Convert from Canon CR2 raw to PNG?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by johnburns007@gmail.com, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hi all.
    I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    way of the raw file and will never look back.

    I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    JPEG.

    I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).

    Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    use?

    If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    Delete the CR2)

    Thanks

    John
    , Aug 14, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi all.
    > I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    > I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    > way of the raw file and will never look back.
    >
    > I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    > opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    > JPEG.
    >
    > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    >
    > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > use?
    >
    > If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    > from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    > exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    > Delete the CR2)
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > John
    , Aug 14, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Neil Ellwood Guest

    On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 04:52:25 -0700, GORIA22G wrote:

    >
    > wrote:
    >> Hi all.
    >> I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    >> I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    >> way of the raw file and will never look back.
    >>
    >> I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    >> opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    >> JPEG.
    >>
    >> I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    >> be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    >> Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    >> export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    >> photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    >> slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    >> contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).

    I like png.

    I use the Gimp and everything in my eos 350D is saved in raw then goes
    through Gimp and then saved in png format.

    --
    Neil
    Delete l to reply
    Neil Ellwood, Aug 14, 2006
    #3
  4. tomm42 Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi all.
    > I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    > I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    > way of the raw file and will never look back.
    >
    > I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    > opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    > JPEG.
    >
    > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    >
    > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > use?
    >
    > If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    > from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    > exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    > Delete the CR2)
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > John


    Sounds like you are creating 48bit color files (16 bits per color
    channel). 16bit files can only be saved in certain formats,
    interestingly one is PNG (there goes this theory). There is a drop down
    menu in the PS save dialog box to select your file types. If you are
    saving as a 24 bit files there are quite a few choices but PNG is
    there, much less in the 48 bit.
    Do you throw out negatives too? I generally just keep the RAW files,
    unless I'm using the file for something else (printing, publication).
    tomm42, Aug 14, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    tomm42 wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Hi all.
    > > I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    > > I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    > > way of the raw file and will never look back.
    > >
    > > I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    > > opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    > > JPEG.
    > >
    > > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    > > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    > >
    > > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > > use?
    > >
    > > If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    > > from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    > > exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    > > Delete the CR2)
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > John

    >
    > Sounds like you are creating 48bit color files (16 bits per color
    > channel). 16bit files can only be saved in certain formats,
    > interestingly one is PNG (there goes this theory). There is a drop down
    > menu in the PS save dialog box to select your file types. If you are
    > saving as a 24 bit files there are quite a few choices but PNG is
    > there, much less in the 48 bit.
    > Do you throw out negatives too? I generally just keep the RAW files,
    > unless I'm using the file for something else (printing, publication).


    Thanks for your reply,
    Firstly: No, i don't throw out negatives, it must be just a different
    attitude towards digital files since you can get fairly good prints
    from the JPEGs.

    I'm not actually opening the images in photoshop. In photoshop CS2,
    you can go to file>open and select the raw files. Once the files are
    selected a window appears where you can change some of the details of
    the raw images such a white balance, brightness, exposure, etc. You
    can then either open the files into photoshop for editing or save them
    back as a file.

    I am trying to save as png from this window rather than open all the
    raw files into photoshop as child windows.

    Any ideas?
    , Aug 14, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    tomm42 wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > Hi all.
    > > I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    > > I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    > > way of the raw file and will never look back.
    > >
    > > I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    > > opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    > > JPEG.
    > >
    > > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    > > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    > >
    > > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > > use?
    > >
    > > If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    > > from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    > > exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    > > Delete the CR2)
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > John

    >
    > Sounds like you are creating 48bit color files (16 bits per color
    > channel). 16bit files can only be saved in certain formats,
    > interestingly one is PNG (there goes this theory). There is a drop down
    > menu in the PS save dialog box to select your file types. If you are
    > saving as a 24 bit files there are quite a few choices but PNG is
    > there, much less in the 48 bit.
    > Do you throw out negatives too? I generally just keep the RAW files,
    > unless I'm using the file for something else (printing, publication).


    Thanks for your reply,
    Firstly: No, i don't throw out negatives, it must be just a different
    attitude towards digital files since you can get fairly good prints
    from the JPEGs.

    I'm not actually opening the images in photoshop. In photoshop CS2,
    you can go to file>open and select the raw files. Once the files are
    selected a window appears where you can change some of the details of
    the raw images such a white balance, brightness, exposure, etc. You
    can then either open the files into photoshop for editing or save them
    back as a file.

