Discussion
How do all you RAW people convert your files?
I've been trying to get to grips with ACR in PS CS, and had the idea of getting one image looking good, then saving the settings and using them to convert the other RAW files shot at the same time.
This didn't work that well though, and I ended up having to tweak the contrast, brightness, colour temperature and saturation levels for each image.
Is this how it has to be done, or am I missing a trick somewhere?
I've been trying to get to grips with ACR in PS CS, and had the idea of getting one image looking good, then saving the settings and using them to convert the other RAW files shot at the same time.
This didn't work that well though, and I ended up having to tweak the contrast, brightness, colour temperature and saturation levels for each image.
Is this how it has to be done, or am I missing a trick somewhere?
I'm relatively new to this (and learning all the time!)but generally, I use a DPP and PS7 combo
1. Batch convert from RAW to 1024x683 jpegs to generate decent size thumbnails.
2. Pick the ones I like, process and convert to 8bit+exif tiffs (I only have PS7 so there's no point in using 16bit TIFF's). I tend to do this on an individual basis.
3. Burn the RAW+Jpegs+PS contact sheet to CD
WRT processing / fettling, I find DPP is ideal to do the first pass on wb, curves and saturation. I always end up fine tuning in PS when I'm near the final stage (ie sizing / cropping and sharpening) and especially if I'm printing - must invest in a calibration spider!
Not really found a "comfortable" one-size-fits-all recipe. But then again, I've not shot 100+ images of which I want to keep 100, probably 5-10 on a good day LOL!!
There's numerous articles on the net covering workflow, but I think it's something that takes a while to adopt a good process.
One of the guys I work with burns the TIFF's to CD too, the rationale being that 5-10 years down the line you may not have the software to process the original RAW files, whereas TIFF's have been kicking around for years. Certainly a good measure given that burners and media are relatively cheap.
Steve
1. Batch convert from RAW to 1024x683 jpegs to generate decent size thumbnails.
2. Pick the ones I like, process and convert to 8bit+exif tiffs (I only have PS7 so there's no point in using 16bit TIFF's). I tend to do this on an individual basis.
3. Burn the RAW+Jpegs+PS contact sheet to CD
WRT processing / fettling, I find DPP is ideal to do the first pass on wb, curves and saturation. I always end up fine tuning in PS when I'm near the final stage (ie sizing / cropping and sharpening) and especially if I'm printing - must invest in a calibration spider!
Not really found a "comfortable" one-size-fits-all recipe. But then again, I've not shot 100+ images of which I want to keep 100, probably 5-10 on a good day LOL!!
There's numerous articles on the net covering workflow, but I think it's something that takes a while to adopt a good process.
One of the guys I work with burns the TIFF's to CD too, the rationale being that 5-10 years down the line you may not have the software to process the original RAW files, whereas TIFF's have been kicking around for years. Certainly a good measure given that burners and media are relatively cheap.
Steve
It worries me too. I'm happy to consider using a 'one size fits all' curve, say +1/3EV, to all pics as I know with curves the highlights won't burn out in the high contrast shots. But I think the best shots will always need individual work to make them really good.
I have a wedding to do next month. My plan so far is to try to get a +1/3 curve into the camera, so it's applied there and I don't have to do it afterwards. I *really* don't want to grind through 200+ 35Mb TIFF files - I think my PC would die - so I plan to do the few important family setpieces in RAW an dprocess individually, and take the more numerous party reportage shots in JPG.
Does that make sense?
I have a wedding to do next month. My plan so far is to try to get a +1/3 curve into the camera, so it's applied there and I don't have to do it afterwards. I *really* don't want to grind through 200+ 35Mb TIFF files - I think my PC would die - so I plan to do the few important family setpieces in RAW an dprocess individually, and take the more numerous party reportage shots in JPG.
Does that make sense?
I've only tried Raw Shooter so far.
(It has its limitations, including the ability to crash if you give it more to do when its converting big batches
)
Anyway, have been trying to get exposure and white balance right in the camera (using presetting WB a lot). Then I find it's possible to apply similar exposure (often 1/3 - 1/2 stop as you'd expect with a Nikon) shadow and highlight adjustments to various consecutive "runs" and maybe go back and tweak once or twice. Hopefully not too much adjustment too.
