What happens to your images when they leave the camera?

[pippy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I’m happy to shoot a couple thousand frames per year, not much different than film days, so count me out of the batch mode.  Picture and print quality, not quantity, is the goal...

Actually almost everything to do with my 'work' snaps is dealt with before the RAW files are even processed (I shoot pro with Canon DSLR and use Canon Uilities and Digital Professional programs) so neither LR nor Ps would have much sway over the quality before my end product; I use Ps almost exclusively for the retouching tools they provide. No more than that.

For my 'personal' work similarly every image is worked-on individually and, so far, Ps has been, for me, the most effective software of the bunch I've tried - and I tried out several options before committing to the very flawed Elements the most recent time...

I have nothing bad to say about any recent version of LR and am happy to hear that you get on better with LR than I was ever able to manage. Furthermore I abolutely agree that Picture and Print quality is - absolutely! - all that matters.

P.

[Jeff S]

7 minutes ago, pippy said:

Actually almost everything to do with my 'work' snaps is dealt with before the RAW files are even processed (I shoot pro with Canon DSLR and use Canon Uilities and Digital Professional programs) so neither LR nor Ps would have much sway over the quality before my end product; I use Ps almost exclusively for the retouching tools they provide. No more than that.

For my 'personal' work similarly every image is worked-on individually and, so far, Ps has been, for me, the most effective software of the bunch I've tried - and I tried out several options before committing to the very flawed Elements the most recent time...

I have nothing bad to say about any recent version of LR and am happy to hear that you get on better with LR than I was ever able to manage. Furthermore I abolutely agree that Picture and Print quality is - absolutely! - all that matters.

P.

As noted, I prefer ImagePrint to using the LR print module or the Epson printer driver.  Best print quality for me.  I set it up as an external editor to LR, an easy click away.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

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

[MikeMyers]

Fascinating to read all these choices.

Long, long ago, back when Sportsshooter (https://www.sportsshooter.com) was one of the best place to discuss professional photography, it seemed like the group decided that PhotoMechanic was a tool that every sports photographer needed.  I signed up for the web service ($25/year) and eventually bought PhotoMechanic.  I know it does a lot more than what I use it for, but it was lightning fast, even with raw images, and saved me a lot of time.

I used to have a "CS6 Suite" with just about everything, but I needed something faster, which turned out to be Lightroom.  I still have it, but hate the idea of "renting" my tools.  I don't think I have added anything new to my Lightroom gallery since February this year.  Of course, they keep changing it, and everything needs updating, so the old software won't work with it any more.    At some point I'm going to just give up on it - I still have all my images.

 

Nowadays there are so many editing programs.  Many of them claim to be "the best".  I'm not shooting much this year, as I'm trying not to go outside for obvious reasons.

Since getting much more involved with my M10, I've mostly been using PhotoLab 4.  I like the training videos, the webinars, and once I understand it, the software.  Maybe next year I'll finalize whatever I'll be doing from then on.  If nothing changes, it's likely to be PhotoMechanic Plus, and PhotoLab 4.  

One last thing - I needed a way to show people my photos, and after looking over lots of others, I signed up with SmugMug.  I used to take photos, and promise myself I'd get them uploaded, but it never/rarely happened.  I'm trying much harder now - m.smugmug.com is the web addy.   So to answer my own question, what happens when my images leave my camera the answer is:

PhotoMechanic Plus  >  PhotoLab 4  >  SmugMug.

[adan]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

My system really has not changed since 2000 or so (including film scans as well as digital originals).

I use PhotoShop (currently CS6), with Adobe Bridge to view the collections, and Adobe Camera Raw for raw processing. I use PS because I do a lot of graphics work beyond photography - but I also like the fact that filing and cataloging can be done in a separate module, with lots of "manual" organization and control.

Basically, in the Mac's provided "Pictures" folder on my main HD, I have subfolders for every year, and sub-subfolders for every month of each year, and a "Digital Originals" (and/or "Film Scans") folder in each of those.

Card comes out of the camera and into the card reader and is copied to the desktop. Gets renamed with camera used and subject matter/contents. Then drag/dropped into the Mac's master Pictures folder collection in the correct year/month folder. For film, I just create a folder for a given set of scans, with similar naming conventions.

I then use Bridge to review and edit (keep or discard) the thumbnails, and double-click any image I want to edit or view full-scale, to open it into Photoshop via Adobe Camera Raw.

Occasionally, I will add a "Digital Reworks" folder in a particular year/month folder, for pix with extensive PS editing I want to save.

Now, in addition, I have a whole separate folder for my magazine InDesign files, where I keep additional "finished" copies of the pictures for each story in that issue. Makes it a lot easier to swap them around at the final selection and layout stage.

And all of those are backed-up regularly onto two external hard drives. Drag-n-drop, and go have lunch while the gigabytes migrate.

