Comments on: RAW Workflow: A Pro’s Approach http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach Discover how to use your digital camera with our Digital Photography Tips. We are a community of photographers of all experience levels who come together to learn, share and grow in our understanding of photography. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:58:08 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: karatedog http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-65771 karatedog Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:26:44 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-65771 Capture NX's controls are a tad bit - khmm - suboptimal. I would condemn the creators to process a few hundred pictures at least daily. This is where Lightroom excels. Back to Capture NX: My biggest issue is lens distortion, which is corrected in D90 (almost) if you shoot JPEG. However if you shoot RAW, even Capture NX won't correct them - that's why I wait for Lightroom to introduce this feature instead of some fancy artificial filtering, which could be left out, as it can be perfectly done in Photoshop contrary to complex distortion correction, like what the 18-200mm lens does. Ah, wait, there is not even a simple distortion correction exists in LR. But - in my opinion - dist. correction is one of the first steps in the work-flow. But this is rendered useless if I have to export the freshly converted RAW to PS to have it back distortion corrected. One of the reasons Bibble Labs or DxO Optics can sell their software. So the few options for people who worship distortion free pictures: 1. Wait for Adobe to discover that no people will throw out Photoshop beacuse there is automated correction in Lightroom; 2. wait for Capture NX to notice they have a software feature in their cameras, which their PC software can't do, which is lame. 3. and last, wait for Zeiss to reinvent autofocus, so we can throw away those cheap plastic lenses of Nikon. Capture NX’s controls are a tad bit – khmm – suboptimal. I would condemn the creators to process a few hundred pictures at least daily. This is where Lightroom excels.
Back to Capture NX: My biggest issue is lens distortion, which is corrected in D90 (almost) if you shoot JPEG. However if you shoot RAW, even Capture NX won’t correct them – that’s why I wait for Lightroom to introduce this feature instead of some fancy artificial filtering, which could be left out, as it can be perfectly done in Photoshop contrary to complex distortion correction, like what the 18-200mm lens does.
Ah, wait, there is not even a simple distortion correction exists in LR. But – in my opinion – dist. correction is one of the first steps in the work-flow. But this is rendered useless if I have to export the freshly converted RAW to PS to have it back distortion corrected. One of the reasons Bibble Labs or DxO Optics can sell their software.
So the few options for people who worship distortion free pictures: 1. Wait for Adobe to discover that no people will throw out Photoshop beacuse there is automated correction in Lightroom; 2. wait for Capture NX to notice they have a software feature in their cameras, which their PC software can’t do, which is lame. 3. and last, wait for Zeiss to reinvent autofocus, so we can throw away those cheap plastic lenses of Nikon.

]]> By: jepoma http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-65534 jepoma Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:58:28 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-65534 I fully agree with Mike who wrote, back in June 2008: "It should be noted that most of the hassle with RAW is from using third party software like Lightroom. Amateurs often complain they have to do more work when shooting RAW, but with my Nikon and Capture NX (or Canon and DPP) the RAW files open up EXACTLY like an in-camera jpeg. If it looks good you’re done. None of this fiddling around color correcting everything or adjusting hues, etc. Most people don’t realize this fact." The problems or disappointments are not limited to color rendering: chromatic aberrations also crop up (see my <a href="http://jepoma.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/lr-and-nef/" title="blog entry" rel="nofollow">blog entry</a>). This is now bothering me enough that I am considering switching from Lightroom to NX2. But not just yet: The guys at Adobe are working to address this. Maybe Lr 3.0 will do what I'm after ... BTW, in the meantime, I shoot RAW+JPEG so I have the JPEG to guide me in my RAW adjustments. Anyone else seen these effects ? Anyone else shooting RAW+JPEG ? Anyone else ready to switch from Lr to NX2 ? Cheers. I fully agree with Mike who wrote, back in June 2008: “It should be noted that most of the hassle with RAW is from using third party software like Lightroom. Amateurs often complain they have to do more work when shooting RAW, but with my Nikon and Capture NX (or Canon and DPP) the RAW files open up EXACTLY like an in-camera jpeg. If it looks good you’re done. None of this fiddling around color correcting everything or adjusting hues, etc. Most people don’t realize this fact.” The problems or disappointments are not limited to color rendering: chromatic aberrations also crop up (see my blog entry). This is now bothering me enough that I am considering switching from Lightroom to NX2. But not just yet: The guys at Adobe are working to address this. Maybe Lr 3.0 will do what I’m after …

