Which Raw Workflow?

[AlanG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But why would you want to save Tiffs and jpgs when you can recreate them from the originals faster than you can find your archived files on DVD's in that cupboard in the corner? The whole point of the way these programs work is that there is no conversion until you need to send it to the client, and that you can store a number of different versions (with different names) without the necessity if increasing storage space to accomodate it.

 

 

My office is a little more evolved than the cupboard in the corner. If I have to deliver a CD or even a DVD with up to several hundred files on it, It will be much faster to copy the tiffs from a DVD than to convert all of those files again. (Even if the Raw files were on-line and organized.)

 

I don't store many of my raw files on-line for very long after the job is delivered. (Perhaps just the occassional raw files that I think are special and good enough for my own use.) Otherwise, this would take a lot of on-line hard disk space. Actually, it is not that often that I have to provide files once a project has been completed. I usually end up with raw and hi res tiffs stored together off line while hi-res jpegs are stored on-line. All of this is organized in Cumulus and now in ACDSee. Should a client need a print or a file to be emailed somewhere, it only takes a few seconds to call up the jpeg. If I need the tiff or raw, it takes less than 30 seconds to call it up and pull out the DVD. The DVDs are filed by date and disk number and this file location shows up when I click on any thumbnail in Cumulus or in ACDSee. The images are indexed by client, project, and subject name. (e.g. Folder - Centex Homes,sub folder - Glen Riddle community, file Cen GR Triple Crown model #2 kitchen.) So it is pretty easy to find the images that the client wants as they usually will give the file name which in this case will be: Cen GR Triple Crown #2 kitchen. I label them this way as I shoot them in C-1 or import them so my system is organized almost from the press of the shutter.

 

If a client calls up and needs a replacement disk (as happened today for a job I shot last July) it is pretty easy to load the DVD and just drag that tiff project folder to a new CD for the client. I certainly would hate to have to open each file and do anything to them. Plus this way I know they will be exactly the same as what I originally delivered.

 

But I don't claim my system is perfect. It has evolved over time and works for me.

 

If I were starting out fresh, I might consider another method.

[ustein]

>I think the main point is that there is a new paradigm for dealing with RAW files - i.e not converting them at all. Lightroom and Aperture do this, and having spent a year using both, I find going back to a legacy program like C1 or even Lightzone to be a really dispiriting experience.

 

In the end nearly all images for print need selective editing. You either use a RAW converter of your choice with final touches in Photoshop or you can often do it all (non destructive) in LightZone.

 

Here is what I think of RAW converters in 2 years:

 

If they don't support selective editing (like LightZone and even Nikon Capture NX do) they won't be very successful in the market. I guess Aperture and Lightroom will add selective editing in future versions (rather sooner than later).

 

Listen to this podcast:

 

PhotoshopNews: Photoshop News and Information » Archive » Lightroom Podcast #24: Thomas Knoll, Mark Hamburg, and Zalman Stern

 

Uwe

[jonoslack]

Hi Alan

My office is a little more evolved than the cupboard in the corner. .

Of course - and so was mine, I was being jokey. Of course, we have different requirements, Although some of my work is for specific clients, a lot of it is finding images from my entire library, and it makes sense to have as much of it on line as possible.

 

But I don't claim my system is perfect. It has evolved over time and works for me.

 

If I were starting out fresh, I might consider another method.

 

I would have thought that the point you were changing over from Cumulus to ACDSee was the time to have a look at these new programs - you might be surprised!

[jonoslack]

>

 

In the end nearly all images for print need selective editing. You either use a RAW converter of your choice with final touches in Photoshop or you can often do it all (non destructive) in LightZone.

 

Here is what I think of RAW converters in 2 years:

 

If they don't support selective editing (like LightZone and even Nikon Capture NX do) they won't be very successful in the market. I guess Aperture and Lightroom will add selective editing in future versions (rather sooner than later).

 

Hi Uwe - happy new year, and thanks for chipping in. Many thanks for all your excellent work.

 

Aperture already supports some selective editing (pretty rudimentary, but there will certainly be more) Lightroom will support it in version 5.

 

I haven't given Lightzone enough attention, but I found it very slow on my MacBook Pro. More to the point though is that whilst I quite agree with you that RAW programs must do selective editing - I also think that they must do:

1. versions

2. catalogueing (on, and offline)

 

As I understand it Lightzone doesn't do either of these. (Please correct me if I'm wrong)

 

I firmly believe that the whole paradigm of making changes , then exporting or batching to another file is on the way out.

