[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

[photoptimist]

Unless you are sure the magazine designer has software that can properly read Pentax pixelshift RAW files, it might be better to convert to something like TIFF.

Otherwise, the designer's software might only read the first of the four RAWs bundled inside the PS RAW and the designer would never seen the enhanced resolution of PS.

[Dericali]

Right, thanks. But if I convert it to TIFF then it locks all the colour values and the designer can't then make any changes, correct?

[lithedreamer]

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

As I understand it, if you took the photos with motion correction turned off, Photoshop should read them just fine.

[Pixelhdr]

I routinely convert PSed files with PDCU to TIFFs to be processed with LR.

Right, thanks. But if I convert it to TIFF then it locks all the colour values and the designer can't then make any changes, correct?

[Dericali]

I routinely convert PSed files with PDCU to TIFFs to be processed with LR.

Are you saying Tiffs can be fully processed in Photoshop or Lightroom?

[Rondec]

Right, thanks. But if I convert it to TIFF then it locks all the colour values and the designer can't then make any changes, correct?

If you are using the motion correction version of pixel shift then I would convert them to TIFF files and just try for pretty neutral settings. If you aren't using motion correction, then Lightroom will read them fine.

(I will say that I hate giving RAW images to people, as they don't typically look much like my final vision of them would be).

[rawr]

Are you saying Tiffs can be fully processed in Photoshop or Lightroom?

Yes, TIFF files certainly openable by both. Has been the case since day one of both products.

But once you save a Pentax pixel-shifted RAW file as a TIFF, while it may be possible to do normal RAW-style editing (white balance, colour adjustment etc), further pixel-shift specific processing will not be possible by Lightroom or PS.

[photoptimist]

You might try a test shot in normal RAW and PS RAW, send those as RAW but also send a screen shot of a 100% crop of some extremely detailed bit to show the designer what to expect. If his setup can't replicate that level detail, something's wrong.

[Dericali]

Thanks for the pointers. Normally I'd prefer to process the raw myself, but in this case it's basically just images of very flat art works/ artefacts, so there's not a lot of space for creativity, it's more about fidelity and accuracy. The designer will choose the crops.

The question of colouring is also sort of academic because these are all quite old and the colours have faded, or they've been repainted by the museum

Here's one example (detail from a carpet hanging at the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin:

[rechmbrs]

Thanks for the pointers. Normally I'd prefer to process the raw myself, but in this case it's basically just images of very flat art works/ artefacts, so there's not a lot of space for creativity, it's more about fidelity and accuracy. The designer will choose the crops.

The question of colouring is also sort of academic because these are all quite old and the colours have faded, or they've been repainted by the museum

Here's one example (detail from a carpet hanging at the Museum of Islamic Art in Berlin:

I would only offer tiff 16bit after your best PixelShift processing. Make sure they understand normal display parameters will most likely loose what was gained by PS. Don't oversharpen.
Most of my PS has been of fine art and few are going to believe that a FF PENTAX can deliver what is only seen with a loupe.

RONC

[amoringello]

Right, thanks. But if I convert it to TIFF then it locks all the colour values and the designer can't then make any changes, correct?

I can't imagine what changes would need to be made that would be so noticeably different between raw and a high quality tif. I've certainly been able to make wide gamut changes pretty much in line with raw. There may be technical differences, but when it comes to real life, what is it you feel they need to do that would require raw over tif?

Just be sure to use 16bit tif in ProPhotoRGB and don't lock them in to sRGB or even Adobe RGB.
Sadly, in-camera processing of PixelShift to tif results in only an 8bit image (WTF were they thinking?). So you'll have to use PCU to render a 16bit file.

[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.

[rechmbrs]

I can't imagine what changes would need to be made that would be so noticeably different between raw and a high quality tif. I've certainly been able to make wide gamut changes pretty much in line with raw. There may be technical differences, but when it comes to real life, what is it you feel they need to do that would require raw over tif?

Just be sure to use 16bit tif in ProPhotoRGB and don't lock them in to sRGB or even Adobe RGB.
Sadly, in-camera processing of PixelShift to tif results in only an 8bit image (WTF were they thinking?). So you'll have to use PCU to render a 16bit file.

The camera only records 14bits so 16bit tiff is more than sufficient.
If this person is going to display your shooting and crediting you, you should review before they print.

RONC

[sbh]

...
Sadly, in-camera processing of PixelShift to tif results in only an 8bit image (WTF were they thinking?). ...

Not 100% sure but afaik you won't lose (relevant) colors when saving in 8bit, as long as you edit in 16bit mode.