Digital Workflow

[tiger95]

Currently I use Picasa (free photo manager from Google) to import, manage and make minor adjustments to my photos. Anything more than a simple crop or red-eye reduction I use Photoshop Elements. I would like to begin shooting some RAW, and was looking for some suggestions on the work flow for importing, managing and editing. I have looked a little at Lightroom, but I am not quite sure where it fits into the flow of things. I am running a PC with Windows XP and shooting with a Nikon D40. Any input would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Jd

 

[wenrob]

I have tried Lightroom 2 and am currently trying Capture NX2. I like the features of NX2 but I so far have not found it very user friendly. There is no list of what I have done (as far as I can tell) and I can't figure out the U point system to save my life. I pretty much get frustrated and give up. I found Lightroom 2 very user friendly and intuitive albeit not as fancy and think that's probably what I'll go with in the end.

I have found RAW to be labor intensive as far as processing. I understand it's the best way to go and I'm sure most will disagree but I find it a lot of work.

 

[handicap18]

I use Nikon Transfer (free) to download from the media card to my PC. I have it set up to download the images to 2 different files on 2 different hard drives (one internal and one external). I also change the file name's at this point. Since I already have 15,000 files from my D50 with the DSC_##### file name I changed my D300 from DSC_ to KDG_ (my initials). Then I just keep up with the file numbers (personal preference here).

To process the RAW files I'm currently just using Nikon ViewNX (another free OEM software program). With ViewNX I can change white balance, exposure compensation, picture control, D-lighting, sharpness, contrast and a few other things. From there I select all the images I want to make JPEG's then its just 2 quick clicks and the transfer process starts (you set your defaults ahead of time like what file you want the JPEG's to go to and what quality. Once you set them they stay that way till you change them). Doesn't take all that long, though it depends on how many files I'm converting.

The only thing I don't like about it is that it can't crop. For that I'll use Lightroom, if/when I do crop.

You can download a 1 month trial of Nikon CaptureNX, then a 2 month trail of Nikon CaptureNX 2. I think I'm going to get CaptureNX 2 for x-mas. They have a $30 off special for registered Nikon users. I got the email with the coupon a few weeks back.

With CNX2 you have a lot more control of the image and how you can process it. It does take a while to get used to, but once you understand it, its one of the best RAW converters/processors for Nikon images out there.

As far as shooting RAW being a lot of work,,, well, it depends on how much post processing you "want" to do. The more you can do to get it correct when you click the shutter, the less PP you'll be doing. I don't do a lot of post processing and many of my images are as they were taken. I shoot everything RAW because when I started the transition from JPEG to RAW I found my images to have better color and contrast and they also looked sharper in general with the RAW image converted to JPEG on the compter rather than a JPEG straight from the camera.

 

[tiger95]

Thanks for the info.

So is CaptureNX 2, more of a full fledged photo editing program?

 

[wenrob]

As far as shooting RAW being a lot of work,,, well, it depends on how much post processing you "want" to do. The more you can do to get it correct when you click the shutter, the less PP you'll be doing. I don't do a lot of post processing and many of my images are as they were taken. I shoot everything RAW because when I started the transition from JPEG to RAW I found my images to have better color and contrast and they also looked sharper in general with the RAW image converted to JPEG on the compter rather than a JPEG straight from the camera.

Please in no way take this as me wanting to debate or argue. (I'm actually kind of afraid to post this because I don't want it taken that way) Remember that I'm fairly new so this about wanting to understand. It's my understanding that shooting JPEG is essentially doing the processing for you. So if you get it right in camera then there's really no work to be done. From what I've read here, shooting RAW is for those times when you don't get it right which I personally find labor intensive. I don't yet have the confidence to know I've picked the right WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation etc. kwim? My experience in shooting RAW is limited but even when I nail the exposure, it seems as if I'm struggling to get color into my kids faces etc. So far, for me, it's been frustrating experience. I want to learn though as there are those shots that can't be saved at times and as I understand RAW can help me with that. Do you have any recommended reading for CNX2? I can find nothing but the user's guide from Nikon and it really hasn't helped much, lol.

