| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2006 09:02:27 AM · #26 |
In my experience, the key to making RAW a feasible format for everyday use is to have a image browser program like Bibble or RawShooter Essentials or Premium), which makes it so that making adjustments is very easy while simply previewing the images. Yes, CS/CS2 has the ability to do this as well, but in my experience, it's not as easy.
My workflow (with RSP):
1) First, I have RSP rename all the files. The file names are generated from the EXIF to include the date shot, the Original Sequence number (I prefix this to handle over 10,000 shots and keep the numbers unique), and I add short descriptive text. This takes about 1 minute. Now I have descriptive names with a unique number and the shooting date. (Note that by using the EXIF, it doesn't matter if the shots in the folder were taken the same date because the info is from the file).
2) Now I maximize the preview window of RSP, leaving adjustments available, and using the right arrow key, I look at each image, and make adjustments using the sliders and crop if I want. When I'm done adjusting, I simply press right arrow to move to the next image. No "saving", or "opening". Often, before moving on to the next image, I press "Ctrl-C to copy those settings. (Note that none of these changes are saved to the RAW file--they are saved in separate "sidecar" files. The image remains unchanged, but when I look at it or convert it, I get the adjusted image.)
3) I am now on next image. If similar, I press "Ctrl-V" to paste the settings. I can now tweak them further, and go to the next image, as per Step 2.
I can go through an entire folder of 100 or so images in this way, in anywhere between 5 minutes and 15 minutes. Note that I can also select the whole batch of images (all 100) and "paste" a setting in two key presses.
4) With RSP, I now invoke a full screen slide show, where I can "rate" the images from 1 to 3, or flag them as ready for PS. Right arrow goes to the next image as before, and simply pressing 1,2, or 3 assigns the image into a virtual folders (in terms of quality). I can also delete one by pressing "Del", and it goes into a special trash bin to be dumped later (or recovered).
5) Now I have images ready to convert or import into PS for spot editing and other "uneven" adjustments (like a gradient / levels adjustment). I can do just the "flagged" images, or just the "1"'s from step 4. Or I can convert the entire folder to TIFF/JPEG. I can create an entre subdirectory with JPEG "proofs" as well with one click, and it works in the background generating these.
This makes RAW images very easy to work with. (Perhaps CS2 does this as well, but CS is a pain compared to either Bibble or RSP for doing this workflow.)
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 09:13:45 AM · #27 |
| I am still learning about Raw. Everthing I take right now is in raw. There is so much I can do in essentials. I convert to tiff if I like the image. Open it in PS then do my adjustments. I save it in Tiff and print from that version. I look at it this way. Hard drive space is cheap. I do not care how large the file is. The reason I save in Tiff rather than PSD file is because the programs I use to just go thru the pictures in a file and when wanting to display the images on a page, it will not show me my PSD files. I occasionally open up old files and look at the images. Searching for any nice images I may have overlooked. PSD files only open in PS yet my Tiff files will display. IMO |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 11:25:29 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
My workflow (with RSP):
|
Only part of that not doable in cs2 is the file naming operations as far as I can tell. I'm not championing CS2 raw utility, it does a poor job in the conversion compared to capture one in my opinion.
I like the file renaming bit using EXIF info. |
|
|
|
08/20/2006 11:33:01 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
My workflow (with RSP):
|
Only part of that not doable in cs2 is the file naming operations as far as I can tell. I'm not championing CS2 raw utility, it does a poor job in the conversion compared to capture one in my opinion.
I like the file renaming bit using EXIF info. |
Yes, it's doable in PS CS too, but not "practical" (too slow, cumbersome, IMHO).
|
|
|
|
08/20/2006 12:05:09 PM · #30 |
| I use the MS RAW image viewer to go through the images in the folder, which works almost exactly like the windows picture and fax viewer, then close it and open the ones I liked in PS, which loads the adobe RAW converter, and I can just adjust the settings and click 'open' to get it into photoshop. Pretty simple, and fast. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 09:42:11 PM · #31 |
I'm still a little confused. If I convert a RAW file to a 16 bit tiff, in photoshop I can only save it as a .psd, .raw, or .tiff. I was told earlier in this thread that saving as a .bmp wasn't a good idea because of file size. Yet, a .psd or .tiff are around 45mb when in 16bit mode and around 20mb when in 8 bit mode (roughly the same as a .bmp file.)
Is saving the image as a .tiff or .psd in 16 bit mode that much better than having an 8 bit .bmp file? |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 10:13:03 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by daninbc:
I'm still a little confused. If I convert a RAW file to a 16 bit tiff, in photoshop I can only save it as a .psd, .raw, or .tiff. I was told earlier in this thread that saving as a .bmp wasn't a good idea because of file size. Yet, a .psd or .tiff are around 45mb when in 16bit mode and around 20mb when in 8 bit mode (roughly the same as a .bmp file.)
