Hi,
Just curious if people still recommend RAW>.TIFF conversion for Zerene Stacker? Or just save the time and go JPEG from the beginning?
Thanks
RAW or JPEG for stacking?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
I only shoot raw because it gives me control of all the properties that result in the best stack composite. Raw, 16bit, ProPhotoRGB....It may take more time to process, but I think I get the highest quality image my equipment is capable of producing.
Steve
Steve
"You can't build a time machine without weird optics"
Steve Valley - Albany, Oregon
Steve Valley - Albany, Oregon
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23605
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
It depends on what you're doing.
For absolute best results, working from RAW is definitely the right thing to do. It gives you a lot more flexibility to make even big adjustments in the raw-to-TIFF conversion. Further, by making the intermediate TIFFs be 16-bit, you can get correspondingly high quality 16-bit outputs, which can be further adjusted without visibly losing gradation.
On the other hand, if say you're shooting deep high magnification stacks and you're willing to give up some image quality in exchange for less storage and faster processing, then shooting JPEG can be a very attractive option. Just be careful to set up your illumination and camera so that you're getting the best JPEGs you possibly can, since JPEGs are always 8-bit color.
I choose either route, depending on what I care about for any particular stack.
--Rik
For absolute best results, working from RAW is definitely the right thing to do. It gives you a lot more flexibility to make even big adjustments in the raw-to-TIFF conversion. Further, by making the intermediate TIFFs be 16-bit, you can get correspondingly high quality 16-bit outputs, which can be further adjusted without visibly losing gradation.
On the other hand, if say you're shooting deep high magnification stacks and you're willing to give up some image quality in exchange for less storage and faster processing, then shooting JPEG can be a very attractive option. Just be careful to set up your illumination and camera so that you're getting the best JPEGs you possibly can, since JPEGs are always 8-bit color.
I choose either route, depending on what I care about for any particular stack.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:01 pm
- Location: North Olmsted, Ohio, U.S.A.
I agree completely.svalley wrote:I only shoot raw because it gives me control of all the properties that result in the best stack composite. Raw, 16bit, ProPhotoRGB....It may take more time to process, but I think I get the highest quality image my equipment is capable of producing.
Steve
I shoot EVERYTHING in RAW, from macro to landscapes. The degree of control is SO much greater.
- Robert Berdan
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:58 pm
- Location: Calgary
- Contact:
Focus stacking
I prefer to stack images using RAW files using photoshop and Helicon Focus. I tested Zerene and like the other two programs better. I posted an article with my test results here if interested in reading it.
https://www.canadiannaturephotographer. ... cking.html
Hope there is something useful in the article for you - but I prefer the advantages of RAW most of the time.
https://www.canadiannaturephotographer. ... cking.html
Hope there is something useful in the article for you - but I prefer the advantages of RAW most of the time.
RAW to Tiff
I heard this from a Nikon ambassador. He said always shoot in RAW and then convert it to a tiff using the software from your camera's manufacturer.
If you use LightRoom or any other conversion software you can loose quality. The reason is simple the manufacturer created their RAW format everyone else reverse engineers it. To make his point he showed an example in IR. Lightroom could not match what Canon's software could do and I did mention he was a Nikon ambassador. I shoot canon and the downside is you can only export uncompressed tiff in their software. So you end up with huge files. Ideally you would want to convert these to LZW compression tiffs so you still don't loose any data.
I don't bother unless I am shooting in IR. I'm not good enough to tell the difference.
What I have done is Ihave created a utility using Phil Harvey's Exif program and Irfanview to compress my tiffs with LZW compression. What happens is you forget or at least I do on occasion forget to choose LZW and you end up with huge uncompressed tiffs. The utility goes through a directory tree in Windows and it checks the compression with the Exif program and if uncompressed it compresses it with Irfanview. If anyone wants the program let me know and I will try to find the source code.
If you use LightRoom or any other conversion software you can loose quality. The reason is simple the manufacturer created their RAW format everyone else reverse engineers it. To make his point he showed an example in IR. Lightroom could not match what Canon's software could do and I did mention he was a Nikon ambassador. I shoot canon and the downside is you can only export uncompressed tiff in their software. So you end up with huge files. Ideally you would want to convert these to LZW compression tiffs so you still don't loose any data.
I don't bother unless I am shooting in IR. I'm not good enough to tell the difference.
What I have done is Ihave created a utility using Phil Harvey's Exif program and Irfanview to compress my tiffs with LZW compression. What happens is you forget or at least I do on occasion forget to choose LZW and you end up with huge uncompressed tiffs. The utility goes through a directory tree in Windows and it checks the compression with the Exif program and if uncompressed it compresses it with Irfanview. If anyone wants the program let me know and I will try to find the source code.
I usually let the camera sawe both RAW and JPG. Most of the time the jpegs 8 bit colours are enough but not al the time. At high magnification I have to handle sensor dust in Adobe LR or Br before stacking. For this step I almost always use the RAW files and then save the dedusted files as tiffs or jpgs.
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hellberg.photo
My current workflow, due to limited processing power, is a bit of a compromise: Capture is RAW, then I use the manufacturer's software to make adjustments and save these as JPEG for stacking. The adjustments I'm making primarily relate to exposure, color balance, and highlight/shadow tuning--things I can't do in camera and should be done before stacking. I have found that stacking TIFFs is impractically slow and the improvement is barely noticeable to my eyes. If I had more powerful computing hardware or the number of images to stack is very small, I'd definitely go 16-bit TIFF for stacking, though.
I've tried slabbing TIFF input but the bottom line is I need a much, much faster computer for the stacks I'm doing. Retouching in Zerene takes forever for me, because it takes about 3-5 seconds just to switch from one image to another.
I can corroborate the use of the manufacturer's RAW processing software--at least with respect to Canon. This is because Canon RAW stores proprietary information about the subject distance that, in combination with the lens information, lets the processing software know how to apply very specific corrections to the image, such as distortion correction as well as aberration correction. That's not to say that other software can't correct these in other ways or that it is inferior, but Canon's software does it based on information specific to the camera, lens, and shooting conditions.
I've tried slabbing TIFF input but the bottom line is I need a much, much faster computer for the stacks I'm doing. Retouching in Zerene takes forever for me, because it takes about 3-5 seconds just to switch from one image to another.
I can corroborate the use of the manufacturer's RAW processing software--at least with respect to Canon. This is because Canon RAW stores proprietary information about the subject distance that, in combination with the lens information, lets the processing software know how to apply very specific corrections to the image, such as distortion correction as well as aberration correction. That's not to say that other software can't correct these in other ways or that it is inferior, but Canon's software does it based on information specific to the camera, lens, and shooting conditions.
-
- Posts: 2627
- Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:34 pm
- Location: United States
- Contact:
Re: RAW to Tiff
Be careful with that advice, Nikon reps will also tell you to only use Nikon USA lenses on your Nikon DSLR.kpassaur wrote:I heard this from a Nikon ambassador. He said always shoot in RAW and then convert it to a tiff using the software from your camera's manufacturer.
Don't let them catch you using a Nikon lens bought outside the US.
Nikon reps will also tell you to never clean a camera sensor on your own.
Robert