Open Photography Forums  
HOME FORUMS NEWS FAQ SEARCH

Go Back   Open Photography Forums > Digital Darkroom > Image Processing and Workflow

Image Processing and Workflow RAW, DNG , TIFF and JPG. From Capture to Ready for Publish/Display. All software and techniques used within an image workflow, (except extensive retouching and repair or DAM).

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 4th, 2006, 10:48 AM
Gary C-G Gary C-G is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 36
Default JPEG Workflow. Is it an oxymoron?

I shoot in RAW 100%. I simply can't imaging processing 1000 jpegs to correct colour balance, fix horizon, crop. In ACR doing this to RAWs is a snap.

There are some who claim that there is a time and a place to shoot JPEG professionally over RAW but I can't see it. Even for the most time-pressed situation RAW is faster *unless* there is ZERO PP to be done. Which in my case is never.

So if anyone out there can advocate a good JPEG workflow that is fast and easy for fixing WB/horizon and cropping on large quantities of files I'd love to hear it.

The advocates so far for JPEG over RAW on dpr seem to be mostly people who don't understand the power of RAW and ACR.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old June 4th, 2006, 04:04 PM
GeorgeDefenbaugh GeorgeDefenbaugh is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Default Bibble supports a full JPG workflow...

That's why I have a Bibble license, so I can handle pictures taken with my PowerShot A620, which I use for underwater pictures. Note that I use both RSP and PS/CS2 for my RAW workflow, but in order to process JPGs (A620 doesn't do RAW) with the same workflow, I had to get Bibble.

I also keep Bibble around because sometimes people ask for help with their photos, and 99% of the time they are JPGs, usually done with a point-n-shoot camera. Could use Photoshop, but that's SO very very cumbersome when used with JPGs (compared to ACR), and most of those people don't have PS anyway (way too expensive), but they can afford Bibble. I can give them the BIB files and they can go home and carry on.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old June 4th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Sid Jervis Sid Jervis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Gary, I nearly agree with all you said; The only other time jpeg is mandatory for me is high speed burst work, 8.5 fps. In that case jpg is the route I take, but as you say, don't underestimate the power of raw.

My final point is, we all have different requirements.
__________________
Sid Jervis
Apple Mac person (sans Kool-Aid).
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old June 4th, 2006, 04:38 PM
Gary C-G Gary C-G is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 36
Default

I'll have to check out Bibble. Sounds interesting...
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old June 5th, 2006, 06:49 AM
GeorgeDefenbaugh GeorgeDefenbaugh is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2
Default I haven't tried the Lightroom beta, but...

I understand from the online literature that it hopes to be file format agnostic, meaning that it will handle all formats in the same workflow. Whether the format itself responds with equal dexterity is another matter, but at least the tool won't discriminate.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old June 5th, 2006, 09:42 AM
Sid Jervis Sid Jervis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeDefenbaugh
I understand from the online literature that it hopes to be file format agnostic, meaning that it will handle all formats in the same workflow. Whether the format itself responds with equal dexterity is another matter, but at least the tool won't discriminate.
I believe that is Adobe's intention. At present Lightroom beta 2 performs better with raw files than jpeg files. Hopefully in beta 3 (due before the end of June), this may have been addressed. It is likely that the Windows edition will be available on the same release date as beta 3.
$0.02
__________________
Sid Jervis
Apple Mac person (sans Kool-Aid).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old June 5th, 2006, 06:04 PM
Stan Jirman Stan Jirman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 189
Default

When it comes to processing the few JPG-only images that I have, I really like using Aperture. While one may say that other raw converters have better quality for this and that, I really like the simple and predictable use of Aperture for JPGs.
__________________
Stan Jirman
http://www.jirman.com/
Canon & Apple equipment
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old June 7th, 2006, 07:06 AM
Michael Tapes Michael Tapes is offline
OPF Administrator/Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 243
Default

Quote:
At present Lightroom beta 2 performs better with raw files than jpeg files.
If this were not the case, why would we be shooting RAW. It is like with WhiBal. We can correct a RAW or a JPEG to the proper White Balance. With Raw it is a simple click of the White balance tool, and we have a perfect WB with no image degradation.