Is saving the image as a .tiff or .psd in 16 bit mode that much better than having an 8 bit .bmp file? |
A PSD is almost always going to be the largest file, just because of all the extra stuff it stores. All your layer information, masks, etcetera. 8-bit uncompressed TIFF and BMP are going to be smaller and very close in size. Both use three bytes per pixel (8 bits each for red, green and blue). The advantage of TIFF is that it can support layers, alpha channels (transparency) and 16-bit depth, and can use lossless compression to reduce size (LZW is the most common). BMP is a very crude, old format originally intended for storing tiny bitmap images for use in a computer's GUI. Supports only 8 bits/channel, AFAIK no color management support, no compression alternatives.
Bottom line:
- Save as PSD when you'll be editing again and want to pick up right where you left off, or when you'll be sharing the file with other Photoshop user(s) and want to maximize the usefulness to them.
- Save as TIFF when it's absolutely important to retain all data in a lossless format, and/or when multiple edits will be performed and it's not practical to use a PSD.
- Save as JPEG for final output for 98% of both consumer and commercial needs.
- Whatever your "final" output, save the RAW file as your "digital negative" and save the PSD file if you feel it likely you'll want/need to tweak the edit... hint: this happens much less often than you'd assume. I usually only ever save PSD files for large panos. |
|
|
|
08/22/2006 10:28:10 PM · #33 |
Just what I think - most people shoot in RAW because it seems like what everyone else is doing. Also, those who admit they shoot only in JPEG seem to get ridiculed or looked down upon by a certain hardcore photographers. With that sort of mentality, we should all shoot RAW or risk being labelled an ameteur.
Now with THAT crap aside, RAW does have it's advantages. White-balance is what I think to be the most useful aspect of shooting RAW. Secondly, if your camera produces crappy in-camera processing, you process it yourself on a computer instead. Third would be compression. RAW is uncompressed so you can always re-edit an image at a later time (TIFF is also uncompressed, but JPEG is compressed).
Personally, I shoot in the highest JPEG settings. I'm too lazy to play with the RAW conversion, and also, I think RAW is a waste of space since I almost never re-processed an image that I have already processed the first time. So, I also always store my photos in JPEG only.
Cheers. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 10:27:29 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by daninbc:
I'm still a little confused. If I convert a RAW file to a 16 bit tiff, in photoshop I can only save it as a .psd, .raw, or .tiff. I was told earlier in this thread that saving as a .bmp wasn't a good idea because of file size. Yet, a .psd or .tiff are around 45mb when in 16bit mode and around 20mb when in 8 bit mode (roughly the same as a .bmp file.)
Is saving the image as a .tiff or .psd in 16 bit mode that much better than having an 8 bit .bmp file? |
a 16 bit image contains 256 TIMES the amount of data that an 8 bit(ie 65536 compared to 256) image does thats one reason for its size. PSD files store layer info etc also which can bloat them even further.
Im by no means a pro and it would probably even be a stretch to call me an amature. Ive been a midrange system tech for 18 years and do coding on the side so when it comes to data, bits, bytes etc it all makes sense to me.
I will be the last to look down or judge anyone for the way they chose to save their images, its your camera, your life and your decision. We are all here to learn and share.
Im the type of person who is not happy pointing and shooting. I bought a 30D for the creative control it allowed me and the quality of images it produced. I want to learn ALL aspects and become fluent in all aspects of my photography.
What many people dont realize is that most monitors only display 8 bit color data and since thats where most of us view images it can be hard to justify shooting raw. Each person needs to decide what the images ultimate goal is but at the same time people should realize that just because you cant see the benefit of raw on your monitor doesnt mean its not there.....but once again if your taking pics for a website or a photo CD then who cares?
The way I see it is this, each picture is split second of time that will never come again. Data that isnt captured is lost and cant be recaptured....what that means to each person will vary. Most of my fine jpg's are approx 2.7mg while my raws are 7-8mg. I can fit approx 700 RAW images on my 8gb flash card that was $149. I can often buy 250gig hard drives for $120.