[rjgleason]

Hello Everyone....I am new to the forum, having just purchased the Digilux 3......I've been through several RAW converters from C1, ACR etc. and for the past few months I have used Bibble Pro exclusively. As of Dec 25, they have upgraded their PRo version to include Leica. The link, if interested is here:

 

Bibble Labs - Professional Photo Workflow Software

 

There is a trial version available and the support has always been great.

[robsteve]

I just tried Lightzone again. It is still pretty slow and almost unusable. I have a fast machine with lots of memory. It has 4gb of memory and is a dual processor hyper-thread Xeon. While it is balzing fast with Photoshop, it may just not be the ideal machine for Lightzone.

[ustein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

>just not be the ideal machine for Lightzone.

 

What are your memory settings? Don't give LightZone too much memory. 800 MB should be fine.

 

Actually don't get fooled by some speed differences between PS and Lightzone. Even if the operations in Photoshop are faster you will lose this time by the modal manner of its workflow. I use since now over 3 months Lightzone most of the time and think overall I save time.

 

 

Also get used to LightZone templates. This does not mean that Lightzone is as fast as I wish.

 

Uwe

[bnelson]

Alan...

 

Thanks a bunch for the C1 workflow. That helped me as I try and get a handle on the program.

 

 

Bill

[gurtch]

Man, Allan you are a life saver. I made a later post "First M8 Image", and complained that C1 was not pleasant to use. Thanks for the great post. I printed it out, and am saving for future reference.

Dave Gurtcheff

Beach Haven, NJ

[wparsonsgisnet]

OK, I'm a C1 newby, and I like the way it works with the raw images. I like fixing the white balance first and then working on exposure. I do prefer the way ACR separates exposure and brightness, but maybe I haven't figured this out in C1, yet. I also like the focus thing. I would never have imagined that focus could be optimized (if this is what is happening) with an existing image. But, WB first is very appealing to me!

 

That said, I am trying to figure out how to make my workflow easier. For EVERY digineg, I am doing (1) crop, (2) WB, (3) exposure, (4) focus, (5) Add to workflow list. This gives me a tiff (in my case) in the ....\Images\ directory (I am in windoze).

 

Then, I have to run Neat Image against the tiff file. Then I have to save the "cleaned up" tiff and make a jpg, if necessary.

 

After figuring out that everything was going to a directory I wasn't expecting, I changed my workflow so that Neat Image and PSCS2-Save for Web also use the same directory.

 

I don't know how to automate the cropping, WB, and focus parts. For studio shots, of course, the WB part can be automated, but I'm shooting stage shots a lot of the time.

 

I am working on how to automate the downstream part (noise reduction, saving, and maybe jpeg's).

 

So far, I like C1. I just wish there were more useful documenation. You know, like Fraser's "Real World Camera RAW."

 

Also, the damn day job keeps getting in the way.

 

I will be doing my first studio shoot on the 21st and will post some images. With the light controlled, the workflow may get easier. Also, as I'll be composing each shot, cropping may not be required (unless I get really stupid, as usual).

 

I do my own file uploading, and backup, as a first task -- outside of image processing. I keep 3 copies of my digital negs -- 2 online, one off-site. So, I upload, review the jpg's and discard, then backup (twice) before reformating the SD card(s). Following that, I start my image workflow. This happens to fit well with my age (OLD DOS users are used to this kind of pain in the neck) and level of paranoia (I like to see 3 copies of my stuff -- very clearly saved on multiple surfaces -- and verified). I rarely use CD's or DVD's for archiving -- what a lousy medium! One scratch and you're SOL! I do, however, utilize this type of media when I create a CD or DVD for a client, making myself a copy of the same thing that was sent out. I agree that that one is a no-brainer.

 

ALSO, the M8 RULES!

 

Allan, thanks for posting your workflow. I'm going to check it out.

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bill say you have 100 images in the folder and there are 20 of them thatyou want to do exactly the same things too, WB ,crop etc. etc. . What you do is hope i got this right I'm back on a Mac but select those images i think hold the command key than i believe there is a little icon on the very top right that you can apply all those settings to, than it will ask you to check what you want to apply too. pretty easy but i take it a step further I select ALL images and make that adjustment except crop than as i go along and say the light changes i WB again in that new light than select all and keep adding to batch. i do this all the way through the folder and make All changes and keep adding to the batch. remember these are Raw so doing that all you are doing is just setting up processing parameters and not affecting the raw. Asyou learn this is really becomes a breeze to work with. but try that technique and the darn buttons , i forget were stuff is on the PC side

[woodyspedden]

I do not hold myself out as an authority on all the various RAW programs. It has been very time consuming just to carefully compare three. (C-1, DxO, and DPP) I only tried to explain how one should use C-1 as that was the question. I am not saying that this is the only way or the best way to have a good work flow. I am only saying that it works for me and tried to explain what I liked about it.

 

I am glad that Lightroom works for you. I think the example I posted should give some idea of why I like DxO so much. And C-1 has a new version coming out soon, so there are a number of choices.

 

I have to supply all of my files to clients as jpegs and tiffs, so they have to be converted and stored. Of course with any of these programs, I could just keep the raw files with the recipes for conversions without actually outputting the tiffs and jpegs until needed too. But once I convert a file for a client, I am going to save it so that I won't have to convert it again if they or someone else needs the file.

 

There are a number of different ways one can go with the whole concept of Digital Asset Management. A colleague of mine has written a good book on the subject: (However I started my system long before Peter wrote this book.) It might be worth a read before anyone plans a system for handling a lot of images well into the future.

 

The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers

 

I do not believe that Lightroom or Aperture lets one shoot tethered or does it?

Alan

 

I recently attended the Digital Printing Summit in Page Az and one of the sponsors was Phase One and one of the attendees was Kevin Raber, VP Marketing from Phase One. He gave us a (very) summary look at Version 4.0 which I personally believe will revolutionize the RAW process. Why...........it is a complete rewrite of C1 and allows for open source code. This is to encourage third party developers to write "plug ins" much as was done with Photoshop. There is no way that any of the smaller Raw development companies can provide the resources necessary to do all that we want. Just look at this thread alone to see how much capability we want! I understand that one of the first "plug-ins" will be a Phase One developed lens correction module. This is due to the high number of complaints from people who liked the color accuracy of C1 but needed to correct distortions, CA and the like. So I suspect that over a period of a few years C1, or whatever they choose to call the new product, will become the industry standard for Raw conversion.

 

Interesting times ahead

 

Woody Spedden

Fort Collins, CO

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I want it today though. This grasshopper has no patience. LOL

[ustein]

>I recently attended the Digital Printing Summit in Page Az and one of the sponsors was Phase One and one of the attendees was Kevin Raber, VP Marketing from Phase One. He gave us a (very) summary look at Version 4.0 which I personally believe will revolutionize the RAW process. Why...........it is a complete rewrite of C1 and allows for open source code.

 

Woody, don't forget Kevin is also in marketing :-).

 

>I personally believe will revolutionize the RAW process.

 

I would be surprised, but wonders happen :-). Get me right, I think C1 is a very good raw converter and revolutionize the RAW process in 2002. Not sure they can do it again.

 

Uwe

[pat308]

I just tried Lightzone again. It is still pretty slow and almost unusable. I have a fast machine with lots of memory. It has 4gb of memory and is a dual processor hyper-thread Xeon. While it is balzing fast with Photoshop, it may just not be the ideal machine for Lightzone.

 

LightZone is written using Java, might be wrong here, but I am pretty sure it is. And as such will never be fast and as Uwe points out further down this thread, any speed improvements are going to come from efficiencies in the workflow and not from the application. I love the idea of LightZone but I personally can't buy into a slow application that will only get slower as it becomes richer in features. This is an **** opinion **** based on may years of working with Java apps, Sun, JavaSoft, IBM and many others specifically trying to make Java UI/Client side Apps faster.

 

Having said this I think every photographer should download LightZone and try it out. It really has a great perspective on how to edit photographs and who knows we might be able to push them to commit to Windows or Mac and produce a native application.

 

I now use Aperture for organizing my files. I did to use IView Media. I am oscillating right now between Raw Developer and C1 for raw file work. I think Raw Developer has the edge on image quality, unless you are doing model or product work. And it is definitely priced more sensibly. I use photoshop only for masks, contrast masking and composites. Though I am looking for a replacement for Photoshop.

[sean_reid]

There's no one answer to this RAW converter question but I have been using C1 for more than six years and I love the output and the workflow. Different strokes for different folks.

 

Cheers,

 

Sean

[ustein]

>I have been using C1 for more than six years

 

Did you use it on backs? C1 as it exists today was first launched end of 2002. I know as I wrote the first ever Internet review for C1 (at least I think so).

 

 

Uwe

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I bought it when the 1ds came out whenever that was

[ustein]

>I bought it when the 1ds came out whenever that was

 

Yes, was announced at Photokina 2002 and I got the camera in November (also my first copy of C1). The 1Ds with C1 was exciting.

 

Uwe

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[AlanG]

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...