DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> What to do with all of these RAW images?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 28, (reverse)
AuthorThread
08/04/2008 02:24:47 PM · #1
Hey guys!

I wanted to get an idea of how everyone handles RAW images. Here is my problem: I like to take photos in RAW format for obvious reasons, but the big downside is that when I get them on my computer, in order to give them to someone else (say on a drive or disc, or even to upload them to a website) I have to process them and convert them to JPEG format. When I take photos usually I only do post processing on the better ones, and just leave the rest alone (I don't have the time to go through and process 500 images). But lets say that a friend wants the pics on a disc and he wants all of them, not just the good ones, I would have to go through and convert each and every pic.

I guess the obvious solution that I have come up with is just to shoot in RAW+JPEG so I get one of each. The only problem with this is that it takes up more space on the memory card and on my computer.

I'm just thinking that there has to be a better way to do this. Maybe there is a way to automatically convert RAW files to JPEG, but if there is, I'm not aware of it.
08/04/2008 02:31:13 PM · #2
You need something that you can batch process with. I know my Nikon software that came with my cameras can. I use lightroom, not sure for Canons software.
08/04/2008 02:46:35 PM · #3
I do things the same way you do, and when I need to either print or put them on a disk I just run them through Adobe Bridge and batch convert to jpg. Then it's easy enough to just delete the jpg's to save space while keeping the RAW files.
08/04/2008 02:49:43 PM · #4
Lightroom does wonders for what you are asking. I was a bit put off by it at first but now I cannot imagine using bridge anymore, much easier workflow for large amounts of files and for converting to jpeg from raw..
08/04/2008 02:53:00 PM · #5
I have CS2 and Adobe Bridge, I didn't know it did batch conversions. I have definitely been thinking about buying Lightroom, especially since I'm in need of a good way to organize photos as well. I typically just put them into folders based on their dates, but I have so many of them it takes forever to find what I want.
08/04/2008 02:56:37 PM · #6
Originally posted by CaseyAllen:

I typically just put them into folders based on their dates, but I have so many of them it takes forever to find what I want.


better to spend forever tagging them all

:)
08/04/2008 03:00:00 PM · #7
With lightroom you can do batch conversion with the click of the mouse, no action needed. You can do adjustments to a photo, then sync the settings to all other photos if you like. So if you have a shoot and you want to adjust the white balance of all the shots, you fix one photo then select all the others that need to be fixed and sync the setting, simple and fast. As for organizing, you can use keywords on photos and that enables you to punch in the keyword and it pulls all photos with that keyword, very nice for gobs of photos in different folders. You should try the 30 day version and see if you like, you probably will.
08/04/2008 03:10:23 PM · #8
Lightroom was the BEST $300 I evere apent on a program!
goto adobe.com and watch the tons of Lightroom video. You will be SOLD. They have one on batch processing too. If I find the link I'll post it
08/04/2008 03:27:52 PM · #9
Before the new version came out I had never even heard of lightroom. I don't know how I missed that boat, but I will definitely download the trial to see how I like it. It sure sounds like everyone else does!
08/04/2008 03:29:40 PM · #10
Doesn't Bridge do all of these things as well?

Originally posted by trevytrev:

With lightroom you can do batch conversion with the click of the mouse, no action needed. You can do adjustments to a photo, then sync the settings to all other photos if you like. So if you have a shoot and you want to adjust the white balance of all the shots, you fix one photo then select all the others that need to be fixed and sync the setting, simple and fast. As for organizing, you can use keywords on photos and that enables you to punch in the keyword and it pulls all photos with that keyword, very nice for gobs of photos in different folders. You should try the 30 day version and see if you like, you probably will.
08/04/2008 03:31:52 PM · #11
LR will do it (and I use it) but if you want something free hit the faststone image viewer.... I can batch & rip JPG (or other formats) images with a stack of re-naming & format & size parms. MUCH faster viewer for RAW files also - I do my first pass in this and then import what is left to LR. I also use it to gen all the thumbnails for my website as it does a far better job then LR (they are better with less jagies and far smaller to boot).
08/05/2008 12:04:23 AM · #12
Well, I bought Lightroom. I paroozed their website a little and it definitely looked like the way to go. I'm just importing my photos now. Do they have any video tutorials on how to use it or just the text versions? I saw a few videos on the Adobe site, but they're all just saying what is new on version 2.0.
08/05/2008 12:14:10 AM · #13
Look under the Help icon in the top tool bar. It has links to videos too.