 

[annnewjerz]

Please in no way take this as me wanting to debate or argue. (I'm actually kind of afraid to post this because I don't want it taken that way) Remember that I'm fairly new so this about wanting to understand. It's my understanding that shooting JPEG is essentially doing the processing for you. So if you get it right in camera then there's really no work to be done. From what I've read here, shooting RAW is for those times when you don't get it right which I personally find labor intensive. I don't yet have the confidence to know I've picked the right WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation etc. kwim? My experience in shooting RAW is limited but even when I nail the exposure, it seems as if I'm struggling to get color into my kids faces etc. So far, for me, it's been frustrating experience. I want to learn though as there are those shots that can't be saved at times and as I understand RAW can help me with that. Do you have any recommended reading for CNX2? I can find nothing but the user's guide from Nikon and it really hasn't helped much, lol.

I know exactly what you are saying, as a newbie to shooting RAW as well. As far as the colors and stuff go, it seems like some things that would show up very vibrantly when shooting in JPG end up looking kind of faded, washed out...just blah, when shooting in RAW. I find myself doing more adjusting to the saturation and adding in a little more "warmifying" than usual to get the same color and it does take a lot of time. I do seem to get better exposures and don't have to adjust the contrast and white balance nearly as much, but it's six of one, half dozen of the other.

I know what you mean 100%. I have dedicated myself to shooting solely in RAW for a while and seeing if it'll grow on me. So far, one outing at the zoo I really loved shooting in RAW while another trip to Rhode Island I didn't like even 1/4 of the shots I took.

It's all personal preference if you ask me. If you have happy with your pictures in JPG, then just because me, another DISer or even the best photographer in the world tells you to shoot RAW...that doesn't mean you should or have to. Most things people say on here are recommendations and not all of them have to stick.

Good luck!!

 

[YEKCIM]

Let me first off issue this disclaimer: I am very skills-challenged when it comes to editing of any kind. However, after the gentle nudging of a good friend who sometimes visits this board, I decided to give RAW a shot (pun intended). That was nearly a year ago, and I have not looked back. I suppose it shows what a crummy photographer I am (not to mention lazy), but the ability to correct exposure and white balance is HUGE, to me. I use Elements 5 and ACR v4.5 for RAW conversions. Yes, it is another step and is time consuming, but I have found it very simple to use ACR, just adjusting the necessary sliders or selecting the proper WB setting from the dropdown menu. I sometimes nudge the saturation slider a little, one way or the other, but generally find that unnecessary. From there, in Elements, it's just a matter of crop, straighten, levels, resize, USM, and save.

~Ed

 

[YesDear]

Your post about RAW is correct on a very basic level. I agree that many people use RAW as an excuse to take pictures quickly and then attempt to fix them in the computer. I also agree that if you take the picture correctly jpgs are fine. I can tell you that even professional photographers, and you can get response from some here, do not always take the correct picture. If you are shooting a wedding and you have a dark skinned bride in a white dress and a light skinned groom in a black tux, that is difficult thing to properly meter on the fly at a wedding. When you are getting paid to take a picture you take the picture. If it is not perfect you want the most leeway to fix it once you process it.

I would imagine as a new photographer, you take some pictures and realize that you had the wrong setting or you used auto and what you wanted is not what you get. I always shoot RAW. In fact, I shoot with a D300 and use loss less RAW which creates a 24+mp image. I do that so that if I take a picture in high contrast and I did not have time to set the camera to a single spot meter and meter on a face in the sun at a beach, that I can go into Capture NX2 or PS3 and selectively change the settings on the image. I can select a face and lighten it, etc. If and when I do that, if it is a RAW image I have plenty of data to work with. If in jpg, a lot of that data is stripped away by the processing in the camera. My ability to "fix" that image is greatly limited. The image was properly taken using the settings I had in the camera, it just was not what I wanted. RAW gives me the ability to make an image pop. With jpg, the processed image is limited because even a 8mp jpg image has soo much less data that the same RAW image.

I highly recommend that you use a quality RAW processor like Lightroom, photoshop, or NX2. ( I really like NX2 because it is made by my camera maker and is designed for it.) Yes NX2 does have a learning curve and is not intuitive, but is a really good program for Nikon users.

