Sharing Pixel shift photos in RAW format with a designer

rechmbrs · 02-04-2017, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by sbh

Unless you know for sure that he can process pixelshift, I would give him the regular raw file. It's the safest and best option regarding color.

16Bit tiff file is 250 MB while the raw should be around 50MB. While the tiff has all the colors, you're "baking in " the white balance which is key for correct colors, and he can't change it any more. With 8Bit tiff he would need to convert it back to 16Bit to avoid color loss. I wouldn't take that risk, even if he was a professional.

The pixelshifted raw is also around 100-150MB but has no advantage over the regular raw if he can't process the ps data. Also here, I wouldn't take the risk for any irritation.

You could also give him a pixelshfited 16Bit tiff + the regular raw file. If he doesn't like the tiff, he can always process the raw himself.

You can use Zip lossless compression on the TIF. Don't use jpg option.
The only problem I have with TIF is the exif information has been separated from the photo. You can do any processing on the TIF as long as the header is not needed. TIF is the father of dng and close cousin of psd and pdf. Not much you can't do with it.
RONC

Last edited by rechmbrs; 02-04-2017 at 05:36 PM.

amoringello · 02-04-2017, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by sbh

16Bit tiff file is 250 MB while the raw should be around 50MB. While the tiff has all the colors, you're "baking in " the white balance which is key for correct colors, and he can't change it any more. With 8Bit tiff he would need to convert it back to 16Bit to avoid color loss. I wouldn't take that risk, even if he was a professional.

Just compress ZIP or LZH. I cannot think of anything built in the past 15 years that cannot handle compressed tif.
Whether you have a 14bit raw image or a 16bit tif, there is still plenty of latitude for color correction and shadow/highlight recovery.
There is no baking in white balance with a full color tif. ie.do not reduce to 8bit and/or a tiny colorspace like sRGB/AdobeRGB.

normhead · 02-04-2017, 07:11 PM

A tiff is s close as you can get to a RAW file without being a raw file. It's lossless, so no data is lost, and anything you can do with a raw file you can do with a tiff. There is absolutely no reason he can't edit a tiff. I'm not sure where that is coming from? What you can't do is restore data from a lossy system like a jpeg or (8 bit tiff). Once you reduce your 14 bit raw to an 8 bit jpeg, tha data is gone forever if you din't keep the original.

Another route would be to save it as a PSD which is accepted by almost all editing software.

Wheatfield · 02-04-2017, 07:31 PM

Originally posted by Dericali

Hi folks,

I have take some pixel shift images which I need to share with a magazine designer, and I'm wondering if he would be able to edit these like any normal RAW file in Photoshop, or whether I need to pre-process them in e.g. SilkyPix.

These were images of art objects taken inside a museum using a tripod, so there should be no issue with movement. Some of them were quite old objects (e.g. ancient carpets, restored objects), so the colours are quite washed out, and how much to saturate for the magazine will be a style decision for the designer, who has a personal view on how he likes to edit photographs for the magazine. Anyhow, I can supply him with regular RAWs or the Pixel Shifted RAWs (I took both), and I'm wondering if he will be able to handle both in the same way (using Photoshop), assuming there's no motion correction needed.

Thanks in advance

There is no reason why your friend shouldn't be able to read a pixel shift DNG in Photoshop. He is probably using CC if he is a professional, which gives him the latest and greatest.

Dericali · 02-05-2017, 01:28 AM

Thanks again. I think I will probably supply him with the original Pixel Shifted raw files, and at the same time 16 bit TIFF files, described as 'For photo retouching' in the Silky Pix development settings. That way he can check he's receiving everything alright, and can work on the DNGs if it works.

FYI the raw files range in size from 177mb to 247mb. When I developed the image of the Lion above, which is a 236mb DNG, it exported a 217mb TIF (I had done no image adjustments).

Wheatfield · 02-05-2017, 08:59 AM

Originally posted by Dericali

Thanks again. I think I will probably supply him with the original Pixel Shifted raw files, and at the same time 16 bit TIFF files, described as 'For photo retouching' in the Silky Pix development settings. That way he can check he's receiving everything alright, and can work on the DNGs if it works.