Here is one
08/05/2008 04:09:10 AM · #14
Originally posted by CaseyAllen:

Well, I bought Lightroom. I paroozed their website a little and it definitely looked like the way to go. I'm just importing my photos now. Do they have any video tutorials on how to use it or just the text versions? I saw a few videos on the Adobe site, but they're all just saying what is new on version 2.0.


Lightroom Killer Tips - Blogs, tutorials, videos -- you could go through it for DAYS AND DAYS. All awesome stuff.

You can jump straight to his video archive.

Here is his video on importing, specifically.

Another site -- Lightroom Journal - More text-based and a rather dry read, but has the occasional link to videos or other sites.

Welcome to the family! ;)
08/05/2008 04:57:19 AM · #15

why dont you just shoot in JPEG + RAW modes? i think deleting unwanted JPEG images from your computer is much easier than converting your RAW to JPEGS for photo sharing.

crayon

Message edited by author 2008-08-05 04:59:38.
08/05/2008 08:19:39 AM · #16
Thanks for the links guys, I'll check them out. Crayon: that was my original plan, but it takes up more room on the memory card, and that means I can't take as many photos.
08/05/2008 08:44:35 AM · #17
I have this problem, too, but I've not shelled out for Lightroom yet. :)

What I do is use Picasa - I do a quick run through with just very basic global adjustments and crops and then use the "Export" feature to burn to a CD. You don't need to save the changes -- Picasa extracts a JPEG with the adjustments and burns that file to the CD. Also works with uploads to Smugmug or Flickr or wherever, for quick on-line viewing.

Picasa isn't the best RAW converter out there, but for large amounts of files or just family snaps it works great.
08/05/2008 09:37:46 AM · #18
dpp will batch process and stamp them proof if you want
08/05/2008 11:27:05 AM · #19
This is my Raw processing ... uh ... process...

I shoot both JPG + RAW. This allows me to view pics if I'm just showing someone quickly on a PC / Laptop.
I copy all files from my flash card to my hard drive under a date named directory (i.e., 2008.07.06).
I import that directory under a catalog directory in Lightroom (i.e., Canon 400D).
There is an option to "not import suspected duplicates." This avoids importing the jpegs while importing the Raws

I quickly go through the entire directory weeding out junk photos (blurry, lacks any real subject, just junk in general).
All those I feel could use some editing I do some quick edits.
Lightroom has the ability to save adjustments as 'presets' this is great for fixing a dozen photos of the same scene

After I'm finished I export all the Raw files to jpeg and I append the letters LR to the filename *another function of LR.
I delete all Raws I don't plan on doing any further editing/printing and also remove *.jpg that do not end in LR.

This saves me the HD space that the 10-15MB Raw files take up. I don't see any point in saving all Raw files. I edit my photos in the first place to my liking and don't see any reason to re-edit. Unless your workflow requires you to come back to old files frequently I don't see why anyone would save ALL Raw files.

Message edited by author 2008-08-05 11:27:20.
08/05/2008 05:52:45 PM · #20
Dude!! This lightroom is pretty sweet. It's almost like it was made for photographers or something. I have only watched a few videos and played around a bit, but already I like how all of the edits are nondestructive to the original file and also the tools seem much more intuitive and geared to photography than photoshop. This seems perfect for someone like me who doesn't do anything crazy to edit photos.

One thing I don't quite understand is the "Web" portion. Is this just for people who have their own websites? Does anyone use this function of Lightroom?
08/05/2008 06:08:31 PM · #21
I don't know if anyone mentioned it yet, but Lightroom is pretty sweet for this kind of application. :>P

I just export everything I want to share as .jpgs with LR adjustments, burn a disc or post them to the web, then delete. The star and flag ratings are a quick way to cull and sort images, and don't even get me started on the keywording features. And that's LR 1.4; haven't sprung for 2.0 yet, but its on my list.
08/05/2008 06:21:50 PM · #22
Originally posted by totaldis:

I edit my photos in the first place to my liking and don't see any reason to re-edit. Unless your workflow requires you to come back to old files frequently I don't see why anyone would save ALL Raw files.


