[Charlotte]

I do most of my post-processing work in Serif PhotoPlus, including raw files. Thing is, I can use all the tools on raw images, as if I were working on a jpg. My question is: Does working this way on a raw file but in an all-purpose programme (i.e. not specialised in raw) still mean that the adjustments I do on the raw file are non-degrading to the image?? Does anyone know? It may seem like a silly question, but it's bugging me

[Boofers]

I know there is a higher dynamic tone range for colors, as I know it is about 12 bit color depth. They say 16, but yahoo. Anywho, before you assign color depth and pixel amount, you use these colors to adjust for a smile. Then you assign your format and it opens in another window, leaving your original alone. It sounds like you need to work on a copy.

[stepheno]

I don't have an answer, Charlotte, but I can only suggest doing a side by side comparison - an original RAW next to an edited RAW.

[Markulous]

Hmmm, degrading an image only comes with opening, saving, reopening a JPG (or other lossy format), so even if you could save the RAW as a RAW (which shouldn't be possible), the image won't be degraded (tho, arguably, if you made a mess of the pic and then saved that, it would be degraded!)

[orangepeel]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

My question is: Does working this way on a raw file but in an all-purpose programme (i.e. not specialised in raw) still mean that the adjustments I do on the raw file are non-degrading to the image??

As far as I know only Nikon Capture can preserve the original NEF data when makng modifications.

I personally save changes to a different file - therby preserving the original. For example. I use CS2. I open the NEF file, do my changes then save as a PSD.

In summary, as long as you save to a different file, you won't change the original.

hth

[Charlotte]

Thanks all for replies (+ Mark for your wit ). I know that raw files themselves are unaffected when you edit them, because the changes are stored in a separate nef.rws (raw settings) file, so that the raw file itself need never be altered (unless you vandalise it, of course). But if you work on a raw file then export to jpg, is the degradation less than if you'd done the alterations on a jpg file?

[Markulous]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

But if you work on a raw file then export to jpg, is the degradation less than if you'd done the alterations on a jpg file?

Arguably, due to lossy format, re-opening a JPG, editing and then saving might introduce artefacts (unlike taxes and death it's not a certainty!). Working on a RAW and then saving might also mean that you include more detail.

Anything, such as a JPG, that is deliberately lossy is designed to lose something when saved! Just a question as to whether it was info/detail that was superfluous or vital (tho with the latter it'd probably be a fairly large compression for that to occur)

[orangepeel]

tbh the last part of your job should be to export to jpg.

Think about sharpening... if you sharpen a jpg you can easily end up shapening the jpg artifacts.

I suppose the effects can be mitigated by working on the largest and best quality jpgs only - but easier, imo, just to work from the NEF itself.

[Dave Canon]

Originally Posted by Charlotte

But if you work on a raw file then export to jpg, is the degradation less than if you'd done the alterations on a jpg file?

If you alter the tonal range in the overall picture or selectively you can optimise the tonal qualities of the Photo before converting to JPEG. In such cases the final image in JPEG will be much better than would have been possible if you had converted to JPEG straightaway and edited.

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by orangepeel

tbh the last part of your job should be to export to jpg. ...

Yep. Here's the part of my question which relates to the software + file type : Does the software know it's working on a raw file, not a jpg? When I've edited a raw in PhotoPlus I don't see a nef.rws file indicating changes, like I do with Lightroom etc.. Also it asks me (on closing) if I want to save changes I always say no, but maybe should try 'yes' + see what happens! Maybe that would produce a nef.rws file.

Here's another question in this regard: When I've altered a raw file + thus produced a nef.rws file containing the changes, when I preview the raw file, am I seeing the original unprocessed raw, or am I seeing the edited one? I think that if the .neg.rws file got separated from the raw file then opening the raw file would show the unprocessed image, but if the 2 files remained together then when I open the image I see the work I did on it?

Originally Posted by orangepeel

... Think about sharpening... if you sharpen a jpg you can easily end up shapening the jpg artifacts. ...

Sharpening is a good example, because this is one manipulation that I find degrades a raw file as well as a jpg. Good point about sharpening jpg artifacts, which tips the scale in favour of sharpening the raw ... although I see a lot of advice in articles to do the sharpening on the jpg file, not the raw Many also advise not to sharpen in-camera I do it tho', with good results. I try to do as much in-camera to save time later, because I'm hopeless at editing + take so long + never happy with the result, hence I'm sitting with a LOAD of unprocessed image files still waiting to become presentable images

Originally Posted by orangepeel

... I suppose the effects can be mitigated by working on the largest and best quality jpgs only - but easier, imo, just to work from the NEF itself.

I always work on the raw file initially. However, sometimes I'll look at an exported jpg + decide it needs more work. The obvious solution to avoid working on the jpg would be to also save a copy in the native format, complete with layers + alterations, but they are large files, + this would mean having no less than 3 copies of each photo: raw, jpg + spp (or psd or whatever) clogging up the PC!

Sorry this is so long, + some of it is thinking aloud ... hoping someone can unscramble my brain LOL

[Charlotte]

Originally Posted by Dave Canon

If you alter the tonal range in the overall picture or selectively you can optimise the tonal qualities of the Photo before converting to JPEG. In such cases the final image in JPEG will be much better than would have been possible if you had converted to JPEG straightaway and edited.

Thanks Dave, that helps