However, no matter how we correct the White balance of the JPEG, either with Native PS tools, or our special JPEG Plug-In, you will never achieve the non-destructive results of the RAW file using a JPEG. The closer the JPEG is to "correct" the less destruction is done, but in no case with any adjustments, will the JPEG be as high quality as the RAW. Whether that will matter depends on the intended use and size of the image.

That is why we "RAW advocates" shoot 100% RAW. Because we never know when that magic photo op will grace our viewfinders (and hopefully our shutter finger is ready).

For that magic shot I want the 12-bit RAW data, not the 8 bit developed data.
__________________
Michael Tapes
Owner: Michael Tapes Design
Creator: WhiBal - Instant JPEG from Raw - LensAlign
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old June 7th, 2006, 07:50 PM
Alain Briot Alain Briot is offline
pro member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Phoenix, Arizona, USA
Posts: 1,423
Default

When it comes to professional photography, shooting jpegs is nearly always done to save time and to reduce file size for wireless transfer. Sports photographers are among those who shoot jpegs for example.

When it come to fine art photography, the only reason would have to be your personal style, i.e. that your style calls for shooting jpegs and that somehow the shortcomings are something you incorporate in the look of your images, somewhat like some used grain as a trademark look in pre-paradigm shift days.

Otherwise, there are no good reason to shoot jpegs. The advantages provided by RAW are just to good to pass up. Why would you willfully reduce the quality of your work unless for one of the reasons just mentioned ?
__________________
Alain Briot
Fine Art, workshops, books: Get 40 Free eBooks when you subscribe to my newsletter:
http://www.beautiful-landscape.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old June 8th, 2006, 06:54 AM
Dave Newton Dave Newton is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 14
Default

I shoot RAW 99% of the time. I like having the RAW data to work with and it's true that if you need to make adjustments, it's easier and the end result is better than had you shot with JPEGs and adjusted.
However, there is a 1% time when I shoot JPEGs - event coverage. If I go to an event I can take 1000+ shots in a day. Now, 1. I don't then have time to process 1000 RAWs (or even the edited down keepers from those 1000) 2. The images are never likely to be used any bigger than a DPS and for that, as long as I get it right in camera (which I usually do if I'm paying attention!) then JPEG is fine and 3. I simply don't have the storage space for 1000 RAW files in memory cards - well that won't be true any longer once I order a Hyperdrive, but is currently the case. As such, I shoot large JPEG. I've not yet had a client complain about the image quality (except for the showguide designers asking if I could send lower res files as the big ones from the 5D are too much!)

So yes, I'm a RAW advocate, but there is still, in my mind at least, a place for JPEG shooting.

Dave
__________________
Technical Editor:EOS Magazine
Photoblogger: Photopositive Blog
Photographer: Photopositive
Administrator: EOS Forums + EOS Classifieds
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old June 10th, 2006, 02:36 PM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Gary,

Quote:
The advocates so far for JPEG over RAW on dpr seem to be mostly people who don't understand the power of RAW and ACR.
Or maybe even some other raw developer. Some here don't seem to think that PS2/ACR is the only extant raw developer.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old June 10th, 2006, 03:26 PM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Gary,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary C-G
I shoot in RAW 100%. I simply can't imaging processing 1000 jpegs to correct colour balance, fix horizon, crop. In ACR doing this to RAWs is a snap.

There are some who claim that there is a time and a place to shoot JPEG professionally over RAW but I can't see it. Even for the most time-pressed situation RAW is faster *unless* there is ZERO PP to be done. Which in my case is never.
I have essentially never shot in raw, so I am proceeding from a position of trying to learn what is what.

Of course, I realize that such things as adjusting for importune exposure, adjusting white balance, and so forth really can hardly be done at all starting with a JPG file out of the camera.