While I really believe that anyone should do what is right for them, it amazes me to read in photography boards that people spend thousands on cameras and lenses then use picassa to process their images because it is free.

If you are really new to photography, use jpg to get practice. I believe as your experience and skill increases you will naturally move to RAW.

The most important thing is to keep shooting and pay attention to what settings give you what results.

Wow, I did not think I was going to get on a soapbox and hope I did not offend anyone!

I think I added up the other day and there are over 200 different choices or settings on my D300. I shoot almost exclusively in aperture mode so I can control the depth of field. If I am shooting something that is moving, I usually shoot in shutter speed mode so I can control the motion. The only time I use program mode is if I know I am going to be in quickly changing circumstances that I cannot control and want to depend on the camera to get the best I can get at a quick moment. My point being is that I think I am pretty good with my camera and have been taking pictures a long time, but since I do not do this all the time, my switching to the right setting, or even finding it quickly is sometimes a challenge. RAW is one of my safeguards to get that shot that I like.

Many new to RAW do over process the image. Also many new to RAW do not take the time to properly set their computer monitor correctly. When I an doing serious editing, I use a properly calibrated mac which has a bright high quality display, so I know that colors that I see are correct.
If I am doing serious photo editing, I do it on a properly calibrated desktop mac. The display is amazing and I know what I see is what I will get. It is more important for me because I am red green colorblind!!!

If you are new to photography, you may want to set your camera to jpg for a while. I truly believe as your experience and skills increase, you will want that software and RAW to be able to make that picture pop!

The most important thing is to keep shooting and pay attention to what and how you shoot. You will then learn how to correct your mistakes.

Wow, I did not mean to get on a soapbox and hope I did not offend anyone!

 

[MICKEY88]

a year ago I was the guy who would always debate the raw jpeg issue,



I firmly believe in doing my best to get the shot right in camera, so I didn't see the need for shooting raw, I was happy with the shots I was getting..
then last MArch I went to shoot a sweet 16 party, I got to the location early to check the lighting etc...

it was a nightmare location, it was a large room, with black walls and the only lighting was colored spotlights... I did a few test shots, tried different WB and wasn't comfortable with the results, so I decided to shoot raw & jpeg, since I have that option. out of habit I got home, uploaded muy pics, then proceeded to post process the jpegs trying to get the WB and exposure, it was impossible, for the firat time I was totally frustrated, then I remembered my raw files, I opened the folder and quickly discovered that with the Minolta software it was easy to get the WB correct, and I had more leeway with the exposure as well....the pics turned out great, from that day on I shot raw & jpeg all the time,.
quite often I just used the jpegs and was happy with them. then I started playing around one weekend and discovered that even with the good jpegs, I could get a pic I liked better adjusting the raw myself.. I decided to save card space and HD space and only shoot raw.

I now have my 2 Sony A700s and use the original Sony software, I open the folder preview the pics and I can tell which ones will look fine if I batch process using the camera settings, then I'll process the rest one at a time, or if I see several that need the same adjustment I can process one, then save the action and run it on a group of pics..as a batch..once you develop a workflow it's rather simple...


I use the Sony software, once I make the basic adjustments, if I want to fine tune I can export right into PSP Photo PRo X2 Ultimate if I neat any noise reduction from a low light shoot, I have neat image noise reduction as a plugin so I can run that without leaving PSP.

the way I understand it, one of the main reasons for shooting raw is this..

the raw file contains all the info captured by the camera, when shooting jpeg, the camera tosses 30-50 % of the info and processes the rest, so it's much easier to save a less than perfect shot if using the raw file.

it's true that raw files will often look flatter colorwise and such, that is becasue the camera boosts saturation and does some sharpening when converting to jpeg..

the other advantage of shooting raw is, right now you might not be good at post processing, but a year from now with practice you will be much better, you then have the raw file to go back to and process again to get a much better shot of your favorites..

if your camera allows you ..perhaps shoot raw & jpeg... that way you have the jpeg right away, and when you have time you can play with processing the raw..

