Help locating good Workflow resource

I would appreciate it if you could point me to some forum here, or elsewhere, or some other resource with a varied selection of advice on workflow.

I'm going totally nuts here.

• I'm spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME screening my photos picking the winners and tossing the losers.

• I'm currently using ACR, making the adjustments and then leaving the files as RAW. As needed I send them into Photoshop, do adjustments and then end up with enormous PSD files. On occasion I'll spit out a JPG or two from the PSD for emailing to family/friends or for printing.

• I'm using iMatch to store my images but since they're RAW the thumbnails and the previews I see in iMatch do not MATCH (sorry for the pun) what the image really looks like.

-I'm aware that I should do something like convert the RAW files to JPG, archive the RAW, keep the JPG and have the JPG in iMatch ... but I'm going nuts here.

-I mainly shoot family photos, I put the camera in drive mode more often than not and have to pick the best of who knows... 10 frames of essentially the same thing... I highlight the 10 images in Bridge, open them in ACR to then compare them for clarity, but ACR is too slow in getting the raw refocused when I switch from one to another to notice subtle differences (noticeable differences are no prob)

Help!

I have THOUSANDS of RAW files already and I'm facing the monumental task of getting out of this RAW nightmare. I realize that my end goal should be to have archived RAW files for the just in case scenario and JPGs/TIFFs (maybe TIFF for the GREAT PHOTOS and JPG for the others as the day to day files.

Alessandro

There are many possible solutions designed for your specific situation, including Lightroom and Aperture (if you're on a Mac).

But have you tried using the Ratings and Collections function within Bridge? You can make the thumbnails as large as you want, rate them on a 1 to 5 scale, assign keywords, etc.

Then you can delete the bad ones (if you so choose), make contact sheets of the best (or of a particular event), etc.
--
====================
Doug Nelson
http://www.retouchpro.com

for what seems to be mainly family snaps.

C'mon now, surely you have mastered the basics of exposure well enough to use jpgs most of the time...you can even use Exposure Compensation or Bracketing if needed.

In difficult lighting conditions you can switch into RAW to get some insurance but RAW is not the only way to take a good picture.

Try jpgs and you will spend more time with the family and less time on the computer!.
Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but it is meant to help.
Happy Snappin'
Tom

http://www.northerneye.org
http://www.pbase.com/tomstorey

You sound just like me! I have been agonizing over this RAW situation for months! I don't dare switch to jpeg - I will have never ending guilt over that. I'm getting so frustrated with the amount of time it is taking to look at and catagorize and backup the RAW it is taking all the fun out of photography. What is keeping me in this trench???? The very thought of really screwing up an exposure using jpeg and knowing - 'if I'd just used RAW, I could fix that'........aarrrrgggghhh!!!!!!
--
Karma
http://www.pbase.com/karma2

Tom Storey said:

for what seems to be mainly family snaps.
C'mon now, surely you have mastered the basics of exposure well
enough to use jpgs most of the time...you can even use Exposure
Compensation or Bracketing if needed.
In difficult lighting conditions you can switch into RAW to get
some insurance but RAW is not the only way to take a good picture.
Try jpgs and you will spend more time with the family and less time
on the computer!.
Sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear but it is meant to help.
Happy Snappin'
Tom

http://www.northerneye.org
http://www.pbase.com/tomstorey

Click to expand...

You're right. What you wrote is indeed not what I wanted to hear

I understand your point, and to some degree I agree.

However, I have tried even with Raw to set the correct white balance setting and I consistently fail to do so (meaning, i don't remember to change the setting and when I do move it around I end up taking outdoor photos in fluorescent setting). CONSISTENTLY. So if I made a move to JPG I would be essentially relegated to only using AUTO WB.

The catch is that a good 50% of my shots are low-light indoors with either tungsten or fluorescent, but some with flash (and I cringe at the thought of what would happen if I had the camera set to fluorescent and then put the 580EX on).

On top of that, while I do feel I've gotten exposure down to the point where I could for the most part LIVE with JPG... I do have a small but significant (in terms of how much I like them) group of photos that had significant exposure flaws that I fixed in RAW.

So while I wouldn't say that the only reason I got the 20D was RAW (That's not true... mainly it was a large sensor small dof, high iso, ergonomics thing), I would definitelly have not gone for a 20Dj camera that cost $300 less than my 20D and only shot JPG. So yeah, it's something I value very much.

