Typical Workflow?

[mshockley]

Hello All,
I need some advise please, as I'm not sure if I am messing up my files, using up more space than needed, etc. My typical workflow would go something like this:
Open RAW file
Edit as desired
Open Images to Photoshop
Resize to 300dpi and uncheck Resample Image box (my camera always takes the image at 240, why is this, when I'm told 300 is what you want set for printing? Can I somehow change this setting in camera? Does it matter?)
I then save the file as a PSD
Process as desired
Now here is where I am really concerned with my workflow, ( that is if you seasoned pro's aren't already slapping your head in frustration with my process )

I have been re-saving the file as a PSD, then saving it as a TIF, then resizing to 72dpi and adding my watermark and saving as JPEG for web use.
Should I be flattening the image after I save it as a PSD? Is this entire workflow wrong? (likely as I'm just bumbling along trying to learn the software) What process do you follow for a typical workflow? Any help is most appreciated

[jdepould]

DPI doesn't matter for web/screen display. Actual pixel dimensions matter the most. If you flatten the psd, you won't be able to go back and make changes later without starting at the beginning.

There's really no reason to save as a tiff, you can just save the psd as a jpeg.

[mshockley]

jdepould, thanks for the response. One question, is my information wrong in that I understood saving as TIFF was best for printing purposes?

[ravncat]

Some cameras will let you change Dpi settings. My olympus EP-1 has a setting for this in camera. I've never used it. It defaults to 300. It doesn't really matter - because the number of pixels is fixed - it's just a unit of measure that you can change later. It's helpful to have it where you want it in camera if you can - because then you don't have to tell the computer something else later.

Do you need the RAW, the PSD, the TIF and the Jpg? Why not skip the TIF and go straight to the JPG. I can understand wanting to save the layers of editing, but I don't think you need to save it twice. When you save it as a jpg, you must flatten your image, unless you use "save for web" in which case it will automatically flatten the image (and throw away layers that are "invisible"

Workflow depends alot on what you want to accomplish - specifically output - output for web vs print vs magazine... etc. It also depends on what kind of editing you want to accomplish. I'm not sure why you're making so many file type changes - or what your goal is.

What are you opening your RAW images in before photoshop? It doesn't seem like your workflow is entirely wrong, especially if it works for you. It could probably be streamlined though.

My general workflow -
Copy images from card to location / date folder
Import images to lightroom.
While importing, remove memory card, replace in camera - verify number of files and location
Format memory card.
Flag important photographs
Edit in lightroom*
Special editing in photoshop
Output workflow**

* Lightroom process
Choose camera color profile.
Cropping if necessary
Top panel to bottom panel.
Special adjustments (adjustment brushes / vignetting / noise)
history state save.

**Output workflow.
1. For web
Apply watermarks if needed.
Export to JPG (set ppi and image size here, as well as output folder )

2. For web special
Export to photoshop - use save for web feature (better control over sharpening algorithms and image file previews to balance quality with size)

3. For Print.
Print Sharpening.
Black and white point adjustments to counter ink dry down and shadow detail loss.
Paper size adjustment
Paper type
- profile if needed.
Grey curves if to black and white
DPI choice, rendering intent and color management settings
Print settings and preview
print.

As you can see, most of what I do is really in lightroom - it's become my workflow solution. I don't need anything more than the original raw file really - if I make special photoshop adjustments - i'll make a seperate tiff, but that will get "stacked" atop the raw in lightroom, so that it's all in the same place. I tend to delete my jpgs - and really only have the raw files. As long as I have a raw / tiff in place with JPG settings - it's easy to remake JPGS... and with saves to history states - I can see different previous edit versions and compare 3 years later... Just have to either work with the XMP sidecar files and keep them with the images when you back them up - or backup the lightroom catalogue. Something I need to do now actually...

[ravncat]

Originally Posted by mshockley

jdepould, thanks for the response. One question, is my information wrong in that I understood saving as TIFF was best for printing purposes?

It's better to print from the file with more data - so tiff is better than JPG for printing. That can get complicated depending on the printer - older printers cant handle too much data anyway. I print from my Raw files after using ACR (via lightroom) - or from a tiff if I needed to use photoshop

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by mshockley

jdepould, thanks for the response. One question, is my information wrong in that I understood saving as TIFF was best for printing purposes?

Depends on how you're printing. If you're printing yourself from Photoshop, the PSD is fine. If you're using a third-party printer you'll need to discuss it with them. They're all different.

[mshockley]

Ravncat thanks so much. I am using Adobe Camera RAW, much like what yours is here:
"My general workflow" -
Copy images from card to location / date folder
Import images to lightroom. I'm using Adobe Camera RAWWhile importing, remove memory card, replace in camera - verify number of files and location
Format memory card.
Flag important photographs
Edit in lightroom*...Using Camera RAWSpecial editing in photoshop
Output workflow** and this is where I've just been saving the file as a final PSD in case I ever want to make changes, a TIFF for the printer if I need it, then saving a smaller JPEG file with my watermark for web use.
I guess I had read so many times not to save the file as a JPEG without first saving as a PSD and a TIFF, and not to make changes to the JPEG once saved. Something about re-saving the JPEG files?

And yes, it would be good if I can figure out how to tell my camera to just be at 300 to start with as it's one less step in processing later, but again, how much does it matter between 240 and 300.....

[jdepould]

Saving both PSD and TIFF for archiving is sort of redundant, so unless you need one for the printer, I'd skip it.

Most cameras just default to 240, and it doesn't really matter a whole lot.

As far as multiple saves on a jpeg, it recompresses anything that's changed since the last time you opened the file, so repeatedly changing and saving the same file will degrade quality. It used to be that simply saving the file, even without changing it, would recompress everything, leading to much faster degradation, but that's no longer the case.

[mshockley]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Saving both PSD and TIFF for archiving is sort of redundant, so unless you need one for the printer, I'd skip it.

Most cameras just default to 240, and it doesn't really matter a whole lot.

As far as multiple saves on a jpeg, it recompresses anything that's changed since the last time you opened the file, so repeatedly changing and saving the same file will degrade quality. It used to be that simply saving the file, even without changing it, would recompress everything, leading to much faster degradation, but that's no longer the case.

Your help is most appreciated, I believe I have a plan now!

[ravncat]

All in all, 240 and 300 changes just a little - it can be noticeable, but it depends alot on the information in the file (generally fine details and diagonal lines), how large you print, how close you are to the print, what kind of paper you are using and the print process. (Laser, Inkjet, Halftone / Quadtone, chemical via projection etc...)

It's really tough to put a "how much better" judgement onto the dpi of the print - unles you talk about the same image, process and paper - and even then, when the changes are small, it also depends on your vision. Sometimes that 240 vs 300 difference is meaningless - sometimes it's very easy to see...

As said above, and for the most part, 240 vs 300 is a small or negligible difference