| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Workflow Issues
Leslie Billman, Photographer
 |
Annapolis | Md | USA | Posted: 9:02 PM on 03.31.05 |
->> I will be shooting for Wireimage next week, and have been hoping for Adobe's RAW upgrade to accommodate the D2x. Alas, it seems not to be in the cards, so I'm having to cut and paste a workflow from among several programs.
wireimage requires jpeg, 10 inches on the longest side, 300 dpi, and captioning that is recognized by Photoshop and PhotoMechanic. So far, the only programs that recognize the D2X RAW NEF files are Photo Mechanic, BreezeBrowser, Nikon Capture, and NikonView, which has an almost medieval RAW adjustment. Nikon Capture is fine, but SLLLLOOOOOWWW. PhotoMechanic has a great ingest system, and selection system, recognizes the D2X NEF files, but no apparent editing capability at all, BreezeBrowser recognizes the D2X RAW files, has an acceptable RAW adjustment and conversion to jpeg feature, (but no apparent cropping function, and incompatible captioning) and PhotoShop is where I want to be, but the RAW conversion is either the pathetic NikonView or the SSSLLLOOOOWWWW Nikon Capture.
Can anyone figure out how to combine the best of all these programs to produce a quick workflow to get to the Wireimage specs? I'd like to do the cropping at the very beginning - like in Photomechanic, as I select the images I want to use. However, I can't figure out how to make the crop stick--I can do the outlined crop area, but don't know how to preserve it. If I could crop there, I could go into Breezebrowser for a quick and effective RAW adjustment, and use BreezeBrowser's quick conversion to jpeg at 300 dpi. Back to PhotoMechanic for the captioning (Breezebrowser's captions aren't recognized by PM) and upload to Wireimage. That'd work, but for the fact that the cropping doesn't seem to happen in either PM or BB.
ADOBE HEAR MY PRAYER: GET YOUR D2X RAW file processing ready for use by next week!!!!
absent that, if anyone's got workflow suggesitons, I'm all ears....
thanks.
Leslie |
|
Garrett Hubbard, Student/Intern
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:37 AM on 04.01.05 |
->> why not shoot jpg?
if they need jpg10 from you, why do you need the extra little boost from raw?
-garrett |
|
Andrew Malana, Photographer
|
Tokyo | JP | Japan | Posted: 1:19 AM on 04.01.05 |
->> I can help answer the part about having your crops 'stick' in Photomechanic. After you hit preview the image, the 'Iris' icon...For PC, CTRL+S (Save As) and for Mac APPLE+S (Save Photos As).
From there you can see a menu that includes Image Cropping, Scaling and Resolution among others. From what you wrote, Check Apply Cropping and set Resolution to 300 pixels per inch. Hit Save and then you will be asked where to save it. I would save in save folder where the 'original' came from. Photomechanic will not override the original, it will append the image file with the letter "A" at the end. For example.._DSC0809.jpg (original) then your 'Saved As' with crops: _DSC0809A.jpg. From there you can send to your image editing application of choice.
Then you can see your contact sheet in Photomechanic with the original and your saved as cropped image. |
|
Nick Doan, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:23 AM on 04.01.05 |
| ->> I have to ask too, why do you need to shoot RAW? Especially if you are just sending them JPEGS anyway? |
|
PJ Heller, Photographer
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 2:49 AM on 04.01.05 |
| ->> Another option if you’re shooting NEFs is to try Bibble... available at www.bibblelabs.com. One thing about the program is that you can also adjust the color balance of jpegs. |
|
Leslie Billman, Photographer
|
Annapolis | Md | USA | Posted: 6:03 AM on 04.01.05 |
->> I knew I'd catch a lot of flak about shooting RAW. I just love the control--and there's the part about being a meticulous perfectionist. Must've been something in the toilet training...
thanks for the link to Bibble - that might be the ticket, but also thanks to Andrew for solving the Photo Mechanic cropping mystery. |
|
Joe Andras, Photographer
|
Laguna Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 10:16 AM on 04.01.05 |
->> Hi All - I was following this thread and thought I'd chime in because it seems pertinent to Leslie's question.
I am hoping to improve my work flow with a captioning program that embeds the IPTC info in the original NEFs. I don't want to caption the JPGs, I want to caption the original NEF file and then have the captioning info inherited by the later-created JPG.
* Photo Mechanic for Windows does not yet do this (though I understand the Mac version does)
* ThumbsPlus does not do this.
