This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I as an experiment, I started taking RAW photos back in October and I'm sold on what people have been raving about for years about the advantages of RAW.
However I would still appreciate advice on what to do after I transfer images from the card to the computer. At the moment I go through a culling process of the day's images and end up with as few images as possible by selecting only the best of the bunch.
I then import that batch of images into lightroom and do some basic editing. Just the usual stuff, contrast, tinker with highlights and shadows, followed by noise reduction and rounded off with a little sharpening.
Its from here that I'm not sure about the best approach. At the moment I then export my digital masterpieces into JPEGS and delete the original RAW files.
Yes, I know that I am throwing away the digital version of a negative, but I have what I consider is the best JPEG I can create.
Should I actually keep the RAW files and not export to JPEG?
I don't think I'm using Lightroom to its full advantage because I'm not too happy with the file sizes of the catalogues. These catalogues can be up to around 5Gb. Should they really be that size?
I also find it tricky to find specific images. I much preferred Window's 7 gallery where I could put in a few search words and the TAGS would do the rest.
Am I going all about this arse-over-face and over complicating things?
However I would still appreciate advice on what to do after I transfer images from the card to the computer. At the moment I go through a culling process of the day's images and end up with as few images as possible by selecting only the best of the bunch.
I then import that batch of images into lightroom and do some basic editing. Just the usual stuff, contrast, tinker with highlights and shadows, followed by noise reduction and rounded off with a little sharpening.
Its from here that I'm not sure about the best approach. At the moment I then export my digital masterpieces into JPEGS and delete the original RAW files.
Yes, I know that I am throwing away the digital version of a negative, but I have what I consider is the best JPEG I can create.
Should I actually keep the RAW files and not export to JPEG?
I don't think I'm using Lightroom to its full advantage because I'm not too happy with the file sizes of the catalogues. These catalogues can be up to around 5Gb. Should they really be that size?
I also find it tricky to find specific images. I much preferred Window's 7 gallery where I could put in a few search words and the TAGS would do the rest.
Am I going all about this arse-over-face and over complicating things?
In reply to The Lemming:
Always keep the RAW, in a years time when you've played around with the editing tools that bit more you'll regret not being able to go back and try out other methods on the old files!
Always keep the RAW, in a years time when you've played around with the editing tools that bit more you'll regret not being able to go back and try out other methods on the old files!
3
In reply to The Lemming:
Good grief. Why aren't you converting the raws into a decent file type? Image degradation from converting to jpeg should make you consider a different format. PNG maybe?
Keep the raws for future editing as Phil says.
> export to JPEGS
Good grief. Why aren't you converting the raws into a decent file type? Image degradation from converting to jpeg should make you consider a different format. PNG maybe?
Keep the raws for future editing as Phil says.
2
2
In reply to Removed User:
Probably because I only know about JPEG, and this is why I'm asking for advice.
> Good grief. Why aren't you converting the raws into a decent file type?
Probably because I only know about JPEG, and this is why I'm asking for advice.
2
In reply to The Lemming:
Always keep the raws. Consider these your master copies, or your digital 'negatives'.
When you need to use an image, export it in the format, resolution etc. that you require for that purpose; i.e. if you want a copy to post on Facebook, export a low-res JPEG. If you want to print a copy, export a high-res TIFF (I think I'm right in saying this is still the best format for print? Could be wrong though). If you have the raws in Lightroom, there's no need to keep the JPEGs beyond your immediate requirements.
Always keep the raws. Consider these your master copies, or your digital 'negatives'.
When you need to use an image, export it in the format, resolution etc. that you require for that purpose; i.e. if you want a copy to post on Facebook, export a low-res JPEG. If you want to print a copy, export a high-res TIFF (I think I'm right in saying this is still the best format for print? Could be wrong though). If you have the raws in Lightroom, there's no need to keep the JPEGs beyond your immediate requirements.
In reply to The Lemming:
Hi,
As with all these things there are quite a few videos out there on LR work flow and file management. Here's what I do.
Import into LR from the memory card, normally into a folder month/year/raw which is on an NAS device. The photos are also put into a catalogue by month/year during the import, I also apply some standard preset edits.
Cull the duff photos.
Enter keywords for later searching.
Edit.
Rename the photos by subject e.g bridestones bouldering.
Export photos to another file location named month/year/export. I export as jpeg, but take on board the comments about poor quality of these.
I never delete the raw files.
Sounds like a faff but it's pretty straightforward.
Ps all the jpegs get uploaded into Flickr as another back up. Also my files are on an NAS device which also auto backs up to an external hard drive.
That's just me though, seems like a reasonable system!
Hi,
As with all these things there are quite a few videos out there on LR work flow and file management. Here's what I do.
Import into LR from the memory card, normally into a folder month/year/raw which is on an NAS device. The photos are also put into a catalogue by month/year during the import, I also apply some standard preset edits.
Cull the duff photos.
Enter keywords for later searching.
Edit.
Rename the photos by subject e.g bridestones bouldering.
Export photos to another file location named month/year/export. I export as jpeg, but take on board the comments about poor quality of these.
I never delete the raw files.
Sounds like a faff but it's pretty straightforward.
Ps all the jpegs get uploaded into Flickr as another back up. Also my files are on an NAS device which also auto backs up to an external hard drive.
That's just me though, seems like a reasonable system!
Post edited at 18:11
In reply to mikedelderfield:
That is a fair point – it isn't a bad idea to chuck exported JPEGs into some form of cloud storage as another backup layer. Flickr is one option; Google Photos is pretty good too.
That is a fair point – it isn't a bad idea to chuck exported JPEGs into some form of cloud storage as another backup layer. Flickr is one option; Google Photos is pretty good too.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Maybe a minor point, but I would avoid most sharpening until you have created a final resized version what whatever application you intend it for (eg., A3 print, web picture...). The way you sharpen depends on how you are presenting the picture. There's generally two reason to sharpen: (1) to alter the content of the picture (e.g., haze reduction with a large blur radius in unsharp mask; and (2) to compensate for the limitation (real and/or perceptual) of the display mechanism. The first can be done early, the second only in the final display-specific stage.
Actually, in theory there's an argument that you should also consider doing some selective early-stage low radius sharpening to compensate for any blurring in the raw converter, but I've never bothered.
At least that's what I try to remember to do...
Maybe a minor point, but I would avoid most sharpening until you have created a final resized version what whatever application you intend it for (eg., A3 print, web picture...). The way you sharpen depends on how you are presenting the picture. There's generally two reason to sharpen: (1) to alter the content of the picture (e.g., haze reduction with a large blur radius in unsharp mask; and (2) to compensate for the limitation (real and/or perceptual) of the display mechanism. The first can be done early, the second only in the final display-specific stage.
Actually, in theory there's an argument that you should also consider doing some selective early-stage low radius sharpening to compensate for any blurring in the raw converter, but I've never bothered.
At least that's what I try to remember to do...
In reply to The Lemming:
Never delete the RAWs! (Cull the really duff ones though). Storage Hard Drives are cheap in the Photographic equipment spectrum.
No need to export to jpeg/PNG/TIFF unless you are actually going to do something with them.
No need to rename photos with subject, just use keywording.
No need to export to a TIFF for printing - do it direct from LR.
