Poll: your camera output (JPEG / settings, RAW / processing approach)

[Guy Parsons]

...... I hang onto PSP X5 because it has NIK Color Efex 3 bundled in and I like the B&W conversion they have.

The NIK Colour Efex 3 is a plugin and all I did when I updated PSP X5 to X6 then later to X7 is to find and copy the plugin across to the appropriate plugin area in the 32 bit version that is installed, it won't work in the 64 bit version.

Here's where it lives now and works happily in my PSP X7....



I think the PerfectlyClearfor PSP also was copied from X4 or was it X5, anyway both those now are installed in the vanilla version of PSP X7 and not in the Ultimate version. Possibly missing out on some improvements in Perfectly Clear that may have come in later versions, but it works fine for me. Also NIK works well for those B&W images as you say.

Just copy them in, nothing to install, it finds them automatically when you access the plugins in PSP.

Regards...... Guy

 

[nzmacro]

First the Raw into lightroom and I have several pre-sets I use and can tell just by looking at the image which one to push. Time in LR, less than a minute. Into Photoimpact for further tweaking, maybe another 2 mins on average. 5 mins if its needs extra work.

The trick is to cull even perfectly good shots and settle on only 2-3 shots in a series of shots. One will stand out better than the others, so might as well bin them. Keep only the really good shots IMO.

All the best.

Danny.

 

[davidedric]

I voted the alternative that you call basic editing in LR, DxO etc. But I would say that what you can do in LR5 and DxO is not just basic. I often do a lot of local editing, changing colors, using the geometric tools in both LR and DxO.

Anyway, I shoot RAW and work with RAW files in LR5 or DxO, I would say 95 % in LR5.

Agreed, although in my case I use Nik for b&w, and Perfect Photo Suite for other pixel editing.

I wish folks would get a handle on what Lightroom is now capable of.

Dave

 

[JohnPS]

Thanks for the tip...I would have never thought of that. I consider that bundle a very nice bonus with PSP...too bad Google stepped in and nicked NIK. I'll be building myself a new 64 bit PC later this year and don't know yet what I'll put on for post processing, other than following in the same footsteps.

 

[s_grins]

Hi. I just wanted to "benchmark" my approach against what others are doing regarding Camera Output/post processing. At a high level.

Sometimes I'll spend a lot of time in PS Elements on a photo, and I'm trying to re-evaluate the value I get from it (does it make my photo THAT much better... could I better spend the time out taking more photos?).

Obviously no Poll can be comprehensive, but this will give me an idea of how many people process RAW, and whether it's a few adjustments in LR or the whole 9 yards with Plugins etc.

I though about asking how many minutes per photo, but that depends on the expected use. So it's not perfect, but will give something to think about. Thank you.

For understandable reason, polling options are missing here but...

Non of the above: camera - RAW, RAW editor, conversion into JPG. As you see, my sequence of events is different.

--
Camera in bag tends to stay in bag...

 

[Glen Barrington]

For problem noise I use Topaz Denoise. For non problematic noise, I will use the less good NR tools built into ACDSee - just too convenient. If I want to do an HDR, I use the HDR utility in PSP X6, but I've otherwise pretty much retired PSP. If I need to resize, I think the ACDSee resizing tools work quite well.

Any more, that's pretty much it. I bet I spend less than 8-10 minutes on even the most problematic photo.

 

[Elemental Photography]

For most of my commercial and personal work, raw capture and Lightroom editing gets me where I need to be. For art shows and other situations where I am pushing the envelope (like infrared capture and processing), I am more likely to delve in to Photoshop with the short list of best images.

 

[sean000]

Hi. I just wanted to "benchmark" my approach against what others are doing regarding Camera Output/post processing. At a high level.

Sometimes I'll spend a lot of time in PS Elements on a photo, and I'm trying to re-evaluate the value I get from it (does it make my photo THAT much better... could I better spend the time out taking more photos?).

Obviously no Poll can be comprehensive, but this will give me an idea of how many people process RAW, and whether it's a few adjustments in LR or the whole 9 yards with Plugins etc.

I though about asking how many minutes per photo, but that depends on the expected use. So it's not perfect, but will give something to think about. Thank you.