Alessandro

....... how to take the fun out of photography...go on try jpg when it doesn't matter, it's called practice in other hobbies!!!
Tom

Karma said:

You sound just like me! I have been agonizing over this RAW
situation for months! I don't dare switch to jpeg - I will have
never ending guilt over that. I'm getting so frustrated with the
amount of time it is taking to look at and catagorize and backup
the RAW it is taking all the fun out of photography. What is
keeping me in this trench???? The very thought of really screwing
up an exposure using jpeg and knowing - 'if I'd just used RAW, I
could fix that'........aarrrrgggghhh!!!!!!
--
Karma
http://www.pbase.com/karma2

Click to expand...

I've never truely seen that the advantages of RAW outweigh the disadvantages (unless you have an unlimited amount of storage space, a very fast computer, and a whole lot of time on your hands.) Yes, you can continue to tweak things like color balance and such, but I sometimes wonder if that's an excuse for not having taken more care when orginally taking the photo?

And then you mention these are family snaps?? C'mon... do you --really-- want to play with each photo to that degree?

I've only played with RAW enough to know it's not for me, so I'll acknowledge I'm not an expert here, but truely... I'm waiting for someone to show me a photo that was "saved" because they shot it RAW and as a result they were later able to fix it. I've performed some pretty amazing fixes with .jpg images.

So... for you RAW believers... show us some before & after shots that might convince us that the hassles of RAW are worth it.

--

• Rick

http://www.pbase.com/truelight

D Nelson said:

There are many possible solutions designed for your specific
situation, including Lightroom and Aperture (if you're on a Mac).

Click to expand...

I haven't tried Lightroom yet and I'm on a PC (no Mac). I guess I should download the demo and see what it's all about.

D Nelson said:

But have you tried using the Ratings and Collections function
within Bridge? You can make the thumbnails as large as you want,
rate them on a 1 to 5 scale, assign keywords, etc.

Then you can delete the bad ones (if you so choose), make contact
sheets of the best (or of a particular event), etc.

Click to expand...

What I do is this:

download all images into INGESTED folder

run siren to rename them all to YYYYMMDD_20D_XXXX.CR2

open Bridge on the INGESTED folder

label all the photos RED red means: warning you haven't done anything with me

run the slideshow and look at every photo in one pass

If the photo is:

Good - I take the red off

Great - I take the red off and give it a star

One of the Best - I take the red off and give it two stars

Best of shoot (if it deserves it) - I take the red off and give it three stars

Bad - I mark it green (green light to the trashcan!)

Awful - I delete it on the spot

Seems Good but there are a few to pick from - I mark it and it's sisters BLUE

Don't want to make a decision yet - I skip it

Up to this point everything is pretty much OK.

Then normally I'll have Bridge show me only the green photos, give them a glance in Lighttable view (lots of medium sized thumbs, nothing on the sides) and typically I'll kill them all in one fell swoop.

from this point forward is where things slow down and then grind to a halt.

Part of it is that I'm not ruthless and quick enough to say "yes this is a good photo but it's very similar to this other one which is better, delete it already"

Part of it is that when I do my "let's compare in ACR for focus accuracy" I'm hampered by ACR's slowness at switching between photos.

There I am trying to ascertain critical focus... and ACR is wasting my time by taking seconds to focus the RAW I just had opened two seconds ago now that I switched to another one.

So this phase usually takes much longer than it should... and then my whole process falls apart.

I'm there, sitting at the computer frustrated that what I thought would take 5 minutes has taken 25 and I haven't quite chopped off as much as I'd like (Ideally I'd like something like 1 keeper out of every 10 shots, with appropriate exceptions for documentary photos of course) ... and I guess I get some analysis paralysis...

If there's a REALLY good photo in the mix (and believe it or not, quite often there is) ... I'll often fire up ACR, spend a minute or so adjusting it... pull it into photoshop... and then I get lost inside photoshop for an hour.

The worst of it all is that I never end up converting the majority of the CR2s into anything else... and when I pull the images into iMatch I end up with thumbnails that don't match what ACR is showing me.

aaaaargh!!!

Alessandro

P.S. I downloaded a trial of CaptureOne LE as I'd heard that it was the best when it comes to workflow... and I was hoping it's be fast and responsive and useful for photo to photo comparisons... but that's also slow as molasses (possibly more so than ACR!) every time you move one of the side-by side images it pixelates and then takes up to two seconds to refocus.

P.P.S. I think part of the problem is that unlike a pro portrait photographer who is just after the photos that will most flatter the client and can therefore chop off ruthlessly and quickly to come down to the top 5 photos (or whatever) ... I am constrained by the whole emotional spectrum... ok this photo is not perfectly focused, but look at how adorable the baby looks there .... bla bla bla.

