Pure raws

The HDR image file for 3D rendering, then you shouldn't use this technique, as you will not get accurate linear pixel values required for image based lighting. However, if you are only interested in the tone mapped result, then creating "fake" exposures is a valuable technique, as long as you get improved results over technique 1 or 2. You can see some examples obtained with technique 3 in this user gallery for instance. Also, this tutorial on RAW HDR Processing details the technique.Something worth noting here is that not all RAWs are equals when it comes to dynamic range. Most digital cameras are using sensors with a depth of 12 bits but the level of noise may diminish the dynamic range substantially. Moreover, some camera manufacturers seem to prefer lowering the bit-depth when storing the sensor data as RAWs (see for instance this article on D70 NEFs).On the other hand, some high end cameras have sensors with a depth of 14 bits, which means two f-stops more of dynamic range. It is definitely a good idea to try the Tone Mapping tool of Photomatix Pro on the 16-bit TIFF file derived from the the RAW data of such cameras. Also, the dynamic range of the RAWs of the Fuji S3 and S5 Pro is higher than RAWs of other DSLRs.--> Do I need to convert bracketed RAW files to TIFF before using Photomatix? The answer depends on your needs and preferences. It is better to first convert your bracketed RAW files, and then load the converted TIFF or JPEG files in Photomatix, in the following cases:You need lens correction-->You need fine control over white balance adjustmentsChromatic Aberrations in your photos are particularly difficult to correct You are more interested in Exposure Fusion than HDR/Tone MappingWhen you convert your RAW files to TIFF or JPEG before loading them in Photomatix, you should systematically disable sharpening, as sharpening should be applied on the final image, not before. You should also ensure the Black is set to zero.If you are primarily interested in HDR/Tone Mapping, then you should also uncheck all tonal and

File format can make a big difference in your photos. In your DSLR camera settings, you’ll find two shooting formats: RAW and JPEG. What’s the advantage of RAW format? What is a RAW image? Is RAW or JPEG superior? Every photographer interested in digital photography runs into the file type question at some point. What is a RAW file? A RAW file is lossless, meaning it captures uncompressed data from your camera sensor. Sometimes referred to as a digital negative, you can think of a RAW file as the raw “ingredients” of a photo that will need to be processed in order to bring out the picture’s full potential. As you might expect, the tradeoff for these detailed files is that RAW files are quite a bit larger than JPEG files. Still, most professional photographers shoot in RAW because it gives them more information to work with in the post-processing phase. What is a JPEG file? Unlike RAW images, JPEG images are compressed versions of RAW files. “Think of a zip file,” says photographer Nicole Morrison. You’re compressing a ton of information into a smaller package. “But all that extra information in RAWs is what gives you the latitude to tweak the white balance and exposure, for example, to a much larger degree than with a JPEG.” In addition to their efficient compression capabilities, JPEGs are popular because the camera does a lot of processing work for you, so your photos look more finished straight off the camera. Differences between the image files. Now that you’re familiar with the defining characteristics of each file type, see how they stack up in detail. Here are some of the most prominent factors to consider when you choose between JPEG and RAW. File size The main drawback of shooting RAW is how much space the files swallow up. This is the tradeoff you have to make for that higher image quality. Photographer Jenn Byrne emphasizes the importance of having enough storage on hand when shooting RAW. “If you’re going from JPEG to RAW you might be surprised at how much storage you need in your memory card.” But don’t let that discourage you from giving it a try. “Hard drives and memory cards are so much cheaper than they were 15 years ago. It’s not as cost prohibitive to shoot RAW anymore,” points out Byrne. Post-processing Higher image quality translates into more available data when it comes to photo editing, giving RAWs a definitive edge over JPEGs. Editing programs like Adobe Camera RAW, Bridge, or Lightroom are built for fine-tuning RAWs into polished final photos. “The good thing about photo editing is that Lightroom is not editing RAW photos. So when you export JPEGs from Lightroom, it’s creating a unique file, not changing the data in your RAW photo,” explains Morrison. This is called non-destructive editing and means you can export RAWs as JPEGs, TIFFs, DNGs, and more, giving you more flexibility to further manipulate without losing the original file. Dynamic range One

