Workspace Raw image deteriorate with edits

Bluenose

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
125
Hi, I’m wondering if anyone has an insight into this bizarre occurrence

I took some good moon pics (75-300mm @300mm, spot metering, f8 to f13, daylight white balance, iso 200, 2 second electronic shutter delay on a tripod)

Raw + superfine jpeg

Last night— zero problems editing the good raws. Used sharpening, reduced highlights, adjusted clarity, de haze etc etc etc

Tonight— Editing the raws was VERY limited
I could adjust clarity and de haze, but ANY adjustments with white balance, sharpness, even picture mode (selecting vivid for example) produced an image that was obviously much much lower resolution (detail)

I didn’t have the time to slowly trouble shoot what I did wrong. Any thoughts?

it is also interesting that the raw file is 16mb, but the cropped exported jpeg is under 300kb! I think that is quite normal because there isn’t really much data in a moon shot.
 

Bluenose

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
125
Sounds very wrong to me.

After editing any RAW file, I would save it in aRGB and 16 bit Tiff-16 before exporting it as a JPEG.

If you have saved it as an 8 bit sRGB TIFF, future editing will be seriously limited.

Hi, but getting prints from an 8-bit jpeg (I think it’s 8-bit?) is fine though right?
I also use srgb and not argb.
I’ll have to check and see exactly what I do!

But you are saying use arbg, edit raws and save in 16-bit Tiff, then export as a jpeg to print? Couldn’t you print the 16-bit tiffs? Or is export to jpegs for just sharing with other people who can’t open a tiff?
Also, why 16-bit? Is there actually that much colour information in the files? (I thought Olympus uses 12-bit files)

Thanks for bringing all of this up. You are helping me get my head straight about the editing process which I am probably too simple with.
I just want to get the most out of the files and not downgrade them unnecessarily.

but all that aside I hope the editing of raw files resulting in resolution downgrade is not repeated in my workspace program! Very odd.
 

Bluenose

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
125
Oh you mentioned future editing—- isn’t the original raw file still saved with edits and jpeg exports???
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,693
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Hi, but getting prints from an 8-bit jpeg (I think it’s 8-bit?) is fine though right?

For something that doesn't actually exist, colour is tricky. We see wavelengths, which our eye/brain system interpret as colours ...

I would never print from either a JPEG or an 8 bit file, or a narrow gamut file (sRGB).

I also use srgb and not argb.

The sRGB colour space is both defective (the three colour axes are not equal) and deficient (the colour space is too small). The only time I use sRGB is when the image is for distribution into a non-colour managed workspace (i.e. most other people by email and the like) or for upload to the web (safest, as who knows what people are viewing thing on?).

A screen shot showing the difference:

1598501916515.png
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


While this is not what I am seeing on my screen, it does give an example of the difference in a colour managed environment. My screen is a 100% aRGB colour space, with 14 bit colour lookup table (LUT) and a 12 bit display panel. The DNG file on the left is a wide gamut file (ProPhotoRGB, 16 bit) while the shot on the right is the OoC LSF JPEG in an sRGB colour space and 8 bit. Both files are from the same exposure.

I’ll have to check and see exactly what I do!

But you are saying use arbg, edit raws and save in 16-bit Tiff, then export as a jpeg to print? Couldn’t you print the 16-bit tiffs?

Print from the 16 bit wide gamut TIFF. aRGB is the safest for this, as you can see what you are doing if you have a decent monitor. I actually edit and print from a ProPhotoRGB (PPRGB) 16 bit colour space, as my printer is a 16 bit device and can print most of the visible part of a PPRGB colour space (Epson R3880).

Or is export to jpegs for just sharing with other people who can’t open a tiff?
Yes.
Also, why 16-bit? Is there actually that much colour information in the files? (I thought Olympus uses 12-bit files)
A 12 bit file can be mapped into a 16 bit colour space without data loss. If it is mapped into an 8 bit colour space, there will be (significant) data loss. Add that to the data loss from using a narrow gamut, defective colour space such as sRGB, and you can end up with a miserable mess.

