Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 11 Dec 2007 (Tuesday) 22:29
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RAW processing?

 
DAMphyne
"the more I post, the less accurate..."
Avatar
2,156 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 33
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Northern Indiana, USA
     
Dec 11, 2007 22:29 |  #1

Is there an automatic processing program that will consistently produce JPEG's the quality I get right from my camera?
Or do I have to monitor the processes to get good results?


David
Digital set me free
"Welcome Seeker! Now, don't feel alone here in the New Age, because there's a seeker born every minute.";)
www.damphyne.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,985 posts
Likes: 361
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Dec 12, 2007 01:49 |  #2

Batch processing in Adobe Camera Raw (ie photoshop) with auto turned off and you'll do pretty well. You might like to increase sharpness and contrast a bit.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davidcrebelxt
Goldmember
Avatar
3,016 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Missouri, USA
     
Dec 12, 2007 07:29 |  #3

DAMphyne wrote in post #4487221 (external link)
Is there an automatic processing program that will consistently produce JPEG's the quality I get right from my camera?
Or do I have to monitor the processes to get good results?

I use a Rebel XT...
Using Canon's Zoombrowser at default settings gives me jpegs that I rarely (if ever) have been able to distinguish from the in-camera jpeg shot along side of the RAW image... but the good thing about RAW is that when the camera DOESN'T quite process it right, you're not stuck with it and you've got control. So once you're skilled at RAW, you should be able to consistently come up with better images than in-camera. But I too still like the ability to just see WHAT the camera would have come up with occasionaly.

(I had emailed Canon awhile back what settings in DPP would mimic the in-camera-jpeg. The said there were none. They suggested Zoombrowser, since its algorithms were closer (or the same) as how the DigicII chip processed the images internally.) I do still prefer DPP over zoombrowser when I'm going to do adjustments, however.

Consistency, as you mention, is a problem STILL with ACR and Lightroom. I can set a preset that will look Great on one image... but not for anything else. Or I can set a preset that looks "decent" on most images and use that as a starting point for further adjustments when desired.


David C.
Equipment: Canon Dig. Rebel XT; 18-55mm EF-S; 28-105mm EF; 50mm 1.8 EF
Sigma ef-500 DG ST, Elements, Gimp, Lightroom
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dcrebelxt (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DAMphyne
THREAD ­ STARTER
"the more I post, the less accurate..."
Avatar
2,156 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 33
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Northern Indiana, USA
     
Dec 12, 2007 08:19 |  #4

This is my problem with shooting RAW.
I get consistently good or very good quality from the out of camera JPEGs. I can't see myself getting the same overall quality with my limited ability as a computer operator.
I understand that there may be some advantage using RAW when it comes to color balance, but the time it would take me to acquire skills to match, or come close to, the OOC images would be very time consuming.
Time, I think, better spent shooting pictures.
If I could download files into a process that would, in the end, give me comparable quality that I get from my camera JEPGs, I'd probably give RAW an effort.


David
Digital set me free
"Welcome Seeker! Now, don't feel alone here in the New Age, because there's a seeker born every minute.";)
www.damphyne.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dermit
Goldmember
1,815 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 168
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Chandler, Arizona
     
Dec 12, 2007 08:52 |  #5

I used to race bikes, that's bicycles, not motorcycles, and I was always amazed that a competitor would spend $500 to buy a component to take a couple ounces off his bike but was 20 pounds overweight himself.

The point is that often times being the best, getting the best results, is almost always a product of more work. Usually the more you put into something the better it is. Thus is the formula for photography and post processing. I just do not understand buying a really nice camera, spending a fortune on "L" glass and then resort to 'accepting' a file as processed by the camera when you could put in a little extra work and tune it to be a lot closer to the best potential for that image if you had only shot in RAW and learned how to process it.

Pro photography is very competitive and if you do not go that extra mile that makes your images stand out then chances are your competition will and you will soon be out gunned.

Yes, the extra attention you spend in fine tuning a RAW file can be time consuming. I shoot around 25,000 images a year. All in RAW and mostly professionally for clients who pay for my work. I do all my own post processing using Lightroom and PS CS3. The last 3 weeks alone I've taken 5,000 images and I have a wedding to do this Friday and another on Tuesday next week. Oh, and did I mention that I have a 'regular' job (40 hr/week) totally unrealted to photograhpy that takes a lot of my time?

The point is that I shoot a lot and post process everything myself. This high quantity demand requires me to have a workflow and a system that absolutely delivers good quality images in a timely manner. You can not compete very well without being very good at post processing or pay someone else to do it. Not learning how to get the best image from a RAW file shot with great gear means you spent a lot of money to get images that are not representing what the gear is capable of. What a waste of money.


5DmkII, 5DmkIII, 5DS R, 15mm, 16-35 f/2.8 II L, 100 Macro f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, 580EX II, 580EX, 550EX
http://www.pixelcraftp​hoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,877 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2528
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Dec 12, 2007 09:00 |  #6

I understand that there may be some advantage using RAW...

Here's one: A max jpg from my 20D is about 2,754 KB. The exact same shot with the jpg extracted from the 12-bit RAW "negative" is 4,315 KB which is 1.57X larger.
Whatever info is in my jpg is a lot more detailed than what comes right out of the camera. Why throw those extra bits away?

Here's another: You might think you won't see the difference in a web image on your screen, but that's not true. Look at post 58 on page 2 in this thread:
Auto White Balance - works really well
https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2208481&po​stcount=58

For me, RAW is faster. If I'm not batch processing, I'd have to:
Open the image.
Open the correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Open the next correction dialog box. Make that correction. Close it.
Etc, etc...