I rename my photos on import (using a Preset) to give a YYMM_ prefix to the original filename
LR can apply Export /print sharpening that is appropriate to the Print/imagesize/Paper/Screen/File. Don't overdo the sharpening in the Develop Module.
Use Collections, use Flags, use Stars.
BACK UP YOUR LR CATALOG ON A REGULAR BASIS ! VERY IMPORTANT
Use one main Catalog, generally no need for multiple Catalogs.
Back up everything on multiple Hard drives.
Use something like Backblaze to back up everything in the Cloud.
Never delete the RAWs! (Cull the really duff ones though). Storage Hard Drives are cheap in the Photographic equipment spectrum.
No need to export to jpeg/PNG/TIFF unless you are actually going to do something with them.
No need to rename photos with subject, just use keywording.
No need to export to a TIFF for printing - do it direct from LR.
I rename my photos on import (using a Preset) to give a YYMM_ prefix to the original filename
LR can apply Export /print sharpening that is appropriate to the Print/imagesize/Paper/Screen/File. Don't overdo the sharpening in the Develop Module.
Use Collections, use Flags, use Stars.
BACK UP YOUR LR CATALOG ON A REGULAR BASIS ! VERY IMPORTANT
Use one main Catalog, generally no need for multiple Catalogs.
Back up everything on multiple Hard drives.
Use something like Backblaze to back up everything in the Cloud.
Post edited at 19:24
In reply to ChrisJD:
Mine is pretty much the same as Chris'.
https://www.lightroomqueen.com is a good resource, it's worth signing up for the PDF.
Mine is pretty much the same as Chris'.
https://www.lightroomqueen.com is a good resource, it's worth signing up for the PDF.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
I'm not a LR expert but I think you may be overcomplicating the process. There should be no need to worry about exporting your pictures unless you want a copy to send to someone.
LR works by taking your RAW pictures and creating a JPEG version. All the effects and changes you apply in LR are applied during this conversion. Every time you apply an effect the software goes back to the RAW file and applies all your effects to create a new JPEG. It's actually very similar to film, the RAW is your negative and the JPEG is a print.
All you see in LR is a single 'photo' which is actually a constantly updated JPEG made from the RAW data plus the effects you've selected - it's doing all the file shuffling for you in the background. Exporting a JPEG just makes a copy of this JPEG somewhere else on your hard drive.
I'm not a LR expert but I think you may be overcomplicating the process. There should be no need to worry about exporting your pictures unless you want a copy to send to someone.
LR works by taking your RAW pictures and creating a JPEG version. All the effects and changes you apply in LR are applied during this conversion. Every time you apply an effect the software goes back to the RAW file and applies all your effects to create a new JPEG. It's actually very similar to film, the RAW is your negative and the JPEG is a print.
All you see in LR is a single 'photo' which is actually a constantly updated JPEG made from the RAW data plus the effects you've selected - it's doing all the file shuffling for you in the background. Exporting a JPEG just makes a copy of this JPEG somewhere else on your hard drive.
Post edited at 20:24
In reply to ChrisJD:
Sometimes I look at them on my tv, I can only do that on jpegs. Also the Mrs doesn't have LR. I also share on Google photos with family members.
I find it easier to find my jpegs if they're named as the subject.
Personally I think it's more helpful to name as the subject rather than a date.
CBA. I think keywords are more helpful.
Agreed just follow the LR weekly reminder. I'm sure Fraser would agree!
> No need to export to jpeg/PNG/TIFF unless you are actually going to do something with them.
Sometimes I look at them on my tv, I can only do that on jpegs. Also the Mrs doesn't have LR. I also share on Google photos with family members.
> No need to rename photos with subject, just use keywording.
I find it easier to find my jpegs if they're named as the subject.
> I rename my photos on import (using a Preset) to give a YYMM_ prefix to the original filename
Personally I think it's more helpful to name as the subject rather than a date.
> Use Collections, use Flags, use Stars.
CBA. I think keywords are more helpful.
> BACK UP YOUR LR CATALOG ON A REGULAR BASIS ! VERY IMPORTANT
Agreed just follow the LR weekly reminder. I'm sure Fraser would agree!
In reply to mikedelderfield:
Get a Flickr Account to share, much more flexible than Google Photos and 1 TB storage free. Export direct to it without the need for jpgs. Use ChromeCast to view Flickr account or via PC casting to TV. Can also export directly to FB from LR
Use this Flickr Plugin, not LR's: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies
Each to their own! But no real need for routinely making jpgs anymore if fully online via Flickr & FB.
YYMM Date prefix automatically orders files and prevent duplicates when you go round the clock. I have too many photos to rename each with a subject! I use collections, keywords & brain memory instead.
> Sometimes I look at them on my tv, I can only do that on jpegs. Also the Mrs doesn't have LR. I also share on Google photos with family members.
Get a Flickr Account to share, much more flexible than Google Photos and 1 TB storage free. Export direct to it without the need for jpgs. Use ChromeCast to view Flickr account or via PC casting to TV. Can also export directly to FB from LR
Use this Flickr Plugin, not LR's: http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies
> I find it easier to find my jpegs if they're named as the subject.
Each to their own! But no real need for routinely making jpgs anymore if fully online via Flickr & FB.
> Personally I think it's more helpful to name as the subject rather than a date.
YYMM Date prefix automatically orders files and prevent duplicates when you go round the clock. I have too many photos to rename each with a subject! I use collections, keywords & brain memory instead.
In reply to Oujmik:
LR does not create a jpg unless you Export. No jpg is created by LR in develop mode (preview files are stored locally to help speed up the rendering process on the screen)
> LR works by taking your RAW pictures and creating a JPEG version.
LR does not create a jpg unless you Export. No jpg is created by LR in develop mode (preview files are stored locally to help speed up the rendering process on the screen)
Post edited at 21:16
In reply to ChrisJD:
About a week too late for me ... but I agree! Interesting suggestion about not exporting to jpgs, as that's something I generally do for uploading to Flickr and here.
One other thing I'd say is to apply 'lens corrections' as a final action in your LR workflow. On my PC at least, it noticeably slows up all subsequent commands.
> BACK UP YOUR LR CATALOG ON A REGULAR BASIS ! VERY IMPORTANT
About a week too late for me ... but I agree! Interesting suggestion about not exporting to jpgs, as that's something I generally do for uploading to Flickr and here.
One other thing I'd say is to apply 'lens corrections' as a final action in your LR workflow. On my PC at least, it noticeably slows up all subsequent commands.
In reply to Fraser:
I had your unfortunate experience in mind
Use this Plugin http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies - no jpgs need be harmed!
> About a week too late for me ... but I agree!
I had your unfortunate experience in mind
> Interesting suggestion about not exporting to jpgs, as that's something I generally do for uploading to Flickr
Use this Plugin http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies - no jpgs need be harmed!
In reply to ChrisJD:
Thanks for the plugin tips, I'd tried the built in LR to Flickr plugin, but it wasn't very useful. I do already use Flickr to back up my photos, I hadn't realised that it was possible to chromecast Flickr?
I'm not sure Mrs D will buy into all that fancy cloud storage malarkey anyway, she's used to photos being in the Windows Explorer file system.