I will try and use manual mode and RAW when I have time to set white balance and make sure I can get a good exposure. For quick candids or family events where the wife may be using the camera a lot as well I just showed her how to use the predefined modes which I have set to save as highest quality jpg. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 11:05:30 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Kaveran:
What many people dont realize is that most monitors only display 8 bit color data and since thats where most of us view images it can be hard to justify shooting raw. |
This hasn't been true since about 1981. I'm thinking maybe you mean something else. 8 bit color data = 256 colors. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 11:07:56 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Kaveran:
What many people dont realize is that most monitors only display 8 bit color data and since thats where most of us view images it can be hard to justify shooting raw. |
This hasn't been true since about 1981. I'm thinking maybe you mean something else. 8 bit color data = 256 colors. |
He means 8 bits per channel, I think. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 11:28:57 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
He means 8 bits per channel, I think. |
Correct.
Unless im mistaken(which is entirely possible) an 8 bit camera image is actually considered a 24bit image(8 bits per color, red, blue, green = 24) in terms of color used (ie 16 million) and a 16bit camera image is considered a 48bit (16bit per color red, blue green = 48) which equates to billions of colors.
Anytime you alter an image the software uses algorithms and recalculates image data. in doing so the more data you have to start with the more accuratly the algorythm can operate.
If im not mistaken CS2 supports 48bit images and even though there isnt a video card or monitor (that I am currently aware of) that can support that color depth its done to help reduce the chance of rounding errors in the algorithms used for adjusting images.
**edit - added comentary**
Message edited by author 2006-08-23 12:07:55. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 12:56:20 PM · #38 |
I am not sure that RAW is intended for the professionals only (or intended to appear professional - it is pretty useful if you are an amateur and screw up some settings, as pictures can be "rescued" using the RAW data where they would have been compressed to oblivion in jpeg.
Pros are: white balance; ability to create multiple exposures from one image; ability to rescue pictures that have been under or over exposed; ability to carry out limited editing (straighten horizons etc) before conversion to tif/jpeg; generally better batch processing facilities than is available for jpeg processing (although arguably batch processing is less necessary for jpegs).
Cons are: size (storage and when filling camera buffer in taking sequential shots); additional editing step is required (although batch processing makes this quite fast).
I take jpegs when I get anywhere close to filling all my CF cards (and if my portable HD isn't handy), or where I am taking images of an action sequence. Otherwise, RAW's advantages are worth keeping. The post processing step is not too arduous, especially given that much of it can be applied in batch, and individual review of images can be combined with grading them for further review/processing.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2006 01:24:39 PM · #39 |
Here's what I do (PS: I'm a pack-ratt):
Keep the RAWs you want. Delete extraneous. Burn these to a DVD or CD and delete the orig.
If needed Save TIFs with layers and compress with ZIP of LZW (instead of Photoshop).
Flatten and save a final TIF at the size you want.
If you need JPGs .. they are lossy should never be saved more than 2 or 3x.
|
|
|
|
08/23/2006 04:25:52 PM · #40 |
Its been very interesting reading this thread although much of it is way over my head.
I shoot in Raw when i can i PP in CS2 after you have tweaked it in the raw part of CS2 it gives the option to open it in the regular part of CS2. When it opens in their is it still Raw or not?
To save as TIFF does that just require choosing that from the drop down box or is their a way you have to convert it?
Please excuse my ignorance. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 04:47:30 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Tanny:
Its been very interesting reading this thread although much of it is way over my head.
I shoot in Raw when i can i PP in CS2 after you have tweaked it in the raw part of CS2 it gives the option to open it in the regular part of CS2. When it opens in their is it still Raw or not?
To save as TIFF does that just require choosing that from the drop down box or is their a way you have to convert it?
Please excuse my ignorance. |
My understanding is that camera manufacturers have proprietary RAW formats and they have not made all of the RAW files inner workings publically avalable. Because of this photoshop cant modify the RAW file and save it back in its native RAW format. Thats one reason Adobe is trying to standardize RAW images with their own RAW format called DNG.
Adobe bridge allows you to view camera RAW files and also modify them via photoshop but the only way to make the changes permanent is to save the modified RAW files in another format (ie psd, tiff etc) either via dropdown or the RAW editor.
**edit for grammer**
Message edited by author 2006-08-23 17:09:05. |
|
|
|
08/23/2006 04:57:34 PM · #42 |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 10:56:55 AM · #43 |
Ok, I've been reading this thread and my head is reeling! I shoot RAW because someone told me you have more control than JPEG and also the story about the degeneration of the JPEGs each time they are saved.
I'm VERY new to post processing, so not sure if I am wasting my time with RAW and if I should be using JPEG for now. All of my photos (obviously) are just for me. Nothing could be sold or used for anything. I bought a big card just for shooting lots of RAW, but wondering if I should start simpler for learning post processing. I am good at shooting tons of "nothing" photos that never get used, even by me.