With RAW, I can just move this slider, move that slider, etc 'till it's time to convert the images. Much faster for me. And, while I have made Actions to "Open the next correction dialog box." in PS, I still prefer to make all possible changes before conversion, which I feel is the same as working in 16-bit in PS.

-=The RAW Faqs=- RAW Processing info and links


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
In2Photos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
19,808 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Near Charlotte, NC.
     
Dec 12, 2007 09:13 |  #7

DAMphyne wrote in post #4489059 (external link)
This is my problem with shooting RAW.
I get consistently good or very good quality from the out of camera JPEGs. I can't see myself getting the same overall quality with my limited ability as a computer operator.
I understand that there may be some advantage using RAW when it comes to color balance, but the time it would take me to acquire skills to match, or come close to, the OOC images would be very time consuming.
Time, I think, better spent shooting pictures.
If I could download files into a process that would, in the end, give me comparable quality that I get from my camera JEPGs, I'd probably give RAW an effort.

IMO if all you plan to do with RAW files is turn them into JPEGs without making any adjustments, then there is no need to shoot RAW. Don't fix what isn't broke. If you are happy with the results from your camera in JPEG then stick with it. I never liked the JPEG images that my camera produced so I switched to RAW. You mileage may vary.


Mike, The Keeper of the Archive

Current Gear and Feedback| My Pbase Galleryexternal link | mdsportsphoto.comexternal linkhttps://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=835433

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DAMphyne
THREAD ­ STARTER
"the more I post, the less accurate..."
Avatar
2,156 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 33
Joined Feb 2003
Location: Northern Indiana, USA
     
Dec 12, 2007 15:04 |  #8

Well, first of all I'm not a "Pro", so I don't have the 'push to produce' nagging me when I take pictures.
I guess I don't get that impressed with perfect pixel properties, so file size isn't as important as impact and perception when looking at photos in general.
I have yet to walk into a room with photos on the wall and tried to see if they had faulty pixels. I think it's best to view the image as the artist/photographer presents it. If they wanted us to pixel peep it would be wall size instead of, say, an 8x10.
I'm still hanging on to the feeling that I'd rather spend more time shooting than processing.
I figured if I could find a quick and easy program that would give me comparably better pics than the built in processor, I'd try out the RAW.


David
Digital set me free
"Welcome Seeker! Now, don't feel alone here in the New Age, because there's a seeker born every minute.";)
www.damphyne.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tixeon
Goldmember
Avatar
1,249 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 15
Joined Oct 2004
Location: 44644
     
Dec 12, 2007 17:52 |  #9

DAMphyne wrote in post #4491962 (external link)
Well, first of all I'm not a "Pro", so I don't have the 'push to produce' nagging me when I take pictures.
I guess I don't get that impressed with perfect pixel properties, so file size isn't as important as impact and perception when looking at photos in general.
I have yet to walk into a room with photos on the wall and tried to see if they had faulty pixels. I think it's best to view the image as the artist/photographer presents it. If they wanted us to pixel peep it would be wall size instead of, say, an 8x10.
I'm still hanging on to the feeling that I'd rather spend more time shooting than processing.
I figured if I could find a quick and easy program that would give me comparably better pics than the built in processor, I'd try out the RAW.

I doubt seriously that you will find a program that is quick & easy and will give you (initially) results that you are used to with your jpg's. As with any computer program, you will need to spend some time to learn the best & most efficient settings that give you the results you expect. Many here on POTN swear by Digital Photo Pro & a few swear at it. DPP does seem to be one of the most useful & easiest to use for RAW files.

It's good that you are not under professional pressure, therefore, you can take all the time you need. Good luck.....


Tim
______
Any cat owner will tell you -- no one really owns a cat...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
In2Photos
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
19,808 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Dec 2005
Location: Near Charlotte, NC.
     
Dec 12, 2007 19:33 |  #10

DAMphyne wrote in post #4491962 (external link)
Well, first of all I'm not a "Pro", so I don't have the 'push to produce' nagging me when I take pictures.
I guess I don't get that impressed with perfect pixel properties, so file size isn't as important as impact and perception when looking at photos in general.
I have yet to walk into a room with photos on the wall and tried to see if they had faulty pixels. I think it's best to view the image as the artist/photographer presents it. If they wanted us to pixel peep it would be wall size instead of, say, an 8x10.
I'm still hanging on to the feeling that I'd rather spend more time shooting than processing.
I figured if I could find a quick and easy program that would give me comparably better pics than the built in processor, I'd try out the RAW.

Again, based in your response I don't believe RAW is the best choice for you. Stick with JPEGs, there is nothing wrong with that choice. :)


Mike, The Keeper of the Archive

Current Gear and Feedback| My Pbase Galleryexternal link | mdsportsphoto.comexternal linkhttps://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=835433

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dermit
Goldmember
1,815 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 168
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Chandler, Arizona
     
Dec 13, 2007 08:06 |  #11

...and next time you want to buy a V12 Jaguar and only run it on 6 cyclinders give me a call, I might be able to save you some money.


5DmkII, 5DmkIII, 5DS R, 15mm, 16-35 f/2.8 II L, 100 Macro f/2.8 L, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS, 85 f/1.8, 580EX II, 580EX, 550EX
http://www.pixelcraftp​hoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,877 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2528
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Dec 13, 2007 08:38 |  #12

I might be able to save you some money.

I hear that Yugos last forever? ;)


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,724 views & 0 likes for this thread
RAW processing?
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is rondimar
1113 guests, 354 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.