IME, some people think that they need to use FF gear precisely because they do not understand colour spaces, bit depth and the effects of editing ...

AFAIK, only MF digital cameras use a wide gamut, 16 bit file format natively.

Thanks for bringing all of this up. You are helping me get my head straight about the editing process which I am probably too simple with.
I just want to get the most out of the files and not downgrade them unnecessarily.

A basic understanding of colour certainly helps. About two thirds of the nearly 1,000 pages in Blatner and Fraser's "Real World Adobe Photoshop CS" is devoted to colour and white balance ...
but all that aside I hope the editing of raw files resulting in resolution downgrade is not repeated in my workspace program! Very odd.

Edit and save as TIFF-16 files in aRGB. This is safest.

Oh you mentioned future editing—- isn’t the original raw file still saved with edits and jpeg exports???

Yes, the original RAW is always untouched unless you edit it with a Hexadecimal editor (not recommended ... :rofl: ... although I have done it a couple of times).

Any further edits to the saved TIFF-16 will cause some degradation. Usually insignificant, unless wild edits! Wild edits are best done on the original RAW in a 16 bit, wide gamut (PPRGB, etc) colour space. You can often get away with murder. However, if you find yourself doing this often, you really need to learn how to use your camera better!

It is always best to get things as right as possible in the camera when you push the shutter release.

Almost all the files I post here, and upload to my web site, are unedited OoC aRGB LSF JPEGs, just resized with a small USM to make up for the low setting on in-camera sharpening.
 
Last edited:

Bluenose

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
125
For something that doesn't actually exist, colour is tricky. We see wavelengths, which our eye/brain system interpret as colours ...

I would never print from either a JPEG or an 8 bit file, or a narrow gamut file (sRGB).



The sRGB colour space is both defective (the three colour axes are not equal) and deficient (the colour space is too small). The only time I use sRGB is when the image is for distribution into a non-colour managed workspace (i.e. most other people by email and the like) or for upload to the web (safest, as who knows what people are viewing thing on?).

A screen shot showing the difference:

View attachment 843285

While this is not what I am seeing on my screen, it does give an example of the difference in a colour managed environment. My screen is a 100% aRGB colour space, with 14 bit colour lookup table (LUT) and a 12 bit display panel. The DNG file on the left is a wide gamut file (ProPhotoRGB, 16 bit) while the shot on the right is the OoC LSF JPEG in an sRGB colour space and 8 bit. Both files are from the same exposure.



Print from the 16 bit wide gamut TIFF. aRGB is the safest for this, as you can see what you are doing if you have a decent monitor. I actually edit and print from a ProPhotoRGB (PPRGB) 16 bit colour space, as my printer is a 16 bit device and can print most of the visible part of a PPRGB colour space (Epson R3880).

Yes.

A 12 bit file can be mapped into a 16 bit colour space without data loss. If it is mapped into an 8 bit colour space, there will be (significant) data loss. Add that to the data loss from using a narrow gamut, defective colour space such as sRGB, and you can end up with a miserable mess.

IME, some people think that they need to use FF gear precisely because they do not understand colour spaces, bit depth and the effects of editing ...

AFAIK, only MF digital cameras use a wide gamut, 16 bit file format natively.



A basic understanding of colour certainly helps. About two thirds of the nearly 1,000 pages in Blatner and Fraser's "Real World Adobe Photoshop CS" is devoted to colour and white balance ...


Edit and save as TIFF-16 files in aRGB. This is safest.



Yes, the original RAW is always untouched unless you edit it with a Hexadecimal editor (not recommended ... :rofl: ... although I have done it a couple of times).

Any further edits to the saved TIFF-16 will cause some degradation. Usually insignificant, unless wild edits! Wild edits are best done on the original RAW in a 16 bit, wide gamut (PPRGB, etc) colour space. You can often get away with murder. However, if you find yourself doing this often, you really need to learn how to use your camera better!

It is always best to get things as right as possible in the camera when you push the shutter release.

Almost all the files I post here, and upload to my web site, are unedited OoC aRGB LSF JPEGs, just resized with a small USM to make up for the low setting on in-camera sharpening.

