how much time do you spend with raw conversion vs. other editing?

[raczoliver]

The first time I started shooting digital I was using Photoshop CS and was

converting my raw files with the plugin for PS that came with my camera. The

controls for raw conversion were limited to +-2 stops exposure compensation and

the selection of a predefined white balance setting. All in all, the great

majority of the time was spent tweaking the picture in PS.

 

Now that I have PSCS3 with Adobe Camera Raw, I spend way more time processing my

raw files. There are so many settings available, that very often any kind of

tweaking after the raw conversion is unnecessary. I'd basically like to know

your strategy: Do you do minimal adjustments in the raw processing phase and

just try to get an image that is easily adjustable later, or do you try to make

the picture as close as possible to your final aim while applying the raw

adjustments?

[Matt Laur]

I've started doing more and more work on the RAW file directly, so that what it renders is pretty close to what I need. I'll still open some files up in a traditional pixel editor if I have to do some layering tricks or other surgery... but the for me, Capture NX is doing a pretty good job at the normal "lab" stuff, and I like the fact that the underlying capture is kept virginal.

[ronald_moravec1]

I find I can do most in ACR 4.3 whether it be a JPEG or raw. I just finalize in PS or maybe

some HDR or burn/dodge. 75% or more is ACR since I can do JPEGS in it and also the new

ACR does so much. Still I need some local control.

[tonybynum]

it really depends on what youre shooting. for me, I do 90% of ALL my edits in lightroom, I shoot raw. . . in lightroom file format is moot. If your doing portraits etc, I export tiffs to PS. . .

[godfrey]

I do all my initial processing in Lightroom, which makes the distinction of RAW vs JPEG vs

TIFF vs PSD irrelevant. Since I started using Lightroom as the basis of my workflow, the

amount of more specialized, selective editing required in Photoshop has been reduced

dramatically.

 

Godfrey

[colinsouthern]

I think it was an associate of Bruce Frasers that made the comment that Photoshop has almost become a plugin for the RAW converter, rather than the other way around.

[marc_rochkind]

I would say it just the way Godfrey said it, but I cycle every important image through Photoshop just so I can use PK Sharpener on it. Even for JPEGs that I post on the web, it does a significantly better job than I can do with Lightroom alone.

 

Also, all printing is done through Photoshop so I can make use of soft-proofing.

 

It's likely that both my reasons for using Photoshop will go away in the next year or so.

[patricklavoie]

SCENARIO 01_FOR WORK

 

I use Lr, i do my raw processing in less than 15sec, apply it to the other select (normaly 6-8 image for editorial, fashion magazine) than i open everyone of them and fine tune the result with another 5-10sec per image, export them all in Ps and start my day.

 

8 images x 15 sec = 120sec / 2min.

 

In Ps i do all my local darkroom, liquify, skin smoothing etc...so i dont have the choice to go in Ps personnaly.

 

SCENARIO 02_PERSONAL

 

I still use Lr for my development, since i do almost everything in there i can go for around 30sec/images, BW conversion, or color effect are already save as preset (that i invite you to email me to get a free copy of) then i select them all and apply the same setting that i will refine later..not long to do. I normally process all my image in let say BW, do my final select of those file, end up with let say 70 images (from 600) that i will reopen and fine tune approximatly 15sec each. Then i export them all in Ps with a new name and extension.

 

Select them in Bridge, apply a action that will create a sharpen and some film grain to them, and prep them for print..all without me needing to be there. In less than 1hrs im ready to print all my images.

 

For me digital save me a s*** load of time, what use to take days (film processing, contact sheet, select, find the rigth setting, apply it to other frame, etc...) take not even half a day now.

[digitaldog]

>Do you do minimal adjustments in the raw processing phase and just try to get an image

that is easily adjustable later, or do you try to make the picture as close as possible to your

final aim while applying the raw adjustments?

 

Nope, do all the heavy lifting in a Raw converter, as little global work in Photoshop as

possible. Doing the work at the rendering stage is faster, more powerful, provides more

options and iterations with the least amount of damage from the most amount of data.

[godfrey]

<i>..."Also, all printing is done through Photoshop so I can make use of soft-

proofing."...</i>

<br><br>

Interesting. I've not found much if any need for soft-proofing ... I use a color managed

workflow and have well-done profiles for the printer-ink-papers I use. I do all my

printing with Lightroom as it allows me to create templates and reuse them, getting

consistent and repeatable results every time.

<br><br>

I'd be interested to know why you need to use soft proofing so frequently that you feel it

important to use soft proofing for all your photos.

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[patricklavoie]

Mmm interesting Godfrey, i tought i was the only martian on this planet that dotn use softproofing! Seem that im not alone after all : )

 

I too dont use soft profing because like you my monitor is calibrated, i use the rigth profile on my epson and i also get what i see on my monitor once printed. My soft proof is a 1200$ apple cinema display well calibrated. Im curious to know why someone would need so often that function....that work not well with every profile by the way.

[digitaldog]

I use and need soft proofing but then I have all the ducks in order:

 

1. I use Simulate Paper white ink black with full screen mode (no palettes or menus) while

2. Viewing the image under controlled illuminant that matches the display calibration.

 

Since I have to output sharpen in Photoshop, that means soft proofing and sharpening there

before printing (until LR provides these options).