For me, it's the reverse. I rapidly (in pretty much a "batch mode") go through and update my raw settings and export/upload them for proofing purposes. I don't edit anything that hasn't been purchased (I simply don't have enough time to spend editing an image that isn't making money).

So it doesn't happen often ... but every now and then, when someone orders a print, especially a rather large print, I may notice that my earlier "swift efforts" left something to be desired, and I'll go back to the raw file and reprocess it. I'd hate to have to edit a suboptimal 8-bit jpeg just because I deleted my 14-bit raw file. So I keep all of my raw files. It a peace-of-mind sort of thing.

08/05/2008 07:00:16 PM · #23
Originally posted by CaseyAllen:

Dude!! This lightroom is pretty sweet.


It's da'booomb-diggity! :P

Originally posted by CaseyAllen:

One thing I don't quite understand is the "Web" portion. Is this just for people who have their own websites? Does anyone use this function of Lightroom?


Well, sorta. You can also just view the html/flash files on your computer (or any computer over a network-shared drive) in a web client as well. It's essentially a quick-and-easy way to export a selection of pictures to make a web-client-viewable gallery. If you have a web site already, it's easy to export directly from LR to your site, add a link pointing to the gallery, and voila! Otherwise, you might need to tune a little of the html to "fit" seamlessly with other web hosting services, etc, but the basic concept would be the same.

Even without a formal web site or web server, I think it's pretty slick to just dump the files out into a directory, point your web brower at it, and view it directly. You could do the same for a gallery you put on a CD, and let LR develop the entire front-end interface to view the images and allow the user to easily save (just like right-click->save-as) images they want to do something with themselves, etc. (That should get some ideas going for all those wedding shooters reading this...) ;)

Lots of options -- just depends on how much you want to dink around it. There are lots of cool templates already there, and a bunch more available online.
08/05/2008 07:11:20 PM · #24
Originally posted by totaldis:

[ . . . ] I don't see any point in saving all Raw files. I edit my photos in the first place to my liking and don't see any reason to re-edit. Unless your workflow requires you to come back to old files frequently I don't see why anyone would save ALL Raw files.


In my opinion, there is one very important reason -- raw processors change and improve. Case in point -- the recent addition of ACR profiles for ACR 4.5 (and thus LR 2.x). Now you can re-process the raw image using a selection of different algorithms, and even the most basic/standard algorithm is arguably better than before.

Or, maybe you learn a better way to make post adjustments -- you pick up some new trick to really dial-in WB, exposure or color saturation. Sure, you can make some adjustments to the jpgs you exported, but you'll have a lot more latitude working from the original raw files.

If it's worth saving those files to have that kind of flexibility, is obviously up to you, what your end-product is, and who your customers are. In my opinion, storage is cheap. I'd rather spend a little money and have options. To me, it's more than worth the money to store those space-hungry raw files and have my options open on how I process them than to lock myself into a post-process-point-in-time. I only export to jpg or other format when required -- otherwise, absolutely everything I have is in raw.
08/05/2008 07:12:47 PM · #25
Originally posted by cdrice:

Originally posted by CaseyAllen:

Dude!! This lightroom is pretty sweet.


It's da'booomb-diggity! :P

Originally posted by CaseyAllen:

One thing I don't quite understand is the "Web" portion. Is this just for people who have their own websites? Does anyone use this function of Lightroom?


Well, sorta. You can also just view the html/flash files on your computer (or any computer over a network-shared drive) in a web client as well. It's essentially a quick-and-easy way to export a selection of pictures to make a web-client-viewable gallery. If you have a web site already, it's easy to export directly from LR to your site, add a link pointing to the gallery, and voila! Otherwise, you might need to tune a little of the html to "fit" seamlessly with other web hosting services, etc, but the basic concept would be the same.

Even without a formal web site or web server, I think it's pretty slick to just dump the files out into a directory, point your web brower at it, and view it directly. You could do the same for a gallery you put on a CD, and let LR develop the entire front-end interface to view the images and allow the user to easily save (just like right-click->save-as) images they want to do something with themselves, etc. (That should get some ideas going for all those wedding shooters reading this...) ;)

Lots of options -- just depends on how much you want to dink around it. There are lots of cool templates already there, and a bunch more available online.


A while ago my friend made a website for me, we never ended up finishing it. Now I have all of my photos on Zooomr, but it would be nice to have a dedicated site for easier viewing.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:46:29 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 04:46:29 AM EDT.