* Bibble Pro does not appear to do this (it appears to save captions and other IPTC info in a separate .bib file of the same name)
So, to date, I have been using Nikon Capture's IPTC information feature to add captions to my photos. I typically use NC's "Multi Image Window" (under File), and then press Alf-F, I to open the captioning window after clicking on each next successive file. It works, but it's a bit painful.
Assuming I'm not missing something, are there any other NEF captioning options for Windows that are out there besides Photo Mechanic, ThumbsPlus, or Bibble? |
|
Gary Rather, Photographer
|
Santa Cruz | Ca | US | Posted: 8:37 PM on 04.05.05 |
->> Shooting in Raw, Why?
Get the photo properly exposed the first time.
Crop using the camera .
Stick in the captions using PhotoMechanic.
Send in the images.
Enjoy the time saved. |
|
Steven Georges, Photographer
|
Garden Grove | CA | USA | Posted: 9:25 PM on 04.05.05 |
->> I shoot RAW on my D2h 98% of the time using PhotoMechanic -> Nikon Capture Editor -> PhotoShop. Them back to PhotoMechanic for captioning.
Yes, Capture Editor slows me down, their PS plug-in is faster but lacks features I like. Use the Nikon plug-in if you don't need to upscale from raw or need any of the other features.
The best way to speed it up (especially with the larger files of the D2x) is to add memory to your computer, gobs of it! At least 2 gigs is recommended for D2x raw files. If you don't have at least 1 gig with D2x raw files then your computer is out to lunch.
FYI - Nikon Capture will NOT read captions written to NEF files using PhotoMechanic. Too bad, Nikon Capture has a nice batch processing feature. |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Waldorf | MD | US | Posted: 9:38 PM on 04.05.05 |
| ->> I'm with Gary on this one...why are you shooting Raw? 99% of the wire service shooters shoot JPEGS, I jsut don't get it. If you use the correct white balance and get a proper exposure then there is no need for Raw files... |
|
dave cone, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | Fl | | Posted: 10:33 PM on 04.05.05 |
->> C'mon ... shooting Raw format is the only way to go. What happens if Leslie gets that *once-in-a-lifetime image* and it's in Raw?
Well ... Leslie has *the* best possible file the camera can produce. Case closed.
I don't understand why people don't shoot Raw.
-Dave |
|
Craig Peterson, Photographer
|
St. Petersburg | FL | US | Posted: 1:05 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> People don't shoot RAW because they don't have the time to sit at the computer all day.
Leslie.....I was into shooting RAW at first, and loved the control, but the time it takes to deal with RAW files is ridiculous. I switched to shooting in jpeg and my workflow is ten times better, and in my opinion, the jpeg files off my 20D are sharper and look better.
If you're shooting under 100 images per assignment it's no big deal......But if you're shooting 500+ images (a typical NASCAR weekend for me) it's just not feasible to shoot RAW. |
|
Robert Longhitano, Photographer
|
Philadelphia | PA | USA | Posted: 4:35 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> "C'mon ... shooting Raw format is the only way to go. What happens if Leslie gets that *once-in-a-lifetime image* and it's in Raw?"
There's NO reason to use a RAW workflow If your camera is capable of shooting RAW+JPG. Edit and send Wireimage the JPG files and save the RAW files for your "once-in-a-lifetime image". |
|
Monty Rand, Photographer
|
Bangor | ME | USA | Posted: 6:04 PM on 04.06.05 |
| ->> What Robert said above is what I would do. Shoot both and then enjoy the time saved :) |
|
Delane B. Rouse, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Waldorf | MD | US | Posted: 6:44 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Robert...that's what I did at the wedding in Philadelphia on Saturday; I shot JPEG most of the night, but for the 20-25 formal portraits where the Bride will likely make a huge enlargement I shot Raw+JPEG.
For the average sporting event...there simply isn't any reason to shoot raw files. You're compressing the file and sending a JPEG anyway so the increase in quality is lost at that point.
Delane |
|
David Butler II, Photographer
 |
Somers | CT | USA | Posted: 7:18 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> I agree with Robert.... shoot both if you have time for downloading... and if you have time for conversion you would be amazed at what a better jpg can be made from a Raw file as apposed to your cameras jpg. I try to shoot raw and use C1 for cropping, sizing and conversion... pretty quick really... then PM for captioning and email or FTP.... :-)
2-cents
dbii |
|
Greg Ferguson, Photographer
|
Scottsdale | Az | USA | Posted: 7:47 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> The majority of my images are shot as jpg for the workflow speed, but I'd switch to NEF or currently use RAW+JPG for those shots with a high likelihood of wanting a BIG image later. On the D1x, the 20D and the 1D, it's no big thing to switch back and forth. It only takes a few seconds.
