How has your workflow changed using RAW?

After years of shooting JPEG, I'm beginning to consider shooting RAW. My

earlier understanding of RAW was that it created files that were much larger

than neccesary. Now I'm hearing that it gives the shooter greater flexibility

in post processing for boosting colors, adjusting exposure, etc.

 

Anyway, I'm just wondering if anyone wants to share their experiences shooting

RAW vs. JPEG. Is it worth it? Is it more time-consuming, and if so are the

pictures better because of it? How has your workflow changed?

 

My apologies if this has already been discussed...I did search before I posted

and while I did see RAW mentioned a couple times, I didn't see this specific

question addressed.

 

Thanks!

Yes, it's been discussed to death and beyond.

 

My answer is Lightroom.

 

Lightroom doesn't care if the images are RAW files or Jpgs ... the process and speed is the

same ... so I shoot RAW and when done, corrections can be saved as in any file format

your heart desires... including as Jpgs.

 

All the work is nondestructive, so you can return to any single RAW image in the

Lightroom Library and process it in a completely different manner. You can do a 10

different versions of one image and always have the original to return to.

JPEGS and tiffs can be opened in the raw converter of CS3. Therefore I process everything

the same.

 

JPEG works fine if you work it like slides and get everything right. Raw gives more

flexibility in processing. Changing WB is the obvious one.

Yes, there are a number of threads in this forum discussing JPEG/RAW pros/cons in mind-numbing detail, but as for workflow, I'd give ACDSee Pro 2 a try (for PC only). It's a free trial download, and you may find it's somewhat easier than LR, which requires the step of "importing" photos just to look at them, whereas ACDSee just browses folders like Windows Explorer, with thumbnails and instant previews when clicked. And, it's far faster to use than CS3 as a photo management tool (Adobe Bridge is lousy, to me). It also handles batch RAW processing operations with ease, and in the background. Just process one RAW file the way you want, then select all the subsequent ones, and it will apply all the same tweaks to them all, and if you like, will export them as any file format you want, in any folder you want. All this is very easy and intuitive. And, it does TONS more stuff too.

 

Best part is, it's $130, a fraction of the costs of LR or CS3.

 

I use it for 95% of my work.

shooting "raw" saves me time both when shooting and processing.

 

Shooting and processing "raw" allows gives me a qualitative edge --it is far easier and yields better results when tuning or fine tuning white balance , exposure, shadow details, black point and sharpening. it is especiall yuseful when I do not have control over every aspect of the lighting.

 

Additionally processing "raw" ( promarily I use Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (which uses the same raw processing engine as Photoshop CS3 along with a really good database andfor archiving and accessing both on and offline files my files -- Bridge in Photoshop is only a browser) and sometiems I'll use Nikon Capture NX and Canon DPP) makes making black and white conversions, resizing (up or down), and making multiple versions of the same image -- far faster and allows more options and does so without damaging the original data. All of the processign steps you normally ude can be automated by creating a preset template of processing instructions that can be applied to either a single image or a group of images.

 

tehre are several excelelnt guides for self paced instruction of processing raw iamges:

"the Lightroom Adventure " by Mikkael Aaland; "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book" by Martin Evening; "Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS3" by Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe; and "Photoshop CS3 RAW" by Miikael Aaland are all good ( I review books and gear for "professional Photogrpaher" magazine ). Scott Kelby's books are also reputedly good as weell.

 

I also recommend the "RAw to Print and Lightroom" video DVD tutorials from http://www.luminous-landscape.com

 

There is one more reason to shoot raw over JPEGS: While we are only just now getting to the dawn of reasonably priced high bit depth large color gamut capable displays and easily accessible printing solutions, that day is our very near future. At that point small color gamut (sRGB) and low (8 bit per channel) images are going to look washed out and lifeless.

I agree on Lightroom. But Marc, how do you feel about LR sharpening? I still use PS for that. I've found that Lightroom's sharpening just doesn't cut it.

Lightroom's Development module sharpener is only a capture sharpener: it was deliberately engineered to be mild in effect. For printing I still export to Photoshop CS3, use softprrofign and if necessary adjsut color, and convert a dupe of the master to the specific printer/ink/paper profile and then use Photokit Expert Sharpener.

 

But have you tried either of the Sharpening presets in the Develop module?

Yes, I have. I find that it's very mild, and when you increase to a stronger level, there's some strange artifacts that don't happen with USM or the smart sharpen filter in PS.

As I said: it's only meantto be an initial capture sharpener not a one step sharpener. Optimally that last bit of sharpening should be tuned to the output medium, size, and resolution after all other processing, including size change and color space / profile , and bit depth conversionconversion for that specific media are done.

 

I nother words: you have your master and if it is goign to be printed via inkjet glossy or inkjet matte , you duplicate the master amake the necessary processing steps do the necessary targeted processing steps in Photoshop to optimize it for that means of reproduction and then sharpen that targeted dupe based on specific reproduction needs and size.

 

For optimum results that is the workflow for me that works best, but I readily admit it is extra work, but I think it is worth it as it adds value to the finished product and clients appreciate it even if they don't understand it.

Heather,

 

I just shot my first wedding in RAW in the past I only used jpeg. While processing in Lightroom I saw that the color adjustments and white balance could be done in greater detail. I would suggest changing...

That's what my workflow looks like...LR for most edits, then PS for sharpening or noise reduction if it's an ISO 800 or 1600 image. I just wish that LR had a more comprehensive sharpener. I'd love to use LR exclusively. It would save a lot of time. There is an out put sharpener in LR in the print module, but there's essentially no control.

I don't sharpen images at the proof stage ... with the cameras and lenses I use, the mild

sharpening in LR is plenty at that size.

 

I further sharpen images based on the actual image size being printed which can be batched

in seconds using PS for similar sized and cropped shots... or just a common preset in the

sharpening tool ... again leaving the LR Library originals intact to be resized later without

artifacts from a previous sharpening. Sharpening on a 5X7 album insert doesn't look so good

if the client orders a 11X14 later.

There's a number of great features in ACDSee, but one particularly that's missing in the Adobe products. With CS3 and LR, you only get a shadow/highlight tool with 2 sliders. With ACDSee, you have much finer, more precise shadow/highlight adjustments with their Light EQ tool. It works like a graphic equalizer on a stereo, and gives you up to 9 bands of brightening shadows or darkening highlights. This lets you very precisely brighten/darken exactly the tonal ranges required in your photos. I've never seen this with any other program. I use it all the time, particularly along the sides of an indoor flash shot where the light falls off. You can brighten just those areas and leave everything else intact.

Allow me to throw a spanner in the works here: Heather, are you finding that your jpegs are awful? Are you struggling with white balance even in post-processing? Are your prints horrible when printed off your jpegs? Are your clients unhappy with your prints? Are YOU unhappy with your prints? If you've answered no to all or most of the above, then switching to RAW might be more cosmetic than practical. It will mean more storage space (CF cards, etc), greater computing resources and more time spent for lower overall benefit than expected.

<p>I shoot my weddings in jpeg. I've nothing against RAW and definitely intend to learn it. Yes I HAVE used it, just not for weddings. My background is film where you HAD to get the shot right to begin with, so I've transfered that mentality to my dSLR shooting as much as possible. I find that I don't struggle with white balance and exposure, I can correct these to suit in Photoshop (CS2) so for me RAW is more a nice to know than a must have :)