Thanks for the plugin tips, I'd tried the built in LR to Flickr plugin, but it wasn't very useful. I do already use Flickr to back up my photos, I hadn't realised that it was possible to chromecast Flickr?
I'm not sure Mrs D will buy into all that fancy cloud storage malarkey anyway, she's used to photos being in the Windows Explorer file system.
In reply to mikedelderfield:
I too am used to the windows file system and would rather the bulk of my photos be in my control.
Thanks everybody for your advice and tips.
To recap, keep the RAW files and work out how to keep a catalogue backed up.
What are the pros and cons of moving away from my reliance on JPEGs?
And what exactly is the catalogue and how can I keep it under control?
A while back I got Lightroom to import all my phots but got frightened at the size of the catalogues. They were taking up huge chunks of my C Drive. My C Drive is a small SSD however I do have two big regular hard drives and NAS with which to store the catalogue.
It's all a learning curve, even though I've had Lightroom for years.
> I'm not sure Mrs D will buy into all that fancy cloud storage malarkey anyway, she's used to photos being in the Windows Explorer file system.
I too am used to the windows file system and would rather the bulk of my photos be in my control.
Thanks everybody for your advice and tips.
To recap, keep the RAW files and work out how to keep a catalogue backed up.
What are the pros and cons of moving away from my reliance on JPEGs?
And what exactly is the catalogue and how can I keep it under control?
A while back I got Lightroom to import all my phots but got frightened at the size of the catalogues. They were taking up huge chunks of my C Drive. My C Drive is a small SSD however I do have two big regular hard drives and NAS with which to store the catalogue.
It's all a learning curve, even though I've had Lightroom for years.
Post edited at 01:07
In reply to Fraser:
I'd heard about LR slowing down after lens correction, but it's not something I've noticed in use. I used to do lens correction as my final editing step, but found it lightened my photos, so I ended going back and editing them again. So now I do lens correction during import, it saves a lot of time for me.
I'd heard about LR slowing down after lens correction, but it's not something I've noticed in use. I used to do lens correction as my final editing step, but found it lightened my photos, so I ended going back and editing them again. So now I do lens correction during import, it saves a lot of time for me.
In reply to The Lemming:
I've been really chaotic in my use of Lightroom, using it for one off conversions and letting the catalog get in a real mess. My rainy day plan is to erase the catalog and start a new one, put all my originals Raw, jpegs, Tiffs from film scanner etc in one master file with sub directories on date, scanner etc, backed up to external HDD. Then do all my subsequent file organisation through lightroom. Go back through my favourite photos, re import them (with keywords) and save the export jpegs (web res and full res elsewhere) . Quite a chore but a reminder of the need to do it properly in the first place
I've been really chaotic in my use of Lightroom, using it for one off conversions and letting the catalog get in a real mess. My rainy day plan is to erase the catalog and start a new one, put all my originals Raw, jpegs, Tiffs from film scanner etc in one master file with sub directories on date, scanner etc, backed up to external HDD. Then do all my subsequent file organisation through lightroom. Go back through my favourite photos, re import them (with keywords) and save the export jpegs (web res and full res elsewhere) . Quite a chore but a reminder of the need to do it properly in the first place
Post edited at 09:48
In reply to kevin stephens:
The thing that has so far put me off lightroom is that, by all accounts, the catalogue system sounds like a bit of a nightmare when I already have a system which works well for me in windows. I'm scared to even start in case I get in a real mess and end up losing stuff.
The thing that has so far put me off lightroom is that, by all accounts, the catalogue system sounds like a bit of a nightmare when I already have a system which works well for me in windows. I'm scared to even start in case I get in a real mess and end up losing stuff.
In reply to The Lemming:
I was on a LR course last year and here is what the tutor told the class (IIRC - others in the know maybe can confirm):
JPEG is a lossy format. First saving losses a lot of details to get the smaller file size, and each and every subsequent saving and every opening/closing of the file even to view results in more and more losses. I think he said by the file is opened up ten times it is noticeable in the quality of the photo. On the pus side, it is a common file for sharing and normally useable in virtually all software. Best format if for general sharing. Of course you are keeping the RAW file so you can always make a new JPEG later when quality deteriorates.
As others have confirmed, the tutor said no need to change from RAW except for the specific purpose you are intending. As a pro photographer he said that was mostly dictated by his client's wishes and needs. If he had the choice and needed to save other than RAW, his preference was TIFF (albeit they have larger file sizes). TIFF he said was stable and along with PSD if using Photoshop were useful as they allowed saving of things that you might want to re-edit like layers, transparencies. He also said TIFF can normally be handled my most mainstream software out there.
LR Catalogue: basically it is LR's database of where everything is and what you did to the photos (moving, copying, editing, etc). LR backs up, if you allow it to, to the same drive it is on. This is not great as if you lose that drive, you lose not only the catalogue but also its backup. Best to change backup location to a different drive, or at least back up the back up. Backups are also useful if frequently done as if you do something that goes wrong, you can just restart LR from the backup to effectively undo what went wrong.
To save space, old backups can be deleted. Unless there is specific need to keep old backups (probably more for professional to be concerned about), the advice was to keep the last few backups only, though you in theory only need the latest backu. The idea to keep more than one was in case the last backup was corrupted somehow. Apparently it does happen.
Hope that is some help and I've remembered correctly.
> What are the pros and cons of moving away from my reliance on JPEGs?
I was on a LR course last year and here is what the tutor told the class (IIRC - others in the know maybe can confirm):
JPEG is a lossy format. First saving losses a lot of details to get the smaller file size, and each and every subsequent saving and every opening/closing of the file even to view results in more and more losses. I think he said by the file is opened up ten times it is noticeable in the quality of the photo. On the pus side, it is a common file for sharing and normally useable in virtually all software. Best format if for general sharing. Of course you are keeping the RAW file so you can always make a new JPEG later when quality deteriorates.
As others have confirmed, the tutor said no need to change from RAW except for the specific purpose you are intending. As a pro photographer he said that was mostly dictated by his client's wishes and needs. If he had the choice and needed to save other than RAW, his preference was TIFF (albeit they have larger file sizes). TIFF he said was stable and along with PSD if using Photoshop were useful as they allowed saving of things that you might want to re-edit like layers, transparencies. He also said TIFF can normally be handled my most mainstream software out there.
LR Catalogue: basically it is LR's database of where everything is and what you did to the photos (moving, copying, editing, etc). LR backs up, if you allow it to, to the same drive it is on. This is not great as if you lose that drive, you lose not only the catalogue but also its backup. Best to change backup location to a different drive, or at least back up the back up. Backups are also useful if frequently done as if you do something that goes wrong, you can just restart LR from the backup to effectively undo what went wrong.
To save space, old backups can be deleted. Unless there is specific need to keep old backups (probably more for professional to be concerned about), the advice was to keep the last few backups only, though you in theory only need the latest backu. The idea to keep more than one was in case the last backup was corrupted somehow. Apparently it does happen.
Hope that is some help and I've remembered correctly.
3
In reply to Climbing Pieman:
With all due respect to your tutor, I don't think that can be right, if you open then close a JPEG without doing anything to it or resaving it, you haven't actually done anything to the original file.