 

[pointandshoot]

I shoot RAW expecting to post process. I hang out with other photogs who do not care for RAW and make all adjustments to JPEGS. My camera can produce both RAW and JPEG of the image. IF not shooting action, I will choose this option. I agree to shoot RAW now because in the future you may learn editing. Why take away that option.

My workflow is Adobe Bridge for organization and deleting images. In some cases, I may shoot a location where the same correction is needed across a group images; such as white balance adjustment. That can be done in Bridge or Lightroom.

I use Photoshop for RAW editing. In the RAW editor, I adjust white balance and try to recovrt lost highlights . I will work with color and reduce noise and even spot heal sometimes in the RAW editor.

I use Photoshop for most of my edits and retouch work. Layers for contrast, hue saturation, and sharpening are a must. This is the best place to do non-destructive edits and slowly build your changes and see how they impact the overall image.

If you are not using Photoshop, I still think contrast, color, and sharpening should be done on some tool. Always sharpen at the end after all other adjustments. Bottomline, though, is that you can create great images in both file formats. I think it is a bit easier do some adjusts with RAW.

 

[handicap18]

Please in no way take this as me wanting to debate or argue. (I'm actually kind of afraid to post this because I don't want it taken that way) Remember that I'm fairly new so this about wanting to understand. It's my understanding that shooting JPEG is essentially doing the processing for you. So if you get it right in camera then there's really no work to be done. From what I've read here, shooting RAW is for those times when you don't get it right which I personally find labor intensive. I don't yet have the confidence to know I've picked the right WB, contrast, sharpness, saturation etc. kwim? My experience in shooting RAW is limited but even when I nail the exposure, it seems as if I'm struggling to get color into my kids faces etc. So far, for me, it's been frustrating experience. I want to learn though as there are those shots that can't be saved at times and as I understand RAW can help me with that. Do you have any recommended reading for CNX2? I can find nothing but the user's guide from Nikon and it really hasn't helped much, lol.

I'm no expert or professional by any mean. When I got my Nikon D50 in Jan '06 I shot just JPEG for about a year and a half. I figured that was all I needed. Images were fine why did I need to shoot RAW. Then for the heck of it I started shooting RAW to see what all the buzz was about. I got hooked pretty quickly. I liked being able to switch the White Balance and adjust it easily rather than taking 7 different images to see what one is better. I liked that my cropped images were larger from a RAW image than from a cropped JPEG. Exposure Compensation is another thing. When I shoot I concentrate on the composition and the lighting and then trying to get it as best I can, then maybe I'll tweak the RAW image a little before converting to JPEG. I don't get it right every time. Far from, but I try to get it as close to right so there is less to do in PP.

From what I read in your post I would suggest you go back to basics. It seems as though your trying to do to much. CaptureNX and CaptureNX2 both need a lot of time to work though and get an understanding of how the work. When I did the 60 day trial version of CNX2 I mostly used it for cropping and then spot adjusting. Not much else.

As for going back to basics I would suggest starting with ViewNX. Its very simple to use. It only has a few points to adjust and handles batch conversions very easily. Its pretty much the only program I've been using for my RAW files for the last 14 or so months. It seems like your trying to drive a standard uphill in a snow storm after you just got your learners permit. Try things in a way that may be a little easier before jumping all the way into CNX2.

I look at the RAW image file as the negative and the JPEG as the print. No sense in throwing away the negative. You never know when something comes up and you'll want to crop or re-adjust an image. I've gone back and re-converted all of my Disney '07 RAW files based on my view of the images I first converted. I changed the picture control (from Normal to Neutral) and adjust the white balance on just about all of my night shots.

 

[boBQuincy]

RAW (which is what all of our cameras capture) is 12 or even 14 bits. JPG is 8 bits, the camera decides which bits to throw away (permanently).
If you do not care about having your camera toss away all that information, forever, shoot JPG.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

It is not about having room to correct an image if we get it wrong (although it helps), it is about having the best image the camera can produce. Isn't that what we bought the camera for?
Most scenes cannot be metered so the entire scene will be captured, some highlight or shadow is usually not recorded. RAW provides more dynamic range with which to capture the scene.

Yes, it does take processing. Perhaps the best method is to capture RAW+JPG so we have both to work with.