    I am trying to save as png from this window rather than open all the
    raw files into photoshop as child windows.

    Any ideas?
    , Aug 14, 2006
    #6
  7. Jim Townsend Guest

    wrote:


    > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    >
    > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > use?


    Are you discarding the original RAW images ? If not, I can't see why
    you'd want to save as PNG. There's HARDLY (if any) any visual difference
    between a PNG image and a JPEG using low compression. (I can't see any
    difference) This applies to viewing on the monitor or printing. All you'd
    be accomplishing is using more disk space.

    (I know disk space is cheap, but I find the time involved in backing up
    and maintaining images can become a chore when the gigabyte count gets
    high enough)

    If you're keeping the original RAW image, then you have the 'negative'
    with all the information. If you have a real need for the highest quality
    possible, then you can always go back to the RAW 'negative'.

    If you aren't keeping the original RAW file then you should be saving your
    images as 32 bit. Anything less and you are throwing away color detail.
    If I never kept my RAW files, I'd be using 32 bit TIFF rather than PNG.
    Of course I keep my RAW files so JPEG is just fine for archiving.

    Of course you SHOULD be keeping the RAW files. They are the 'negative'
    and contain ALL the information your camera captured.
    Jim Townsend, Aug 14, 2006
    #7
  8. bmoag Guest

    You really need to rethink the whole workflow issue.
    Not to be disrespectful but you appear to need to spend more time reading
    about the basics of how to use Photoshop, or watching video tutorials,
    rather than posting to a newsgroup like this to find out the best solution
    for a problem that should not exist.
    The benefits of 48bit color are debatable. Regardless, if you hold the idea
    of 48 bit color and jpeg in your head at the same time then you really are
    not understanding the relevant issues with regard to image quality.
    Storage is cheap so worrying about file size in terms of storage is like
    worrying about the cost of air in your tires when gas sells for $5 a gallon.
    File size is an issue not for storage but because Photoshop running on even
    the fastest CPU with gigabytes of RAM will eventually start choking on file
    sizes larger than 100mbs or after a session where many large files have been
    processed. If you do not print larger than 8.5 x 11 then most of the data in
    that immense file will be arbitrarily stripped out by the 8 bit printer
    driver, but that is another issue. Also another issue is that you cannot see
    48 bits of color data and no display or printing process can reproduce 48
    bit color, but I digress.
    You should be thinking about lossless image processing and storage: layers
    and the PSD format. Label all your layers, save notes within the file, so
    when you reopen the image you will know what you have already done to it.
    Save your original raw image, as DNG if you like or whatever preserves the
    exif data (IMHO the least important image info) and save your processed
    image any way you like along with the PSD (this loses the "history" info but
    that will not matter if you have labelled layers).
    bmoag, Aug 14, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Thanks for all your recommendations.

    The initial reason for my inquiry is because I currently have about
    8000 photos on a telehoused server all availabl over the net as
    120x120, 600x600 and full res images.

    Up until now I've kept a copy of this on two servers and a portable
    hard drive but wanted to look at a lossless alternative while still
    having them available on the net. I've since decided that this is not
    the best way forward so will from now on keep the raw images and not
    bother linking to a web available full res image - its simply not
    required.

    I agree that harddrive space is cheap and that at this point in time,
    48 bit color is overkill. Does the original raw file even store the
    data in 48bit?

    I'm also interested from an earlier post how to get a 32 bit image..
    unless its stored in CYMK I can't fathom how 32 is divisable by 3
    unless its 10 bit colour with 2 bits wasted for ease of transportation
    within 4 byte (32 bit) chunks.
    , Aug 14, 2006
    #9
  10. ColinD Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi all.
    > I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    > I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    > way of the raw file and will never look back.
    >
    > I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    > opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    > JPEG.
    >
    > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    >
    > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > use?
    >
    > If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    > from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    > exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    > Delete the CR2)
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > John
    >

    You might like to try the DxO Optics program ( http://www.dxo.com ),
    which will convert to jpg, tiff, or dng, 8 or 16-bit, as you wish; as
    well it will correct exposure color from the exif data, and also correct
    for lens distortion and chromatic aberration specific to the lens used -
    again from exif - and does it all automatically. reads from one folder,
    puts the corrected images into any other folder of your choice.