Ok this has been tremendously helpful to me— I really appreciate it.

I’ll initiate this new workflow tomorrow.
These types of file considerations are just as important as a disastrous choice to shoot jpeg only!
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,693
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
BTW, @Bluenose I do not use Olympus Workspace for editing. I use Photoshop and ACR.

OW is too limiting, even for the usually tiny editing I do.

I forgot to mention that my images here and on my web site are almost all converted to sRGB in the final step of my automated Photoshop macro.

I also always shoot RAW + LSF JPEG and aRGB with all my cameras.
 

Stanga

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Oct 16, 2016
Messages
1,421
I asked in the thread at https://www.mu-43.com/threads/some-people-say-m4-3-isnt-good-enough-for-pro-work.109170 if the OP used sRGB or aRGB for the same reason, since it involves printing the end result. I was surprised he uses sRGB. I reckon that most people don't think about why aRGB is preferred when printing is involved. The concept that sRGB is really aimed at displays, and aRGB is aimed at the printer is generally hard to grasp, unless you have worked in the print industry.

But coming back to a point that the OP mentioned, 300K for the final jpg output file seems a bit low to me. What graphics package is being used? I am leaning towards the idea that an output setting is wrong.
 

Bluenose

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
125
Hi so thanks to John King’s suggestions I have changed my workflow

1. Pen F shooting in Raw and superfine jpeg
2. Camera uses aRBG now instead of sRBG
3. I now will export edited Raws using Olympus Workspace to 16-bit tiff files instead of jpegs
4. Send 16-bit tiffs to be printed (this part is undetermined if it will work all the time, as 16-bit tiff files are huge, and perhaps many printers can’t or won’t handle the large files— like Blurb, Costco, simple prints whatever)
5. Question— if I want to use topaz denoise (or whatever programme) would I import the final edited 16-bit tiff from Olympus Workspace into Topaz?

But I did find out that I thought the changes I was making to raw files were actually being performed— they appeared to degrade the image only because the image did not ‘refresh’ automatically. I simply magnified or reduced magnification and voila the changes were there!

as to the 300kb moon image— yes this I thinkwas the result of cropping the edited raw and exporting to jpeg, and the moon (half moon) not having much data.

I exported the same moon pic to tiff (unfortunately not 16-bit as that is a somewhat ‘hidden’ option) and it was over 5mb!

In terms of 8-bit vs 16-bit tiff exports, in workspace apparently it is automatically 8-bit if you select EXIF with the tiff. If you don’t select the EXIF option, it will be 16-bit!

Any suggestions are welcome!!!
 

John King

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 20, 2020
Messages
2,693
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Real Name
John ...
Before putting images into a Blurb book, you need to downsize to the precise dimensions that are needed in the book. Save the downsized image as TIFF-8 and sRGB. Blurb doesn't do either 16 bit or aRGB.

However, you should use Tiff-16 and aRGB up until this stage, save your edited file, then resize and save as TIFF-8 and sRGB to the file you will use in your book.

Printing is an arcane art that can be quite complex.

File bit depth and colour space for printing on (say) my Epson R3880 is quite different from that required for books.

There is a local book printer here who will print 16 bit and wide gamut, but it doubles the cost.
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,699
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Your original post implies that you edited a raw in OW and then came in later and edited the same raw in OW and you found that it degraded - the very title of your thread suggests that this is what you mean. Is that what you literally mean?? @John King seems to have thought you meant that you SAVED (exported) the first results to TIF or jpg and then edit that file (not the original raw again) and found that it was degraded. So, which did you mean? To talk about any of this, it seems to me you have to clarify this.

As far as exporting, I agree that if you want to use an adjusted raw image for further editing in another editor, you should export it as a 16-bit TIF. However, once you are finished editing that tif and saved the results in some 16-bit format (I would be saving it in native Corel PaintShop Pro pspimage format with layers, etc), I don't see anything wrong with also saving the results as a low-compression jpg and sending that to get printed. I have never gotten poor results printing a high resolution low compression jpg.

5. Question— if I want to use topaz denoise (or whatever programme) would I import the final edited 16-bit tiff from Olympus Workspace into Topaz?
Yes. That's what I do - export from OW as 16-bit TIF, open that TIF in my editor (PaintShop Pro) and use a Topaz plugin (or open it in a stand-alone Topaz program).

But I did find out that I thought the changes I was making to raw files were actually being performed— they appeared to degrade the image only because the image did not ‘refresh’ automatically. I simply magnified or reduced magnification and voila the changes were there!

Yes, I found that myself - OW does not refresh the screen reliably at all. Sometimes a blurry area will be on the screen, but often only in one area of the image. Sometimes even large black rectangles are on my screen if scrolled around on an image. To get it to refresh, I usually zoom in and out on the image to goose it into refreshing.
 

Bluenose

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 24, 2019
Messages
125
Hi RAH the last bit you quoted from me is what was happening. I would make an edit on a raw file, wait for the ‘working circle’ to stop, and the image was degraded! I later found out it was some sort of rendering issue, as when I would minimize or enlarge the image, the edit was indeed there.

It is a non issue now

all the other stuff came out of the converter

now I am strongly thinking of buying an iPad Air and a good editing programme and using that instead. There are multiple ways of transferring files through adaptors, card readers etc etc etc

I just really hate laptops and find iPads very stable if you are not stupid with them

the real issue would be that Olympus workspace does certain things better than other programs,(High resolution shots for instance) so I would have to do those things on my workspace laptop

I downloaded darkroom just for iPhone 7, and was not impressed whatsoever

very simple. To be fair I tried on a tiny phone, but I still think I must be missing something here as it seems pretty bare bones to me!

Affinity photo seems to be excellent, but there are so many now that the modern iPads are fast
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,699
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
the real issue would be that Olympus workspace does certain things better than other programs,(High resolution shots for instance) so I would have to do those things on my workspace laptop
I agree that OW works better than anything else I've tried on hi-res RAW images. I am fairly familiar with Rawtherapee, but on a hi-res image I was unable to start with the RAW in RT and get TIF output that matched the hi-res JPG from the camera, NOISE-WISE.

In other words, if I used RT's noise-reduction, it removed too much detail. This was VERY subtle, but it was happening and I couldn't tweak the many options to get really good results. I was able to restore some in later PP, but then the image looked over-sharpened, and still lacked some detail. Very difficult to figure out exactly how to do the processing. But using OW, a could reliably produce a TIF with some noise reduction but still retaining all the details in the original and then was able to sharpen to my liking in PP and also do some extra noise reduction when necessary (using Topaz plugins, usually).
 

Ross the fiddler

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 20, 2012
Messages
4,293
Location
Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia
Real Name
Ross
Hi, I’m wondering if anyone has an insight into this bizarre occurrence

I took some good moon pics (75-300mm @300mm, spot metering, f8 to f13, daylight white balance, iso 200, 2 second electronic shutter delay on a tripod)

Raw + superfine jpeg

Last night— zero problems editing the good raws. Used sharpening, reduced highlights, adjusted clarity, de haze etc etc etc

Tonight— Editing the raws was VERY limited
I could adjust clarity and de haze, but ANY adjustments with white balance, sharpness, even picture mode (selecting vivid for example) produced an image that was obviously much much lower resolution (detail)

I didn’t have the time to slowly trouble shoot what I did wrong. Any thoughts?

it is also interesting that the raw file is 16mb, but the cropped exported jpeg is under 300kb! I think that is quite normal because there isn’t really much data in a moon shot.
I've not gone through & read all the replies & I'm probably repeating someone. It is just the initial low res display but saves a JPEG just fine. It will (usually) eventually show the full res raw (depending on settings).
 

RAH

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
1,699
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
I've not gone through & read all the replies & I'm probably repeating someone. It is just the initial low res display but saves a JPEG just fine. It will (usually) eventually show the full res raw (depending on settings).
Yup, he's all set. Go up about 2 posts and you'll see what it was (a screen refresh problem; I have it too).
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom