UKC

I had a go 10 years ago and got frustrated with the time taken to review and get images from my camera to screen using Photoshop CS2.

What advice does the UKC massive have for me to make the process less frustrating getting images from camera to screen today?

In reply to The Lemming:

RAW isn't 'grown up'.. it's just a tool. I'm a professional and for most of my work I shoot jpeg because it's time sensitive and the pictures will just be tomorrow's chip paper. I will shoot RAW for some jobs, where I can take my time and have creative freedom on the edit.. but even then it's still rare I'll do something that I couldn't do with a jpeg!

Ask yourself if you really need what RAW offers, most don't. Maybe shoot both for a while if your camera allows.

In reply to The Lemming:

What he said.

I shoot both but throw away the raws for the 99% of pics I don't want to print. You will be surprised how quickly they gobble storage space if you keep them around.

In reply to The Lemming:
It is worth learning, it took me a while but I have started to get it now I was hampered by coming from slide film and shied away from "over post processing"
See it as part of the workflow, low light landscape it's invaluable

In reply to The Lemming:

https://www.youtube.com/user/AnthonyMorganti

In reply to The Lemming:

Get Lightroom - brilliant software with loads of control, the RAW files just sit on your hard-drive and you never need to go near them,


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

This.

Open Lightroom and relevant catalog
Insert SD card
Select Import, then import desired files to chosen folder
Wait a few seconds
Review images, edit in Develop module if needed (or send to Photoshop if heavier editing required)
Export JPEGs at desired resolution, to desired folder, with or without metadata.

In reply to The Lemming:

I use raw if I think the light may be 'challenging', particularly in terms of temperature or low/contrasty light levels. For everything else I just stick to jpegs. For really contrasty (but stationary) stuff, bracketing+HDR (manual, not tonemapping) beats raw. I've had a few stabs at getting 'better' output from processed raw than I got from jpeg and under non-extreme lighting I've never managed to get any discernible improvement over in-camera jpeg. Astro is raw only (obviously).

In reply to The Lemming:

3 editing passes before you even save to HD. Save the RAW files that are really worth it, ditch the rest and, as others have already, said, get Lightroom. It's way better that PS.

In reply to Fraser:

It uses the same RAW editor, so your pictures won't be any prettier but agreed, the surrounding package is better for editing numerous shots.. which can then be fine tuned in Photoshop if required.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

It does? My PS tools were very different to the LR tools, which seem much more extensive and user-friendly. Maybe I've never delved deeply enough in PS.

In reply to Fraser:

It's the same back engine, just integrated into the UI in Lightroom rather than as a 'standalone' popup in Photoshop. Though saying that it could possibly be different if you're using an antiquated version of PS.

PS CS6 and Lightroom 6 use the same engine for sure.

In reply to The Lemming:
For routine photography in good light with low contrast I can use jpeg and get good results. But in difficult light with more contrast then the only way I can get a satisfactory result is via RAW. So I tend to stay with RAW for the majority of my picture taking and have developed a simple PS Elements workflow that quickly gives pictures that I am happy with. Having worked with RAW for many years now I take the hit on storage and I am loath to ditch it.

In reply to mrphilipoldham:

Cheers for the explanation. I remember had to get the RAW editor plug-in for my fairly aged CS.x at work and it really wasn't very good. My CS3 at home was too old to work with the plug-in; the OP mentioned CS2 some years ago. (I assume he's got a more up to date version now.)

In reply to chris fox:

Get it right in the camera and you'll have far less editing to do. Like a few others said, just shoot jpeg.

Why not shoot in both?
For fast and ready editing use the jpeg. If there is a particular photo that is missing shadow detail, etc. in the jpeg, then edit the RAW file.

In reply to Fraser:



Still got it from 12 years ago.

Got Lightroom 5 as well.

In reply to The Lemming:

Shooting RAW for me is zero hassle with LR. End of, no jpg vs RAW debate needed.

In reply to chris fox:


Yes, that's fine 'most' of the time, but not always. Raw processing is just a tool for certain situations. Learn how to use it and when to use it (and when not to use it) and you will end up with better results 'some' of the time. The definitions of 'most' and 'some' will depend on the sort of photography that floats your boat.
The only time I would positively *not* use raw is when I want long bursts of shots. My camera can only manage full-rate bursts of about 5 shots in raw but can take unlimited full-rate bursts in jpeg. Or if I'm worried about filling the memory card. Both pretty rare scenarios in practice (for me).

In reply to The Lemming:



Strange - how did you manage to edit RAW in PS CS2, because it wasn't possible to run a RAW editor in CS3. (I couldn't download the necessary plug-in to make it possible.)

In reply to Fraser:

Both CS2 and CS3 had Bridge which is the PS RAW editor.

To the OP, yep just shoot jpegs unless you know you're gonna have specific lighting issues in the post-production. Even then if you just get good at using masks in PS, then it's still pretty powerful tool.

In answer to your actual question though, if you want to improve workflow and aren't actually versed in editing RAW in Photoshop them got for Lightroom if you haven't already got it. I find shooting RAW + jpeg just makes workflow a total f****** nightmare, others will disagree.

In reply to Tom Last:
I remember going into Bridge but don't recall seeing a RAW editor in that. Mustn't have delved deep enough in it or could it be that the plug-in wasn't available for my particular camera's type of RAW files. (are they all the same, irrespective of camera?)

In reply to Fraser:

Yeah, that sounds familiar. Bridge doesn't like all cameras' RAW files, half of which you seem to need to put through Adobe DNG Converter.

In reply to Tom Last:

Yip, now you mention it, that DNG Converter was the add-on I had to get for my work PC and it was pretty poor in comparison to LR. Good to know about CS3< normally being able to edit RAW however.

In reply to Tom Last:


Yep, LR didn't make this easy when I tried as an experiment (back in early LR versions)

In reply to Tom Last:


And that is what put me off RAW all those years ago. It was just a fekin faff.

In reply to The Lemming:

I just have the camera to shoot RAW and JPEG. If there's a photo that I've ballsed up, there's a lot more scope to recover it if I have the raw file. If everything's fine, I just delete all the raw files to save space. Easy peasy.

That said I'm shit at photography so don't listen to me!