    Colin D.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    ColinD, Aug 15, 2006
    #10
  11. ColinD Guest

    ColinD wrote:
    > wrote:
    >> Hi all.
    >> I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    >> I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    >> way of the raw file and will never look back.
    >>
    >> I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    >> opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    >> JPEG.
    >>
    >> I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    >> be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.
    >> Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    >> export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    >> photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    >> slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    >> contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).
    >>
    >> Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    >> use?
    >>
    >> If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    >> from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    >> exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    >> Delete the CR2)
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >>
    >> John
    >>

    > You might like to try the DxO Optics program ( http://www.dxo.com ),
    > which will convert to jpg, tiff, or dng, 8 or 16-bit, as you wish; as
    > well it will correct exposure color from the exif data, and also correct
    > for lens distortion and chromatic aberration specific to the lens used -
    > again from exif - and does it all automatically. reads from one folder,
    > puts the corrected images into any other folder of your choice.
    >
    > Colin D.
    >

    Ooops! Mixup between png and dng. Still, dng might be worth looking
    at.

    Colin D.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
    ColinD, Aug 15, 2006
    #11
  12. Mike Russell Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi all.
    > I've had a canon EOS350D for about a year now, and up until a month ago
    > I always used high quality JPEGs for my images. I've recently gone the
    > way of the raw file and will never look back.


    I'd be interested in what went into this decision. Do you have a specific
    image that you believe does better starting from raw than high quality jpeg,
    or were you persuaded by someone's discussion of the topic?

    > I use photoshop CS2 to convert my images to JPEG - normally not even
    > opening them into Photochop, just using the import plugin and saving to
    > JPEG.


    It's not clear that this is giving you an advantage over using jpeg from the
    start.

    > I have been investigating the use of PNG files and think that I should
    > be using these instead of JPEGs to preserve detail in my photos.


    Png is a lossless format, and there are situaitons - medical images for
    example - where this is crucial. With few exceptions high quality jpeg is
    adequate, though I would recommend against editing and resaving a chain of
    jpegs.

    > Unfortunately to convert an image to png in photoshop, I either have to
    > export as a TIFF (45MB) and then batch convert to PNG or open into
    > photoshop and then save as a PNG. Both ways lose the EXIF data and are
    > slow (not to mention the TIFF way requires a temp folder of 5GB for the
    > contents of a 1GB card full of raw files).


    This should give you an indication of how many other people use this
    workflow: very few indeed.

    > Is PNG the way I should be going or is there a better format I should
    > use?


    Most people use PSD or TIFF files for lossless storage.

    > If PNG is the best way to go, is there some other way of converting
    > from CR2 to PNG? Bear in mind for 99% of my photos, all I adjust is the
    > exposure, brightness and white balance before I save them (and Gasp!
    > Delete the CR2)


    The CR2 is your digital negative, and I recommend that you keep it in
    preference even to your edited files. Raw files are smaller than the
    corresponding TIFF or PSD file, and since raw processing is an evolving art
    you may be able to get a better image from your files in the future.

    That said, there is nothing wrong with using high quality jpeg as your main
    format. There is much more to getting good images than simply adjusting
    exposure and color temp. I would also recommend that you delve more deeply
    into editing your images with - what else - curves!
    --
    Mike Russell
    www.curvemeister.com/forum/
    Mike Russell, Aug 15, 2006
    #12
  13. Asle Bjerva Guest

    wrote:
    > Thanks for all your recommendations.
    >
    > The initial reason for my inquiry is because I currently have about
    > 8000 photos on a telehoused server all availabl over the net as
    > 120x120, 600x600 and full res images.


    Set your Canon 350d to save the same picture in raw AND jpg.
    Save the raw file as your "negative", and use the jpg for low res. work.

    AsleB, Oslo, Norway
    Asle Bjerva, Aug 15, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Master Chef Richard Campbell

    350D/xt .CR2 RAW files and Photoshop CS

    Master Chef Richard Campbell, Mar 18, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    572
    Brian Bowles
    Mar 19, 2005
  2. Ralf Schmode
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    941
  3. GT

    CR2 convert to JPG software?

    GT, Jul 14, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    765
    Matt Ion
    Jul 21, 2005
  4. Mardon

    Batch CR2 RAW to DNG? Adobe Bridge - CS2 How?

    Mardon, Jan 10, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,008
    Mardon
    Jan 11, 2006
  5. alex

    RAW (CR2) import into Paintshop pro

    alex, Apr 12, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    719
    Helen
    Apr 13, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page