I do make prints as needed, up to A2/22" x 17" - they pay for everything else.

[Robert Blanko]

My folder structure on the harddisk is quite similar to Adan‘s. I use chronologically ordered folders with self-descriptive names. This allows - to a basic degree - to retrieve particular photos even without Lightroom or the like.

Apart from that, my workflow is as follows:

After having created the new folder, I convert the RAW files with Adobe‘s converter (still free) to DNG files which are then stored in the folder. The reason for said extra step is twofold:

i) I do not wish to be forced participating in Lightroom’s subscription model, so that I still use the last permanent version 6.x. Nevertheless, I can use cameras that 6.x does not support. DNG is a universal format.

ii) some cameras including Q2 do not use lossless compression or at least not in an efficient manner, so that the compression applied in the conversion process allows shrinking the file size sometimes to about 50%.

After said conversion the photos are imported into Lightroom for watching, editing (only the ones that I consider worth spending the effort) and exporting (for printing, photo books etc.). My last project was a 60cm x 200cm panorama of the Rainbow mountains now decorating my living room.

 

Maybe one day I will find a Lightroom alternative, but so far I‘m used to said software.

[250swb]

8 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Spoken like someone who never uses LR.  It now does far more than what it used to do, eliminating my need to switch over to Photoshop for most tasks, which I still do if necessary.  The two can be well integrated. Not about being not bothered, brainless or good enough.  ImagePrint is the icing on the cake for me, even beyond Photoshop nor LR, for printing.  And, yes, I’ve used Silver Efex. Funny how you almost always completely dismiss and deride anything you don’t personally use and embrace, as if there’s only your way or the highway.  Even worse when you lack the facts, Steve.

Jeff

I only related the selling points for Lightroom that can be found in almost any contemporary thread. It is still bought because it is simpler than Photoshop, and still bought because file management is a no-brainer because you can't destroy your original, and it's cheaper. Where are the facts lacking?

Yes it can do far more than it originally could, but in almost every contemporary thread about photo editing there will be a good proportion of comments along the lines of 'I use Lightroom because I don't do much photo editing'. So somebody isn't bothered about what it can do. How is that wrong?

It is true I never use Lightroom, you got that right. But you are wrong in assuming I have never used it. So it's a bit of a laugh to hear you talk of facts, and accusing me of dismissing anything I don't do myself is also a laugh, you always make sure to tell people what you do as if it's the true path.

I don't really care if Lightroom is used or not, my beef is when double standards creep in, and on this forum most people use Lightroom, so ipso facto there will be more double standards. So what double standard can I give to you as a fact? 'Lightroom is all I need or can afford because I don't do much with my photographs' could sit on the left hand. And sitting on the right hand is 'I bought 'x' new camera because I need a tiny bit better quality'. You can switch similar sentiments around ad infinitum but on a high end camera forum it's amazing how both can exist in the same mind at the same time. So you have the ambition not to do anything much, and the ambition to want better. It's probably a scarcer thing away from a photography forum, like the guy who bought a Trabant and put high octane fuel in the tank to make it faster, or the guy who's Ferrari is sat on the drive because he saw that diesel was cheaper.

Photoshop is still the preeminent editing tool, fact. That is why I argue against Lightroom.

 

[evikne]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I import new photos from my camera, I simply let Lightroom organize them into its primary folder structure on my computer (LightroomMasters > YYYY > MM > DD). I don't need any more organizing, because I am also careful to tag all photos with titles, keywords, GPS coordinates and faces. I can usually find any photo I've taken within seconds when I search for it.

When a year is over, I simply drag (from inside LR) the entire year's folder with all its subfolders from my computer to an external HD to save space locally. This way the folder structure will be identical on the external HD. I keep smart previews of all pictures in LR, so I can still edit them if necessary. I only need to connect the HD when exporting pictures.

After importing, I am always careful to delete as many pictures as possible, to keep only the best. After 20 years of photography all my pictures still fit on a 2 TB USB HD (and there is still plenty of room for more).

Every time I move new pictures to the HD, I take a backup. Not long ago, my pictures HD crashed, and I immediately made a new copy from the backup disc. Never forget to have at least two copies of your valuable photos!

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, adan said:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

My system really has not changed since 2000 or so (including film scans as well as digital originals).

I use PhotoShop (currently CS6), with Adobe Bridge to view the collections, and Adobe Camera Raw for raw processing. I use PS because I do a lot of graphics work beyond photography - but I also like the fact that filing and cataloging can be done in a separate module, with lots of "manual" organization and control.

Basically, in the Mac's provided "Pictures" folder on my main HD, I have subfolders for every year, and sub-subfolders for every month of each year, and a "Digital Originals" (and/or "Film Scans") folder in each of those.