The other postprocessing I do mostly involves cropping, global adjustrment of tonal scale and saturation, local adjustment of tonal scale and saturation, correction of redeye and greeneye, sharpening, removal of unwanted objects, "chromakey-like" background replacement, and so forth.

I am afraid lack of familiarity with raw image delopment makes me not understand how these things can be done to 1000 images faster when working with images I have developed from raw data than starting with developed images (such as a JPG files out of the camera).

I am also not sure what you are referring to about "fixing horizon". Are you speaking of rotation of the image to correct roll error? Is this faster when starting with an image that has lately been developed from raw data? How does that come about?

Perhaps once I understand all this, I will realize how my workflow can be expedited by starting with raw data files.

Thanks,

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old June 10th, 2006, 10:11 PM
Stan Jirman Stan Jirman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 189
Default

No, cropping and straightening won't be any easier with raw. It's really mainly about the control of exposure, WB, general color cast (beyond WB), sharpening control, and noise control.

However, every camera takes shortcuts when writing images as JPGs, for processing speed reasons. Try it once: save an image as raw+J, and then open both the JPG and the raw file in PS, and compare them. Even with the default settings kept unchanged in PS (turn off all "Auto" switches in PSCS2) you will clearly see that the raw image has more detail in it than even the highest quality setting in-camera JPG. This will be true even if you have PS produce only an 8-bit, sRGB image.

It's more work and takes up more space, but it's definitely rewarding.
__________________
Stan Jirman
http://www.jirman.com/
Canon & Apple equipment
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old June 10th, 2006, 10:37 PM
Sid Jervis Sid Jervis is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 200
Default

Michael, when I said "At present Lightroom beta 2 performs better with raw files than jpeg files."
I was not talking about the merits of RAW over jpeg. I meant that the performance of the beta 2 version of light room is directed more effectively at RAW, rather than at jpeg.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Tapes
If this were not the case, why would we be shooting RAW.
I agree with you on that point, for me RAW provides the definitive images in my workflow. However, when shooting sport I have to use jpegs, speed is the critical issue.
$0.02
__________________
Sid Jervis
Apple Mac person (sans Kool-Aid).
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old June 11th, 2006, 06:18 AM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Stan,

Quote:
It's more work and takes up more space, but it's definitely rewarding.
I assume you mean by "it" working with the raw output!

I've always thought such would be the case. I was trying to figure out the assertion that it would be less work.

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old June 11th, 2006, 03:31 PM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr
I assume you mean by "it" working with the raw output!

I've always thought such would be the case. I was trying to figure out the assertion that it would be less work.
Hi Doug,

In most RAW development software you can correct one image and the apply those settings to other shots in the same light. You can do this with JPEG too using Actions in PS, but that is more human work. Although it may be faster in wall clock time to do it on JPEGs, I find that batch processing is very efficient as I just do something else so wall clock time matters little while the usage of my time matters more.

This touches on the usage of white balance/gray cards to have a simple target to calibrate your white balance on to rapidly get the settings to apply to the set of shots in similar light. Myself, I tend to ignore it as when I typically shoot people in radically mixed lighting that correct skin tones are unreal and so it does not matter. Or if it does matter, then I drag the shutter (ambient fill light and flash as the main light) in which case I use a daylight white balance as most flash white balances are a variant on auto.

enjoy,

Sean
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old June 11th, 2006, 05:03 PM
Stan Jirman Stan Jirman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 189
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr
I assume you mean by "it" working with the raw output!

I've always thought such would be the case. I was trying to figure out the assertion that it would be less work.
What I mean is this: If you don't want to work with the images and just want to post them or whatever, then using JPG is less work. However, if it is your intention to work on them no matter what, then using the raw file is easier than using the JPG. Cropping and straightening won't be any easier, but all your common operations will be easier - as in, the same (even if minimal) amount of work will yield better results.