These "runs" can be three or four or like the 62 swans I shot this afternoon.
(No I didn't actually shoot swans - they're crown property after all
)
Each converted (and I tend to go to TIFF, saving to JPEG only at the last stage) image gets PSing for more levels as necessary, cropping et cetera and then sharpening.
I've sort of just fallen in to this way of woring. If there's a flaw in my plan please shout!
I've found that if you're fussy about it WB and exposure can need to be attacked on each image. But it depends upon what your expected outcome is. (I gave up on a yellow TVR because I couldn't get where I wnated to be in 15 minutes! The WB was a bit out and it was slightly underexposed. Getting something which looked both accurate and pleasing was not easy. Oh, and black cars in sunlight are a menace! I'm glad I've got a blue one now!
(It has its limitations, including the ability to crash if you give it more to do when its converting big batches
) Anyway, have been trying to get exposure and white balance right in the camera (using presetting WB a lot). Then I find it's possible to apply similar exposure (often 1/3 - 1/2 stop as you'd expect with a Nikon) shadow and highlight adjustments to various consecutive "runs" and maybe go back and tweak once or twice. Hopefully not too much adjustment too.
These "runs" can be three or four or like the 62 swans I shot this afternoon.
(No I didn't actually shoot swans - they're crown property after all
) Each converted (and I tend to go to TIFF, saving to JPEG only at the last stage) image gets PSing for more levels as necessary, cropping et cetera and then sharpening.
I've sort of just fallen in to this way of woring. If there's a flaw in my plan please shout!
I've found that if you're fussy about it WB and exposure can need to be attacked on each image. But it depends upon what your expected outcome is. (I gave up on a yellow TVR because I couldn't get where I wnated to be in 15 minutes! The WB was a bit out and it was slightly underexposed. Getting something which looked both accurate and pleasing was not easy. Oh, and black cars in sunlight are a menace! I'm glad I've got a blue one now!
gravymaster said:I might give Rawshooter a try, as I can't really run to Capture One at the mo after a bit of a splurge on the body and a couple of lenses!
I have tried photoshop's raw convertor, capture one and rawshooter and I think rawshooter is the best.
I do each photo individually because each photo is different. I dont believe its possible to get good results by batch converting raw files, afterall, every photo is different.
From messing around last night, I agree with Matt, as I can't see how you can batch process photos (accurately) unless they're shot under very similar conditions. What I did was take the first Sagaris photo and adjust the settings in ACR to get a good result that only required a small amount of tweaking in PS (to bring down the red channel slightly, which ACR doesn't seem to be able to do). I then saved these settings and applied them to the 2nd Sagaris pic, but it came out too bright and saturated, even though it was the same subject and lighting conditions...
I currently just use PS File Browser to select the photos that I'll work on, but the idea of doing a batch convert to small jpgs is a good one, so I'll give that a go as my poor old laptop grinds to a halt when I shove a bunch of big RAW files at it!
ehasler said:I was struck quite early on by what the Nikon metering system will do with various scenes.
...even though it was the same subject and lighting conditions...
There's an awful lot of talk about how brilliant systems are these days and how they get scenes right XX.XXX% of the time.
It's not "complete b0110x", but it is b0110x to some extent.
Your camera works in just the same way as a computer - garbage in, garbage out. I don't care how good these 3D metering patterns are, you can bet your life that when you try and take an interesting shot you are going to need your brain. (I have two "D" lenses and two "non-D" lenses and the same problems crop up in all of them!)
Try:
Getting close to swans (sometimes the bird is in the centre of the pattern filling it, sometimes it's to the side and you have dark water to contend with)
Shooting shiney cars - whatever the colour, but black especially!
Trying that arty shot with 2/3rds sky and some foreground
However good these systems are, you are either going to engage brain and take time planning....
...or accept that you'll be close and you've got some work to do back in the "darkroom".
In the good ole days we had lovely monochrome films with characteristics we got to know and love...Pan F, FP4, HP4, HP5, Neopan....
