This content has been marked as final. Show 25 replies
If you have no plans to upgrade Photoshop, and you still want to work with raw files from your camera, then you need to download the latest version of the DNG converter and convert your raw images to the Digital Negative (DNG) format. Then you will be able to open those DNG images in Photoshop CS and Camera Raw 2.4.
The workaround Jim recommends is actually quite safe because it doesn't "convert" the NEFs to anything. They are not altered, so you can keep them as your archive "negatives." It makes copies of them in the Adobe DNG format.
I really hadn't thought about the idea of the raw files being "converted". I suppose it's a matter of semantics. But in trying to explain things to someone I think your point is very good.
Thank You, Gentlemen--I'll give it a try.
However, I plan to upgrade to P'Shop CS3 in the next 6-12 months, Will the DNG "conversion" be "acceptable" for archival of today's images in tomorrow's PShop CS3?
Yes! As Art indicated, the DNG file is created as a copy, and you still have the original raw image that you can hold onto until you upgrade your Photoshop. And both the DNG and the original raw image can be used with Photoshop CS3. So you can get started now with what you already have, and have full confidence that anything you do will be usable in the future.
Thanks Tons! Just did it and it works like a charm.
BTW, I use iPhoto to import and organize my photos, too. I noticed that iPhoto can bring in RAW and save/export as a 16 bit TIFF.
Any thoughts or advice about converting a RAW image into TIFF through iPhoto and then editing the TIFF thru P'shop CS....
...doing DNG CONVERSION, editing the image in CS and then saving the final product as a TIFF?
The picture data inside of a DNG file is still raw data. So you will still have all of the benefits associated with that. But in either caseyou will still have the original file came from your camera. My suggestion would be for you to try both ways and decide for yourself which works better for you.
I've noticed that when using the DNG converter, I achieve a resolution 240 dpi. However, when importing the photo into iPhoto and then trying to edit using P'Shop, the Image Size->72 dpi.
So, I like the DNG converter for the higher resolution. Apparatly, the iPhoto software doesn't achieve the same translation
However, I have not found a way to get the resolution to 300 dpi (unless I rescale the image using Bicublic interpolation).
Can you offer any suggestions?
The resolution number by itself is not relevant. It comes into play when you are going to print. What is important is the pixel count. You also need to add a dimension (print size) to it.
Say your image is 3000 pixels by 2000 pixels. At the very same time it is 1 dpi, 72 dpi, and 300 dpi, depending on what size you are going to print it.
If you print the file at 3000 inches by 2000 inches it will print at 1 dot per inch. If you print it at 41.7x27.8 inches it will be 72 dpi. And if printed at 10x6.67 inches it will be 300 dpi. All with no changes to the actual pixel data in the image.
What John says is right. Digital cameras do not shoot at higher resolution in the raw mode. If we use 6 MP as a "general" reference, the camera is taking a picture that is 2000 pixels high and 3000 pixels wide. The resolution (72 PPI or 240 PPI or whatever) is simply used as a reference to help you understand how big the image would be at any given resolution. Generally speaking, JPEG images are usually reported at 72 PPI because (generally) JPEG images are often used for viewing on a computer screen whereas raw images will be used more commonly for printing as individual images or as part of a group of images for a magazine, for instance. Again, the 72 PPI or the 240 PPI are simply references to tell you that if those six megapixels are "squeezed" so that they are that close together, that is how big the image would be. But as far as the image is concerned, it is the same image regardless of what the resolution reports.
Thanks for the feedback.
So, if I got this right, sounds like opening a DNG file into P'shop CS for the first time, one should go to Image Size. Sounds like the first order of operation is to define the actual image size for output?
However, I would have thought changing the image size would vary the PPI--why doesn' the PPI change dynamically when the image size is changed?
If you leave the "resample image" box UNCHECKED you will not be changing the pixels of the image.
Take a look at http://johncornicello.com/articles/resolution.html I put that together to help a friend with resolution.
>Sounds like the first order of operation is to define the actual image size for output?
It can be done when you're ready to print. And for web only pixel dimensions matter.
Read John's link.
Thank you all for the indulgences--John, your article was very helpful! I unchecked the "Resample Image" box and resolution does change with image size. And, vice-versa.
But, what about output?
When all P'Shop edits are completed and the final Image Size is defined for print (and Resample Image is off), the resulting resolution for the Print is visible.
However, if that resolution is "insufficient", say considerably less than 300 dpi, and other than Resampling Image with the Bicubic 110% technique...
