| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2005 03:06:26 AM · #1 |
ok, I've been using RAW for quite a while and really like the freedom it provides, the quality and the ability to 'rescue' images. BUT I have to find an alternative solution. With my current RAW workflow it's taking far too much time to process images and now I'm at a point where my backlog of work waiting to be processed dates back to August!
I currently shoot in RAW + JPG (basic), I find that 98% of the time the JPG versions have the look and feel that I'm after (I've spend a lot of time getting the setting how I like in camera) but the quality of the 'basic' JPG is lacking and sadly the D70 only allows for the 'basic' option alongside a RAW file. I do understand that the D200 offer RAW + JPG (fine) but this is not going to happen for me anywhere in the near future.
As I see it my best option is to put RAW aside and start shooting in JPG (fine) as this will mean that I can get images processed quickly enough, keeping the use of RAW back to an absolute minimum.
Any thoughts?
Darren
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 03:24:21 AM · #2 |
| How much computing power do you have? Translated. How old is your 'puter. I was very frustrated shooting raw with my old computer. With the brand new one, I can't wait for Christmas break to start so I can start converting the hundreds or thousands of raw files I have to go through... |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 03:49:32 AM · #3 |
Shooting RAW is a savior and a curse. Don't have PSCS2 so I have to open up RAW Essentials convert then port over to PS7 which makes it a long process.
Shooting in RAW makes me shoot less images. Shooting in Jpeg I would come back sometimes with 1,000 images, so I guess it evens out in processing time.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 04:34:39 AM · #4 |
| I'm no expert but I love the adjustments available in RAW and the higher quality. If I ever shoot a fantastic picture I would want to have the maximum quality that RAW gives. I can't fit as many pics on my 2GB card but it just makes me more choosy about what and how I shoot. I keep my best RAW pics and just produce a Screen size jpeg for my screen saver and delete the 16 bit TIFF used for editing in PS. That way I always have the highest quality to go back to and do all the editing again when I need to. It takes time and hard drive space but I feel you can get a jpeg or 16 Bit TIFF from RAW but you can't get that from jpeg. I like action shots and I'm not always good at adjusting exposure so it's a real saviour to be able to recover in RAW. For me I've had to get better at sorting and throwing out pictures in the RAW viewer program. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 06:49:00 AM · #5 |
Personally, I find that RAW is the best way to go from a productivity point of view. The RAW converter, for example, handles the image rotation during conversion. I only seem to be making minor exposure and white balance edits in the RAW converter, along with some sharpening. I rarely do any local editing, so don't need to transfer to Photoshop. I can breeze through a day's worth of photos, weeding out the ones I don't want to keep, make adjustments to the keepers and then add them to the queue. I just leave the converter working in the background while doing something else. The added advantage is that there is no real danger of overwriting the original file.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 07:58:20 AM · #6 |
RAW is awesome when you need it, but can consume a lot of time after the fact, especially on jobs where there is a need for a lot of shots, like weddings or other events. What I have seen a lot of wedding photographers do is shoot RAW during the ceremony or whenever else the light is poor, and use JPG for the reception when they can use flash etc.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:33:15 AM · #7 |
i've found shooting RAW actually saves me processing time.
all PS is for is mainly resizing, and saving. unless cloning dust and what not needs to be done, most of my files are finished when i export out of raw shooter premium.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:47:29 AM · #8 |
I've found that I can get a lot of flexibilty with the jpeg fine files by turning down the camera's contrast, saturation and sharpening controls. While not quite as good as the RAW files, they are really flexible in post processing. And, if you've hit the mark exposure wise, you'll have a lot of lattitude in Photoshop to work with.
Ofcourse, if you shoot this way and need to automate work flow, you can record an action with "general settings" for contrast, saturation and sharpening and then run a batch on all the files.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 09:56:29 AM · #9 |
I agree it's a double edged sword. First you want the flexibility then you don't what what that means - been there (I moved from JPG to RAW+JPG(fine) and now to just RAW but I don't have a huge volume). If I could find a single raw converter it would help but I find that some do some things better than others.
Since you don't have the option of RAW+JPG(fine), I think JPG(fine) for stuff where you can get a decent hit rate is not a bad move. I would still shoot RAW when you were iffy about the light. Just make sure you get the WB right - this is where I find the RAW files save me the most - plain brainfade stuff.
On the flip side, I find that a lot of the photos can get away without PS. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:00:31 AM · #10 |
I was a bit relutant in changing to raw. I'm know a new person (read: photographer) and I've forgot that there's the possibility to shoot in jpeg. But I agree... raw might knot be for all. But this is not for the time of the post processing, but because the capture time. If you need a high frame rate per second to shoot motorbikes or a football game and your camera has a small buffer (like the D70 for that matter) youll plrobably want to shoot jpeg, and probably not at fine qualaty, in order to keep the speed.
Sinse I bought RSPremium I've saved a few ours in each job because of the easyness of converting the files and the batch convertion. What I did when I shoot weddings in jpeg was opening the files to do the final prins in photoshop, then crop it 1 by 1 (because the horizontal x vertical is 1:1.5 and the prins are 1:1.33, so I have to crop each one). Know I shoot in raw, do the fast proofs in RSPremium, then I go back to RSP and crop, correct exposure and so one in the files that I have sell and do the convertion of the croped files to print. It's as easy as it gets. I know only go to PS in about 5 % of the times to do spot editing or other more complex color managements.
I'll post later this day a full explanation about RSPremium
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:06:44 AM · #11 |
my biggest issue with RAW is that Nikon Capture is SUCH a dog when editing photos.
BUT the coolest thing about it is that you can batch export files and use the settings in another file as a base. i know you can kind of do the same thing in photoshop with adjustment layers, but it's really not the same.
i also really enjoy the non-destructive editing. i can edit a raw, save it, and if i need to go in and re-tweak it i can. i could do the same thing with a photoshop file (again), but it takes up an gigantic amount of disk space. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 10:32:35 AM · #12 |
If its important i shoot raw and have gotte the workflow to the point it takes no more time than shooting JPG.
Move files from CF card to computer
open teh subdirectory in Canon's DPP.
Go thru and tweak WB/Exposure, delete the bad ones, etc.
batch convert the keepers to JPG
open PS, drag and drop those needing editing, sharpening, resizing, etc
Learning to use DPP was the key. It can do a lot IF you know how. The batch conversion means i can walk away and get some coffee or go to bed, etc and when i come back it's all done.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 04:27:15 AM EDT.