HELP!

when you shoot RAW your camera does not set any WB at all....you do it with your RAW developer on the computer.

You could set your Canon (20D?) to shoot RAW and jpg then dump the RAW if you don't need it.
HTH
Tom

Alessandro,

RAW doesn't slow you down, your software and your system is I'd bet. I consistently here this from pros that I consult with on RAW workflows. Usually they have slow systems with numerous progs running in the background and tons of startup items that aren't needed.

When you find that you have to process/cull a lot of images, bring your system down to its barebones with no AV, mail prog, IM or other software that is not needed. Open only your RC then and do your culling.

Bridge/ACR is to me a dog for such as this. Bibble Pro, Rawshooter Pro, Capture One, BreezeBrowser or most any of the other RC's scream on preview generation and culling.

When you realize the software/hardware interaction plays a big role in your flow and there really isn't any difference in a JPEG/RAW scenario on a properly setup system, you'll spend less time in front of the screen and more time with the family...hehe.
Regards,
VG

Alessandro Di Sciascio said:

I would appreciate it if you could point me to some forum here, or
elsewhere, or some other resource with a varied selection of advice
on workflow.

I'm going totally nuts here.

• I'm spending WAY TOO MUCH TIME screening my photos picking the

winners and tossing the losers.

• I'm currently using ACR, making the adjustments and then leaving

the files as RAW. As needed I send them into Photoshop, do
adjustments and then end up with enormous PSD files. On occasion
I'll spit out a JPG or two from the PSD for emailing to
family/friends or for printing.

• I'm using iMatch to store my images but since they're RAW the

thumbnails and the previews I see in iMatch do not MATCH (sorry for
the pun) what the image really looks like.

-I'm aware that I should do something like convert the RAW files to
JPG, archive the RAW, keep the JPG and have the JPG in iMatch ...
but I'm going nuts here.

-I mainly shoot family photos, I put the camera in drive mode more
often than not and have to pick the best of who knows... 10 frames
of essentially the same thing... I highlight the 10 images in
Bridge, open them in ACR to then compare them for clarity, but ACR
is too slow in getting the raw refocused when I switch from one to
another to notice subtle differences (noticeable differences are no
prob)

Help!

I have THOUSANDS of RAW files already and I'm facing the monumental
task of getting out of this RAW nightmare. I realize that my end
goal should be to have archived RAW files for the just in case
scenario and JPGs/TIFFs (maybe TIFF for the GREAT PHOTOS and JPG
for the others as the day to day files.

Alessandro

Click to expand...

It sounds like you have an excellent handle on this, already. Perhaps your hardware is slowing you down? It really shouldn't be taking that long to render.
--
====================
Doug Nelson
http://www.retouchpro.com

Truelight said:

I've never truely seen that the advantages of RAW outweigh the
disadvantages (unless you have an unlimited amount of storage
space, a very fast computer, and a whole lot of time on your
hands.) Yes, you can continue to tweak things like color balance
and such, but I sometimes wonder if that's an excuse for not having
taken more care when orginally taking the photo?

And then you mention these are family snaps?? C'mon... do you
--really-- want to play with each photo to that degree?

I've only played with RAW enough to know it's not for me, so I'll
acknowledge I'm not an expert here, but truely... I'm waiting for
someone to show me a photo that was "saved" because they shot it
RAW and as a result they were later able to fix it. I've performed
some pretty amazing fixes with .jpg images.

So... for you RAW believers... show us some before & after shots
that might convince us that the hassles of RAW are worth it.

--

• Rick

http://www.pbase.com/truelight

Click to expand...

It depends on your definition of "IS IT WORTH IT"

if you mean "Is it really possible to recover once in a lifetime photos with RAW that could possibly not be recovered anywhere near as well from a JPG" then the answer is simple: ABSOLUTELY

if you mean "Is it worth the hassle involved in the additional work, in terms of the end result for the vast majority of photos" then I'd say there are three possible answers:

1. YES, ABSOLUTELY. Without even spending a second looking at the photos, run them through the RAW converter, get the JPGs and do your thing as if you didn't have a RAW file. Then if you come across a great shot that's a bit off get the filename pull out the RAW file and see if you can make some magic happen.

2. YES I BELIEVE SO, but I'm drowning in a black hole of RAW madness and my images aren't making it out of the gravity field.

