The new world of RAW processing software - some observations.

[David Mackie]

Ken

Forgive me for reviving an old post, but its a topic that I am still trying to get my mind around as I now consider moving from a JPEG only workflow to a JPEG/RAW (and possibly TIFF) workflow.  I would like to start shooting RAW or RAW+JPEG so I too can have the ability to correct or perfect those select images in need of my attention.  But, not every image needs to be attended to, and having a usable JPEG along with my RAW (currently NEF format) file is where I am currently spending my already taxed brain cells.

I now shoot RAW and the biggest advantage to editing in my twofold
1) It is easier to correct colour casts (wrong WB), exposure etc. in RAW than in JPEG's as Peter has noted above I believe.
2) File management is MUCH easier

When I was shooting JPGs I had originals (if I remembered to properly archive them before racing off to edit them), and various edits of colour corrections and crops. It was a nightmare.

Now I generally have 1 copy of an image - a DNG with an embedded JPG that represents the most recent editing. Since the edits to the RAW data are non destructive I can easily go back and fiddle with them.

Archiving is simple and I know what is archived. For those shots were I really need more advanced editing in Photoshop then I must work on the JPG (for example to correct keystoning or for advanced touchups like removing love handles!). These become a few derivative files that I must store.

This requires that you have something like Iview Media Pro to show the embedded JPGs.

I use Adobe ACR/Bridge/Photoshop CS3, Iview Media Pro, Adobe DNG Converter for these tasks.

I hope this helps a little

David

[johnbeardy]

The JPEG's parameters are those that you set in camera, so that might include things like sharpening, black and white, or all the other picture styles (oops that's Canonspeak isn't it?). And compression - you have choices on all Nikon DSLRs. When the JPEG goes into the DNG, it's the original data - think of the DNG as a wrapper.

Unless you need to transmit your pictures immediately after capture, I tend to feel that RAW+JPEG is making a rod for your own back. I know a press shooter whose job depends on sending his pictures within an hour of the event, but only keeps the raws as he'll use them for any "reprints". Another example was a wedding photographer I met - he was one of those sanctimonious "I always get it right in camera" types. Maybe he does - I prefer to adjust (I mean "perfect") the raws and leave the computer to make the JPEGs while I do something more important. Managing thousands of pictures is painful enough - why double the problem's size?

Don't be put off by the tone of certain posters at Adobe's user forum. One or two of them really do know what they're talking about, even if they're needlessly rude and can't spell or punctuate correctly. Here of course it's Peter's site and such a tone would reflect badly - without his restraining hand, I'd "prolly" switch to shouting match mode pretty darn quickly, "dude".

John

[Photo_op]

While the preview is an sRGB JPEG, I find that 80% of professionals I have shown them to cannot tell the difference between a 24 inch print made from the embedded preview and a print made from a 40 MG ProPhotoRGB TIFF file.  It really is a great print.

I make the previews full size, which is the full pixel resolution of the original image.

While adobe is the only software that currently puts in the preview, anybody can do it since it is an openly documented format.
Peter

Peter et al-
Based upon the above quote, for the theme of this thread, please consider "all" of my workflow example below with an eye to the RAW file converter question.

1. I ingest RAWs from camera (Olympus and Leica) using ImageIngerster Pro. At the time of ingest, I (1) create a folder for the RAWs, (2) a bucket folder for DNGs with full size Previews (with IIp using DNG Converter and imbedded RAW) and (3) a backup folder with DNGs (again embedded RAW).

2. I then "ingest" the DNGs from (2) into Lightroom (leaving the reference to the system hard drive).

3. Then I use Lightroom as my RAW converter by making any adjustments to the DNG and eventually using Metadata>Update DNG Preview and Metadata to save any changes from the Lightroom database to the file.

When using Lightroom to print, I assume (from my understanding of your comments in previous threads similar to the statement above) Lightroom uses the full size preview with all current adjustments. And if 80% of the professionals coudn't tell the difference, that is good enough for me. In the rare cases when I needed to send something to CS3 (not my strength), I open the modified DNG and save the TIFF (or whatever) back to the appropriate hard drive bucket and sync with Lightroom. If I need separate JPGs for

Lastly then, although not specifically the spirit of this thread, Lightroom has replaced iView as my catalog program. I'm hoping updates to Lightroom will enhance (1) synergy with ACR, DNG and CS(?)3 and (2) database cataloging features. So, I'll sink or swim with Adobe (for now).

--Dave

[Ken]

I tend to feel that RAW+JPEG is making a rod for your own back.

This is not an expression I am familiar with.  Is it mostly an English expression?  Its certainly not as colorful as how a previous thread described Microsoft's management of EM, "screwing the pooch."  Doubling the number of files can make for a management mess if you are not careful.  I guess what I am looking for is a RAW converter that will easily give me a JPEG from the RAW file that is no worse that the one that the camera will output, but without the need for a big time investment.  Most of what is asked of me at work (and the nonprofit organization where I volunteer my photogrpahic services), beyond being the King of DAM, are candid or event shots that people need for the web or as a small photo in a newsletter.  At home, however, its a different story.

Don't be put off by the tone of certain posters at Adobe's user forum. One or two of them really do know what they're talking about, even if they're needlessly rude and can't spell or punctuate correctly. Here of course it's Peter's site and such a tone would reflect badly - without his restraining hand, I'd "prolly" switch to shouting match mode pretty darn quickly, "dude".

There are days where almost all of us would like to tell annoying people what we really think of them, or where they should go.  But, I presonally believe that it is not only rude, but also bad business practice.  The web leaves quite an amazing paper trail, so I always advise people to pick their words, and their battles, carefully.  You never know who is reading your posts, and you do not know who they are, or who they know.  (Remember, on the web, nobody knows you are a dog!  )  And you would be surprised at how small of a world it is here in Puget Sound.

But, I will reconsider LR, if only for the RAW converter features.  I just wish that CameraBits would expand their range with several of the products they have been mulling over.  Their customer support is quite exceptional, and PM is highly regarded in the photo world.

Thanks,

--Ken