Are their other options to obtain a best quality resolution for printing?
Thanks for the good feedback!
Is it possible for you to give us an example of image size and resolution? What is it that you are trying to do? The D80 produces large enough images that a resize should give you more then enough resolution to print anything up to at least an 8x10 unless you are doing some significant cropping.
What is considerably less? And what type of device are you printing to?
If I need to make an image larger I do it with Bicubic (sometimes Bicubic Softer) and I do it all in one step. I do not do the multiple 10% increments.
To answer your question, I'm looking at large formats 18x24 and 24x36. After the DNG conversion, if I define one of those sizes and uncheck "resample image", the corresponding resolution drops down to 150-ish PPI. My concern is low print quality.
So, my if I want to output at 300 PPI for a respectable output photo resolution, then I will need to either a) Bicubic Interpolation within P'shop or b) Use another software product to increase the resolution.
It still depends on more factors: What printer will you out put on? What kind of paper? Is the print the final piece or will it be reproduced from the print? How far away will the prints typically be viewed from?
18x24 at 300 dpi is 5400x7200 pixels (111 megabyte file). For that size output I would be comfortable doubling the size in Photoshop (assuming a very clean/quality original camera file).
The D80 produces a file at 2592x3872 pixels. Around 8.5x13 at 300 dpi. Double that to 5184x7744 and you have about 17x26 inches. If you output at 240 dpi you have 21x32 and I think the quality of the print will still hold up.
A 24x36 wwill be 215 dpi. Still pretty good for a large print.
I've printed files from a Canon D30 (3 megapixel) at 18x24 with very good results. I think it is worth having a couple of test prints made to see what you really have.
Some of the online labs that I occasionally use indicate they can make 20x30 inch prints from images that are as small as 1200x1600 pixels. That means they can make prints that large from images as small as 2 MP. I have had a 20x30 inch print made from a 5 MP image that I was quite happy with. But I suppose it all depends on how you look at the images and what you are expecting.
I even do some things that would be unthinkable by some. I have on occasion set the dimensions and the resolution that I want using the crop tool and then just crop the image that way. Admittedly, the prints are not competition quality. But I have never had anyone complain about them either. They just enjoy looking at the pictures.
Thank You, Gents--A very valuable thread...
John, I tend to agree with you that at the D80's max resolution, and if I can print greater than say 200 dpi, it should be reasonable. Of course, "...mileage may vary" depending on the factors you identified.
Any experiences or third party software suggestions (other than P'shop's native Bicubic resampling) that work well to increase the size/resolution? Genuine Fractels was suggested as one possibility?
> Any experiences or third party software suggestions (other than P'shop's native Bicubic resampling) that work well to increase the size/resolution? Genuine Fractels was suggested as one possibility?
GF can work well with predictable shapes, e.g., for taking jaggies out of angular straight lines and predictable curves, but for the remainder of photographic subjects you will not see a difference. GF is also very slow when encoding and decoding.
My own thoughts regarding large prints is that they are generally viewed from greater distances than 8x10's or 11x14's. Therefore, they can be printed with less precise resolution. In this respect, an 8-10 megapixel image generally scales very well from 8x10 all the way up to a billboard, and special resampling softwares are not really needed.
Ah, but the expectation is that, the bigger the print, the closer I look! "Is it really that good?" is my quest.
An 8x10 enlarged to 16x20 will knock your socks off, and you will want to get very close indeed.
Also, I found that keeping the ratio between the dpi and the native resolution of the printer in whole numbers tends to be better for large prints.
> I found that keeping the ratio between the dpi and the native resolution of the printer in whole numbers tends to be better for large prints.
> An 8x10 enlarged to 16x20 will knock your socks off, and you will want to get very close indeed.
I hope you're not saying that's the entire point of printing large(?)
> Also, I found that keeping the ratio between the dpi and the native resolution of the printer in whole numbers tends to be better for large prints.
Care to share how you resample? I'm quite aware of the relationship with the native resoluton of the printer, but it is impossible to increase detail when a 8Mp image file prints less than 8x10 at the printer's native res (e.g., 360ppi).
It's a matter of which program do you trust the resample to? The printer will have to reconcile the odd dpi. I simply pick a ratio suitable for the printer. For my Canon, it's 300 dpi, (or 240, which will work for the Epson as well). The optimum Epson I found for printers like the 9600,9800 is 360 dpi.
We are not increasing detail simply picking a program to do the resampling.
Samples? Not here!:D
And so far as printing large, why else do it? Edward Weston made only contacts.