For example, if the Jpg was underexposed, lacking in contrast, and bumping up contrast and raising exposure fixed or improved that image, then it's a good bet the same approach will be needed for the Jpgs counterpart RAW file, right? I mean not always, you might want to steer the image another direction, in which case you could just hit 'Reset', but you get the point. Changes made to the Jpg are likely going to be changes you'd make to the RAW.Or what about other things like say you applied a certain grain that worked, a certain crop, a certain vignette etc etc. So I'm not necessarily saying I would want all the boxes ticked for the sync of Jpg to RAW but certainly a few and my choice.But LR is pretty great with Fuji files anyway. If for example I shot a RAW+Jpg in Acros (a monochrome render in camera), then the RAW will start off as that Acros profile anyway.So why RAW at all? Because sometimes you get a great shot, and you might want to give it as a triptych or something to the client. Same image, 3 different versions. Or you might decide the dynamic range of the Jpg version struggled a little and the RAW was needed for this particular image, and so on so forth.1) So now I am pondering the workflow going forward for this approach. I could continue as I have done and then handpick the RAWs I deem worthy or need and import into LR and then manually sync the changes made previously to the Jpg to the RAW (for each of those files Zzz...).2) Or perhaps in future I import both Jpgs and RAWs, ensure that Jpgs are treated separately from the RAWs and when I make my changes have All Sync on and the RAW counterpart selected as well, that sounds like the best strategy for next time.I dunno if there is a way to click the Jpg (have it selected as the working file) whilst simultaneously having the RAW highlight automatically for you (and All Sync on)? That would be ideal I think, a kind of 'background syncing' without having to engage the brain and constantly ensure you're always highlighting the partner file (though they should in theory be next to one another in the film strip, I could colour label them to help distinguish the file types

RAWs and process them again, years later.Once used, I almost never look at the RAW again. Most of my output are composites in Photoshop.This is all very scary!!!!!!!! :(" title="Angry"> I wonder if we can really do any thing about this? Should I convert all of my RAWs(.CR2) to .TIFF or .PNG? CarlMontana, USAThe Big Sky State Quote from: cthomas on September 30, 2017, 12:25:14 AMThis is all very scary!!!!!!!! :(" title="Angry"> I wonder if we can really do any thing about this? Should I convert all of my RAWs(.CR2) to .TIFF or .PNG?Most people out there don't think about this because they are not aware of the consequences. Libraries etc. forbid using RAW for long-term storage for good reasons. If you are aware of the potential dangers of using proprietary RAW formats, you are good. Keeping a TIFF copy of your most important files is a good idea. TIFF exists for, what, 30 years now, is highly standardized and the base format for many long-term archival standards. With having these issues now and the comment from Mario, I remember one "idea" I had in the past:Converting all my RAW files into DNG!It slipped out of my mind, but I need to consider it again!Fortunately it still can be done free and easy with the DNG converter from Adobe.Refer to this article: is Adobe , but as Mario stated, the format is free! With the DNG files we are back at the codec (for windows) to load and display them. There is/was a codec from Adobe, but I was not able to find it at the offical page. Fortunately there is an alternative link supplied in this blog (german): be aware: Pictures may look different from the original RAW. At least for my Fuji RAF the converter applies some camera profile which makes a difference. So at least more rework afterwards is needed ... QuoteBut be aware: Pictures may look different from the original RAW. At least for my Fuji RAF the converter applies some camera profile which makes a difference. So at least more rework afterwards is needed ...Then your software has a problem. Software producing DNG files is supposed to embed an 'as intended' preview - which allows other software to display the DNG file exactly as you see it in that product.The interpretation and rendering of the RAW data is of course highly volatile and depends on