Card comes out of the camera and into the card reader and is copied to the desktop. Gets renamed with camera used and subject matter/contents. Then drag/dropped into the Mac's master Pictures folder collection in the correct year/month folder. For film, I just create a folder for a given set of scans, with similar naming conventions.

I then use Bridge to review and edit (keep or discard) the thumbnails, and double-click any image I want to edit or view full-scale, to open it into Photoshop via Adobe Camera Raw.

Occasionally, I will add a "Digital Reworks" folder in a particular year/month folder, for pix with extensive PS editing I want to save.

Now, in addition, I have a whole separate folder for my magazine InDesign files, where I keep additional "finished" copies of the pictures for each story in that issue. Makes it a lot easier to swap them around at the final selection and layout stage.

And all of those are backed-up regularly onto two external hard drives. Drag-n-drop, and go have lunch while the gigabytes migrate.

I do make prints as needed, up to A2/22" x 17" - they pay for everything else.

Looks a lot like my system; only mine is a bit more messy. I am waiting for an AI program to sort and tag, I find it too time-consuming to do so in LR or  Bridge

All my image  file go onto a separate data  disk/ SSD with a second backup one - Bridge  does so automatically. I have an automatic Cloud backup as well.

[sutlore]

Personally, I would like to preserve the looks of Leica's JPG as another LR catalog. The JPG will be very rarely edited, may be just small exposure correction.

The DNG will be kept in my main catalog with other cameras raw files, separated into folders of taken dates. Every year, I will change import folder to another year and also my watermarks.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

All photos are in my NAS (Raid 1) at home and will be backed up automatically to my university Google drive's account two times a week.

[MikeMyers]

What is the reason for taking both DNG and JPG with the camera?  From the DNG you can always create a JPG.  Am I missing something?

[MikeMyers]

7 hours ago, 250swb said:

..........It is still bought because it is simpler than Photoshop, and still bought because file management is a no-brainer because you can't destroy your original, and it's cheaper. ......Photoshop is still the preeminent editing tool, fact. That is why I argue against Lightroom.....

My attitude towards Adobe software changed completely when I could only "rent" the software, not "buy" it.  To me this means that the software will completely stop working properly if I don't renew the rental.  Heck, I can't even run the program most of the time until/unless I log onto my Adobe account.  

In retrospect, I should have stuck with my Lightroom 6, and given up on updates.  It's nice to have access to Photoshop, but I'm trying to stop using any of that stuff for the future.  PhotoLab may or may not be the equal of Adobe products, but once I buy it, it's MINE.  It won't go away if I stop making payments.  The truth as of today is that I now have everything I used to have/do other than DAM, and that will be replaced with PhotoMechanic Plus - I've been using PhotoMechanic seemingly forever.

[250swb]

15 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

My attitude towards Adobe software changed completely when I could only "rent" the software, not "buy" it.  To me this means that the software will completely stop working properly if I don't renew the rental.  Heck, I can't even run the program most of the time until/unless I log onto my Adobe account.  

 

Photoshop and Lightroom used to get updates every twelve to eighteen months that cost around £160 last time I paid for one. So in today's money £10 a month isn't so bad. A darkroom user would have used chemicals, film, etc. to get to the same point of processing an image so it's actually cheaper pro rata than in olden times. Staying logged in to Adobe saves time opening the applications. I understand, but you'd need to check, that CS6 (the last standalone Photoshop) is still available from Adobe. If you still have Lightroom 6 paid for as a stand alone product on your PC, or the disc for it, it should still work.

[MikeMyers]

'250swb'  -  While I agree with what you wrote, because of the cost, I didn't constantly update my Adobe software.  It worked fine, did what I needed, and there was no need to spend more money for a long time - the changes were usually things I didn't need anyway.  I still have my CS6, and all my old Lightroom standalone software, but the CS6 was for Windows and I now just use Apple.   I don't know how staying looked into Adobe helps me - I close my apps when not using them.  I'm not sure how it will all work out, but the only reason I've used Photoshop in ages was to "reverse" an image, and the last time I added photos to my Lightroom folders was March or April this year.  You're right - it's still affordable - until they bump up the price, but when I take that monthly charge and figure what it will be for say, five years - or ten - and it adds up fast.  

For what I "need", I am enjoying DxO PhotoLab at least as much as I enjoyed Lightroom, and for DAM software PhotoMechanic Plus seems to be a good way to do this, far better for me than what Lightroom provides.  I'm just starting out with the new DAM functions in Photo Mechanic - will have more to say about it in a week or two.

I don't see any need to convince anyone else about anything - I'd rather spend my time learning.  I'm retired though, and I can't "write off" the costs like I used to.  Now it come right out of my pocket, and the pocket seems to constantly get smaller.......