Happy to be corrected on this though,
Chris
> JPEG is a lossy format. First saving losses a lot of details to get the smaller file size, and each and every subsequent saving and every opening/closing of the file even to view results in more and more losses.
With all due respect to your tutor, I don't think that can be right, if you open then close a JPEG without doing anything to it or resaving it, you haven't actually done anything to the original file.
Happy to be corrected on this though,
Chris
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Yes, unless you do anything to the file, nothing happens. A new jpeg can't be created without it having particular settings applied to it and then it being 'Saved As', to use the old jargon.
Yes, unless you do anything to the file, nothing happens. A new jpeg can't be created without it having particular settings applied to it and then it being 'Saved As', to use the old jargon.
1
In reply to mikedelderfield:
>I hadn't realised that it was possible to chromecast Flickr?
The official Flickr App won't CCast. Some unofficial ones will.
But you can also cast your phone/tablet screen direct to your TV, so can view Flickr images that way too. But no slideshow on Flickr App (android anyway).
For Flickr slideshow, I cast to TV from Chrome Browser on the PC, this works well with the Flickr Slideshow on the Desktop.
Why Flickr doesn't have ChromeCast and slideshow on the Phone app is all a bit strange!
EDIT: but I guess its to do with Yahoo not supporting a competitor's products.
>I hadn't realised that it was possible to chromecast Flickr?
The official Flickr App won't CCast. Some unofficial ones will.
But you can also cast your phone/tablet screen direct to your TV, so can view Flickr images that way too. But no slideshow on Flickr App (android anyway).
For Flickr slideshow, I cast to TV from Chrome Browser on the PC, this works well with the Flickr Slideshow on the Desktop.
Why Flickr doesn't have ChromeCast and slideshow on the Phone app is all a bit strange!
EDIT: but I guess its to do with Yahoo not supporting a competitor's products.
Post edited at 11:15
1
In reply to Chris Craggs:
Must have picked it up wrong or misunderstood he context of what he said. Apologies.
Must have picked it up wrong or misunderstood he context of what he said. Apologies.
In reply to kevin stephens:
I can understand wanting to tidy up Lightroom
But I can't see why you'd want to re import to do so. I'd just add key words in Lightroom. For example you might filter the catalog to show all the photos on one day or from one folder on your hard drive. Then add key words. You can move the photos to another drive without exporting and reimporting
> I've been really chaotic in my use of Lightroom, using it for one off conversions and letting the catalog get in a real mess. My rainy day plan is to erase the catalog and start a new one, put all my originals Raw, jpegs, Tiffs from film scanner etc in one master file with sub directories on date, scanner etc, backed up to external HDD. Then do all my subsequent file organisation through lightroom. Go back through my favourite photos, re import them (with keywords) and save the export jpegs (web res and full res elsewhere) . Quite a chore but a reminder of the need to do it properly in the first place
I can understand wanting to tidy up Lightroom
But I can't see why you'd want to re import to do so. I'd just add key words in Lightroom. For example you might filter the catalog to show all the photos on one day or from one folder on your hard drive. Then add key words. You can move the photos to another drive without exporting and reimporting
In reply to Chris Craggs:
This is one of those questions that crops up alot. Annoyingly both answer are sort of correct
Technically .jpg is a lossy format. In other words when a .jpg is made some information is thrown away. Of course the idea is that it throws away information that it thinks you won't notice. In the early days of photo editing there were problems with making small edits to a jpg and then resaving them. The program didn't notice some information had already been thrown out and results could be horrible. This means that you'll hear people giving warnings about jpg
However in reality jpgs work really well. A good quality jpg saved with a high quality will take a good deal of editing without you ever seeing a problem. This is pertly because image editors now understand that they are resaving a jpg and take steps to avoid the extra losses.
So the status quo is most people get on fine with jpg leaving the pros and photography teachers to worry about lossy formats
Myself I shoot in RAW and keep them in Lightroom. RAW carries more dynamic range and allows the white balance to be set at home. But if i end up with a jpg for some reason I don't let it bother me
> With all due respect to your tutor, I don't think that can be right, if you open then close a JPEG without doing anything to it or resaving it, you haven't actually done anything to the original file.
> Happy to be corrected on this though,
> Chris
This is one of those questions that crops up alot. Annoyingly both answer are sort of correct
Technically .jpg is a lossy format. In other words when a .jpg is made some information is thrown away. Of course the idea is that it throws away information that it thinks you won't notice. In the early days of photo editing there were problems with making small edits to a jpg and then resaving them. The program didn't notice some information had already been thrown out and results could be horrible. This means that you'll hear people giving warnings about jpg
However in reality jpgs work really well. A good quality jpg saved with a high quality will take a good deal of editing without you ever seeing a problem. This is pertly because image editors now understand that they are resaving a jpg and take steps to avoid the extra losses.
So the status quo is most people get on fine with jpg leaving the pros and photography teachers to worry about lossy formats
Myself I shoot in RAW and keep them in Lightroom. RAW carries more dynamic range and allows the white balance to be set at home. But if i end up with a jpg for some reason I don't let it bother me
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Having spent many years working with film I can associate directly with the analogies between RAW files & negatives. There have been several references in this thread to the idea that RAW files can be treated as digital negatives and thus form the basis of a digital image/print.
But there is more to it than that as they are actually undeveloped negatives. They can be reprocessed with slightly different parameters to form the basis of a new negative that can be rendered as a final image. I use PS Elements and the first stage in processing a RAW file has to be done in the RAW plug-in. This is the development stage and I use it to correct exposure, white balance and the range of levels but no more to provide a workable 'negative'. It then opens in PSE and I have a full range of 'printing' controls to produce the image that I want (usually pre-visualised when I took the photo). Most images are then saved as TIFs or PSDs if I want to come back and work on layers later.
This process works well for me and for sharing on websites I convert to a smaller sized jpg. Every RAW file is saved in Hard Drives in two places and the processed current images are kept on the computer for the current year and saved on the HD.
One tradition that I retain from the days of slides and thoroughly enjoy is the annual review. This takes place between Christmas and New Year. Armed with a nice bottle of wine I spend a day going through all images taken during the year and select a 'Best of' the year. Usually about 200 images survive from several thousand in the annual count. The 'Best of' are saved and kept on the hard drive so that they are easily available. I also print a contact sheet of the 'Best of' as a visual reference. Currently this process goes back to 1990 and spans slides and digital.
Having spent many years working with film I can associate directly with the analogies between RAW files & negatives. There have been several references in this thread to the idea that RAW files can be treated as digital negatives and thus form the basis of a digital image/print.
But there is more to it than that as they are actually undeveloped negatives. They can be reprocessed with slightly different parameters to form the basis of a new negative that can be rendered as a final image. I use PS Elements and the first stage in processing a RAW file has to be done in the RAW plug-in. This is the development stage and I use it to correct exposure, white balance and the range of levels but no more to provide a workable 'negative'. It then opens in PSE and I have a full range of 'printing' controls to produce the image that I want (usually pre-visualised when I took the photo). Most images are then saved as TIFs or PSDs if I want to come back and work on layers later.
This process works well for me and for sharing on websites I convert to a smaller sized jpg. Every RAW file is saved in Hard Drives in two places and the processed current images are kept on the computer for the current year and saved on the HD.
One tradition that I retain from the days of slides and thoroughly enjoy is the annual review. This takes place between Christmas and New Year. Armed with a nice bottle of wine I spend a day going through all images taken during the year and select a 'Best of' the year. Usually about 200 images survive from several thousand in the annual count. The 'Best of' are saved and kept on the hard drive so that they are easily available. I also print a contact sheet of the 'Best of' as a visual reference. Currently this process goes back to 1990 and spans slides and digital.
Post edited at 19:34
3
In reply to The Lemming:
Work flow
My workflow
Delete obvious duffers in camera
Import into lightroom with broad keywords eg landscape, wales mountain Ogwen etc.
Go through pictures and 2 star the ones that grab me most
Have a coffee and go through them again and 3 star the best and add additional specific keywords name, route name etc. 4 star any exceptional pictures.
Do some basic editing and export some relatively low res jpegs with water marks to a file social/Facebook for sharing on ukc, Facebook, Instagram or putting on website.
export high Rez file for Alamy
Back up weekly to external hard drive and also 3* & 4* pictures to a couple of 64gb pen drives
Never get rid of the RAW file I went back to some raw pictures from 6/7 years back and redid them
Use lightroom for your catalogue the searchable features are infinitely more powerfull than any system you can set up.
It's a long learning process (another reason to save the raws)
Work flow
My workflow
Delete obvious duffers in camera
Import into lightroom with broad keywords eg landscape, wales mountain Ogwen etc.
Go through pictures and 2 star the ones that grab me most
Have a coffee and go through them again and 3 star the best and add additional specific keywords name, route name etc. 4 star any exceptional pictures.
Do some basic editing and export some relatively low res jpegs with water marks to a file social/Facebook for sharing on ukc, Facebook, Instagram or putting on website.
export high Rez file for Alamy
Back up weekly to external hard drive and also 3* & 4* pictures to a couple of 64gb pen drives
Never get rid of the RAW file I went back to some raw pictures from 6/7 years back and redid them
Use lightroom for your catalogue the searchable features are infinitely more powerfull than any system you can set up.
It's a long learning process (another reason to save the raws)
Post edited at 20:55
1
In reply to The Lemming:
In 2001 I was on a Light & Land workshop with Jo Cornish who at that time was (and still is) highly regarded for his landscape photography. He was an excellent tutor and I learnt a lot from him about attention to detail in composing images and understanding exposure.
At that time he used a 5x4 frame camera with a wide range of adjustments to get full depth of field in his images.
I asked him about the issue of getting the correct exposure and the use of bracketting. His response was that he used a hand held incident light exposure meter to set the exposure whilst applying some intuitive corrections based on experience. What surprised me was that he then took two identical images rather than bracketting. He got one of the plates developed according to a set of guidelines - again based on experience - and tried to print from that. Only if that proved difficult did he get the second plate developed using different parameters to correct for the issues he had with the print so that he could eventually get the result he wanted. He then related that it was a rarity to use the backup - a tribute to his meticulous methods.
I cannot hope to emulate such devotion to the cause - the power of even PS Elements mean that I can usually get the results I want from only one RAW image with appropriate adjustments in PSE.
In 2001 I was on a Light & Land workshop with Jo Cornish who at that time was (and still is) highly regarded for his landscape photography. He was an excellent tutor and I learnt a lot from him about attention to detail in composing images and understanding exposure.
At that time he used a 5x4 frame camera with a wide range of adjustments to get full depth of field in his images.
I asked him about the issue of getting the correct exposure and the use of bracketting. His response was that he used a hand held incident light exposure meter to set the exposure whilst applying some intuitive corrections based on experience. What surprised me was that he then took two identical images rather than bracketting. He got one of the plates developed according to a set of guidelines - again based on experience - and tried to print from that. Only if that proved difficult did he get the second plate developed using different parameters to correct for the issues he had with the print so that he could eventually get the result he wanted. He then related that it was a rarity to use the backup - a tribute to his meticulous methods.
I cannot hope to emulate such devotion to the cause - the power of even PS Elements mean that I can usually get the results I want from only one RAW image with appropriate adjustments in PSE.
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Last question, possibly, are you able to save Tags to RAW files in the same way that you can with JPEGS?
Last question, possibly, are you able to save Tags to RAW files in the same way that you can with JPEGS?
In reply to John Clinch (Ampthill):
Good point but I had moves stuff around in file manager rather than Lightroom so the catalog would have lost track. I've left the original catalog as it is and opened a new one. I can choose which catalog to open Lightroom with; the new one to organise my pics going forward and the original one to use while I sort out the old files ad migrate to the new catalog
> I can understand wanting to tidy up Lightroom
> But I can't see why you'd want to re import to do so. I'd just add key words in Lightroom. For example you might filter the catalog to show all the photos on one day or from one folder on your hard drive. Then add key words. You can move the photos to another drive without exporting and reimporting
Good point but I had moves stuff around in file manager rather than Lightroom so the catalog would have lost track. I've left the original catalog as it is and opened a new one. I can choose which catalog to open Lightroom with; the new one to organise my pics going forward and the original one to use while I sort out the old files ad migrate to the new catalog
In reply to The Lemming:
Yes, you can add 'keywords' during the import process:
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/photo-video-import-options.html
Yes, you can add 'keywords' during the import process:
https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom/help/photo-video-import-options.html
In reply to kevin stephens:
Use 'synchronise folder' - it will update all your changes,
Chris
> Good point but I had moves stuff around in file manager rather than Lightroom so the catalog would have lost track.
Use 'synchronise folder' - it will update all your changes,
Chris
In reply to Fraser:
Will those key words be attached to the RAW file or just associated on the database.
If the database died would the tags still be with the RAW file?
Will those key words be attached to the RAW file or just associated on the database.
If the database died would the tags still be with the RAW file?
In reply to The Lemming:
To be honest, I don't know but a quick google suggests the keywords sit within the catalogue in LR, they're not attached to or embedded in the RAW file. I suppose that's why you need to be sure of backing up the catalogue.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2082252
To be honest, I don't know but a quick google suggests the keywords sit within the catalogue in LR, they're not attached to or embedded in the RAW file. I suppose that's why you need to be sure of backing up the catalogue.
https://forums.adobe.com/thread/2082252
In reply to Fraser:
Thanks for the reply and as I suspected, TAGS can not be added to RAW files.
As I am tired and about to go to bed after my last of three night shifts, could somebody please confirm or advise that support for JPEG files is much improved on, than in the early days of digital photography?
I understand that a RAW file is, for want of a better description, a digital negative. However once I edit the RAW file and convert it to JPEG with no intention of further editing, is the JPEG is good enough for viewing and printing from?
I maybe could have worded all that better, but my brain is addled from lack of sleep.
Thanks for the reply and as I suspected, TAGS can not be added to RAW files.
As I am tired and about to go to bed after my last of three night shifts, could somebody please confirm or advise that support for JPEG files is much improved on, than in the early days of digital photography?
I understand that a RAW file is, for want of a better description, a digital negative. However once I edit the RAW file and convert it to JPEG with no intention of further editing, is the JPEG is good enough for viewing and printing from?
I maybe could have worded all that better, but my brain is addled from lack of sleep.