FYI the raw files range in size from 177mb to 247mb. When I developed the image of the Lion above, which is a 236mb DNG, it exported a 217mb TIF (I had done no image adjustments).

I routinely do pixel shift focus stacks of upwards of 24 images. The working size of those files is in excess of 30 GB.

rawr · 02-05-2017, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I routinely do pixel shift focus stacks of upwards of 24 images. The working size of those files is in excess of 30 GB.

How does that kind of task perform on your PC?

normhead · 02-05-2017, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

I routinely do pixel shift focus stacks of upwards of 24 images. The working size of those files is in excess of 30 GB.

Are there pictures we can see anywhere?

Wheatfield · 02-05-2017, 03:31 PM

Originally posted by rawr

How does that kind of task perform on your PC?

I did a computer update a while back, and had a pretty fast one built. i7 6700k processor 4gh, 32gb RAM, 2 solid state drives, one dedicated to Photoshop for swap.
I just tried one to see, It was a 26 image stack. It takes a surprisingly long time. From the moment I select the files in Lightroom to when the stack is ready to be flattened, almost 5 minutes.

---------- Post added 02-05-17 at 04:35 PM ----------

Originally posted by normhead

Are there pictures we can see anywhere?

Images
Images
Images
Images
Images
Enjoy

rawr · 02-05-2017, 05:15 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Wheatfield

It takes a surprisingly long time. From the moment I select the files in Lightroom to when the stack is ready to be flattened, almost 5 minutes.

Time to upgrade again.

Wheatfield · 02-05-2017, 05:41 PM

Fully 3 minutes of that time is pulling the files from my external storage, which is USB3. Once they are opened in Photoshop, it's pretty quick.

HoustonBob · 02-19-2017, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by sbh

Unless you know for sure that he can process pixelshift, I would give him the regular raw file. It's the safest and best option regarding color.

16Bit tiff file is 250 MB while the raw should be around 50MB. While the tiff has all the colors, you're "baking in " the white balance which is key for correct colors, and he can't change it any more. With 8Bit tiff he would need to convert it back to 16Bit to avoid color loss. I wouldn't take that risk, even if he was a professional.

The pixelshifted raw is also around 100-150MB but has no advantage over the regular raw if he can't process the ps data. Also here, I wouldn't take the risk for any irritation.

You could also give him a pixelshfited 16Bit tiff + the regular raw file. If he doesn't like the tiff, he can always process the raw himself.

A tiff, and even a jpeg - for that matter - can be opened as a raw file for processing by ACR even in Photoshop elements. This gives you the full range of color temperature controls that the raw file processing would have.

However if you are concerned with dead accurate colors above all else you need the 'camera color calibration' that comes with the Spyder 5 Capture Pro. The reason that I put that phrase in single quotes is that actually digital cameras are extremely accurate photometers - what is actually being color calibrated is the Adobe Camera Raw program.

As you may know each camera brand filters the colors of its in camera jpegs differently; Canon jpegs don't look like Nikon which don't look like Pentax etc. Adobe continues that process by filtering the colors in ACR too! The Spyder 5 calibration mainly gets rid of the color filtering in ACR giving the true colors the camera captured. That raw development color filtering is why ACR developed raws look different from DXO developed raws etc; they filter colors differently. The question is "How much color filtering does the Pentax program do when processing pixel shift images?" I have no answer for that - which is why I recommended the Spyder 5 Capture Pro.

**sbh** · 02-19-2017, 02:27 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by HoustonBob

A tiff, and even a jpeg - for that matter - can be opened as a raw file for processing by ACR even in Photoshop elements. This gives you the full range of color temperature controls that the raw file processing would have.

Sure, any raw processor will edit jpeg and tif files. But it won't give you accurate results when you use the wb slider compared to raw. True white balance is one of the advantages in raw over other formats. You'll see the difference if you edit the same photo both in raw and tif/jpeg side by side.

rechmbrs · 02-19-2017, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by sbh

Sure, any raw processor will edit jpeg and tif files. But it won't give you accurate results when you use the wb slider compared to raw. True white balance is one of the advantages in raw over other formats. You'll see the difference if you edit the same photo both in raw and tif/jpeg side by side.