BTW, in the meantime, I shoot RAW+JPEG so I have the JPEG to guide me in my RAW adjustments.

Anyone else seen these effects ? Anyone else shooting RAW+JPEG ? Anyone else ready to switch from Lr to NX2 ?

Cheers.

]]> By: Carlos http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-62236 Carlos Sun, 23 Aug 2009 22:21:00 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-62236 Thanks for this great article! I have the same exact question as David: when does sharpening get into the workflow? Thanks for this great article!
I have the same exact question as David: when does sharpening get into the workflow?

]]> By: David http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-62063 David Fri, 21 Aug 2009 12:12:45 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-62063 First of all, thanks for the great article. For quite a while I was trying and bothering to find a good workflow myself. I was not yet very comfortable working with RAW either. This article really helped me in the right direction! I do have one question, for whoever feels like answering: Where in the workflow should I do sharpening? I read everywhere it should be done at the end of the workflow, which makes perfect sense to me. But in the described workflow (Backup --> Lightroom --> Photoshop for some photos --> Noise Ninja) sharpening is not mentioned. I know sharpening can be done within Lightroom, but I suppose it is better to remove noise before sharpening, or? Can sharpening be done within Noise Ninja? If yes, is the program good at it? Thanks for any ideas / opinions! First of all, thanks for the great article. For quite a while I was trying and bothering to find a good workflow myself. I was not yet very comfortable working with RAW either. This article really helped me in the right direction!

I do have one question, for whoever feels like answering:
Where in the workflow should I do sharpening? I read everywhere it should be done at the end of the workflow, which makes perfect sense to me. But in the described workflow (Backup –> Lightroom –> Photoshop for some photos –> Noise Ninja) sharpening is not mentioned. I know sharpening can be done within Lightroom, but I suppose it is better to remove noise before sharpening, or?

Can sharpening be done within Noise Ninja? If yes, is the program good at it?

Thanks for any ideas / opinions!

]]> By: karatedog http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-60577 karatedog Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:10:08 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-60577 davidh, But when shooting tethered (connected with an USB to a computer) this lag should not happen, and if I check Canon 50D's specs, they have somehow overcome this problem :-) 6.3 fps no matter if you shoot raw or jpg. Anyway Nikon always slows down their camera when a grip is not attached, a marketing trick Canon never did. Nikon could say in the specs "I can shoot x fps but you have to buy the speediest card in the world"... davidh,

But when shooting tethered (connected with an USB to a computer) this lag should not happen, and if I check Canon 50D’s specs, they have somehow overcome this problem :-) 6.3 fps no matter if you shoot raw or jpg.
Anyway Nikon always slows down their camera when a grip is not attached, a marketing trick Canon never did.
Nikon could say in the specs “I can shoot x fps but you have to buy the speediest card in the world”…

]]> By: DavidH http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-60530 DavidH Thu, 06 Aug 2009 23:42:47 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-60530 Karatedog, My guess is that the time lag when shooting RAW is a result of copying the RAW file from the camera memory to the data card. To paraphrase what you said, after creating the RAW, the camera either 1) copies a large file to the card, or 2) creates a smaller file, then copies that to the card. Apparently the in-camera JPEG creation is faster than transferring the extra data to the card. But that is just my guess. Karatedog,

My guess is that the time lag when shooting RAW is a result of copying the RAW file from the camera memory to the data card. To paraphrase what you said, after creating the RAW, the camera either 1) copies a large file to the card, or 2) creates a smaller file, then copies that to the card. Apparently the in-camera JPEG creation is faster than transferring the extra data to the card.