[Jeff S]

20 minutes ago, MikeMyers said:

'250swb'  -  While I agree with what you wrote, because of the cost, I didn't constantly update my Adobe software.  It worked fine, did what I needed, and there was no need to spend more money for a long time - the changes were usually things I didn't need anyway.  I still have my CS6, and all my old Lightroom standalone software, but the CS6 was for Windows and I now just use Apple.   I don't know how staying looked into Adobe helps me - I close my apps when not using them.  I'm not sure how it will all work out, but the only reason I've used Photoshop in ages was to "reverse" an image, and the last time I added photos to my Lightroom folders was March or April this year.  You're right - it's still affordable - until they bump up the price, but when I take that monthly charge and figure what it will be for say, five years - or ten - and it adds up fast.  

For what I "need", I am enjoying DxO PhotoLab at least as much as I enjoyed Lightroom, and for DAM software PhotoMechanic Plus seems to be a good way to do this, far better for me than what Lightroom provides.  I'm just starting out with the new DAM functions in Photo Mechanic - will have more to say about it in a week or two.

I don't see any need to convince anyone else about anything - I'd rather spend my time learning.  I'm retired though, and I can't "write off" the costs like I used to.  Now it come right out of my pocket, and the pocket seems to constantly get smaller.......

With DXO, be careful considering certain new Leica gear.  They have no intent to support any Monochrom versions, and have been extremely slow supporting various new models. They’re a small company and have admitted to having trouble sourcing new cameras from Leica to put through their required extensive testing.  The pandemic has exacerbated the situation, restricting their ability to even borrow gear from users to test.  Last I heard, they still hadn’t supported the SL2.

Jeff

[jaapv]

23 hours ago, MikeMyers said:

What is the reason for taking both DNG and JPG with the camera?  From the DNG you can always create a JPG.  Am I missing something?

For some it is a reference point and in case you happen to like the JPG you can skip all processing.  And it is much faster to upload to FOTOS to use on social media. But you are right, there is no real hardship to hitting a few "auto" buttons.

[jaapv]

6 hours ago, 250swb said:

Photoshop and Lightroom used to get updates every twelve to eighteen months that cost around £160

That, and a new version every three years  or so at double or triple the price.

[MikeMyers]

56 minutes ago, jaapv said:

For some it is a reference point and in case you happen to like the JPG you can skip all processing.  And it is much faster to upload to FOTOS to use on social media. But you are right, there is no real hardship to hitting a few "auto" buttons.

'jaapv',  with my other cameras, the raw file includes a reduced size 'jpg' copy of the captured image.  Does Leica also do this?  Until now, I thought that was universal.  I don't know about others, but pretty much all the time I see ways to improve my images.  I'm not perfect about holding the camera level, and with the Leica the frame lines seem to be just a guide as to what might be captured.  I guess if I use "live view" that would be better, but at least for now, I'm trying to use my M10 as much as possible the way I used my M2 - but with the M2 an exposure meter was invaluable (for me).   To be completely honest, I know I can always get a 'jpg' from a 'dmg', but not the other way.  If I care about the photos, I always shoot in raw.  I learned that lesson many years ago.  

I'm guilty of something else - if I only want to upload to "social media" (which I rarely use anyway) I would use my iPhone.  

I have found FOTOS to be useful several times, and yesterday I tried using the "Leica Sync app" on my iMac.  Worked beautifully, and transferred the 'dmg' images with no issue.

[jaapv]

Yes it does, however with the setting DNG+jpg it generates an additional high-quality JPG. I cannot recall when I actually used a JPG other than to work through my phone, but we have some members who hold the JPG in unwarranted awe.

[MikeMyers]

When I bought my M8.2 in 2009, I started shooting in 'jpg' until I read an explanation of why I didn't like my images.  That's about when I switched to DNG.  With the M10, I haven't even tried 'jpg' yet.  If I was shooting photos to give away, and I didn't want to spend extra time, 'jpg' might be my choice.

 

As to members who hold the JPG in unwarranted awe, maybe they're just making 4x6 prints.   I think lots of people buy "the best", and the Leica is at the top of that list, but not for everyone, especially the M.  A doctor showed up in India while I was there, with a small Leica (I don't remember which) and he had no idea how to use it.  I got him going, but I think he would have been happier with a Fuji, which makes every photo "perfect" and uses the flash whenever that would help.  

This would make for an interesting poll on the forum, asking people to vote for what they shoot most of the time, 'jpg' or 'dmg'.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

All digital cameras capture RAW (DNG for Leica).  JPG is derived from RAW, and if JPG is exclusively chosen, the RAW file is deleted.  I would never do that for any meaningful image. Why throw away data that can be used later, say  if one’s picture interpretation changes and/or editing software improves?  Storage is cheap.  I don’t bother having the camera fully interpret my pictures (JPG); that’s my job, considering my output goal is a typically a print. Others have different goals.

Jeff

Edited November 23, 2020 by Jeff S