Later, if I find out I guessed wrong, it's OK. A large jpg on the 20D or a D1x will still go really big, I'll just be missing some color information.
The 20D forced me to start dealing with bigger files, so I'll probably start shooting more RAW on the 1D. It's old enough that the necessary conversion drivers are available, the files aren't huge so the processing time won't be outrageous, and that'll give me good image-size compatibility with what I'm getting from the 20D.
The ability to rapidly adjust the cameras to use different file formats and qualities is one of the great things about digital - no more switching film types with the problems of rewinding film canisters and having to fish out the leader, or forgetting the leader is out on a partial role and reloading it and double-exposing frames. |
|
Joshua Brown, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
Salt Lake City | UT | USA | Posted: 8:22 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> I will say that my RAW workflow significantly DECREASES my time at the computer. It's all about batch toning, precalibration, and actions. Weddings are the best example, I may shoot 1500 images and I have no idea which one they are going to pick out to blow up to 16x20. I don't want to be stuck with a JPG. Same goes for most sporting events...like the Jazz game I shot last night. I shoot maybe 500 frames in RAW and output 7 perfectly toned photos in less than 3 minutes. I then use Photo Mechanic to resize and transmit back to the office.
A few things to start. I have my monitor calibrated, I work in a Adobe RGB or ProPhoto color gamut, and I have calibrated my version of Camera Raw to my 20D using this:
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/21351-1.html You can also try this script but I couldn't quite get it to work yet http://fors.net/scripts/ACR-Calibrator/
I shoot RAW plus a small JPG shot in B/W mode on my 20D.
I ingest and batch rename in photo mechanic.Then I view the RAW+JPG file in Photo Mechanic and delete the ones I don't want.
I use all those little B/W files to give to the couple within a day or two (sometimes that night). I tell them up front that they are right out of the camera, but I don't have to worry about color correcting. The files are just big enough to make little 4x6 prints from (which I have accounted for in my pricing structure) and it keeps them off my back wanting to see their proofs.
Now the RAW files. I can tone that entire wedding in 30-45 minutes. I use the file browser in photoshop to select one, then I tone it in Camera Raw. Then rather then push OK to pull it into Photoshop, I hold down option and it changes to UPDATE. I then select the next 10-20 photos that were essentially shot at the same exposure and lighting conditions, right click on them, and go to "apply camera raw settings". I choose "Previous Conversion" and bam, they are all toned. Rinse and repeat for the other 900. Sometimes people forget how much time custom calibration can save you. On most photos, I dont need to tweak the settings much at all. I also make sure I nail the exposure so I am not trying to "rescue" highlights or shadow detail.
Once all the files are "set" and toned, I then run a script called Dr. Brown's Images processor found here:
http://www.russellbrown.com/tips_tech.html
It looks like the new version of Photoshop will have this feature built in. Dr. Brown's takes all those files and applies the toning, then even does an unsharp mask if I want, and finally outputs to TIFF and JPG at whatever size I need.
I then have a custom photoshop action that I run where I them through Velvia Vision, Noise Ninja, Photo Kit, and Photo Kit Sharpener.
So it really depends on your needs. If you are pumping out photos of kids running the bases, then shoot in sRGB, do a custom white balance and nail your exposure. Then take the CD to Costco and print them out. I personally don't shoot things I care so little about.
I know it sounds like a lot, but all I can tell you is that I can pump out an entire wedding shoot in under an hour.When I was shooting Jpg's it took me at least 3.
PS-If you weren't happy with the color rendition of Camera Raw, you might want to try again. It's on version 2.4 now and has been pretty good ever since 2.3.
One of these days I am going to pony up the cash for Capture 1 DSLR which speeds things up even more.
Real World Camera Raw is a great book if you are clueless on this particular subject. Photoshop CS2 will add even more feature to Camera Raw
http://photoshopnews.com/?p=176#more-176
http://www.publish.com/article2/0,1759,1782829,00.asp |
|
Vasha Hunt, Photographer
|
Opelika | AL | USA | Posted: 9:25 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> Another trick in Adobe CS Camera Raw is to save the camera raw settings for places you often shoot in - with one click in CR you can have your photo fully prepped.
In the CR window there is an arrow just beneath the histogram, to the right of the tab labelled "Camera Default" - click on that arrow and you can save the current settings after getting a photo just right (I name my settings after the locations). Then you can recall the setting by clicking on the "Camera Default" tab and drag down to your saved setting. It is a terrific time-saver for sports under the lights or indoors, any location with consistant light. |
|
Allen Murabayashi, Photographer
|
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 11:23 PM on 04.06.05 |
->> hey joe andras,
the RAW format from all cameras use the EXIF specification to write exposure information into the file (e.g. f/stop, shutter speed, proprietary camera data). the RAW file, as you may have heard is a TIFF format image with additional EXIF data tacked on it.
the EXIF specification does not include fields for captioning -- the familiar IPTC data. the reason is pretty simple. EXIF is camera data, whereas IPTC is "qualitative" information about the shot that the camera doesn't care about. also, there is limited space to write EXIF data as defined by the specification, whereas a caption could be 100 pages long if need be. there's no interface on the camera to write captioning info to the file, so why bother with the fields. you want your camera's buffer to concentrate on moving image data, not caption data.
the JPEG specification allows for IPTC fields, which is why you can write IPTC to a jpeg in most programs. if you write caption info to a RAW file in photoshop, i'm pretty sure you have to save it as a .psd file.
finally, when dealing with very small jpegs, you might notice that regardless of your compression level, the file size doesn't change much. this most likely because of IPTC and other non-picture data that's being included with the file. there are programs out there that strip all the IPTC data from a picture to give you the most compact filesize.
peace in the middle east.
allen |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 2:47 PM on 04.07.05 |
->> Allen:
Raw is not TIFF. RAW is what the chip sees. TIFF isn't compressed and there is a lot of information there, but a 20 meg file is 20 megs with a TIFF.
The RAW is proprietary to each camera manufacturer and as we have seen posted here there is a move to create a standard RAW format.
There are some similarities between the two and it isn't semantics here, but some real differences. |
|
Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 6:10 PM on 04.07.05 |
->> Stan,
TIFFs can be be compressed or uncompressed. Photoshop uses LZW compression on TIFFs, which is non-destructive. The reason that compressed TIFFs aren't as ubiquitous as JPEGs is because the owner of the LZW technology charges a licensing fee to software makers that use it.
--Mark |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 8:34 PM on 04.07.05 |
->> Mark:
I am aware and should have stated TIFF can be compressed. But RAW is not the same as a TIFF with EXIF information. |
|
Joe Andras, Photographer
|
Laguna Beach | CA | USA | Posted: 1:00 AM on 04.08.05 |
->> Here's an interesting link that suggests that a NEF is "kind of" like a TIFF, though the individual pixels are correlated with one of three possible red, green, and blue filters arranged in front of the sensors like so:
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
RGRGRG
GBGBGB
http://www.outbackphoto.com/workshop/NEF_conversion/neffiles.html |
|
Anthony Soufflé, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Collinsville | IL | USA | Posted: 3:57 AM on 04.08.05 |
| ->> First we have Nikon vs. Canon, then Windows vs. Mac, now Raw vs. Jpeg... the debates never end. But to throw in my two cents, I'm on the Jpeg ship. |
|
Stanley Leary, Photographer
|
Roswell | GA | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 04.08.05 |
->> Workflow is very personal as to which camera you choose to use.
If you are able to white balance accurately and expose properly--IMHO the difference between shooting RAW and JPEG in the final image isn't there.
I do think if you have any plans to res up the photo then RAW gives you advantages of more information (16 bit) to give you a better image.
Again it is a workflow issue for many. Those who have shot chrome and were accurate in the camera, find they can probably live with JPEG. Some still want the advantages, no matter how small, with RAW.
Those who shoot RAW seem to enjoy the darkroom process like we had with film. You must do some work similarly to putting the negative in the enlarger to get your print verses handing the client the chrome.
While saying shooting with RAW is like negative and shooting JPEG is like chrome, it is applicable to the workflow process.
My belief is the amount of information you gain by shooting in 16 bit is useless for almost any situation. There is no output device for anything but 8 bit. So you can look on levels in PhotoShop and show the graph of more information. This is not what the client looks at; they look at a print or on their monitor. Just realize the monitor is even less color spectrum than a print. So, even if your monitor is calibrated you cannot see 16 bit only 8 bit. You cannot see ADOBE 98 spectrum only sRGB.
So for me RAW is information which is useless unless I am trying to give a client a larger file than the camera produces.
The cool thing about the message board is as we share our different perspectives; we glean something from everyone and then can make our on decisions with more knowledge than we did before the internet.
Thank goodness we hear about the problems of certain cameras from the owners. Knowledge is power and having a place like this to get it is awesome. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|