Sorry if I am not coming across...
__________________
Stan Jirman
http://www.jirman.com/
Canon & Apple equipment
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old June 11th, 2006, 09:14 PM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Sean,

Thanks for the clarification.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old June 11th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Stan,

Thanks for the clarification.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old June 12th, 2006, 08:59 AM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Sean,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean DeMerchant
Hi Doug,

In most RAW development software you can correct one image and the apply those settings to other shots in the same light.
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!

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)..

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?

I guess I would understand this better if I used Photoshop, or used raw outputs. But I'm thinking of moving more into working with raw outputs, and I'm trying to learn about the implications of it from those who do so regularly.

So far what I seem to hear is:

"It's easier to do various things to a batch if shots if we are starting with raw files than JPG files".

"Well, that is, we can do some things easily that produce better results if we are starting with raw files than JPG files."

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."

I'll get it eventually!

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old June 14th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Sean DeMerchant Sean DeMerchant is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Whidbey Island, Washington State, USA
Posts: 735
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr
Hi, Sean,


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!

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 big one is white balance. You can shoot a shot of a grey card or other neutral target (one of the moderators is involved with the WhiBal card for just this) or of a paint sample (say slightly blue or cyan tinted white to get a warm color balance).

Then you get the white balance (and exposure if shooting full manual) and apply it to the similar shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr

<snip>

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)?
There are two big gains I know of.

1) The workflow for these corrections in a RAW converter is often about 10% as much work (90% less work).

2) You are doing this on the RAW data yielding less posterization or other numerical roundoff errors in the result.

The downside is the conversion is slower. But since eating lunch and knowing you are getting work done at the same time is quite satisfying on multiple levels feels good, the time cost matters little. And if the time is that critical, the odds are you can afford a faster machine or multiple machines to make it faster.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr


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?


In many (ACR/Bridge, RSE, and RSP off the top of my head) you can assign corrections to an image and run the conversion later. It is not a huge amount faster. But it is still less work and you have the knowledge that you are gaining some numerical stability which can reduce stress for those technically trained.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr


I guess I would understand this better if I used Photoshop, or used raw outputs. But I'm thinking of moving more into working with raw outputs, and I'm trying to learn about the implications of it from those who do so regularly.

Try RSE (Raw Shooter Essentials 2006) from http://www.pixmantec.com for a free tool with good control. You might try SilkyPix if you are fond of the Velvia look. Both have free and for pay versions and there are more tools out there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr

So far what I seem to hear is:

"It's easier to do various things to a batch if shots if we are starting with raw files than JPG files".

"Well, that is, we can do some things easily that produce better results if we are starting with raw files than JPG files."

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."

I would put it as:

It is easier to drive to the home upgrade store and buy the door you want and hang it up with pins in (RAW Converter) than it is to buy an unfinished door, sand it down, and apply a finish to it.

The big thing here is many RAW converters have stepped back from the array of triples (RGB) and have more photographically oriented controls (an extra layer of abstraction). i.e.,

Buy the door with the finish you like rather than buying the door you like, the finish you like, a sander, sand paper, brush, and thinner to refinish to door to meet your aethstetic goals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr

I'll get it eventually!

Thanks for any help you can give me.

Best regards,

Doug
You are welcome. :o)

Give RSE and perhaps SilkyPix a try and see whether it is for you. Myself, I typically do the first 80% of work in the RAW converter for 80% of what I shoot. I do 98% in PS for the other 20%. That said, I let others see less than 3% of what I shoot as many are documentary images or redundant (shooting in the wind or at a moving subject).

Just play with it for a while and see if you like the results more. I know I do.

all the best,

Sean
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old June 14th, 2006, 02:16 AM
Don Lashier Don Lashier is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Oregon Coast
Posts: 745
Default

> You are doing this on the RAW data yielding less posterization or other numerical roundoff errors in the result.

Not only that but WB is much more difficult to do after raw conversion and it affects tonality as well as color balance.

