opening .raw file in photoshop

[zanyzach37]

hi guys,

i got three files from a client who took pictures with a camera that gave a ".raw" extension as the output. they're 28MB each, and i assume she took them with a panasonic lumix, but she doesn't remember and none of the metadata is loading in bridge, lightroom, aperture, etc.

when i try to open them in photoshop, i get the following:



if i continue, i get a 28MB TIF, but that doesn't provide me with the RAW flexibility i need to work on the file...

i tried converting the file to a DNG, no dice, DNG converter doesn't recognize it. tried changing the file extension to something like CR2 to see if it would open in camera RAW, and also tried opening it in capture one, but both programs wouldn't recognize it.

any ideas?

thanks,

zach :-)

[k bennett]

If you open it as a 16-bit file, does that give you a little more headroom for any work you have to do on the file?

[Panopeeper]

The file name extention ".raw" is used for files, which do not contain any information regarding the interpretation but pixel values like in a memory bit map. This has nothing toi do with raw images in the sense we are talking about it in this forum. Accordingly, one does not have the freedom to specify this or that; only one set of specifications will fit.

The question is, if this file is really a ".raw" file or not. Why don't you upload one?

[zanyzach37]

here's a megaupload link for one of the files.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=4W9HFWEO

i guess i could get away with working on the 16 bit file, but i'd really rather not. plus, if i have this issue with another client, i'd rather know what i'm doing and get to the bottom of it than encounter a problem repeatedly with no solution or scope of the issue. truth be told working on the 16 bit file might be my only option if this file doesn't seem to work out with regard to editing it in RAW. the person who gave me the file really has no idea what they're doing (kind of like how i feel right now, haha) so asking her any questions is completely useless.

[zanyzach37]

oh, and thanks so much for your quick replies and willingness to help out with this. i spent a good hour trying to figure it out and got nowhere, so any and all help you guys are providing is appreciated greatly. :-)

[Panopeeper]

This file is really a ".raw", i.e. without any metadata. Note: 3872x2592 pixels x 3 byte make 30108672 bytes, which is exactly the file size. Of course there are some other combinations, like 1936x2592 pixels in 16bit depth, but PS shows, that it is really 3872x2592, 8bit.

What you really miss now is the color space; the file does not say anything. If you load it is PS, it will be interpreted like your working color space, which is probably sRGB (check it out). Judging from what I see, sRGB is correct.

Re your original question, the "raw flexibility": that is gone long ago. Hopwever, you can load it in ACR via LR or Bridge and change the WB if you want to; it is not necessary, judged from the shirt of the guy at the right. Otherwise, do whatever you want to in PS, there is nothing to gain any more.

[zanyzach37]

wow, that is so odd. i guess i'll handle her files the way you suggested from now on. i'm really curious as to why this would be the output on a camera. it seems completely impractical.

anyway, thanks a bunch for all the help, i'll genuinely be able to sleep better knowing that it was the file and not me, haha.

:-)

[Panopeeper]

Forgot to say: if you want to load in in LR/ACR, you have to save it from PS as JPEG, or better TIFF but declare the color space before.

[zanyzach37]

yeah, i figured. it's just so weird. i don't understand why they wouldn't just write it as a TIFF directly from the camera and declare the space adobe RGB 1998. people who cared about that kind of thing would appreciate it, and people who didn't wouldn't even be able to tell the difference.

maybe it's just a verbiage/nomenclature thing i'm hung up on. i thought i'd be able to do a lot more with the files she was sending (although i have to say when she told me the individual files were almost 30MB each i knew something was up). still... another reason for some kind of universal standard for RAW output.