I've never worried about WB before - but now I do. Do you know that you can preset your WB in bright sunshine, then point the camera in the other direction only to find the WB is out? Yes of course you do......
Sorry that wasn't meant to be a rant..... Gratuitous shot of car with interesting sky... ...and breathe...
beano500 said:
Try: Getting close to swans (sometimes the bird is in the centre of the pattern filling it, sometimes it's to the side and you have dark water to contend with)
Try centre-weighted metering (you can change the size of the area it uses), aim at the swan, semi-depress the shutter release (locks focus and exposure) then reframe and shoot. I use this method a lot and it's 100x quicker than farting about with EV.
I've been using Nikon Capture 4.2, which does a good job. I tend to try and shoot a *little* under to preserve highlights then bring everything up a little in the RAW converter. Some may call this cheating; I prefer to call it good practice 
I never batch process - as others have mentioned each picture has its own character so I process to match.
I convert to jpg at max quality, any final touchup work is done in PS 7 & CS. If there's anything I REALLY want or may be asked for there's always the RAW original which produces 35MB TIF's.
I never batch process - as others have mentioned each picture has its own character so I process to match.
I convert to jpg at max quality, any final touchup work is done in PS 7 & CS. If there's anything I REALLY want or may be asked for there's always the RAW original which produces 35MB TIF's.
simpo two said:Yeah - good point - oh and I read about that in the manual! When I read the manual! Did I tell you I read the manual, btw? Not sure that I'd use it much when I read it in the manual.
Try centre-weighted metering (you can change the size of the area it uses)
Actually the Swan ones were quite easy - but some of them did vary when you left the camera to its own devices....
"Swanning Around"
RossC said:The two Sagaris pics I posted on here earlier probably took me around 2/3 hours in total to do, although this was my first real go at RAW processing so hopefully I'll get a bit quicker! This did involve quite a few different goes, and lots of trial and error though...
I've got say this is all chinese to me.....
Out of interest, roughly how much time do you guys spend on average in post processing ?
Ross
I could quite easily spend the same amount of time on a scanned image, especially if it's a panoramic one and needs stitching together.
I "short-list" my pictures in iView Media Pro prior to conversion and then convert an image at a time in ACR. I've never been a fan of batch conversion because it's seems rare to me to have a situation where exactly the same white balance, exposure correction etc is applicable to a number of images.
RossC said:
I've got say this is all chinese to me.....
Out of interest, roughly how much time do you guys spend on average in post processing ?
Ross
per image for magazine i would say 5 mins...level the horizon, apply sharpness if required, adjust exposure, maybe even some colour boost. then move into CS and maybe use the shadow tool...voila
Do you have a Canon?
If so, get your browser over to
www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html
www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_14/essay.html
www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052001canondpp.asp
and then download DPP from the links in that last link.
Other than that you can use Photoshop CS's RAW plugin, but I'm getting better results using DPP at the moment.
J
If so, get your browser over to
www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html
www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_14/essay.html
www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052001canondpp.asp
and then download DPP from the links in that last link.
Other than that you can use Photoshop CS's RAW plugin, but I'm getting better results using DPP at the moment.
J
joust said:
Do you have a Canon?
If so, get your browser over to
<a href="http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html">www.photoworkshop.com/canon/dpp/index.html</a>
<a href="http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_14/essay.html">www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_14/essay.html</a>
<a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052001canondpp.asp">www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052001canondpp.asp</a>
and then download DPP from the links in that last link.
Other than that you can use Photoshop CS's RAW plugin, but I'm getting better results using DPP at the moment.
J
Thanks. I got DPP with my camera (1Ds II), but from what I've heard, ACR, Capture One or Rawshooter are the better options - I'll give it a try though
>> Edited by ehasler on Tuesday 15th March 22:46
joust said:I've not checked, but camera is only 2 weeks old, so should have a pretty current version. At this rate though, I'll spend all my time comparing RAW converters, and no time taking photos!
Make sure you download the latest - it's mucho improved on the version you got with the camera AFAIK.
J
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff