Which Raw Workflow?

[Guest malland]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Before I saw this thread I started the following one, which brings SLIKYPIX into play:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/12891-d-lux-3-gr-d-raw.html

 

SILKYPIX has the most extensive adustments — although I don't know C1 — but has very good and useful default settings.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I am very gratified to hear that several individuals found my C-1 work flow guidance useful. I guess I saw the need because I read several posts from people who said they couldn't understand C-1 or found it confusing.

 

I really am not sure where any of this software is going in the future. I am sure there will always be better ways to do conversions, and file management. While there probably are several ways to accomplish our needs to our satisfaction, I've been using computers for more than 20 years and I don't hold much any hope for a single ideal software solution for image capture, conversions, manipulation and asset management.

 

And unless you have the time to try out various solutions, you probably will end up like me, just finding ways that work for you and keep you in a comfort zone. For instance, I have invested a lot of time learning C-1 and DxO, and I'm very happy with my results. So I have no desire to look for anything "better." I need to be in the high production "using" mode and rarely have time for the "learning mode." This is the reason I've switched my database from Cumulus (which stopped supporting new camera formats) to ACDSee. I was already very familiar with it having used it for several years. There might very well be other solutions that are better. But ACDSee works for me and I hope they will be around a while so I don't have to switch to something else again. And there might be very viable alternatives to C-1 and DxO but until I see really compelling reasons to use them, I can't spend the time to investigate them.

 

I am going to make an analogy to my old film days. When I was a kid, I shot mostly Tri-X and used D-76. I really wasn't interested in spending a lot of time testing Accufine, Diafine or whatever. I just wanted a reliable way to take and develop pictures. Now my primary goal is to hit my quality requirements and then set up a system that I can use over and over again without much thinking. I have to turn out small to large jobs several times a week and once I have something working, it is hard to want to change. So once my methodology is automatic, I can't disrupt it too much. I started checking out DxO when they launched their first product several years ago. But It took me until this past November when I really got a good demonstration of it at the PhotoPlus show, to really investigate it and see that the product was mature and useful enough for me to spend the time (several hundred hours since then) to master it and fully incorporate it in my work.

 

Yes I said several hundred hours. I think it took me more than three months of using C-1 before I even had a handle on all it could do and had a bulletproof workflow. And maybe a year of extensive use before I really felt I was totally competant. And I have a very strong background in photography, color printing, and scanning. So don't expect to just be able to start up these programs and really get to understand them and get the most out of them in just a few sessions.

 

Commercial photographers now have to not only do the traditional job of the photographer, but also some of the work that once was performed by very specialized highly trained individuals such as pre-press operators, color printers, IT professionals, archivists, graphic designers, etc. There's only so much time in a day...

 

Well said Alan and agree completely. Digital is a lot of work, plain and simple.

[wparsonsgisnet]

Guy, thanks for the quick summary. I'm trying to do all this and liking what I see. As Alan says, "practice, practice, practice."

 

I keep telling myself how lucky we are that we're working on these spectacular images from the M8 and magical M-lenses.

[jlm]

a small C1 question or two, using the workflow of Alan: at what point can you discard the preview files that build up?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I did not read Alans whole post since it sounded like mine but on a PC you can setup to delete the previews after a day or immediately upon closing I believe . It's in the preference tab on a PC and that is adjustable. I usually did it manually but remember also they can be stored off to a different drive also so your main hard drive does not take a storage hit. When i was on a PC i had a seperate partition just for these files in a folder on a different drive. Mac's are different and they are setup to go along inside your orginal folder, although you can change that but I like keeping them with the Raws

[AlanG]

To add to Guy's post, C-1 can be set to delete preview files after a certain amount of time. But keep in mind that this will not delete the preview files of any project that is currently open in C-1. (Has an open project associated to them.)

 

In my example, once I have moved my images to the "Best ABC" folder, I close the "ABC Images" project folder when I no longer am using it. So after a little while, the Previews for the "ABC Images" folder will get deleted automatically. by the way, it isn't that big a deal to open the file again and have it make new previews. (Unless you have more than several hundred of images in it.)

 

In my example, I keep and archive the RAW files that have been moved to the "Best ABC" folder but I eventually also delete the original Raw files from the "ABC Images" folder when I am sure that I won't need them any more. (I only keep the best images from any job or personal project.) So anything that isn't in a "Best" sub-folder is likely to be deleted after a couple of months. This keeps me focused on what is good.

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Alan

Yes I said several hundred hours. I think it took me more than three months of using C-1 before I even had a handle on all it could do and had a bulletproof workflow. And maybe a year of extensive use before I really felt I was totally competant. And I have a very strong background in photography, color printing, and scanning. So don't expect to just be able to start up these programs and really get to understand them and get the most out of them in just a few sessions.

 

It makes me laugh when people complain about the cost of these programs - the cost is learning how to use them, and how to get the best out of them, the price on the box pales into insignificance in comparison.

 

I can also completely understand why you aren't going to spend time exploring different workflow solutions when you already have one which works.

[AlanG]

Hi Jono,

 

I just remembered something else about your suggestion to keep my raw images on-line and output them as needed. I retouch many of my photos in one way or another, so I have to work on converted files and archive them. It has been very rare for me to ever go back to the raw files. I may do that with some of my old favorites if I think I could really improve a picture by converting it in DxO.

[Jamie Roberts]

Before I saw this thread I started the following one, which brings SLIKYPIX into play:

 

http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/12891-d-lux-3-gr-d-raw.html

 

SILKYPIX has the most extensive adustments — although I don't know C1 — but has very good and useful default settings.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

Flickr: Photos from Mitch Alland

 

SilkyPix is interesting, and is the fastest converter for DNGs (the DMR too!)... but--and these are deal-killers for me:

 

1) it doesn't allow custom profiles as input

2) it doesn't allow a wide range of profiles as output

 

Not to mention the fact that they really, really, really need to hire someone with a good grasp of Western languages and GUI standards They really do. It took me a day or two to figure out what a "cloakroom" was (it's where you hang up your RAW specifications Not kidding).

[jonoslack]

Hi Jono,

 

I just remembered something else about your suggestion to keep my raw images on-line and output them as needed. I retouch many of my photos in one way or another, so I have to work on converted files and archive them. It has been very rare for me to ever go back to the raw files. I may do that with some of my old favorites if I think I could really improve a picture by converting it in DxO.

 

Hi Alan

That really is where aperture comes into it's own - you have different versions of files visible at all times (whether online or not) . Creating a new version and then modifying it in Photoshop is a real snap, and then you can revert to the original whenever.

 

I have lots of files where there will be an original, a processed version, a B&W version - previously that would have meant at least 6 files (including web versions), nowadays it's only one.

 

You can convince me that you have a workflow which works well enough for it not to be worth looking at other software, but I don't think you'll convince me that these new programs are not better - certainly you won't without spending all the hours needed to learn them, and their benefits, properly!

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

That really is where aperture comes into it's own - you have different versions of files visible at all times (whether online or not) . Creating a new version and then modifying it in Photoshop is a real snap, and then you can revert to the original whenever.

 

 

ACDSee lets me see thunbnails of all on-line and off-line images at all times.

 

My point about retouching is that I shoot raw, output a tiff and then retouch that tif. If I need jpegs or lower resolution files, they will be produced from the retouched tiff. I really can't go back to the raw file if I've done extensive retouching to the photo.

 

Another point. I've been a big booster of DxO here. But today I had to convert some photos of people. Amost all of my other work with DxO was with architectural or commercial subjects. Despite my fairly extensive recent experience with DxO, I couldn't easily get the people looking good. Even if I got good skin tones DxO accentuated the freckles and other facial "defects." Now I bet that with some more experimenting, I could get these pictures to look good in DxO, but I had to get the job out the door so I used C-1 and they look great.

[jonoslack]

ACDSee lets me see thunbnails of all on-line and off-line images at all times.

 

My point about retouching is that I shoot raw, output a tiff and then retouch that tif. If I need jpegs or lower resolution files, they will be produced from the retouched tiff. I really can't go back to the raw file if I've done extensive retouching to the photo.

 

Another point. I've been a big booster of DxO here. But today I had to convert some photos of people. Amost all of my other work with DxO was with architectural or commercial subjects. Despite my fairly extensive recent experience with DxO, I couldn't easily get the people looking good. Even if I got good skin tones DxO accentuated the freckles and other facial "defects." Now I bet that with some more experimenting, I could get these pictures to look good in DxO, but I had to get the job out the door so I used C-1 and they look great.

 

In aperture, you would click on 'new version from master', and it would open an 8 or 16 bit tiff in your core editor (whatever you chose, for instance photoshop / Dxo or both) make mods, and then save, and you would see both versions in aperture - and, yes, it would be two files, the RAW original and the TIFF - you could then make multiple versions of the tiff for different functions, they would NOT be new files. If you don't need to do external retouching, then you have a large number of options in Aperture which you can apply to a raw file - making new versions as necessary, without any hit in terms of storage. ACDSee doesn't do this.

 

I revert to my previous point - you can decide that it isn't worth your while (time and therefore money) investigating, but you aren't going to persuade me that it doesn't create a better workflow. The example you've given is a perfect example of where Aperture shines.

[AlanG]

I revert to my previous point - you can decide that it isn't worth your while (time and therefore money) investigating, but you aren't going to persuade me that it doesn't create a better workflow. The example you've given is a perfect example of where Aperture shines.

 

That's fine with me. I'm not trying to persuade anyone as to what is the better workflow. I have no illusions that I am doing anything special. But I also don't spend much time wondering if there are better ways, better software, better cameras, better lenses, unless I really have a problem and see the need. Each has to find his/her own way.

 

My needs are basic and my system is simple. I don't save many versions of any photo. As, I retouch most photos, the one retouched tiff file becomes my master. An unretouched version of the same image is rarely useful to me. I only save the raw files for emergencies and unusual situations.

 

Once I have the retouched hi res tif, I don't usually need to create many versions - I keep a hi res jpeg on line of each image, and I often send low res jpegs to clients. (But I don't keep the low res jpegs for very long after I submit them to the client.) If I want to email a picture to a client or post it on-line, I will use the hi res jpeg even if I have to scale it down.

 

I certainly don't want to ever have to retouch a photo twice.

[jonoslack]

Hi Alan

I have a nice simple Chilean Merlot here - will you join me in a glass?

 

Have a great evening either way - I think we've got to a civilised end to this discussion!

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

I have a nice simple Chilean Merlot here - will you join me in a glass?

 

Have a great evening either way - I think we've got to a civilised end to this discussion!

 

I will join you in a glass. I quite like Merlot and surely have some at home. I generally remove the cork, let it breath a while, pour some into a glass and then drink it. Is that your work flow too?

[jonoslack]

I will join you in a glass. I quite like Merlot and surely have some at home. I generally remove the cork, let it breath a while, pour some into a glass and then drink it. Is that your work flow too?

 

Hi Alan

LOL - well, usually, but sometimes I'm in a hurry, and the breathing time is a little short! Sometimes they have screw tops as well (like this one), and I've found corkscrews not to work terribly well.

[chrism]

Perhaps I'm being dumb, but is the option to delete the Settings folder available in the Mac version of C1 Pro? - I can't find it. I tried setting the number of batches remembered to only one, but it doesn't delete the previews in the settings folder of previous jobs.

 

Chris