In reply to The Lemming:
IIRC You can add tags to an XMP file attached to the RAW. To add tags direct to files you need DNG...... but DNG does have disadvantages (as well as other advantages) so check it out yourself to see if it meets what your wanting to achieve. My course tutor talked about DNGs but he never uses personally.
Edit: An old article but this may help start your googling https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw .
Also, It was mentioned above but a useful source for LR Q&As is Lightroom Queen. I've have a some useful tips that's saved me a lot of hassle and time, most notably when shifting all my photos from my C drive to an external HDD. The Tutor on the LR course I did only skipped around the margins of shifting photos so I had to do some googling. The usual accepted method of shifting a photo is do within LR, but all I read online said this expect in case of mass shifting of photos.
> TAGS can not be added to RAW files
IIRC You can add tags to an XMP file attached to the RAW. To add tags direct to files you need DNG...... but DNG does have disadvantages (as well as other advantages) so check it out yourself to see if it meets what your wanting to achieve. My course tutor talked about DNGs but he never uses personally.
Edit: An old article but this may help start your googling https://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw .
Also, It was mentioned above but a useful source for LR Q&As is Lightroom Queen. I've have a some useful tips that's saved me a lot of hassle and time, most notably when shifting all my photos from my C drive to an external HDD. The Tutor on the LR course I did only skipped around the margins of shifting photos so I had to do some googling. The usual accepted method of shifting a photo is do within LR, but all I read online said this expect in case of mass shifting of photos.
Post edited at 08:58
In reply to The Lemming:
In short yes, but you could also print from Lightroom, this enables you to go back and adjust levels if you want ( moniter calibration issues etc)
JPEG is good for transferring photo files between different computers and systems
I would still keep the raw and use Lightroom keywords (these can then retain the keywords in the excif data when you convert to jpeg)
In short yes, but you could also print from Lightroom, this enables you to go back and adjust levels if you want ( moniter calibration issues etc)
JPEG is good for transferring photo files between different computers and systems
I would still keep the raw and use Lightroom keywords (these can then retain the keywords in the excif data when you convert to jpeg)
Post edited at 08:43
In reply to The Lemming:
Just step away from the jpgs, seriously, just leave them behind.
(I'm being a bit flippant, they have 'some' uses, lol).
Just step away from the jpgs, seriously, just leave them behind.
(I'm being a bit flippant, they have 'some' uses, lol).
2
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Why didn't you convert to LR a good while back instead of continuing to use PSE?
Chris Craggs was a stalwart Bridge/PSE user, now a LR convert (is that right Chris)? - how was the transition and has it improved the overall process for you Chris?
Why didn't you convert to LR a good while back instead of continuing to use PSE?
Chris Craggs was a stalwart Bridge/PSE user, now a LR convert (is that right Chris)? - how was the transition and has it improved the overall process for you Chris?
In reply to The Lemming:
If you have the space...
Import all RAWs to LR as DNGs. Then have a simple workflow, to minimize the actual editing portion.
For me the workflow is 4 or 5 steps. 1 is sorting, so I mark the absolutely horrid pics as rejects and then flag the ones I wish to proceed with. 2 is keywording (of the flagged photos), and 3 is editing. 4 is starring and or modifying EXIF data (I have some manual lenses, so editing the necessary values to EXIF is nice). And if needed 5 is publishing the best (4* or better) as JPEGs.
Even though I let Lr mostly handle with the back end, I do still put the photos on "shoot folders" (and also include the shoot info in the name). So pretty much all of the info and keywords are easily replicated on all the photos if needed (I do it every time I have the time).
Oh, and occasionally I delete the rejected pics, both from the catalog and also from the HDD.
If you have the space...
Import all RAWs to LR as DNGs. Then have a simple workflow, to minimize the actual editing portion.
For me the workflow is 4 or 5 steps. 1 is sorting, so I mark the absolutely horrid pics as rejects and then flag the ones I wish to proceed with. 2 is keywording (of the flagged photos), and 3 is editing. 4 is starring and or modifying EXIF data (I have some manual lenses, so editing the necessary values to EXIF is nice). And if needed 5 is publishing the best (4* or better) as JPEGs.
Even though I let Lr mostly handle with the back end, I do still put the photos on "shoot folders" (and also include the shoot info in the name). So pretty much all of the info and keywords are easily replicated on all the photos if needed (I do it every time I have the time).
Oh, and occasionally I delete the rejected pics, both from the catalog and also from the HDD.
In reply to ChrisJD:
I am absolutely a convert - once you get your head around the software it is so easy to use, and appears to have much more subtle control than PS.
Oddly (!) I still use Bridge and PS for shots I submit to Alamy, but just as a way of double checking them before I upload.
Chris
> Chris Craggs was a stalwart Bridge/PSE user, now a LR convert (is that right Chris)? - how was the transition and has it improved the overall process for you Chris?
I am absolutely a convert - once you get your head around the software it is so easy to use, and appears to have much more subtle control than PS.
Oddly (!) I still use Bridge and PS for shots I submit to Alamy, but just as a way of double checking them before I upload.
Chris
1
In reply to The Lemming:
If you're really sure - I went through the same thought process 10 years ago, and it took me another 3 years to convert fully to RAW.
What I'm finding is my LR and PS skills have continued to develop far beyond anything I could imagine 10 years ago.
I'm now revisiting some of my older images with the latest iteration of technique improvement. Sadly the images that are jpeg only have far less latitude for redevelopment than the RAW files, and life being what it is, the images I really want to revisit are of course jpegs. I have been delighted to see the results of a bit of solid technique applied to the old RAW images.
> However once I edit the RAW file and convert it to JPEG with no intention of further editing ....
If you're really sure - I went through the same thought process 10 years ago, and it took me another 3 years to convert fully to RAW.
What I'm finding is my LR and PS skills have continued to develop far beyond anything I could imagine 10 years ago.
I'm now revisiting some of my older images with the latest iteration of technique improvement. Sadly the images that are jpeg only have far less latitude for redevelopment than the RAW files, and life being what it is, the images I really want to revisit are of course jpegs. I have been delighted to see the results of a bit of solid technique applied to the old RAW images.
2
In reply to The Lemming:
re tags etc being added to the RAW file... there is a (perhaps justified) paranoia regarding changing the actual RAW file may lead to the file becoming corrupted. So everything you do in lightroom to a raw file explicitly does not change the raw file itself (with the exception of renaming it, which doesn't touch the contents of the file)
as someone else already said, anything you change is saved as a setting for that file in the catalogue and is applied to the preview file when you open the image. this is why for example you can create a new virtual copy of the image and apply a second set of changes to it
i keep my good raws and delete the obvious rubbish
re tags etc being added to the RAW file... there is a (perhaps justified) paranoia regarding changing the actual RAW file may lead to the file becoming corrupted. So everything you do in lightroom to a raw file explicitly does not change the raw file itself (with the exception of renaming it, which doesn't touch the contents of the file)
as someone else already said, anything you change is saved as a setting for that file in the catalogue and is applied to the preview file when you open the image. this is why for example you can create a new virtual copy of the image and apply a second set of changes to it
i keep my good raws and delete the obvious rubbish
1
In reply to HeMa:
I'm struggling to understand the need to convert RAWs to DNG.
The biggest time saver is applying a baseline Develop Preset and Rename Preset on RAW Import.
> Import all RAWs to LR as DNGs. Then have a simple workflow, to minimize the actual editing portion.
I'm struggling to understand the need to convert RAWs to DNG.
The biggest time saver is applying a baseline Develop Preset and Rename Preset on RAW Import.
In reply to telemark:
And the software improves (as well as your ability). I can get better photos out of shots I took as RAWs 10 years ago than I could at the time thanks to better software (highlight rescue, etc). The jpegs from that period, by contrast, can't be improved upon because you've thrown the three channel (RGB) information away.
> I'm now revisiting some of my older images with the latest iteration of technique improvement. Sadly the images that are jpeg only have far less latitude for redevelopment than the RAW files, and life being what it is, the images I really want to revisit are of course jpegs.
And the software improves (as well as your ability). I can get better photos out of shots I took as RAWs 10 years ago than I could at the time thanks to better software (highlight rescue, etc). The jpegs from that period, by contrast, can't be improved upon because you've thrown the three channel (RGB) information away.
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
DNG is a generic RAW format... not camera specific.
So more useful in the future...
Yes, as mentioned I do some keywording (for workflow) and renaming on the import. And sometimes develop presets... my problem is how ever, that I use numerous different cameras and worse camera+lens combos, I haven't put too much effort on the presets... Easier, if you only have camera...
> I'm struggling to understand the need to convert RAWs to DNG.
DNG is a generic RAW format... not camera specific.
So more useful in the future...
> The biggest time saver is applying a baseline Develop Preset and Rename Preset on RAW Import.
Yes, as mentioned I do some keywording (for workflow) and renaming on the import. And sometimes develop presets... my problem is how ever, that I use numerous different cameras and worse camera+lens combos, I haven't put too much effort on the presets... Easier, if you only have camera...
In reply to HeMa:
? It's very easy even with different cameras (I'm using five at the moment) - I have a range of basic Presets, just select the right one on Import from the card.
They evolve over time V1, V2, V3 as I learn about developing the images from each camera.
> Yes, as mentioned I do some keywording (for workflow) and renaming on the import. And sometimes develop presets... my problem is how ever, that I use numerous different cameras and worse camera+lens combos, I haven't put too much effort on the presets... Easier, if you only have camera...
? It's very easy even with different cameras (I'm using five at the moment) - I have a range of basic Presets, just select the right one on Import from the card.
They evolve over time V1, V2, V3 as I learn about developing the images from each camera.
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
Making templates is not too bad, neither is selecting... I've done it in the past as well. But thus far I haven't put enough effort to make camera (or camera + lens combo) templates... and thus far, my generic template works well enough (as I'm not refined enough).
> ? It's very easy even with different cameras (I'm using five at the moment) - I have a range of basic Presets, just select the right one on Import from the card.
Making templates is not too bad, neither is selecting... I've done it in the past as well. But thus far I haven't put enough effort to make camera (or camera + lens combo) templates... and thus far, my generic template works well enough (as I'm not refined enough).
1
In reply to ChrisJD:
Photography has always been a hobby rather than my business and when I first began digital processing of slides I could not justify the cost of Photoshop at ca £500. I bought a second hand copy of PS6 for £10 and learnt how to use it (It has channels so I still sometimes use it for toning).
When I bought a digital camera I splashed out on the then current PSE (Version 7 at £59 I think) and that is when I switched to RAW files. With low volumes my workflow is fine - I upload using the Nikon ViewNX2 package which allows me to see all my pictures and then I open in PSE using the RAW plugin. I paid for an upgrade to 13 when it was on offer for £25 recently so that it could open the latest version of Adobe RAW as it supported my current camera Nikon D7100.
I suppose I am an advocate of the 'if ain't broke - don't fix it' principle and with time available to spend on processing my system is fine. I did discover the Automated process area of PSE that allows me to batch some processes like reducing size & renaming.
I see that Ps & Lr are now available for only £8.57 per month - if this had been the case when I started I would have been tempted.
A recent innovation has been to download the NIK Collection of tools from Google - a plugin that provides lots of preset filters & process controls to play with.
Photography has always been a hobby rather than my business and when I first began digital processing of slides I could not justify the cost of Photoshop at ca £500. I bought a second hand copy of PS6 for £10 and learnt how to use it (It has channels so I still sometimes use it for toning).
When I bought a digital camera I splashed out on the then current PSE (Version 7 at £59 I think) and that is when I switched to RAW files. With low volumes my workflow is fine - I upload using the Nikon ViewNX2 package which allows me to see all my pictures and then I open in PSE using the RAW plugin. I paid for an upgrade to 13 when it was on offer for £25 recently so that it could open the latest version of Adobe RAW as it supported my current camera Nikon D7100.
I suppose I am an advocate of the 'if ain't broke - don't fix it' principle and with time available to spend on processing my system is fine. I did discover the Automated process area of PSE that allows me to batch some processes like reducing size & renaming.
I see that Ps & Lr are now available for only £8.57 per month - if this had been the case when I started I would have been tempted.
A recent innovation has been to download the NIK Collection of tools from Google - a plugin that provides lots of preset filters & process controls to play with.
Post edited at 13:50
1
In reply to The Lemming:
Could somebody please suggest a book or a link to YouTube on the basics of working with Lightroom?
I will admit that some of the terminology has gone way over my head, and is probably the reason for my reluctance. An example would be presets and using them during the import process.
I have actually learned quite a lot so far and appreciate everybody's advice and guidance on how to approach and deal with RAW files.
Could somebody please suggest a book or a link to YouTube on the basics of working with Lightroom?
I will admit that some of the terminology has gone way over my head, and is probably the reason for my reluctance. An example would be presets and using them during the import process.
I have actually learned quite a lot so far and appreciate everybody's advice and guidance on how to approach and deal with RAW files.
Post edited at 13:49
In reply to keith-ratcliffe:
Some of these are fun - can access from LR as well, with edit imported in.
> A recent innovation has been to download the NIK Collection of tools from Google - a plugin that provides lots of preset filters & process controls to play with.
Some of these are fun - can access from LR as well, with edit imported in.
In reply to The Lemming:
This will definitely not be everyone's cup of tea and you have to pay for access to videos (GASP HORROR), but it is definitive:
http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/guide-to-lightroom-4-introduction-adva...
http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/adobe-lightroomcc6-2015/
This will definitely not be everyone's cup of tea and you have to pay for access to videos (GASP HORROR), but it is definitive:
http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/guide-to-lightroom-4-introduction-adva...
http://luminous-landscape.com/videos/adobe-lightroomcc6-2015/
1
In reply to The Lemming:
See Chris JD...i love lightroom superb for collections colour coding flagging keywording etc
See Chris JD...i love lightroom superb for collections colour coding flagging keywording etc
In reply to The Lemming:
I've learnt a lot from Anthony Morganti and Photos in Colour both on YouTube.
I've learnt a lot from Anthony Morganti and Photos in Colour both on YouTube.
In reply to HeMa:
Don't suppose you know if tag information can be seen to DGN files?
I would be more inclined to save DNG than RAW files as I can see the advantage and benefits of DNG files.
> DNG is a generic RAW format... not camera specific.
Don't suppose you know if tag information can be seen to DGN files?