I don't understand why jpg is deemed to be bad. I believe if you tend to making the jpg cover a reasonable amount of the histogram that you can get a very useful output. To get jpg, some resolution is lost in the illumination. The spatial sampling is the same. WB can be a residual correction just well as the primary one. In neither case do we have a set of measurements of temperature etc that really represents reality. Temperature is variable across the scene as are all the other parameters. How accurate are the instruments which measure these? Then it is plugged into the header as if sacred.
Because of the terminology used for the parameters, we assume that there is a certain level of accuracy implied. Most of the parameters are cosmetic and how the slider was programmed for you to input.

A nice test would be to test 16 and 8 bit TIF output from ACR or PDCU. You will have to pixel peeping real hard to see major differences. Jpg has lossy compression thrown in so test the lossy and lossless in saving the TIF.

RONC

HoustonBob · 02-20-2017, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by sbh

Sure, any raw processor will edit jpeg and tif files. But it won't give you accurate results when you use the wb slider compared to raw. True white balance is one of the advantages in raw over other formats. You'll see the difference if you edit the same photo both in raw and tif/jpeg side by side.

You do know that the DNG format is simply a version of the Tiff layout don't you? I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe crippled ACR deliberately to downgrade its ability to color balance Tiffs compared to raw - but other than that it is hard to see why there is some magic in the DNG version of a Tiff file that doesn't exist in regular Tiffs.

02-05-2017, 03:31 PM	#24
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by rawr How does that kind of task perform on your PC? I did a computer update a while back, and had a pretty fast one built. i7 6700k processor 4gh, 32gb RAM, 2 solid state drives, one dedicated to Photoshop for swap. I just tried one to see, It was a 26 image stack. It takes a surprisingly long time. From the moment I select the files in Lightroom to when the stack is ready to be flattened, almost 5 minutes. ---------- Post added 02-05-17 at 04:35 PM ---------- Originally posted by normhead Are there pictures we can see anywhere? Images Images Images Images Images Enjoy Last edited by Wheatfield; 02-05-2017 at 03:39 PM.

02-19-2017, 06:07 PM	#29
rechmbrs Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Conroe, TX USA Posts: 423	WB doesn't know TIF from jpg? Originally posted by sbh Sure, any raw processor will edit jpeg and tif files. But it won't give you accurate results when you use the wb slider compared to raw. True white balance is one of the advantages in raw over other formats. You'll see the difference if you edit the same photo both in raw and tif/jpeg side by side. I don't understand why jpg is deemed to be bad. I believe if you tend to making the jpg cover a reasonable amount of the histogram that you can get a very useful output. To get jpg, some resolution is lost in the illumination. The spatial sampling is the same. WB can be a residual correction just well as the primary one. In neither case do we have a set of measurements of temperature etc that really represents reality. Temperature is variable across the scene as are all the other parameters. How accurate are the instruments which measure these? Then it is plugged into the header as if sacred. Because of the terminology used for the parameters, we assume that there is a certain level of accuracy implied. Most of the parameters are cosmetic and how the slider was programmed for you to input. A nice test would be to test 16 and 8 bit TIF output from ACR or PDCU. You will have to pixel peeping real hard to see major differences. Jpg has lossy compression thrown in so test the lossy and lossless in saving the TIF. RONC

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Banding in Pixel Shift Images taken with K-1	NeilS	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	10	12-03-2016 06:18 PM
Pixel shift and On1 raw	travelswsage	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	10-29-2016 01:31 PM
Pentax K-1's Pixel Shift challenges medium-format dynamic range	Winder	Pentax K-1 & K-1 II	22	05-10-2016 08:05 AM
RAW converter compatible with pixel shift?	auricle	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	5	03-24-2016 08:05 AM
Pixel Shift RAW: LR5 vs Silkypix 5	longbow	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	16	06-25-2015 04:27 PM

