Need help with advice on RAW image capture

[brian_blattner]

<p>I have used Aperture since day one for capturing my RAW files. Originally, all of my edits were done in Aperture, but I now use Photoshop CS5 for most editing. I still use Aperture for importing the files from the camera, setting white balance, and doing other minor corrections.<br>

I have heard many people recommend using DPP for RAW images, but I have never used it before, and don't know if it would provide enough advantage over Aperture to add it to my work-flow.<br>

If I did use DPP, my work-flow would be to import images into DPP, set white balance, make the minor edits there, make my final edits in Photoshop CS5, and only use Aperture for storing/viewing the images. What I need to know is:<br>

(1) Is there enough of an advantage of handling RAW files with DPP over Aperture?<br>

(2) Is there an easy way to edit images from DPP directly to Photoshop? In Aperture, there is a link so that I can quickly open the image in Photoshop, make the changes, and then the edited TIF file is saved in my Aperture library automatically. I know that Lightroom 3 would be a good candidate as well, but I don't want to purchase another product.<br>

Thanks for your comments.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>If you are using CS5, there are actually many major improvements in ACR there that you might want to look at. First, there is a new lens distortion module that will remove most of the CA, barrel distortion and such from you lenses automatically (a feature in DPP as well), the sharpening algorithm has been greatly improved and it now is maybe the best I have seen. Noise reduction was also greatly improved and it may now rival DxO in that arena.</p>

<p>I use DxO, ACR and DPP from time to time, but since ACR upgrades in CS5, I rarely use the others. I might note that I have tested all three on various files and you get different results in color rendition with all of them, so if you are going to use only one processor, you might consider looking at CS5 and using bridge as your viewing software. But don't count out the others if you feel you want to see another version of your image.</p>

[bieg]

I agree with John, Bridge and ACR and into CS5.

[brian_blattner]

<p>Thanks for the great information. I had never thought of using Photoshop CS5 for everything.</p>

<p>Is Photoshop Bridge user-friendly for organizing your files and does it give the user a lot of flexibility in creating the folder structure to store the files? Can you preview your library of photos in Bridge, where they can be sorted by file name, or groups?</p>

<p>Finally, ACR would receive the RAW file where I can do some basic editing, but does Bridge need convert that file? And if so, is it a Photoshop format file, or does the user have control over the file type that Bridge will store?</p>

[bieg]

Bridge will display the Raw file as it comes from your camera. Double click on the preview and it will open in the

excellent ACR. Do all your Raw manipulation and then ACR will open the file in CS5. Do the rest of your post

processing in CS5 and save it wherever you like as any type of file you like. I favor uncompressed TIFF. Bridge is

very flexible for sorting through your images and shuffelling your images around.

[john_a5]

<p>Bridge isn't a catalog system though. You can create meta data there and if you are clever with your keywords, you could create catalogs in that way, otherwise you are limited to a folder system. In bridge you can create and name/rename folders and those will be translated to your hard drive files, but there are not filing systems kept within bridge only.</p>

<p>I don't find that a particular problem but do have a back up catalog system that I actually don't use very often but comes in handy at times.</p>

[digitaldog]

<blockquote>

<p>>Is Photoshop Bridge user-friendly for organizing your files and does it give the user a lot of flexibility in creating the folder structure to store the files?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No but Lightroom is and shares the same raw processing engine as Camera Raw. </p>

[brian_blattner]

<p>Thanks for all of the great information, it is very helpful; although, there is still one thing that I want to confirm. Based on the latest responses, it does not appear that Bridge would be a good program to store/view your photographs, right? Really, the only reason that I have kept Aperture in the loop for this long is due to the great database it has, where I can view my entire photo collection quickly, and easily.</p>

<p>My suspicion originally is that I would need to add Lightroom into the mix for this last piece of the puzzle, which is what I wanted to avoid if possible. So I guess what I am really trying to find out is that once I have saved my final image as a TIF, JPG, or other format, can those images be stored in folders within Bridge, where they can be previewed? For instance, I have 400 images from 2007...Is it possible to create a folder in Bridge where I can keep those 400 images (in any format), and then have other folders representing other years?</p>

[bieg]

You are using a Mac so just go to your home pictures folder and create folders to your hearts content. Make one for

each year of photos you have and drag and drop your photos into them. When you are in Bridge just click on

whatever folder you wish to view and preview them.

 

You don't need any program to store your pictures in, just store them in logically named folders on your hard drive and

navigate to them in Bridge.

[brian_blattner]

Steven,

 

Thanks so much for the explanation. For iPhoto and Aperture, you had to import the images before they could be

previewed easily. I am glad that you don't have to do that in Bridge.

 

Thanks again for the clarification. All of my questions have been answered, and I am currently in the process of

streamlining everything through Photoshop/ACR/Bridge. This will make my work-flow so much nicer, and I only have to

upgrade one product this way.

[bieg]

Just so you know you DON'T have to import the photos into Aperture. You can select the option to leave the files in

place and Aperture will just reference them while keeping them where they are.

[brian_blattner]

<p>Steven...</p>

<p>Yes, thank you for the clarification. I know that Aperture can used referenced files, instead of importing the actual file; however, it still has to create the thumbnail for each image, and store that within the database. I found it a pain when my file names changes, or I moved the location of the original referenced files.</p>

<p>So I think storing my images in a folder, and using Bridge to preview those folders anytime I want to display, or review those images will work great.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the input. It is greatly appreciated!</p>

<p> </p>