- DL
__________________
Don Lashier
www.lashier.com
- old enough to know better - but I do it anyway
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old June 14th, 2006, 05:49 AM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi. Sean,

Thanks for the insights.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old June 19th, 2006, 09:28 PM
Lee Jay Fingersh Lee Jay Fingersh is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Westminster, Colorado
Posts: 15
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr
Hi, Sean,
Could you help me a little and give me an example of a "correction" you would want to apply to all images.
Doug
Hi Doug,

Maybe I could chip in a recent experience. I'm not fond of the "flash black hole" look so when I shoot with flash, it's usually just a little bit. That means I have to match my flash color to the background lighting color. I do that by sticking gels on the flash head.

I recently shot about 200 shots with a low-temperture (orange) gel on the 580EX+5D. Well, the 580EX feeds color temperature information to the camera and the camera uses that information to process the images. Of course, the flash has no idea there is a gel stuck to it.

When I looked at the images, they all had the WB set at entirely the wrong color temperature (off by over 2000K). I adjusted the first one by hand, and did a quick copy and paste on the other 199 images. In about 10 seconds, I had properly and accurately balanced 200 images. That wouldn't be easy on JPEG images. The best way is to guess at the proper color temperature and set it manually in-camera at shooting time. If you are wrong, you have to correct all the images again which takes much longer than 10 seconds, even in batch.

Lee Jay
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old June 20th, 2006, 01:08 AM
Tim Armes Tim Armes is offline
OPF Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Drôme, France
Posts: 404
Default

Hi Doug,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Kerr
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
"It's easier to do various things to a batch of shots if we are starting with raw files than JPG files".
True.

Quote:
"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.


Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
__________________
http://www.timothyarmes.com
http://workshops.timothyarmes.com

All images posted in OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated Comment Only or Edit and Repost.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old June 20th, 2006, 09:05 AM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi, Tim,

Thanks for the extensive insight.

And thanks to all the others who have helped illuminate this matter. I think I have "the picture" now.

Quote:
Photoshop actions are slower to perform and slower to execute, but they can be used similarly.
When I mentioned editor macros, I wasn't speaking of Photoshop actions; at this juncture, I rearely use Photoshop. MY editing is mostly done in Picture Publisher 10 (or -8, when I want to do things they screwed up in -10! - ah, cheese movement is so irritating!).

Thanks again,

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old June 20th, 2006, 10:01 AM
Doug Kerr
Guest (Moderated, Given real name in post)
 
Posts: n/a
Default I think I've got it now

I think I've got it now.

Earlier in this post, I heard how it was easier to process images in batches if starting with the raw files rather than image files (such as JPG files).

My take on that assertion (based on my own limited knowledge - I have never actually worked with raw files) - was initially as follows:

*********

1. Dealing with less-than ideal exposure, the application of white balance correction, and the general application of color correction is "best" done starting with the raw file. "Best" in this case means:

a. The end result will probably be best if working with the raw file.
b. In any case, the manipulation required will probably be more straightforward if starting with the raw file.
c. Many raw development programs have very effective ways of applying these adjustments consistently to a batch of files.

2. Cropping, cloning out of ex-boyfriends, removal of redeye, changing of resolution, and the like have to be done to actual images resident in the editor's memory. It doesn't matter whether the image in the editor was developed from raw data by part of the same program, by another program, or in camera. Sometimes these operations lend themselves to batch execution, but not usually (except for the resolution issue). Various editors have different ways of applying such operations to a batch of files, some of which are more easily used than others.

3. Thus, overall, the assertion that workflow is more expedient for processing batches of images when starting with raw files principally really means:

"Dealing with less-than ideal exposure, the application of white balance correction, and the application of color correction, can produce the best result if starting with a raw file; the manipulation required to do this is easiest if starting with a raw file; and many raw development programs provide handy ways to do this to batches of images."

The assertion is not really meaningful with respect to many other types of image processing.

*********

I asked my colleagues here to help refine or correct this initial outlook. In particular, I asked for insight into how the application of processes other than exposure compensation, white balance correct, and other color correction were most easily done, especially to a batch of picture, when starting with raw files.

