Raw

[Robthebrit]

I'm always looking for a better mouse trap. If you've had less than stellar results with Adobe products, what do you like Rob?

Adobe are the typical big company, I think their products are stagnant but unfortunately there is not much left to compete with photoshop, at the moment there are lots of options for photo management.

Everybody involved in CG be it research, movies or games, has a dislike for Adobe in the same was as people have a dislike for Microsoft - some of it is irrational but a lot of it isn't. Their view, at least at the management level, is they are the market leaders and how could anything possibly be wrong. Its easier for them to spend money to try and convince us that our problems are not their problems than to actually fix them. Regrardless of what Adobe say, Photoshop is for editing photos, it is not for general image processing and its terrible as a batch tool in the middle of a production pipe. A simple example: what do the filters do at the edges of the image? In a CG image you can usually see that the border pixels are treated differently, for a real world photo this is not a big deal but for CG it can be a huge problem especially when the image may represent depth information, the reflectivity of a surface or the bumpiness of surface or the hundreds of other images we use which are not real photographs. A place where it always bites is when stitching images together, if they have been touched in any way by photoshop there is a visible seam. This causes us to have to write our own code and now we have so much invested in this code it makes no sense to switch to photoshop regardless of how much they kick and scream.

After saying that I do like lightroom for my own photographs. I like its filing system and I really like how it never modifies the original image although I have had the database go bad a few times.

Rant over....

Rob

 

[nwoods]

I just tried RAW for the very first time. Very powerful, but quite frankly, it gave me a headache. To what extent do you guys use RAW? Lets say you're on an adventure or shooting an event and you take a few hundred pictures. Do you really go back and edit RAW for every one?

With PhotoShop CS3, working with RAW became is now the same as working with JPG in terms of speed. As mentioned earlier in this thread, I can batch all my exposure settings, and virtually all the other settings in the Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) utility. ACR is leaps and bounds better this year than with CS2, and can now work with JPG and other image types also, but to a lessor extent.

Because the speed and convienance is the same, I shoot all RAW, and I don't bother with the JPG thumbnail image. With my Canon 20D, I get about 145 RAW images on a 2GB card. I carry a few cards with me, and delete photos that I know are bad along the way from within the camera if space becomes an issue.

The comment was made about shooting hundreds of images and taking the time to process them in raw. I think the final count mentioned was 10 images uploaded to Flickr? It doesn't take much to edit 10 images, so I think the question answered itself?

Also, I am really digging Bridge in CS3. I somewhat painfully weaned myself off of ACDSee, but I am faster in Bridge now. The trick is to play with your screen setup to get it to work for you. Definately spend a few minutes watching the How To videos from Adobe.com or the Bridge help menu.

 

[cshontz]

The comment was made about shooting hundreds of images and taking the time to process them in raw. I think the final count mentioned was 10 images uploaded to Flickr? It doesn't take much to edit 10 images, so I think the question answered itself?

Well... not exactly. I uploaded 70 pictures to Flickr, but there were only 10 that I thought were good. The rest were okay. On this occasion, and many others, I was geo-photographing. Every release of the shutter is essentially a new waypoint in my GPS. The purpose of this is not only to take interesting pictures (which I try to do), but to also record and share geographical information about a specific location with others. It is one of the things I love to do, and it usually yields numerous photos.

Although I didn't realize it at the time of my initial post, my problem was not with RAW, but with software and workflow. I managed my pictures using Picasa, edited them (if needed) using Photoshop CS2, and then used yet another app to send 'em to Flickr. It wasn't a very RAW-friendly setup. This was solved by Lightroom, which does everything I need, very quickly, and very easily.

 

[Lost Canadian]

While we're talking RAW and Lightroom, one important tip Micheal Slade passed onto me was to be sure to calibrate and profile your monitor, especially when working in big color spaces like ProPhoto. Most monitors I guess are set by default to display only sRGB, which means if you're woking in ProPhoto color space, as is the case in Lightroom, you'd be seeing the colors wrong.

 

[Photog]

Rob,
You have a tremendous knowledge about the subtle workings of these softwares. This is great information!

For all the portrait work I have done, and most of the landscape work, I have not had any need to use anything but Photoshop. I know there are differences in file handeling, between the different softwares; but my clients can't tell the difference. I am starting to add the DPP software into my workflow.

I do like the way the DPP software handles the Canon RAW files; I just wish I didn't have to then save it to a TIFF, before going into Photoshop. But, by saving as a TIFF, it prevents Photoshop Raw Converter from stripping off the adjustments. It makes a better file; but it adds to my workflow, and it makes for storage of one more large file, for every image that I work on. I knew I would need that terabyte of memory for something.

