot Pro (ASP) and PSP CRL. I found that the quality from ASP was quite a bit better than PSP, but it also depended on the starting point. Results were somewhat sharper and colours better (although I should not be the judge since I'm R-G colourblind). ASP has nice editing tools and produces products in JPG or TIFF. Also has file management far superior to PSP IMHO and fast batch utilities. As a result I have not used CRL other than to test once or twice in new versions and I think the interface has improved. My process now is to select and do initial processing such as cropping, exposure, etc. in ASP and output jpgs which I work on in PSP if needed.

[MikeFromMesa]

These comments don't address the original question directly, but . . .

I shoot using RAW. A few years ago when I was entering photo club competitions I experimented processing using Corel's AfterShot Pro (ASP) and PSP CRL. I found that the quality from ASP was quite a bit better than PSP, but it also depended on the starting point. Results were somewhat sharper and colours better (although I should not be the judge since I'm R-G colourblind). ASP has nice editing tools and produces products in JPG or TIFF. Also has file management far superior to PSP IMHO and fast batch utilities. As a result I have not used CRL other than to test once or twice in new versions and I think the interface has improved. My process now is to select and do initial processing such as cropping, exposure, etc. in ASP and output jpgs which I work on in PSP if needed.

That is interesting.

I bought ASP years ago, but discarded it as not giving me the quality of some of the other tools I had used (Dxo's Optics Pro and Phase One's CaptureOne). My new purchase of PSP included the new version of ASP and perhaps I ought to give that a try again. I have no need for the file management functionality as I end up copying my images to a different system using a different cataloging system, but as I remember it ASP was a light-weight tool and was easy to use.

Out of curiosity, do you also send jpgs to PSP from ASP? Or tiffs? And, if jpgs, why?

[MarkZ]

I bought ASP years ago, but discarded it as not giving me the quality of some of the other tools I had used (Dxo's Optics Pro and Phase One's CaptureOne). My new purchase of PSP included the new version of ASP and perhaps I ought to give that a try again. I have no need for the file management functionality as I end up copying my images to a different system using a different cataloging system, but as I remember it ASP was a light-weight tool and was easy to use.

Out of curiosity, do you also send jpgs to PSP from ASP? Or tiffs? And, if jpgs, why?

I'm sure there are better RAW processors than ASP. I had tried its predecessor, Bibble, but could not get the hang of it. Then I was given the opportunity to participate on the ASP Beta, learned its quirks and got to like it. For what it does, the price is right.

In the file management I like the fact that it allows search on far more parameters than PSP and is much faster. Also, I store old image on external drives that are usually off-line and I can find the images without connecting the drives - all are at hand.

My usual process when I bring in images from a card is to go through them and flag rejects. After filtering and removing those I go through the remaining and mark those I want to process further with a flag or colour, use the filter again and use the batch process to create jpgs, a one key process that is very fast.

Why not tiffs? I started doing this when storage was more limited, I did not see an advantage to working with tiffs and I always had the original RAW files. I still have not come across convincing reasons to go to tiffs, but that may change. For my purposed jpgs do the job.