Are You an In-Camera or Post-Camera Photographer?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Wayne J. Cosshall, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. LOL! Did I hurt your whittle feelings? Poor baby can't get his way so he's
    throwing a tantrum and picking up his marbles.

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Rita_=C4_Berkowitz?=, Jun 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. She wasn't talking to me, but while trying to decide if Rita is juvenile or
    senile, I decided to PLONK her for good... right after I looked up "birk"
    at and found that answer seemed most apt.
    Charles Gillen, Jun 10, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    I guess it's a matter of the all important degrees then. Because to
    me, you couldn't eyeball that difference and spot it most of the time,
    and the extra work involved in getting to that level isn't worth an
    improvement that is hard to spot
    Because I don't post process all of my shots, because I can't sustain
    a high fps for as long with RAW and RAW files take up WAY too much
    space. Yes, I could batch convert them all to JPEG using default
    settings when I import them, but that would defeat the purpose of
    shooting in RAW...
    Yeah, you're probably spot on there. I just don't know that that
    level of difference warrants the extra effort though...

    Ray Macey, Jun 10, 2007
  4. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Aaron Guest

    *What?* I have never heard such words! I agree that, for an artist,
    the process can be a lot more important than the result. But as far as
    anyone else is concerned, the process barely matters. It can be a
    fascinating piece of extra information for a viewer; it may impress
    them or give them some additional depth of understanding, but it's
    unnecessary for the appreciation of art.

    If you're talking about forensic photography, I suppose the process is
    more important. Art doesn't care how you got there.

    I spent a week trying to put all of my thoughts on this into words and
    break it down historically. This is what I came up with:
    Aaron, Jun 11, 2007
  5. I guess it's a matter of the all important degrees then. Because to
    I agree it is a matter of degrees, and depending on your needs and the
    type of work you are doing, it *might* not be important.

    However, I would also observe that my workflow is such that shooting RAW
    actually makes things considerably *easier* than shooting JPEG. That
    goes for the entire workflow, not just the specific task of adjusting
    WB, which most software out there also makes easier when shooting RAW,
    even if that is just an accident of the UI design as you have stated.

    The main thing that makes RAW far easier me to deal with workflow-wise
    is that almost everything I do in PP can be done non-destructively,
    meaning I don't need to generate and manage separate versions of my
    files just to handle this. The fact that it is easier to make exposure
    and WB look the way I want without introducing obvious artifacts is also
    worth mentioning, even if in theory one could could make the controls
    work the same way, and programs like Lightroom try to do just that.

    As for the size difference, while RAW does fill up my card faster, I
    have big enough cards that I virtually never fill one in a day, and once
    I download to my computer and convert to compressed to DNG (a process
    automated by the free ImageIngester, so this doesn't count as extra
    work, either), the file size isn't *that* much bigger than the JPEG's -
    maybe around 2X. For the 5,000 - 10,000 images per year I shoot, I
    figure the difference in cost to store is on the order of $10-$20, and
    that's at *today's* storage prices, which are surely higher than they
    will be in a few years. So I'm not losing sleep over the increased
    storage demand.
    Indeed. But consider a workflow that goes like this:

    - import RAW, convert to DNG
    - Do your PP (including WB, but also exposure) losslessly on the DNG
    no need to save files as you go - just tweak and move on
    most modern RAW software makes it easy to apply settings like WB to
    multpile images at once
    - when satisfied, batch convert everything to JPEG
    this assumes you have software that will apply each file's individual
    most modern RAW processing software can do this
    - if you need to do further editing (tings that can not be done in RAW
    you can do them in place on the converted JPEG's without worrying about
    overwriting your DNG originals
    - archive the DNG's and delete them as necessary to free up space on
    your primary hard drive

    I'd still claim that such a workflow can be more efficient as well as
    more effective than one based on shooting JPEG. Especially if, like me,
    a *lot* of your work is in difficult lighting conditions that make PP
    beneficial even for those of us who really don't care for the idea of
    doing so, and in which the differences in effectiveness between working
    with RAW and JPEG is pretty apparent.

    In any case, my aim here isn't to convince anyone to shoot RAW who isn't
    seeing any benefit to doing so (I might argue that elsewhere,
    though...). I was simply trying to address your comments about the
    difference between JPEG and RAW with respect to WB. There really *is* a
    difference here that can be fairly obvious when dealing with images shot
    in highly colored light, because the process of converting to JPEG may
    well be throwing out significant data from the complementary
    channel(s) - eg, blue channel data lost when shooting in orange light.
    Did my previous example make sense (and with that in mind, can you see
    how my baking analogy applies: -)?

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 11, 2007
  6. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files? I
    keyword tag all of my photos, and batch tag generic descriptions to
    entire days of shooting, and that's something I've had trouble
    achieving with RAW. In fact, in all of my searching to get a tool
    that does it in for JPEGs, I only found one that worked as I wanted
    (spaces in keywords, and the ability to batch append new keywords
    rather than over-write)

    Ray Macey, Jun 11, 2007
  7. Photoshop and Lightroom do this, and a great deal more.
    John McWilliams, Jun 11, 2007
  8. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Pat Guest

    An interesting post. Agree with it to the extend that the decision to
    use RAW or JPG is work-flow dependent. You use whatever gives you the
    result that you need with the simplest workflow.

    For the workflow you are doing, RAW makes sense. For the workflow I
    use, sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't.

    My workflow for youth sports is:
    -- Set the camera and lighting up right.
    -- Take the pictures, already adjusted.
    -- Copy the images to the hard drive
    -- Burn the images to a CD
    -- Send the envelopes and the CD to the lab
    -- Deliver the prints
    -- Done.

