| » Forum Index » General comments » Topic: Photoshop versus Camera Raw |
|
Posted on 06/12/23 7:20:42 PM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1864 Reply  |
Photoshop versus Camera Raw
I welcome anyone's input, opinion, and thoughts on the two competing image editors. Given Photoshop's amazing strides in recent times has not Camera Raw become rather superfluous? I never use it as I can extricate the finest nuances from Photoshop!  |
Posted on 06/12/23 9:30:21 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5648 Reply  |
Re: Photoshop versus Camera Raw
Sorry Michael I don't quite understand your question. Two competing image editors? I thought camera raw was an integral part of Photoshop. To even load a RAW image into Photoshop you will need to pass through Photoshop's camera raw module. I have seen some of the post production work you have posted here from time to time and it is very clear this is a field in which you have extensive expertise. I am surprised to be posting what will follow, as I know you are a very accomplished post processor and, strangely, this is not really my forte. My forte, if I have one, is compositing. I was lucky enough, when I worked as a professional DOP, to have professional colourists, whose eye and skills were far superior to mine, to fine tune my material for me. RAW images may not look great initially but they contain all the information that was captured by the CCD and are therefore the best option for image processing, especially in the initial stages. In the case of over or under exposure, for example, access to RAW is especially useful. Now I come from a generation that was raised to ensure that what you want from your print is already contained in the original negative ..... that the key to an impeccable print was an impeccable negative. But the mere use of the word 'negative' already dates my photographic education and background. It is far removed from modern digital. However the one thing I learned professionally, in the latter years, was that RAW was the digital equivalent of my negative. I listened to my colourists, whose knowledge was so superior to mine, and to their advice on what constituted the RAW equivalent of my 'impeccable' negative. I learned from them to, on set, before shooting, switch my camera to RAW view to check my exposure. It looks flat and horrible but, if you know how to interpret it, it shows you exactly what information is being recorded, particularly at the extremes of shadow and highlight. RAW post processing accesses this original untreated information and offers more possibilities for manipulation than at any other stage of the process. However this is limited, for the most part, to optimisation and, to a lesser degree, to basic adaptation of the image. Photoshop's secondary post production, with it's vast range of filters and very sophisticated masking possibilities offers vastly greater possibilities for transformation of the image. The two functions are, to my mind, quite distinct but complimentary. I don't see need for one or the other. They are bedmates. This is a purely personal subjective comment based on the way I prefer to work. It works for me. That does not make it, in way, valid for the way you like to work. The way you should work is what works for you! The wonderful thing about modern post is it's incredible flexibility and the wonderful way we can adapt it to do just that .... to work in our personal manner! I am a passionate cook so, to take a really rather crass parallel, I need both. I like to very carefully select and prepare my RAW ingredients first and then add the spices to transform them and do the cookery in Photoshop. But that's just me.  _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |
Posted on 07/12/23 09:26:35 AM |
|
michael sinclair
Off-Topic Opportunist Posts: 1864 Reply |
Re: Photoshop versus Camera Raw
I very much appreciate your input here David. I ought to have mentioned that I now seldom use my camera these days, so for me Camera Raw is redundant. I was really trying to find other people's views on this so that I wasn't missing anything. |
Posted on 07/12/23 2:11:11 PM |
|
DavidMac
Director of Photoshop Posts: 5648 Reply |
Re: Photoshop versus Camera Raw
Aha! Understood. If you are talking about processing images for which you have no RAW file then yes I agree Photoshop is mostly best. Like you, if I am not loading a RAW image, I use the RAW processor very rarely indeed. But I am not entirely convinced that it is redundant. I find it can often be much better at recovering lost detail in shadows and highlights and it can do an amazing job rescuing underexposed images. There are also occasions I find I can do things with it that I simply cannot do so quite so quickly and easily in Photoshop itself. The colour grading wheels, for example, can be much quicker and more intuitive for many base corrections. Horses for courses…… _________________ The subtlety and conviction of any Photoshop effect is invariably inversely proportional to the number of knobs on it ....... |