Preparing Raw Files for Processing with Artisan Pro X

Joel’s series of Comprehensive Webinar Tutorials on processing images with the Artisan Pro X panel truly are comprehensive; however, he doesn’t say much about optimally preparing raw files for the Artisan Pro workflow. Other than Joel saying that he never sharpens his images before processing, I can’t recall anything specific regarding raw file preparation in any of his tutorials. As part of my recent “Ten Images in Ten Days” exercise, I gained some insights on what works and what doesn’t for both regular color and infrared raw image files.

Full Tonal Range and Moderate Contrast

The first processing step in Joel’s workflow (after creation of hard masks) is almost always the removal of contrast; following this logic, I wrongly thought that I should try to keep my raw files flat (since I’m going to remove the contrast anyway). However, I was not thinking about how that would affect the luminosity masks that are central to the Artisan Pro workflow.

Luminosity masks created from a flat image that does not cover the full tonal range will be compressed with a truncated range of useful masks and fewer differences between the masks such that it would be more difficult to isolate a specific range of tones. The most useful luminosity masks will be generated from a starting image that covers the full tonal range from near pure black to near pure white with moderate contrast across that entire range.

The examples show an original, “unedited” raw file followed by an optimized (more or less) raw file. For the “Better” version, I expanded the tonal range of the image by increasing Exposure and Contrast while also using local adjustments on the sky and targeted highlights to keep those areas from getting too bright.

Although the two versions of the raw file look very similar, the histograms show the differences. The histogram for the Better raw file shows a more even distribution of pixels across the full tonal range- there is still a prominent peak on the left side but the right side of the histogram is taller. The peak on the left is also wider, and the last peak on the right has been pushed further toward to right edge.

The examples below show Lights, Midtones, and Darks luminosity masks for the Original raw file compared to the same masks created for the Better raw file. The first comparison is for the Lights4 luminosity mask (“Super Lights” using Tony Kuyper’s terminology) generated from the two versions of the raw file. In the Original version, Lights4 excludes all of the foreground parts of the image and includes only the brightest parts of the sky in the upper clouds.

The same luminosity mask for the optimized, Better raw file reveals some elements in the foreground, and the highlights are more uniform. By expanding the tonal range in the raw file, the brighter parts of the foreground are made brighter and are therefore shifted to appear in the narrower luminosity mask.

The next comparison shows the Midtones2 masks (“Expanded Mid-tones”). Notice how the sunlit mesa and foreground shadow areas are very flat in the Original version with not many details visible in the masks. Those same areas in the Better version show more details and light and dark areas. By expanding the tonal range, we have moved pixels out of the midtones.

The Darks5 (“Ultra Darks”) masks shown below appear very similar with essentially the same parts of the image revealed by the masks. However, because the tonal range has been expanded away from the midtones, the revealed (white) areas are brighter in the Better version. The narrower Darks masks, e.g., Darks5.5 or Darks6, will therefore have more areas revealed that could be used to make more targeted adjustments to just those values, whereas Darks6 might be totally black (and therefore useless) for the Original version.

Profile Selection

For most regular color images, the default Adobe Color or Standard profile provides an excellent starting point since those profiles automatically apply moderate contrast. Some images, however, may benefit from the use of a profile with more contrast, something like Camera Deep or Landscape, while other images need a Linear profile to control the contrast or retain highlight detail.

The example below shows a comparison of an image captured in a slot canyon. The back wall in the photo is brightly illuminated; although some areas appear to be in direct sunlight and blown out, the use of a Linear profile (in this case, Negative Lab v2.3) reveals that the bright spots are not overexposed and actually contain plenty of useful detail. (Note that I have not applied the optimization discussed previously to either of these raw versions.)

Infrared Profiles

Even more careful evaluation of alternative profiles is needed for processing of infrared images. Infrared images often have very strong inherent contrast in the raw file because objects reflecting direct sunlight are very bright while objects in shadow reflect almost no IR light. For these images, a standard IR camera profile may be fine, but sometimes an alternative such as a monochrome profile or possibly a linear raw profile that does not add contrast as part of demosaicing can be useful.

On the other hand, infrared photos captured after sunset or on strongly overcast days can be lacking in contrast. For these types of IR photos, an IR profile based off a more contrasty profile can build in some additional contrast.

The process of creating alternative IR profiles is straightforward-it’s simply a matter of starting with the alternative profile when creating the infrared profile using the Adobe DNG Profile Editor software. (I typically use a profile based on Camera Deep to add contrast or a linear base profile to remove contrast. These are created using Tonee Gee’s method for the CLiR workflow).

Sharpening and Noise Reduction

I’m not one to argue against Joel, but I like to apply a bit more than the Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom default sharpening (with strong masking) to my raw files before processing with Artisan Pro. I’ve also started using Lightroom Denoise on almost every image without exception, particularly infrared photos. There is basically no reason not to Denoise, and the Artisan Pro workflow tends to introduce some noise, again especially to infrared images.