But that is just my guess.

]]> By: karatedog http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-60065 karatedog Tue, 04 Aug 2009 06:38:42 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-60065 I'm a RAW shooter, however I don't understand why shooting RAW is slower than JPEG. Camera always shoots RAW, then #1 creates a file from the data, then writes this data to memory card or #2 creates a JPEG from the RAW with various settings then writes the data to memory card. IMHO if the second part is simply left out, it should not cause any delay, however all cameras shoot slower when in RAW mode no matter how fast memory card you buy or shoot tethered (not to mention that shooting RAW+JPEG doesn't make it any slower). Am I missing something? Thanks I’m a RAW shooter, however I don’t understand why shooting RAW is slower than JPEG. Camera always shoots RAW, then #1 creates a file from the data, then writes this data to memory card or #2 creates a JPEG from the RAW with various settings then writes the data to memory card. IMHO if the second part is simply left out, it should not cause any delay, however all cameras shoot slower when in RAW mode no matter how fast memory card you buy or shoot tethered (not to mention that shooting RAW+JPEG doesn’t make it any slower).
Am I missing something?
Thanks

]]> By: Greg Baker http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-56414 Greg Baker Mon, 13 Jul 2009 11:04:44 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-56414 Thank you for this article, I'm teaching myself Lightroom on a Macbook Pro and love the flexibility of RAW...nice to see how a pro work-flow looks! Thank you for this article, I’m teaching myself Lightroom on a Macbook Pro and love the flexibility of RAW…nice to see how a pro work-flow looks!

]]> By: Mike http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-30391 Mike Mon, 09 Jun 2008 08:27:25 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-30391 It should be noted that most of the hassle with RAW is from using third party software like Lightroom. Amateurs often complain they have to do more work when shooting RAW, but with my Nikon and Capture NX (or Canon and DPP) the RAW files open up EXACTLY like an in-camera jpeg. If it looks good you're done. None of this fiddling around color correcting everything or adjusting hues, etc. Most people don't realize this fact. It should be noted that most of the hassle with RAW is from using third party software like Lightroom. Amateurs often complain they have to do more work when shooting RAW, but with my Nikon and Capture NX (or Canon and DPP) the RAW files open up EXACTLY like an in-camera jpeg. If it looks good you’re done. None of this fiddling around color correcting everything or adjusting hues, etc. Most people don’t realize this fact.

]]> By: Chris http://digital-photography-school.com/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/comment-page-1#comment-9955 Chris Mon, 07 May 2007 17:17:53 +0000 http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-workflow-a-pros-approach/#comment-9955 Good article. However, I'd point out that DVD backups really aren't a reliable means of backing up. Short term yes, but as slow as they are, as unreliable most of them are (especially cheap ones), it's like - what's the point? Hard drives are vastly more convenient. Just get a mirror RAID setup, so instantly you have two copies using that as your primary volume. Then rotate out one of the mirrors weekly or monthly depending on your volume, that you keep off-site. And be wary too even with the latest and greatest hard drive technologies. The huge drives can potentially data in as little as 2 years unless you read the data and rewrite it to the drive. Right now still, 250GB drives (and smaller) are the most reliable for long term storage. Good article. However, I’d point out that DVD backups really aren’t a reliable means of backing up. Short term yes, but as slow as they are, as unreliable most of them are (especially cheap ones), it’s like – what’s the point? Hard drives are vastly more convenient. Just get a mirror RAID setup, so instantly you have two copies using that as your primary volume. Then rotate out one of the mirrors weekly or monthly depending on your volume, that you keep off-site.

And be wary too even with the latest and greatest hard drive technologies. The huge drives can potentially data in as little as 2 years unless you read the data and rewrite it to the drive. Right now still, 250GB drives (and smaller) are the most reliable for long term storage.

]]>