alfarmer wrote:
Isn't there any way to automate this stuff? It sure seems like a ton of time for very little benefit. I've yet to see my 20D produce a RAW file that looks better than JPG file, even counting all labor-intensive the post-processing. If I made a 36x24 poster it's possible I'd notice, but up to 16x20 I've seen nothing to convince me I should waste all that time processing RAW files.
But before all the RAW diehards flame me to death, I'm not saying RAW isn't better. Just that for me I've not seen a reason to kill all that time processing hundreds of files. I'd love it if someone could post a RAW+JPG sample picture that shows what the 20D spat out in JPG form vs. what the photographer massaged with the RAW file. That could easily sway me into the RAW camp if it was a compelling, significant difference...
The ability to adjust exposure and white balance are two huge reasons why RAW is better. Read Bruce Fraser's book "Real World Camera Raw with CS2". It is the absolute best source on the subject. I guarantee that it will open your eyes.
Edited by Nug Blazer on Oct 26, 2005 at 03:40 PM GMT
Since I didn't see (or I missed it) anyone else mention it....
If you are using PS CS or CS PS2 I would highly recommend getting Bruce Fraser's book Real World Adobe Camera RAW and reading it. You will get a very good understanding of RAW processing and (at least his) ideas on workflow and you will understand why you are doing what you do.
MALandre wrote:
But why don't you also use BB Pro to convert your raw files?
Why do you use Capture One's raw converter?
Why is Capture One better in your opinion?
Well, two reasons. The first is utterly subjective; I just like the way the images look coming out of C1 using Magne Nilsen's profiles.
Second, and more important in the context of this thread, is the workflow. C1 is almost unique (yes, I know about RSE) in its ability to let you work quickly through a large number of RAW images, applying different adjustments to each one, and converting in the background as you work. Once you get the hang of it, it pretty much makes working with RAW files almost as quick and easy as working with jpg's. I average about shooting about 1000 frames a week and haven't shot a jpg in two years.
Good thread. My workflow is very similar to NIll's except I use ACR in PS instead of C1. I can chew through RAW juist about a quickly too. DL Pro is one of the best utilities a digital photographer can buy & it is truly a steal for the price. My workflow is getting more refined & right now is:
1) Download with BB DL Pro. It is set up to grab a job code which it uses along with EXIF data from the files to create a standard directory structure for the shoot. Each file gets renamed according to my scheme using EXIF data and has basic IPTC copyright information added.
2) I review the files in BB Pro, flagging throwaways and noting keepers. Then flagged files get deleted & keepers get moved for processing
3) I then pull the RAW files into IMatch to catalog and again stuff IPTC data with a script there.
4) Go into PSCS and adjust the files in ACR--most of the time this can be batched to some extent by using the first image in a group to set & transfer the adjustements to the rest. Then I use the Image Processor script to perform all the conversions. Fraser's book was invaluable to help me understand what was going on & find the tricks (Alt key is your friend) and therefore speed this process. Each image I adjust is usually literally seconds to finish.
5) Any trouble shots get additional attention in PS.
6) Finally, developed shots gets pulled into IMatch & a couple of scripts are run to pull all the RAW files' categorization and IPTC into the developed files.
7) Optionally, the best files get thrown to JAlbum to be added to the web portfolio.
Most of the heavy lifting is really done by batch processes; the computer spends more time chewing on data by itself than I actually spend sitting in front of it. It takes a little while to get your workflo nailed down, but it's certainly worth the effort.