I could not select any single item to vote for, but I use multiple approaches depending on the shoot.

Most of the time I shoot RAW and process the photos only in Lightroom.

Quite often I will edit some of the photos in the Nik plugins for Lightroom... mostly either Silver Efex or Color Efex. Occasionally I use the Olympus Viewer.

I will also sometimes shoot RAW + JPEG. Most of the time I do this when I am shooting an event with family and friends. That way I can just quickly share a bunch of JPEGs. I still have the RAW copies in case there are any shots that need improvements, or if there are shots that are really good that I want to make look their best.

I would note too that RAW isn't necessarily about quality or about recovering a poorly exposed shot. Yes you can get more out of a poorly exposed RAW file, yes you can adjust white balance more easily on a RAW file, and yes you can get the most quality out of a RAW file (at least in some cases... for many shots the quality difference between the camera's JPEG and your own RAW processing may be negligible). Mostly RAW is about having creative control and options. If you shoot only JPEG then you are a bit limited unless you use very conservative JPEG settings. Once a JPEG gets overcooked (over-sharpened, over-saturated, too steep a curve, shot in monochrome, etc.), you can't uncook it, but you can always go back with a RAW file and create as many different versions as you want.

I think shooting RAW+JPEG is a great way to learn post-processing, because it gives you a baseline to shoot for. From there you can try different things to see whether or not you can create a look for a photo that you like even more. On the other hand, if you hate tinkering with the computer, modern cameras are capable of producing excellent JPEGs.

Sean

 

[Glen Barrington]

[No message]

 

[traveler_101]

I could not select any single item to vote for, but I use multiple approaches depending on the shoot.

Most of the time I shoot RAW and process the photos only in Lightroom.

Quite often I will edit some of the photos in the Nik plugins for Lightroom... mostly either Silver Efex or Color Efex. Occasionally I use the Olympus Viewer.

I will also sometimes shoot RAW + JPEG. Most of the time I do this when I am shooting an event with family and friends. That way I can just quickly share a bunch of JPEGs. I still have the RAW copies in case there are any shots that need improvements, or if there are shots that are really good that I want to make look their best.

I would note too that RAW isn't necessarily about quality or about recovering a poorly exposed shot. Yes you can get more out of a poorly exposed RAW file, yes you can adjust white balance more easily on a RAW file, and yes you can get the most quality out of a RAW file (at least in some cases... for many shots the quality difference between the camera's JPEG and your own RAW processing may be negligible). Mostly RAW is about having creative control and options. If you shoot only JPEG then you are a bit limited unless you use very conservative JPEG settings. Once a JPEG gets overcooked (over-sharpened, over-saturated, too steep a curve, shot in monochrome, etc.), you can't uncook it, but you can always go back with a RAW file and create as many different versions as you want.

I think shooting RAW+JPEG is a great way to learn post-processing, because it gives you a baseline to shoot for. From there you can try different things to see whether or not you can create a look for a photo that you like even more. On the other hand, if you hate tinkering with the computer, modern cameras are capable of producing excellent JPEGs.

Sean

Thank you Sean! I like your second solution. I had been a jpg shooter for years with the old 12mp sensor and was very happy! Then I got my E-P5 and switched to raw, but I really don't like raw processing every file and I'm not convinced that the results are so much better. Besides it takes too long and is a boring exercise; I have been using Olympus Viewer 3 and that might be part of the problem, but reading Robin Wong convinced me that Olympus processing produces the best colours. Your reasoning for combining jpg and raw makes a lot of sense to me; I like the idea of basically using jogs and being able to post them quickly (!), but also having the option of processing a few raw files of really excellent shots or ones that might benefit from special handling. So I will try it.

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

None of the above

Poll seems quite narrow-minded, certainly given what Olympus cameras offer in terms of RAW+Jpeg options and the processing that stems from those results.

This is the m4/3rds forum, right?

 

[Glen Barrington]

I could not select any single item to vote for, but I use multiple approaches depending on the shoot.

Most of the time I shoot RAW and process the photos only in Lightroom.