3. NO - I always get the right settings on the camera, or if I make a mistake I take it like a man and move on. Life will not be THAT much less enjoyable without that ONE capture

Personally I think both 1 and 3 are healthy, reasonable, and valid approaches.

I'm in 2 and I want to go to 1.

And a thought just hit me... what if I switched my camera to take RAW+JPEG? If the files have the same number then maybe I can archive the RAW files and use the JPGs for everything else

Granted my memory cards would get filled up faster, but that's not a big problem (i have enough GBs to cover that) ... in terms of HD storage nothing would change (compared to the end result that I'm looking for of having usable files on my PC).

Hum....

Alessandro

you are batching the development of RAW files.

You can only gain the benefit of a RAW by individually processing that file which will be different to other RAW files taken at different times under different lighting conditions.

It seems you want to adopt a point and click method to reduce your workflow...I'm sorry to tell you ...you are throwing away any benefit in shooting RAW if you want batch process them.

Sorry again to have to tell you the bad news!

Tom

D Nelson said:

It sounds like you have an excellent handle on this, already.
Perhaps your hardware is slowing you down? It really shouldn't be
taking that long to render.
--
====================
Doug Nelson
http://www.retouchpro.com

Click to expand...

I doubt that the hardware is too much of a bottleneck. Granted it's not bleeding edge, but I am running an AthlonX2, 2GB of Dual Channel DDR Ram.... Striped Raid HDs ... a fast video card.

ACR renders the image quickly enough. But what it seems to do is render nearly instantaneously and then maybe 1 to 1 and a half second later it gets the true rendering in sharp focus done. When I'm trying to compare critical focus between two or three photos I switch between them in ACR (I load all three with the filmstrip view) and it's annoying beyond belief that it takes the full second to second and a half to re-render a photo I just had opened. By the time I flip flop it should be instantaneous but it's not... and that second to a second and a half causes me to have to flip flop a bunch of times before making up my mind.

I'd like it to have the same speed PSCS2 has when you have two layers and flip one on and off... INSTANTANEOUS.

Alessandro

P.S. But unfortunatelly the biggest problem is a user problem... I'm too slow in the cull, not ruthless enough, and then I have failed to come up with an end-of-process strategy that outputs JPGs or TIFFs.

But the jpeg version is at the 'basic' setting....not the highest quality setting right?.....if it were the highest quality setting I'd do this in a heartbeat!
--
Karma
http://www.pbase.com/karma2

On my Canon 20D I can set RAW + jpg at the highest quality or a lower quality, naturally I always set the jpg at the highest quality and my20D jpgs are really good.
Most of my pbase gallery images are from jpg.
http://www.pbase.com/tomstorey

HTH
Tom

Karma said:

But the jpeg version is at the 'basic' setting....not the highest
quality setting right?.....if it were the highest quality setting
I'd do this in a heartbeat!
--
Karma
http://www.pbase.com/karma2

Click to expand...

Karma said:

But the jpeg version is at the 'basic' setting....not the highest
quality setting right?.....if it were the highest quality setting
I'd do this in a heartbeat!
--
Karma
http://www.pbase.com/karma2

Click to expand...

With the 20D you can choose the quality of the JPG. I'm fairly confident that the RAW + JPG L (smooth setting) is the same thing as what you get if you shoot max quality JPG.

When it comes to ingesting/culling/file browsing/captioning/etc., nothing beats Photo Mechanic in my experience. There's a free trial available in you're interested.

well unfortunately on my Nikon D50 my best selection for a RAW+jpeg combo is a jpeg 'basic'. So this is not something I will do. I will keep shooting RAW and backup immediately when I download the card. I will then have to learn to be more ruthless with the ones I save to work on further.
--
Karma
http://www.pbase.com/karma2

Alessandro Di Sciascio said:

• I'm using iMatch to store my images but since they're RAW

the thumbnails and the previews I see in iMatch do not MATCH

Click to expand...

ACR stores the "soft" edits you make in either the Bridge cache or as instructions inside the XMP record. This information can only be read and interpreted by ACR/Bridge because it is proprietary to the Adobe render engine.

If you convert your images to DNG, Bridge will apply the changes you made to the embedded preview image in the DNG and hence the changes can be seen by IMatch. You will get the same effect when store your images in standard file formats like TIFF, JPG, or PSD.

--
Mario M. Westphal - Author of IMatch
photools.com - Digital Image Management Solutions
[email protected]
http://www.photools.com

• I do not monitor this forum on a regular basis.
• Please contact me via email for a timely answer.