02-04-2017, 05:30 PM	#16
rechmbrs Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Conroe, TX USA Posts: 423	Originally posted by sbh Unless you know for sure that he can process pixelshift, I would give him the regular raw file. It's the safest and best option regarding color. 16Bit tiff file is 250 MB while the raw should be around 50MB. While the tiff has all the colors, you're "baking in " the white balance which is key for correct colors, and he can't change it any more. With 8Bit tiff he would need to convert it back to 16Bit to avoid color loss. I wouldn't take that risk, even if he was a professional. The pixelshifted raw is also around 100-150MB but has no advantage over the regular raw if he can't process the ps data. Also here, I wouldn't take the risk for any irritation. You could also give him a pixelshfited 16Bit tiff + the regular raw file. If he doesn't like the tiff, he can always process the raw himself. You can use Zip lossless compression on the TIF. Don't use jpg option. The only problem I have with TIF is the exif information has been separated from the photo. You can do any processing on the TIF as long as the header is not needed. TIF is the father of dng and close cousin of psd and pdf. Not much you can't do with it. RONC Last edited by rechmbrs; 02-04-2017 at 05:36 PM.

02-04-2017, 06:13 PM	#17
amoringello Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,562	Originally posted by sbh 16Bit tiff file is 250 MB while the raw should be around 50MB. While the tiff has all the colors, you're "baking in " the white balance which is key for correct colors, and he can't change it any more. With 8Bit tiff he would need to convert it back to 16Bit to avoid color loss. I wouldn't take that risk, even if he was a professional. Just compress ZIP or LZH. I cannot think of anything built in the past 15 years that cannot handle compressed tif. Whether you have a 14bit raw image or a 16bit tif, there is still plenty of latitude for color correction and shadow/highlight recovery. There is no baking in white balance with a full color tif. ie.do not reduce to 8bit and/or a tiny colorspace like sRGB/AdobeRGB.

02-04-2017, 07:11 PM	#18
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	A tiff is s close as you can get to a RAW file without being a raw file. It's lossless, so no data is lost, and anything you can do with a raw file you can do with a tiff. There is absolutely no reason he can't edit a tiff. I'm not sure where that is coming from? What you can't do is restore data from a lossy system like a jpeg or (8 bit tiff). Once you reduce your 14 bit raw to an 8 bit jpeg, tha data is gone forever if you din't keep the original. Another route would be to save it as a PSD which is accepted by almost all editing software.

02-04-2017, 07:31 PM	#19
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Dericali Hi folks, I have take some pixel shift images which I need to share with a magazine designer, and I'm wondering if he would be able to edit these like any normal RAW file in Photoshop, or whether I need to pre-process them in e.g. SilkyPix. These were images of art objects taken inside a museum using a tripod, so there should be no issue with movement. Some of them were quite old objects (e.g. ancient carpets, restored objects), so the colours are quite washed out, and how much to saturate for the magazine will be a style decision for the designer, who has a personal view on how he likes to edit photographs for the magazine. Anyhow, I can supply him with regular RAWs or the Pixel Shifted RAWs (I took both), and I'm wondering if he will be able to handle both in the same way (using Photoshop), assuming there's no motion correction needed. Thanks in advance There is no reason why your friend shouldn't be able to read a pixel shift DNG in Photoshop. He is probably using CC if he is a professional, which gives him the latest and greatest.

02-05-2017, 01:28 AM	#20
Dericali Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Berlin Posts: 298 Original Poster	Thanks again. I think I will probably supply him with the original Pixel Shifted raw files, and at the same time 16 bit TIFF files, described as 'For photo retouching' in the Silky Pix development settings. That way he can check he's receiving everything alright, and can work on the DNGs if it works. FYI the raw files range in size from 177mb to 247mb. When I developed the image of the Lion above, which is a 236mb DNG, it exported a 217mb TIF (I had done no image adjustments).

02-05-2017, 08:59 AM	#21
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Dericali Thanks again. I think I will probably supply him with the original Pixel Shifted raw files, and at the same time 16 bit TIFF files, described as 'For photo retouching' in the Silky Pix development settings. That way he can check he's receiving everything alright, and can work on the DNGs if it works. FYI the raw files range in size from 177mb to 247mb. When I developed the image of the Lion above, which is a 236mb DNG, it exported a 217mb TIF (I had done no image adjustments). I routinely do pixel shift focus stacks of upwards of 24 images. The working size of those files is in excess of 30 GB.