Quite often I will edit some of the photos in the Nik plugins for Lightroom... mostly either Silver Efex or Color Efex. Occasionally I use the Olympus Viewer.

I will also sometimes shoot RAW + JPEG. Most of the time I do this when I am shooting an event with family and friends. That way I can just quickly share a bunch of JPEGs. I still have the RAW copies in case there are any shots that need improvements, or if there are shots that are really good that I want to make look their best.

I would note too that RAW isn't necessarily about quality or about recovering a poorly exposed shot. Yes you can get more out of a poorly exposed RAW file, yes you can adjust white balance more easily on a RAW file, and yes you can get the most quality out of a RAW file (at least in some cases... for many shots the quality difference between the camera's JPEG and your own RAW processing may be negligible). Mostly RAW is about having creative control and options. If you shoot only JPEG then you are a bit limited unless you use very conservative JPEG settings. Once a JPEG gets overcooked (over-sharpened, over-saturated, too steep a curve, shot in monochrome, etc.), you can't uncook it, but you can always go back with a RAW file and create as many different versions as you want.

I think shooting RAW+JPEG is a great way to learn post-processing, because it gives you a baseline to shoot for. From there you can try different things to see whether or not you can create a look for a photo that you like even more. On the other hand, if you hate tinkering with the computer, modern cameras are capable of producing excellent JPEGs.

Sean

Thank you Sean! I like your second solution. I had been a jpg shooter for years with the old 12mp sensor and was very happy! Then I got my E-P5 and switched to raw, but I really don't like raw processing every file and I'm not convinced that the results are so much better. Besides it takes too long and is a boring exercise; I have been using Olympus Viewer 3 and that might be part of the problem, but reading Robin Wong convinced me that Olympus processing produces the best colours. Your reasoning for combining jpg and raw makes a lot of sense to me; I like the idea of basically using jogs and being able to post them quickly (!), but also having the option of processing a few raw files of really excellent shots or ones that might benefit from special handling. So I will try it.

I'm not out to convince you of anything, we all got to find the tools that speak to us and which work for us, but I think my findings are interesting, none the less.

Olympus Viewer 3 compared to ACDSee Ultimate 8

A personal blog about Photo Editing, m43s photography, and shooting techniques.

glenbarrington.blogspot.com

 

[traveler_101]

I'm not out to convince you of anything, we all got to find the tools that speak to us and which work for us, but I think my findings are interesting, none the less.

http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2015/01/olympus-viewer-3-compared-to-acdsee.html

Thanks Glen. I am happy to consider another program. I saw that you found you could improve results with OV3:

"I changed the 'Picture Mode' in OV3 from 'As Shot' to 'Natural'. This brings the OV3 version much closer to what ACDSee offers as the default version."

That I have been doing as per to Robin Wong's advice.

 

[roadtrpr]

For JPEG you have options for default settings, recommended settings, and settings that are often tweaked, but a glaring omission is JPEG settings that are optimized by the photographer, and then mostly left alone and certainly not often tweaked. Most, but not all, JPEG shooters, who know what they are doing adjust the default JPEG settings to their liking and then at most tweak them occasionally. By eliminating this most common option I think you have an invalid poll.

 

[Dessert First]

For JPEG you have options for default settings, recommended settings, and settings that are often tweaked, but a glaring omission is JPEG settings that are optimized by the photographer, and then mostly left alone and certainly not often tweaked. Most, but not all, JPEG shooters, who know what they are doing adjust the default JPEG settings to their liking and then at most tweak them occasionally. By eliminating this most common option I think you have an invalid poll.

What settings are you referring to? I am unaware of any camera specified JPEG settings other than quality (compression).

 

[roadtrpr]

For JPEG you have options for default settings, recommended settings, and settings that are often tweaked, but a glaring omission is JPEG settings that are optimized by the photographer, and then mostly left alone and certainly not often tweaked. Most, but not all, JPEG shooters, who know what they are doing adjust the default JPEG settings to their liking and then at most tweak them occasionally. By eliminating this most common option I think you have an invalid poll.

What settings are you referring to? I am unaware of any camera specified JPEG settings other than quality (compression).