    No cropping. No tweaking. No rotating. No nuthin -- not even
    editing out the "bad" pictures (they are just skipped in processing).
    Do it all in the camera as you shoot. But, there are specific rules
    re head placement, crop ends, etc. that must be followed or you screw
    it up beyond all recognition.

    This is the "film" workflow. Believe it or not, it works much better
    than the digital workflow option.

    But as I said, it depends on your circumstance and workflow.
    Pat, Jun 11, 2007
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall

    G.T. Guest

    No, you're completely ignoring Marc's point about white balance, it's not
    just work-flow dependent it's also environment dependent amongst other

    G.T., Jun 11, 2007
  10. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    How do you batch edit exif (appending tags, not replacing) data in
    Photoshop? I must say I've never seen that functionality. I know
    Elements kinda has the functionality, but it requires that you select
    the tag from a list rather than typing them, which gets very hard to
    manage once the master list of tags grows.

    I tried Bridge, but it doesn't do spaces very well, and is also
    inclined to overwrite existing tags rather than adding them.

    Also, would someone mind changing the topic for this branch of
    conversation? I'm using google groups at work, and it doesn't have
    the functionality...

    Ray Macey, Jun 11, 2007
  11. I've not used Bridge extensively for that, but I may later try some
    experiments with it. CS3, that is- is that your version?

    Sorry, I should have said PS's Bridge, to be clearer.
    John McWilliams, Jun 12, 2007
  12. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    Still using CS2. Believe it or not, the best thing I've found so far
    is a free Microsoft tool called photoinfo (this is for windows). I
    tend to do all of my tagging in that after copying images from the
    card, then I import them in to the Elements organiser.

    It has basic RAW support for Canon cameras, but it doesn't support DNG
    or Olympus RAW files

    The ability to replicate that functionality for DNG and/or Olympus
    would be rather essential if I was to ever consider using RAW instead
    of JPEG

    Ray Macey, Jun 12, 2007
  13. Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files? I
    Normally, this would be done via IPTC rather than EXIF, but yes, there
    are applications that can do this. iView and IDimager come to mind. In
    other applications such as Adobe Bridge, the use model is to generate
    sidecar XMP files to hold the metadata for the original RAW files, and
    then run the DNG converter to generate DNG that incorporates this.
    The distinction between appending new keywords and overwriting begings
    to disappear if the keywords are stored in a database as they are in
    iView & IDimager - the applications knows what keywords are already
    there and will happily rewrite them as well as any new ones you are
    trying to add.

    It is also worht noting that you would not often be delivering DNG to
    anyone else - they are going to want JPEG or TIFF files. So it suffices
    to enter all your keywords and so forth for the DNG files into the
    database but *not* write these into the DNG files, if you can then batch
    generate JPEG or TIFF files from the DNG that inherit the same database
    info, and then batch write out the database to the latter files. This
    is the approach I use when working with ACDSee Pro, which does not
    currently support writing to DNG directly.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 12, 2007
  14. This is the "film" workflow. Believe it or not, it works much better
    Oh, I believe it works fine, if you are always willing to settle for the
    results generated without PP. I would say I am willing to do so 95% of
    the time, but for the other 5%, I am glad of the option to improve the
    photos. Most of the time, these are photos taken in difficult lighting
    situations outside of my control, but in those cases, it might be more
    like 50% that really benefit from PP.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 12, 2007
  15. Do you know something that can batch tag EXIF data to DNG files?
    I don't believe this quite accurate - as fas as I know, they both
    generate sidecar XMP files rather than write directly to DNG. But this
    may be just as good, considering you can merge them into DNG later with
    the DNG converter if you wish.

    Marc Sabatella

    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 12, 2007
  16. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Ray Macey Guest

    Sidecar files would be fine. It's the functionality of inputting the
    data I'm more concerned about...

    Ray Macey, Jun 12, 2007
  17. The film workflow involves using a color meter to measure the color
    temperature of the light, and selecting the color correction filter for the
    film used and light at hand. And then using a spot or incident meter to
    accurately set the exposure. I'd be surprised if even one or two people in
    this thread own color correction filters (I don't).

    Since in-camera AWB can't possibly work (it can't tell the difference
    between a white shirt in pink light and a pink shirt in white light), a
    color temperature measurement (aka "custom white balance") is also required
    for digital, if one is claiming no postprocessing.
    Shooting raw and then adjusting WB in the raw converter avoids losing even
    more dynamic range (than shooting jpeg and correcting wrong color balances
    later), but if you really care about your dynamic range, you'll use color
    correction filters so that all three channels are "exposed to the right" as
    much as possible.

    But no one uses color correction filters with digital...

    (In real life, a lot of lighting is so dizzy that WB adjustment simply can't
    handle it*. But I'm certainly not one to let real life interfere with my

    *: For example, outdoor scenes where part of the scene is in open shadow and
    the rest in full sun. You can't correct both. Tungsten lighting is often so
    red that there's simply not enough blue to form an image (other than a
    grossly noisey one).

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 12, 2007
  18. In any event both PS and LR can write directly to DNG files.
    John McWilliams, Jun 12, 2007
  19. Wayne J. Cosshall

    Mr.T Guest

    I do, 80A, 81A, 85B, FLD, does "skylight" count?
    And I'd be surprised if there isn't a lot more than one other person who
    owns at least one or two.

    Mr.T, Jun 12, 2007
  20. Skylight doesn't count, but maybe you're right.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Jun 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.