RAW Preferences

[Ruben Silva]

Hello,

I have a D50 and I'm experimenting with RAW and RAW+B, using Adobe

Camera RAW to process, and I have found that RAW processing is real

slow (should we wait for a faster plugin?) unless -of course- you do

the job on a multicore/high end workstation.

In the other hand, seems that D50 internal demosaicing software does

the job perfectly well (and incredibly faster), better than Adobe

Camera Raw.

If I shoot RAW+JPEG BASIC, I get a 'basic' quality picture but

perfectly well processed by the internal Nikon algorithms.

In the other hand, RAW format lets me do great manipulation and even

stretch teh picture up to 25 or even 100 MP for some sharp shots.

 

I just wonder... your oppinions and experiences on this matter.

Thanks.. Ruben

[Ed_Ingold]

Adobe Camera Raw is probably not the bottleneck. More likely it is opening the file in Photoshop, especially in a slower machine. It's not necessary to have a high-speed workstation (though it helps). I find that my 1.5 GHz Toshiba laptop, with a Centrino processor, 2G of RAM and Windows XP Pro, is an efficient image processor.

 

Adobe Bridge is highly effective for processing that can be accomplished in ACR alone. This editing involves setting tags, not altering pixels. Instead of opening the whole file, you work with a preview. Once you have edited one image, you can apply those parameters to as many similar images as you like in Bridge.

 

My typical work flow is to review the RAW images in Bridge, then select the ones I wish to convert to TIFF files. I adjust the white balance, if necessary, and the exposure. About half the time, I use the automatic settings for exposure and other parameters. I may copy the white balance settings to a block of images to save time, but generally not exposure and other settings. I work with 16-bit (12 actually) files in Adobe RGB in this stage.

 

In Photoshop, I make fine adjustments with Levels and Curves, often using adjustment layers and layer masks, to create a master file. I do any de-dusting at this time (digital or scanned). I save resizing for when I create 8-bit TIFF or JPEG print files at the final dimensions, and sharpen at that time as well. I have not seen any advantage to up-rezing in ACR as opposed to Photoshop, where I have more control.

 

If I'm reasonably consistent in shooting, I can get through 2 to 4 6MP DSLR images per minute in this way. Once I have a good TIFF file, I use an action to create JPEG and WEB files (converting to sRGB in the process), if additional cropping is not required. Large film scans (35mm up to 115Mb, 6x6 up to 450Mb) take a lot longer, even on a workstation. Be sure to set Bridge to keep the previews in a local directory. Then the images folders remain portable.

 

I have not use the RAW+JPEG options in the camera, as it takes up memory space I'd rather reserve for shooting. I process my takes daily, even on the road, and backup the RAW and any TIFF files to DVD.

[abbilder]

Hello Ruben!

 

I know your problem by my own exprerience. Photoshop is very slowly if you are "manipulating" RAW-Files. Only Nikons own software is even slower. This also means, the workflow speed depends on the software you use - and not only on the speed of your Computer.

 

But Nikons Capture and Photoshop are only two of the existing RAW-Converters. I had the same problem as you and tried some available RAW-converters - Photoshop, Capture, Bibble, RSE by Pixmantec - and decided for the last one: Pixmantects RAW SHOOTER ESSENTIAL. This Converter is freeware - only a newer version costs, it is easy to use and it is fast - much faster than Photoshop.

 

If you can upgrade your RAM, you should do it, of course. I am currently having 256 MB RAM and upgrading now to 1 GB. I hope, this also accelerates my Computer...

 

Happy New Year,

Axel

[Ruben Silva]

Thanks Edward and Axel, I've learned a lot from your experiences.

I currently have 2 Pcs: one IBM thinkpad G41 with 512KB ram and P4, the other was buit by myself: whole Intel, P4 3.0/800 HT with 1GB, and 2 stripped SATA drives. I agree that memory makes a big difference (my IBM thinkpad takes a lot longer.. ). However, I need to learn workflow "best practices" - as described by Edward.

And I want o understand where it is best to make adjustments (ACR or PS). I also tried bibble (better workflow).

[recent]

The upgrade in memory will help in photoshop, PS CS2 can address up to 2GB memory,

and it's good to have another 1GB beyond that to run simultaneas programs.

 

The other thing to look at is what you are using for scratch discs. It's not a bad idea to

have an extra drive for this purpose. Faster is better of course. A RAID setup would be

good but a less expensive option would be to put in a faster single drive, I believe Western

Digital makes one that is about 36GB and 10,000 RPM for about $99 US or less.

 

Then of course there is the video card which can free up memory. I use a dual monitor

one, I keep all the pallets in one window whilst working in the bigger one.

 

Just three basic areas you can look at if you wanted to speed up the machine. If you have

an older computer you may find memory upgrades are quite reasonable. If you can

determine the make of the motherboard you might even check the firmware and see if you

can bump up the amount it will take.

[StuartMoxham]

Personaly I believe you should use whatever works for you. If you find that jpeg fits most of you needs then shoot jpeg fine and don't bother with RAW if you like to adjust things after shooting then maybe RAW is for you. RAW certainly seems to give a bit more room for error but exposure errors would be better sorted by taking another shot or getting the exposure right in the first place. RAW will allow you to extract the maximum out of your images when you need to and allows you to to try a wide range of RAW processors. AT the end of the day though you have to use what works for you.