I only have Adobe 4.0, not PS CS2. I've been unemployed for 4 months and can't afford anything fancy, so probably limited in my software as well? Software did NOT come with DVD. (Also have the Canon software that came w/the camera.)
Any suggestions? You all seem to really know what you're doing and I'm just floundering, lol! HELP! Throw me a bone here...please? |
|
|
|
10/10/2006 11:27:14 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
[quote=daninbc]A PSD is almost always going to be the largest file, just because of all the extra stuff it stores. All your layer information, masks, etcetera. 8-bit uncompressed TIFF and BMP are going to be smaller and very close in size. Both use three bytes per pixel (8 bits each for red, green and blue). The advantage of TIFF is that it can support layers, alpha channels (transparency) and 16-bit depth, and can use lossless compression to reduce size (LZW is the most common). BMP is a very crude, old format originally intended for storing tiny bitmap images for use in a computer's GUI. Supports only 8 bits/channel, AFAIK no color management support, no compression alternatives.
Bottom line:
- Save as PSD when you'll be editing again and want to pick up right where you left off, or when you'll be sharing the file with other Photoshop user(s) and want to maximize the usefulness to them.
- Save as TIFF when it's absolutely important to retain all data in a lossless format, and/or when multiple edits will be performed and it's not practical to use a PSD.
- Save as JPEG for final output for 98% of both consumer and commercial needs.
- Whatever your "final" output, save the RAW file as your "digital negative" and save the PSD file if you feel it likely you'll want/need to tweak the edit... hint: this happens much less often than you'd assume. I usually only ever save PSD files for large panos. |
Several posters have said they save PSD in favour of TiFF: caution! A single PSD file can easily grow huge, sometimes over a 100MB. This is why I'd suggest to save to TIFF instead, and flatten the image, whenever practical (when the edit is final and completed) to save space.
As kirbic pointed out (above), if you save to PSD period, you better be prepared to fill up your HD in no time flat.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 11:40:51 AM · #45 |
I am an amateur, but an avid competition photographer. I enter local club competitions, UK Regional competitions, UK National competitions and I've just started getting accepted in International competitions. I need all the control I can get to stand a chance in any of these.
So ... I shoot RAW for the simple reason that I want the most control possible. 99% of my images never even see post processing, only the best of the best ever get near photoshop.
I bracket exposures, I bracket focus too on occasions. I use HDR to get extended 32 bit control over extreme contrast.
Out of a shoot of say 600 images I will probably on ever look at 3 or 4, and will work away in PS until I either discard or am happy.
Those are MY reasons for shooting RAW, not everyone needs or can make use of RAw. Its whatever suites you best, don't let anyone say jpg is wrong, or raw is a waste of time. It all depends on what you want to achieve.
Message edited by author 2006-10-10 11:41:19.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 12:38:12 PM · #46 |
Shoot RAW so that I can make my shit pics at least look average :)
Message edited by author 2006-10-10 12:38:26.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 01:11:54 PM · #47 |
I have PS cs2 I have tried to shoot RAW, but cant open them, is there a free plugin somewhere? Or do I have to change some settings or something?
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 01:23:21 PM · #48 |
My D2x/D70 workflow
everything is shot RAW
moved from the CF card to directory using Windows explorer copy (this causes no modification of the creator EXIF feild)
Burn RAW images to DVD
Process selected RAW images in CaptureOne Pro to 8bit TIFF
Spot edits in CS2 if desired
Reprocess JPGS for the web site if needed using Imatch (will include watermarks)
Write process folder to DVD
I can do about 800 files in a few hours with the files published online.
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 02:14:30 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by RockBruise:
I have PS cs2 I have tried to shoot RAW, but cant open them, is there a free plugin somewhere? Or do I have to change some settings or something? |
Yes you need Camera Raw get it from Here
|
|
|
|
10/10/2006 06:43:36 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by crayon:
Just what I think - most people shoot in RAW because it seems like what everyone else is doing...
|
This may be true - but you yourself provided three good reasons for shooting RAW over JPEG, and still missed the main one: you get more information per pixel than in JPEG. I've said this over and over, but ...
consider a monochrome image. As a JPEG that allows you 256 shades of grey, from black to white. A 12-bit RAW file allows you four thousand and ninety-six shades. As a simple practicality, for 50% more file size, you get 2400% more information. What's the issue?
There are those who claim that you just can't see it, that they only process for the web, or whatever. There's a point against that too: if you start out with the best quality file you can have, then your end result is going to be so much better too. Every step of processing you take probably reduces the amount of information in your image - if you have that much more to start with, you'll have respectively mich more when you finish.
e
Message edited by author 2006-10-10 18:44:22. |
|
