Hi Doug,
Doug Kerr said:
Could you help me a little and give me an example of a "correction" you would want to apply to all images. I visualize things done to overcome importune expsure, for color balance or other color cast adjustment, and so forth. In that case, these things are hard to do at all starting with a developed image (such as one we acquire in a JPG file), so the notion of their being easier to execute when starting with a raw file than with an image file is really meaningless. It's like saying it's easier to make a controlled change in altitude with a Cessna than with a Buick!
I feel that your analogy is flawed since it is in fact possible to remove colour casts and correct white balance of JPEG files, they don't don't produce results of the same quality.
Since these operations are the basic requirements of a RAW developer they are typically quicker and easier to perform using such a tool (=
less work) than with a JPEG in Photoshop.
However, as has been mentioned, some converters are now allowing the same workflow for JPEG and RAW images, so this speed advantage become mute and the result is a quick workflow for both images types with RAW winning on quality.
But I'm having trouble understanding what other kind of adjustments we might want to make identically to a handful of shots (that would then be easier to make in bulk if we were starting with raw files than JPG files)..
The list that you mention are typical of the types of operation that
may be carried out identically across a number of similar images. This is especially true in studio images or images from an indoor environment such as a stadium, in such cases the same white balance correction will often need to be applied to all images. As a case in point, a studio photographer will often start the shoot with the model holding a Gretag colour checker, and will use this to define the correction for the entire shoot.
Of course, there are times when, just to save time (when the product is not that critical), I will decide to apply a common remapping of the tonal scale, or apply a common recipe for sharpening, to a handful of shots, or perhaps resample a batch of images to a lower resolution or convert them to gray scale.
I'm having trouble understanding why this is easier starting with a raw data set than with an image already developed (in camera). Does this have to do with the user interface of raw developing packages? Is that even true when the raw development is integrated with an image editor (as in the case of ACR as a block on PS2)?
In any case, when I want to do that, I just make one or more "instant macros" for the operation(s) I want to apply and then apply them in the batch mode of the editor. Is there an easier way if raw development is integrated into the operation?
Yes, it is quicker with a
good RAW converter due to the user interface. The interface is typically designed to allow fast treatment of batches of files. Photoshop actions are slower to perform and slower to execute, but they can be used similarly.
ACR is a seperate module to Photoshop, and can be considered a RAW converter in it's own right.
"It's easier to do various things to a batch of shots if we are starting with raw files than JPG files".
True.
"Well, that is, we can do some things easily that produce better results if we are starting with raw files than JPG files."
Your first statement doesn't lead to the second, I feel that you're misinterpreting on purpose
Inital corrections are quicker to carry out in a RAW converter than in Photoshop because the converter is designed around such a workflow. If you have perfomed a shoot under of images taken under the same lighting then batch processing options will make this much easier to handle than in Photoshop.
A RAW converter can only do a certain number of things: white balance correction, curves/levels, rotation, cropping, etc. It stands to reason that these few options will be more readily available and more tailered to the requirements of a fast workflow than can be offered in a do-it-all solution such as Photoshop.
It sounds a little bit like:
"It's easier to make door panels from from small planks of cherry with a table saw than from big sheets of pine plywood with a hand circular saw, because the panels made from cherry are much nicer."
You made me smile, but it's not really fair. A RAW workflow produces better results, and up till recently RAW converters
have offered a faster workflow for basic image corrections (especially for a batch of images). As I mentioned above, some converters now work with JPEG too, so RAW itself may no longer have this speed advantage. In other words, it's the tools that offer the streamlined workflow, and since most are currently dedicated to RAW, RAW has offered a faster workflow. This is now changing.
Of course, if you're JPEGs are perfect out of the camera, then RAW can't possible offer the fastest workflow. For many of us this isn't the case.
That said, if you're going to be using, for example, Lightroom, then the workflow is the same in both cases. Why use JPEG.
On top of all that are the advantages that RAW itself offers, (12 bit, no loss of quality from in camera operations, greater dynamic range, etc.) but you already seem aware of these.
Thanks for any help you can give me.
You're best bet is to read "
Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop"by Bruce Fraser, which is aimed specifically at showing the reader how the achieve a fast RAW workflow using Photoshop's ACR module.
Tim