Converting RAW files to jpg in CS5
 

Hi Everyone!

I opened up a shot I took in RAW in Camera RAW and made my adjustments. Then did "file/save as .psd" and did a few more adjustments. Then a bit of sharpening, flatten image & did "file/save as .jpg" then reduced ppi from 300 to 150.

This jpg that i emailed a few people was really awful and grainy and looked nothing like the lovely RAW image i had on my laptop! :-(

Am I doing something wrong?! Apologies I'm a fairly newbie..

Any advice is welcome!
Thanks
Daniel

you should get a perfectly acceptable jpg using that process. What compression quality are you saving your jpg at?

If it's too low that will reduce the quality of the image. I tend to save them at about 85% to 100% quality, or compression rate 10-12.

Are you saving them at too low a quality?

And, while your process should work, there's not a lot of point in saving them as PSD directly from ACR.... just "open" them and they'll open in Photoshop, then edit, save as PSD if you like, and then do your reductions and save as JPG from there. You'll end up with 3 files - the original Raw, a PSD and a JPG.

geoff...you mean open picture in camera raw,do some adjustments then open image in photoshop as a raw file & then some layer adj, then save as jpg by passing the psd?

thanks

Not quite....
Open the Raw in ACR, make your adjustments (you could do several at a time). At the bottom of ACR there are five buttons... the important ones are[B] 'Save Image'[/B] - giving you a limited choice of options. [B]'Done'[/B] - which will keep your corrections in a 'sidecar' file (unless it's a DNG file, in which case the corrections are kept in the file data) and close the file and ACR.[B] 'Open Image'[/B] opens your file, still as a Raw but with corrections made, in Photoshop.

Make your edits as required - then save as a PSD, if you like.... this will be quite a big file - many people will use this as the 'Master File' and will make the best prints on your home printer. Then if/when you want JPGs at different sizes or compressions for different purposes, open the PSD and make 'fresh' JPGs from that.

This workflow can fill up your hard disk pretty quickly but space is cheap now and you can always back-up files to DVD or external drive. Some people get serious about their 'filing system', with Raws in one place or folder, PSDs in another - as your 'Masters' - and JPGs wherever you want, perhaps by subject, location, theme or date.

I think Cathus has got it nailed. Always save at max. quality regardless of any other space saving reductions you might have done. Reducing the ppi to 150 shouldn't result in any overt pixelation unless your relatives are making wallpaper from the jpegs. I am assuming the problem arises when they print the pix not when viewing on screen.
I can't think of anything else you've done which could cause this unless you've overcooked your 'adjustments';).

Chris

I think you may have nailed it on the head with the overcooking of the adjustments in the raw/psd file & not to do with actual jpeg quality

As a novice it's quite difficult to know where to start when you initially open up the Raw file in ACR :-(

It looks soooo diiferent to the image that appears on my 500d lcd screen.

I've bought both Selby & Evening's book on how to post process an image & the books are great but unless you don't know what the problems are in the first place (over exposed / under exposed / not sharp enough / some parts not in focus) it's difficult to get going!

I don't suppose anyone has any advice on this? I'm thinking that a proper classroom course is what's needed?
I live and work in London.

Thanks
Daniel

Hi Daniel,
So, I'm not the only one in London then;)
First, can I suggest you try your local adult-education college. They don't all do it, but my local one does a 'one morning a week, 5 week' course on basic PS and it's cheap as chips. I just wish I'd known about this when I started out.
Alternatively I recommend Scott Kelby's book "Adobe Photoshop CS5" - He probably does one for 'Elements' as well if that's what you're using.
It can be very tempting to wind everything up to the max in ACR to give your pics maximum punch, but everything you do has a 'noise' price and whilst it's less pronounced in ACR as in JPEG it still mounts up. Try looking at the image on the screen and decide what it needs rather than putting your size 10's on and kicking everything all over the place.
Keep it up

[QUOTE=dgazz;58383]Chris

I think you may have nailed it on the head with the overcooking of the adjustments in the raw/psd file & not to do with actual jpeg quality

As a novice it's quite difficult to know where to start when you initially open up the Raw file in ACR :-(

It looks soooo diiferent to the image that appears on my 500d lcd screen.
Daniel[/QUOTE]

Hi Daniel,

Check [URL="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml"]this link[/URL] - it shows you how to use the histogram to identify whether a photo is under or over exposed - that's your first start point. Once you get a correctly exposed shot in camera, it's a lot easier to make adjustments in ACR or another package.

As a rule of thumb, I tend to do the following to my images:

Contrast - check if the image has a nice contrast. If it's too flat (the shadows and highlights are a bit grey and it lacks punch) then boost the contrast up
Saturation - are the colours as vibrant as you saw them in real life? Probably not - boost the saturation slightly, and maybe add a little vibrance. Don't over-do the saturation, or you'll make everything look plastic
Fill light - are the dark areas of the image lacking in detail? Boost up the fill light to recover that detail
Recovery - are the highlights blown out and basically pure white / very bright? Try adding some recovery to tone them down a bit
Exposure - Adjusting the contrast and saturation can often darken an image. Boost up the exposure or brightness
Crop - crop the scene to remove any clutter or distractions around the edge

Thanks Matt, some useful steps there :-)

That histogram article was quite interesting too!