I would be more inclined to save DNG than RAW files as I can see the advantage and benefits of DNG files.
In reply to mikedelderfield:
Seconded about the Morganti tutorials; he has a very clear, concise delivery and knows his stuff.
> I've learnt a lot from Anthony Morganti and Photos in Colour both on YouTube.
Seconded about the Morganti tutorials; he has a very clear, concise delivery and knows his stuff.
In reply to The Lemming:
I've been using PS since Version 2 circa 1992 so even when I was given a free copy of Lr, you use what you know. The early versions of Lr had to Layers so no real incentive to change either. I currently use Photoshop CS but with the addition of the free NIX software available from Google. The B&W conversion tool is brilliant and is now my 'goto' method for all B&W processing.
I shoot exclusively in RAW and usually convert to Tiff (while still keeping the original RAW file as no matter how much I manipulate the Tiff image I can always return to my original file). Any images posted on the internet are converted to J-pegs, but if I order prints I forward Tiff files through the post.
The other very important detail is to save Tiff files as 16 bit images, so that further conversion does not degrade the Tiff. This can be a problem with 'Stitches' and B&W conversion when banding can be evident. The RAW file is actually initially recorded as a 14 bit file in camera.
An 8 bit conversion:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IvF4Lq8XGHQ/V2GlgLyHy7I/AAAAAAAACBU/xCGrnJI32ukD...
A 16 bit conversion:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iWnEoAtR_EA/V2MQ7bCrOAI/AAAAAAAACBs/6EcV-24Qp8sr...
On no account ever delete the original RAW files as these are literally your negatives. I hope this helps.
I've been using PS since Version 2 circa 1992 so even when I was given a free copy of Lr, you use what you know. The early versions of Lr had to Layers so no real incentive to change either. I currently use Photoshop CS but with the addition of the free NIX software available from Google. The B&W conversion tool is brilliant and is now my 'goto' method for all B&W processing.
I shoot exclusively in RAW and usually convert to Tiff (while still keeping the original RAW file as no matter how much I manipulate the Tiff image I can always return to my original file). Any images posted on the internet are converted to J-pegs, but if I order prints I forward Tiff files through the post.
The other very important detail is to save Tiff files as 16 bit images, so that further conversion does not degrade the Tiff. This can be a problem with 'Stitches' and B&W conversion when banding can be evident. The RAW file is actually initially recorded as a 14 bit file in camera.
An 8 bit conversion:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-IvF4Lq8XGHQ/V2GlgLyHy7I/AAAAAAAACBU/xCGrnJI32ukD...
A 16 bit conversion:
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iWnEoAtR_EA/V2MQ7bCrOAI/AAAAAAAACBs/6EcV-24Qp8sr...
On no account ever delete the original RAW files as these are literally your negatives. I hope this helps.
Post edited at 19:45
1
In reply to The Lemming:
What tag information? You mean keywords as in Lightroom keywords. The keywords actually reside in the LR database, but on export they can be included, just like with other formats.
> Don't suppose you know if tag information can be seen to DGN files?
What tag information? You mean keywords as in Lightroom keywords. The keywords actually reside in the LR database, but on export they can be included, just like with other formats.
In reply to Sean Kelly:
The LR panorama merge function (now with Boundary Warp in LR-CC) is pretty damn cool and creates stitched RAW files (.DNG)!
> The other very important detail is to save Tiff files as 16 bit images, so that further conversion does not degrade the Tiff. This can be a problem with 'Stitches' and B&W conversion when banding can be evident. The RAW file is actually initially recorded as a 14 bit file in camera.
The LR panorama merge function (now with Boundary Warp in LR-CC) is pretty damn cool and creates stitched RAW files (.DNG)!
Post edited at 19:52
In reply to HeMa:
Yes, keywords.
Over the years, I have saved keywords to all my JPEG photos. And I would like to keep this habit with all my future photos.
Obviously, from this discussion, I do not fully know or utilise Lightroom's catalogue features. Add to that some stories on these forums of catalogues being deleted or becoming corrupt, I want to find options where I can add keywords to the actual image files and not be reliant on the integrity of a catalogue that may become useless in a decade with future software advances.
My thinking or practices may not be the current best practice, but I want as much as possible to be included in the image files.
I'm hoping DNG will allow me to do this.
> What tag information? You mean keywords as in Lightroom keywords.
Yes, keywords.
Over the years, I have saved keywords to all my JPEG photos. And I would like to keep this habit with all my future photos.
Obviously, from this discussion, I do not fully know or utilise Lightroom's catalogue features. Add to that some stories on these forums of catalogues being deleted or becoming corrupt, I want to find options where I can add keywords to the actual image files and not be reliant on the integrity of a catalogue that may become useless in a decade with future software advances.
My thinking or practices may not be the current best practice, but I want as much as possible to be included in the image files.
I'm hoping DNG will allow me to do this.
In reply to The Lemming:
My workflow. I convert them to DNC and keep them in light room. (I was told that DNC is a better long term bet as a standard than some company's proprietary RAW format. ) HD storage cost nothing now. Sometimes I go back to my images and re-edit. Plus separate folders for any JPEG exports. I agree that keeping in sync is hard. But I could be wrong.
My workflow. I convert them to DNC and keep them in light room. (I was told that DNC is a better long term bet as a standard than some company's proprietary RAW format. ) HD storage cost nothing now. Sometimes I go back to my images and re-edit. Plus separate folders for any JPEG exports. I agree that keeping in sync is hard. But I could be wrong.
In reply to The Lemming:
Yes, keywords are stored in the DNG ...
The catalog is really powerful, but 'cause it's a database file(s), it can indeed get corrupted or deleted. So understanding where the LR catalog resides is important and keep it backed up.
Lots of info on DNGs here.
https://petapixel.com/2015/12/08/dng-the-pros-cons-and-myths-of-the-adobe-r...
And the whitepaper of DNGs.
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng...
> Yes, keywords.
> Over the years, I have saved keywords to all my JPEG photos. And I would like to keep this habit with all my future photos.
Yes, keywords are stored in the DNG ...
> Obviously, from this discussion, I do not fully know or utilise Lightroom's catalogue features. Add to that some stories on these forums of catalogues being deleted or becoming corrupt, I want to find options where I can add keywords to the actual image files and not be reliant on the integrity of a catalogue that may become useless in a decade with future software advances.
The catalog is really powerful, but 'cause it's a database file(s), it can indeed get corrupted or deleted. So understanding where the LR catalog resides is important and keep it backed up.
Lots of info on DNGs here.
https://petapixel.com/2015/12/08/dng-the-pros-cons-and-myths-of-the-adobe-r...
And the whitepaper of DNGs.
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/dng...
In reply to The Lemming:
Well, who'd have thought that I would have learned loads from this subject.
Not only have I discovered about DNG files, I have also discovered the world of presets when importing RAW files to Lightroom.
many of you Lightroom Jedi will have known about this feature and how much of a revelation it is but for a bleb like me, its phenomenal.
Well, who'd have thought that I would have learned loads from this subject.
Not only have I discovered about DNG files, I have also discovered the world of presets when importing RAW files to Lightroom.
many of you Lightroom Jedi will have known about this feature and how much of a revelation it is but for a bleb like me, its phenomenal.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...