Color, "lazy" workflow, and in-camera settings

I'll keep this short and sweet: despite the advantages of RAW, I like JPEG because it makes my workflow easier. But I still have questions for anyone willing to voice their opinion.

I know RAW, to some, is better, but my workflow is as basic as can be. Shoot. Plug CF card in, automatically copying to backup drive in two places (one for backup, one for editing) using DIM 4.0 (FREE). Open Picasa2 (FREE), it automatically recognizes the editing folder, and then I click the pics I like and upload to a web album. (If I was shooting a wedding, or something else important, I would use RAW, ok?) At some point I might open them in PS7 and edit or do a batch for color correction, light USM, etc, but I rarely find I need that.

I am trying, as I am sure most people are, to get great colors, sharpness, low noise, etc out of my JPEGs right from the camera. Any suggestions on making the pictures "pop"? Even better, any quick and dirty batch process or action in PS that you can suggest, recommend, or send me to do this would be awesome, too. If all I had to do was add one more step to batch everything and produce better colors, sharper pics, etc, I would be thrilled.

Thanks in advance for your help and opinions.

Maybe someone could set me straight but there is one thing I have never understood about the 'I use JPEG because it makes workflow quicker and easier' crowd. When you convert your raw pics there is an option in the settings for 'As Shot'. Which sounds like (correct me if I am wrong) it will apply the settings the camera would have used anyway to make the jpeg. Just batch process the whole set and you will have all the easy to work with jpegs you want. But now you have a raw file in case you need it.

You mention using raw when your shooting something important....but how would you know when that 1 in a billion shot might come along?

You can if you want turn up the contrast, saturation, and sharpening sliders (you didn't mention what camera you have but I will assume) in the camera for its jpeg settings. I'v tried this and hated the way it looked from my 20D. It had this over processed look to it like my point and shoot. Your better off choosing your own aggressive settings to taste during a batch convert. I am using ACR to do this and it really only takes a few easy clicks to do a batch process. The only disadvantage is the extra storage space....but with the price of memory lately who cares?

Nope. It doesn't work that way. In RAW workflows you have the ability to control so much more than what some basic AlGoreRythyms in the camera do.

Where is the luminance option in jpeg settings? Shadows? Blacks? Color noise reduction? Brightness?

godzakka wrote in post #3019653
Any suggestions on making the pictures "pop"? Even better, any quick and dirty batch process or action in PS that you can suggest, recommend, or send me to do this would be awesome, too. If all I had to do was add one more step to batch everything and produce better colors, sharper pics, etc, I would be thrilled.

This may not be what you want to hear, but you have to work for great images. There is no magic setting or action that takes care of everything.

Batch a duplicate >mild velvia >sharpening action into one and automate. The results won't always please but you can modify the action to suit what you produce.

I shot a lot of jpeg in my Club Med days and I usually left them alone. If a customer wanted some extra "pop" as people called it i would do this.

It's up to you.

The added contol and resulting value of RAW over JPEG isn't even debatable, so if someone wants to shoot JPEG, that's OK, because it has no affect whatsoever on my images.

Happy shooting.

Sathi, to your point about RAW, here's my comments:

1. If I was using film or JPEG, that one in a million shot won't matter about RAW settings. It matters that the image was close and convey's it's story well. Photography is not all about technical quality, IQ, sharpness, DOF or lack thereof, etc. You know this, I know this. But, I agree, if you can get a better picture, why not? Which brings me to...

2. If I don't want to buy more memory cards (not everyone can afford a bunch, and I am one of those people), the cards we have will have to make do. With a 512MB card (I have more than this, but...), you get 60 images at ISO100 on a 10D in RAW (one of my cameras). With JPEG, you get close to 180 I think. To me, there are the advantages of not having to switch cards in a fast action moment and not losing the shot (10D takes a while to "reboot", faster processing compared to RAW (less steps, less computing power, less micromanaging, etc), more pictures before having to switch cards, and lots of other advantages.

I shot RAW for well over two years. I shot RAW and played and played and never got anything dramatically better, save for once or twice, than I would've if I used JPEG. My style doesn't need it. And there are actually an equal number of times had I shot in JPEG I wouldn't have lost the picture (ran out of space, switching cards, etc).

Finally, to cdifoto, cosworth, etc, thank you for your comments. When I work one photo at a time, I can 99% of the time, RAW or JPEG, get what I am desiring. I tried upping the Sat, Sharpness, etc but never got good results. When I run a batch for autolevels, or a small curve, lets say, I notice overall the pictures are better. Those few (maybe 10%) that are not, I go back and redo if I like them. If not, I skip them anyways. What I was hoping for was a similar trick (like small USM, small curves, etc) that add something special to a photo. I am not an expert at PS at all, but I am learning my way around and can do plenty of simple and amatuerish stuff.

Thanks all.

godzakka wrote in post #3031163
Sathi, to your point about RAW, here's my comments:

2. If I don't want to buy more memory cards (not everyone can afford a bunch, and I am one of those people), the cards we have will have to make do. With a 512MB card (I have more than this, but...), you get 60 images at ISO100 on a 10D in RAW (one of my cameras). With JPEG, you get close to 180 I think. To me, there are the advantages of not having to switch cards in a fast action moment

This is a valid point, if you don't have the space that's a real thing. It has been getting crazy though lately. I have seen 2 gig cards for under $20 and there is a 8 gig card listed in the market watch forum for $87.

godzakka wrote in post #3031163
What I was hoping for was a similar trick (like small USM, small curves, etc) that add something special to a photo. I am not an expert at PS at all, but I am learning my way around and can do plenty of simple and amatuerish stuff.
Thanks all.

Try this and let me know what you think. Open up your favorite image and apply in unsharp mask these settings

Amount: 20%
Radius : 50
Threshold: 0

I think maybe this is what you are looking for. I really like what it does for photos anyway. If it looks too punchy try dropping the Amount down.

Hey, I like that Sathi, thanks. I also went crazy and put 150 for amount, and it gives a really interesting look to it, although not one for everyday use. Thanks for that setting, good to have handy.