An example would be several high level settings such as natural, bright, vibrant, etc, and then within each of those such settings color saturation, Hue, contrast, sharpness, and one or more settings that help prevent blown highlights or ability to recover details from shadows.

 

[Dessert First]

For JPEG you have options for default settings, recommended settings, and settings that are often tweaked, but a glaring omission is JPEG settings that are optimized by the photographer, and then mostly left alone and certainly not often tweaked. Most, but not all, JPEG shooters, who know what they are doing adjust the default JPEG settings to their liking and then at most tweak them occasionally. By eliminating this most common option I think you have an invalid poll.

What settings are you referring to? I am unaware of any camera specified JPEG settings other than quality (compression).

An example would be several high level settings such as natural, bright, vibrant, etc, and then within each of those such settings color saturation, Hue, contrast, sharpness, and one or more settings that help prevent blown highlights or ability to recover details from shadows.

Those types of settings aren't JPEG specific. As a JPEG shooter I realize that most of these can (and I'd argue should) be done in post-processing, not in-camera. You are correct that when shooting JPEG you might set certain parameters a little differently, but I don't see how that invalidates the question of how you normally do post-processing. Unless you're trying to formulate a quantitative response to that question.

 

[s_grins]

For JPEG you have options for default settings, recommended settings, and settings that are often tweaked, but a glaring omission is JPEG settings that are optimized by the photographer, and then mostly left alone and certainly not often tweaked. Most, but not all, JPEG shooters, who know what they are doing adjust the default JPEG settings to their liking and then at most tweak them occasionally. By eliminating this most common option I think you have an invalid poll.

What settings are you referring to? I am unaware of any camera specified JPEG settings other than quality (compression).

An example would be several high level settings such as natural, bright, vibrant, etc, and then within each of those such settings color saturation, Hue, contrast, sharpness, and one or more settings that help prevent blown highlights or ability to recover details from shadows.

Those types of settings aren't JPEG specific. As a JPEG shooter I realize that most of these can (and I'd argue should) be done in post-processing, not in-camera. You are correct that when shooting JPEG you might set certain parameters a little differently, but I don't see how that invalidates the question of how you normally do post-processing. Unless you're trying to formulate a quantitative response to that question.

Those settings could be implemented in camera , or after camera during PP, but they are JPG SPECIFIC - they do not affect RAW

 

[roadtrpr]

For JPEG you have options for default settings, recommended settings, and settings that are often tweaked, but a glaring omission is JPEG settings that are optimized by the photographer, and then mostly left alone and certainly not often tweaked. Most, but not all, JPEG shooters, who know what they are doing adjust the default JPEG settings to their liking and then at most tweak them occasionally. By eliminating this most common option I think you have an invalid poll.

What settings are you referring to? I am unaware of any camera specified JPEG settings other than quality (compression).

An example would be several high level settings such as natural, bright, vibrant, etc, and then within each of those such settings color saturation, Hue, contrast, sharpness, and one or more settings that help prevent blown highlights or ability to recover details from shadows.

Those types of settings aren't JPEG specific. As a JPEG shooter I realize that most of these can (and I'd argue should) be done in post-processing, not in-camera. You are correct that when shooting JPEG you might set certain parameters a little differently, but I don't see how that invalidates the question of how you normally do post-processing. Unless you're trying to formulate a quantitative response to that question.

As s_grins said, they are JPEG specific. I have tried a couple of different approaches to balance in camera processing and post processing of JPEGs. I know the prevailing school of thought is to minimize in camera processing if one is going to process the JPEGs, but that does not work best for me with sharpness being the exception. If I think a particular shot might benefit from being taken in RAW mode I will do both RAW and JPEG, but for the majority of shots, RAW has no advantage for me and just means more work in processing.

The poll was invalid to me and others who primarily shoot JPEGs and don't use default or someone else's recommended settings and don't often tweak the JPEG settings. I determine my preference for the settings and then don't change them, so there was no option for me in the poll.

 

[Garry Schaefer]

I had a similar reaction to lack of my preferred option in the poll. I shoot jpegs in a normal, minimally sharpened way, with noise filter set to low. I then post process my jpegs if I wish to add contrast or make other adjustments, including conversion to monochrome.