I received many useful and detailed observations (almost all relating to the matter of dealing with less-than ideal exposure, the application of white balance correction, and the application of color correction).

Having taken all that into account, my current outlook on this matter is:

*********

1. Dealing with less-than ideal exposure, the application of white balance correction, and the general application of color correction is "best" done starting with the raw file. "Best" in this case means:

a. The end result will probably be best if working with the raw file.
b. In any case, the manipulation required will probably be more straightforward if starting with the raw file.
c. Many raw development programs have very effective ways of applying these adjustments consistently to a batch of files.

2. Cropping, cloning out of ex-boyfriends, removal of redeye, changing of resolution, and the like have to be done to actual images resident in the editor's memory. It doesn't matter whether the image in the editor was developed from raw data by part of the same program, by another program, or in camera. Sometimes these operations lend themselves to batch execution, but not usually (except for the resolution issue). Various editors have different ways of applying such operations to a batch of files, some of which are more easily used than others.

3. Thus, overall, the assertion that workflow is more expedient for processing batches of images when starting with raw files principally really means:

"Dealing with less-than ideal exposure, the application of white balance correction, and the application of color correction, can produce the best result if starting with a raw file; the manipulation required to do this is easiest if starting with a raw file; and many raw development programs provide handy ways to do this to batches of images."

The assertion is not really meaningful with respect to many other types of image processing.

*********

Thanks again for all the help and insight, and for your patience in working with an obstinate old telephone engineer.

Best regards,

Doug
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old June 20th, 2006, 12:31 PM
sidfrisby sidfrisby is offline
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Norwich, Norfolk, UK
Posts: 3
Default jpeg workflow

Hi there

I notice references in this thread to software that treats jpeg and raw file workflow in the same way. Can anyone name names as i would like to try this. I work with jpeg's for news photo's and raw for magazine / personal shots.

I am using windows xp.

best wishes
__________________
Sid Frisby
Norwich,
Norfolk, UK
Member NUJ & BPPA
Webpage: www.sidfrisby.com
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old June 20th, 2006, 01:21 PM
Diane Fields Diane Fields is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: western North Carolina
Posts: 355
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidfrisby
Hi there

I notice references in this thread to software that treats jpeg and raw file workflow in the same way. Can anyone name names as i would like to try this. I work with jpeg's for news photo's and raw for magazine / personal shots.

I am using windows xp.

best wishes
Sid, try Bibble Pro http://www.bibblelabs.com/ . I don't know how much you can do with jpegs, but certainly quite a few adjustments. I have tried it--Eric Hyman was kind enough to send me a copy to try---but I never have become enamored with it (I find it less user friendly than my 2 RCs of choice and you can't use a camera profile--I use C1 and RSP both with Magne NIlsen's profiles for my camera bodies)-altho' others do like it. One'pro' may be because you can deal with jpegs as well as RAWs.

I neglected to add that if you have a Canon--DPP also allows you to adjust jpegs (and TIFFS).

C1 allows you to view jpegs but make no adjustments--so would not serve for you and RSP does not do either at present.

Diane

Last edited by Diane Fields; June 20th, 2006 at 01:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old June 20th, 2006, 01:38 PM
Tim Armes Tim Armes is offline
OPF Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Drôme, France
Posts: 404
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sidfrisby
Hi there

I notice references in this thread to software that treats jpeg and raw file workflow in the same way. Can anyone name names as i would like to try this. I work with jpeg's for news photo's and raw for magazine / personal shots.

I am using windows xp.

best wishes
Hi,

I believe that Lightroom is designed this way. However, being a PC user, I've yet to experience the product...

Tim
__________________
http://www.timothyarmes.com
http://workshops.timothyarmes.com

All images posted in OPF are assumed to be for Comment & Critique, unless otherwise designated Comment Only or Edit and Repost.

Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:47 AM.


Posting images or text grants license to OPF, yet © of such remain with its creator. Still, all assembled discussion © 2006-2017 Asher Kelman (all rights reserved) Posts with new theme or unusual image might be moved/copied to a new thread!