[patricklavoie]

Andrew, do you soft proof every prints you make? if so why? I would imagine that once you know your monitor is well calibrated, your printer use the rigth ink and profile, you use the same paper, and know how to work in Ps...that soft proofing will be unnecesary wont you think?

 

Or maybe you mean you soft proof when you deliver your image in CMYK?

 

could you explain please.

[godfrey]

Using soft-proofing when outputting for CMYK printing to an external print service is the

only circumstance where I've found I needed to use soft-proofing. I've only sent work for

CMYK printing a few times.

<br><br>

I do process exported JPEGs in Photoshop for final sharpening most of the time, since

Lightroom does not at this time offer export sharpening. Most of the time, however, I find

my need for sharpening is quite limited and Lightroom (since 1.1) has provided

satisfactory tools.

<br><br>

However, now that Adobe has opened up the SDK for the Export functions, the need to do

this might be lessening. I saw this the other day but haven't had a moment to look into it

yet:

<br><br>

Lightroom Mogrify plugin using Image Magick<br>

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/599562" target=new1>

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/599562</a>

<br><br>

<a href="http://timothyarmes.com/lrmogrify.php?sec=main" target=new2>

http://timothyarmes.com/lrmogrify.php?sec=main</a>

<br><br>

Godfrey

<br>

[digitaldog]

I soft proof every image prior to printing. Why? I want to see what I'll get on the print, I want

to examine the image in an output color space, see the gamut mapping (pick the rendering

intent), post process a copy in output color space if necessary.

 

The SDK from LR doesn't handle any image processing, (anything within develop). Its' mainly

for import and export.

[randmcnatt]

Our workflow keeps evolving, and currently I want all the advantages of PS and Lightroom with none of the disadvantages (aka Adobe Camera Raw -- I don't like the skin tones, in particular). We run everything through Bibble right now, the goal being to convert the RAW image to a 16-bit tif as fast as possible, spreading the pixel values across the range with as few as possible "climbing the walls", so we get the fewest pure-black or pure-white pixels. We use what ever controls needed to get the histogram centered and everything in range, add just a bit of Noise Ninja (again, it works better for us than Adobe's noise reduction) and batch process the whole job.

 

Once it's in Lightroom we do almost all the rest of the work, including the fine corrections, with PS on standby for really finicky details.

[patricklavoie]

Mmm..thanks for your explanation..

 

I dont see the point of soft proofing every image i print on my epson, since i know all the variable but im agree again with Godfrey that when i send material to fashion magazine i do it according to there profile to see what i would get. I understand what you say Andrew, but not sure its will be for me a efficient workflow...to each is own method i must say : )

[lad_lueck]

For you guys who don't softproof, how do you know if any saturated colors (or dark shadows) are clipping or blocking up?

 

Do you just print unsaturated, non-contrasty snapshots? :-)

[patricklavoie]

i make sure that my calibrated monitor is fine.

 

i control my environment

 

i print using the rigth apper profile on my epson 4800 & 7880 printer.

 

so what i see on screen is what i get on print. no surprise ever.

 

Go see my web site to have a idea of what i print normaly, i print like it look (according you have a calibrated monitor yourself ; )

[godfrey]

No. I watch the histogram and know what my screen to printer translation will do. As I said, I

have very good profiles and I calibrate my monitor. I also use only one or two papers and

know how they behave very well.

 

Softproofing is a useful tool when I'm outputting for papers and printing process that I don't

enough experience with so that I can predict how they behave by looking at the screen.

 

Godfrey

[patricklavoie]

add what Godfrey said with my answer ; )

[digitaldog]

The Histogram is fairly useless for a lot of uses (its great to show saturation as well as tonal clipping, that's about it).

 

Its also based on the current document color space, NOT what's going to be sent to the printer after conversion to its

native output color space. Same with the preview. Photoshop isn't (yet) a mind reader. It has no idea what output device

you'll use, what profile for that device, what rendering intent, what CMM. Only when you tell it (or use those options) do

the NEW numbers result. I can't see how anyone can predict what their printer will produce while viewing either a soft

proof or the current numbers based on something the printer isn't ever going to get.

 

All soft proofing does is inform Photoshop what output device you'll use. You tell it the rendering intent and other

useful info, it shows you the numbers based on this new information. Without, you're simply not providing enough

information to Photoshop to have it tell you anything useful about the output to anything besides the display.

 

The other HUGE issue is that of dynamic range. You've got a display that (if you believe the manufacturer) can produce

a contrast ratio of 500:1, 1000:1 or higher. Well good luck getting anything close to 350:1 or more on your printer. You

simply can't soft proof an emissive display and a reflective print with this huge disconnect. That's why we have the

make my image look ugly button in Customize Proof Setup (Paper White/Ink Black). These check boxes confine the

dynamic range of the display to match that of the output device. You just need to know how to use these tools and view

the simulation correctly along with the print.

 

How anyone can think that an emissive display working with an sRGB document will match a reflective print using a

color space that's totally different, that has a huge difference in dynamic range and color gamut can match is mystery

to me.

[godfrey]

Andrew,

 

The response to your comments is that I get excellent results with the setup I have and

don't need the soft proofing unless I'm printing to something which I have not yet tested. I

get what I see on the screen. I know what the histogram (in Lightroom not Photoshop) is

telling me with respect to the printer-ink-paper that I use.

 

All this theoretical protestation is just fine, but printing workflow I use produces the

results that I and my clients want.

 

Godfrey