02-05-2017, 03:03 PM	#22
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Wheatfield I routinely do pixel shift focus stacks of upwards of 24 images. The working size of those files is in excess of 30 GB. How does that kind of task perform on your PC?

02-05-2017, 03:15 PM	#23
normhead Pentaxian Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Near Algonquin Park Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 40,451	Originally posted by Wheatfield I routinely do pixel shift focus stacks of upwards of 24 images. The working size of those files is in excess of 30 GB. Are there pictures we can see anywhere?

02-05-2017, 05:15 PM - 1 Like	#25
rawr Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 11,913	Originally posted by Wheatfield It takes a surprisingly long time. From the moment I select the files in Lightroom to when the stack is ready to be flattened, almost 5 minutes. Time to upgrade again.

02-05-2017, 05:41 PM	#26
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Fully 3 minutes of that time is pulling the files from my external storage, which is USB3. Once they are opened in Photoshop, it's pretty quick.

02-19-2017, 09:24 AM	#27
HoustonBob Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 265	Originally posted by sbh Unless you know for sure that he can process pixelshift, I would give him the regular raw file. It's the safest and best option regarding color. 16Bit tiff file is 250 MB while the raw should be around 50MB. While the tiff has all the colors, you're "baking in " the white balance which is key for correct colors, and he can't change it any more. With 8Bit tiff he would need to convert it back to 16Bit to avoid color loss. I wouldn't take that risk, even if he was a professional. The pixelshifted raw is also around 100-150MB but has no advantage over the regular raw if he can't process the ps data. Also here, I wouldn't take the risk for any irritation. You could also give him a pixelshfited 16Bit tiff + the regular raw file. If he doesn't like the tiff, he can always process the raw himself. A tiff, and even a jpeg - for that matter - can be opened as a raw file for processing by ACR even in Photoshop elements. This gives you the full range of color temperature controls that the raw file processing would have. However if you are concerned with dead accurate colors above all else you need the 'camera color calibration' that comes with the Spyder 5 Capture Pro. The reason that I put that phrase in single quotes is that actually digital cameras are extremely accurate photometers - what is actually being color calibrated is the Adobe Camera Raw program. As you may know each camera brand filters the colors of its in camera jpegs differently; Canon jpegs don't look like Nikon which don't look like Pentax etc. Adobe continues that process by filtering the colors in ACR too! The Spyder 5 calibration mainly gets rid of the color filtering in ACR giving the true colors the camera captured. That raw development color filtering is why ACR developed raws look different from DXO developed raws etc; they filter colors differently. The question is "How much color filtering does the Pentax program do when processing pixel shift images?" I have no answer for that - which is why I recommended the Spyder 5 Capture Pro.

02-19-2017, 02:27 PM - 1 Like	#28
sbh Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Black Forest, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 849	Originally posted by HoustonBob A tiff, and even a jpeg - for that matter - can be opened as a raw file for processing by ACR even in Photoshop elements. This gives you the full range of color temperature controls that the raw file processing would have. Sure, any raw processor will edit jpeg and tif files. But it won't give you accurate results when you use the wb slider compared to raw. True white balance is one of the advantages in raw over other formats. You'll see the difference if you edit the same photo both in raw and tif/jpeg side by side.

02-20-2017, 08:14 PM	#30
HoustonBob Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: Houston TX Photos: Gallery Posts: 265	Originally posted by sbh Sure, any raw processor will edit jpeg and tif files. But it won't give you accurate results when you use the wb slider compared to raw. True white balance is one of the advantages in raw over other formats. You'll see the difference if you edit the same photo both in raw and tif/jpeg side by side. You do know that the DNG format is simply a version of the Tiff layout don't you? I wouldn't be surprised if Adobe crippled ACR deliberately to downgrade its ability to color balance Tiffs compared to raw - but other than that it is hard to see why there is some magic in the DNG version of a Tiff file that doesn't exist in regular Tiffs.