 

[cshontz]

One thing though - shooting in RAW makes me feel obligated to post-process, and also makes me feel like I have to put somewhat less thought into the composition.

So I look at the camera's LCD and I think, "Well, that looks like hell.", and then I hesitate - "No problem. I can post-process that turd."

I honestly feel a little dirty... like I'm somehow less of a photographer.

 

[Photog]

One thing though - shooting in RAW makes me feel obligated to post-process, and also makes me feel like I have to put somewhat less thought into the composition.

So I look at the camera's LCD and I think, "Well, that looks like hell.", and then I hesitate - "No problem. I can post-process that turd."

I honestly feel a little dirty... like I'm somehow less of a photographer.

The inner thoughts of Ansel Adams? (He would create an exposure, knowing there would be a lot of post processing in the dark room).

You make an excellent point. How much time do you want to spend at the computer? Make it the best it can be, when you shoot it. If it looks like a turd, adjust your settings, and shoot it again. The better it is to start, the better it can be in the end.

Digital has made many photographers lazy about their "in camera" work. I fight withthis myself.

 

[Streakerfreak]

The inner thoughts of Ansel Adams? (He would create an exposure, knowing there would be a lot of post processing in the dark room).

You make an excellent point. How much time do you want to spend at the computer? Make it the best it can be, when you shoot it. If it looks like a turd, adjust your settings, and shoot it again. The better it is to start, the better it can be in the end.

Digital has made many photographers lazy about their "in camera" work. I fight withthis myself.

A thumbs up to that:26_7_2:

 

[Ursidae69]

While we're talking RAW and Lightroom, one important tip Micheal Slade passed onto me was to be sure to calibrate and profile your monitor, especially when working in big color spaces like ProPhoto. Most monitors I guess are set by default to display only sRGB, which means if you're woking in ProPhoto color space, as is the case in Lightroom, you'd be seeing the colors wrong.

So, if I sent my monitor, photo software workspace, and scanner settings all to Adobe RBG that takes care of this right?

 

[Photog]

So, if I sent my monitor, photo software workspace, and scanner settings all to Adobe RBG that takes care of this right?

Until the printing equipment can produce something better than sRGB, there isn't much point in working in a larger color space, as long as you are starting with a RAW file.

When the printers and monitors are up to producing larger color ranges, you can go back to your select files, and work them over in the larger color space. For some people, that will not be very many images to go back to; because your photography will improve everey year. In a couple years, you will look back at older images, and wonder why you kept them.

The professional and commercial folks will refer back to their files for years. Any of them that would be improved by a larger color space, can be post-processed again, and with newer software.

Until then, shoot in RAW, set everything to the same color space (sRGB or Adobe'98, etc.) and calibrate your monitor.

You must calibrate your monitor. The software and color sensor, compare the monitor output to input, and create a correction file for the color management portion of your video card. This way, what you see on your monitir, is the same thing the lab sees on their monitor, before printing.

 

[Lost Canadian]

So, if I sent my monitor, photo software workspace, and scanner settings all to Adobe RBG that takes care of this right?

I would check out the book "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser. It's helped me out, and it will explain things far better than I ever could. Bill Green also has a ton of knowledge about color management, perhaps he'll chime in or you may want to PM him.

Until the printing equipment can produce something better than sRGB, there isn't much point in working in a larger color space, as long as you are starting with a RAW file.

Check out Epsons printers that use UltraChromeK3 ink. I've been thinking hard about picking up a 2400. The K3 inks can, according to all the hype, produce a huge gamut of color.

 

[Ursidae69]

Thanks guys, I've learned a lot in this thread and the critic thread. :26_7_2: I have a 17" on the diagnonal notebook, so calibrating the monitor is not really going to get me anywhere from what I've read on some photo forums out there. I simply set the monitor to display at sRBG. I'll look into that book.

 

[Photog]

Thanks guys, I've learned a lot in this thread and the critic thread. :26_7_2: I have a 17" on the diagnonal notebook, so calibrating the monitor is not really going to get me anywhere from what I've read on some photo forums out there. I simply set the monitor to display at sRBG. I'll look into that book.

You need a decent monitor, no matter which computer you are using. You will also want to calibrate all your monitors (if you have the calibration equipment, just do all monitors, including the laptop).

I would check out the book "Real World Color Management" by Bruce Fraser. It's helped me out, and it will explain things far better than I ever could.

I agree, it is an excellent book. Bruce Fraser also has a book "Real World RAW"; I think the RAW books may be Photoshop version specific (i.e. CS or CS2 or CS3....)