Transitioning from RAW to JPEG?
The Lazy Destroyer
Registered Users Posts: 127 Major grins
I know there are a ton of online resources and articles on making a JPEG->RAW transition.
I've always shot RAW for the usual reasons.
But I'm starting to think about setting back to JPEG for some events I do.
Not really finding much information about making the reverse transition
I've started doing some motorsport events where I can end up with up to 10k images for a weekend. Transferring to my HD at the end of each day is taking a bit of time. And battery life from my laptop (power not always available). Plus time exporting to JPEG after post work.
I'm assuming shooting in JPEG is probably the better option here. I've never tried it but thinking about giving it a go the next weekend I shoot.
I do not do extensive post work for these big weekends, and my preset I apply is pretty basic.
LR3: vibrance, saturation, clarity, maybe a bit of fill light, along with a some noise reduction and sharpening. I think thats about it. Exposure adjustments are rare, but sometimes I'll adjust up/down no more than a stop if I really need to. I do a little more sharpening when render RAW->JPEG in LR.
I know some of this is already done when the camera processes a jpeg, so I guess I will figure out what is already being done and remove that from the typical preset, so the results end up being what I'm used to.
But is there anything else I may want to know when going back to JPEG?
I'll still set back to RAW for the "photography" stuff I try to do these weekends, but JPEG is just sounding better and better for the high volume, low editing stuff. Last time I had to pull out my laptop on the side of a racetrack because my last 32gb was filling up fast. Buying more (or bigger) CF cards just feels like I'm setting myself up for more headache.
I've always shot RAW for the usual reasons.
But I'm starting to think about setting back to JPEG for some events I do.
Not really finding much information about making the reverse transition
I've started doing some motorsport events where I can end up with up to 10k images for a weekend. Transferring to my HD at the end of each day is taking a bit of time. And battery life from my laptop (power not always available). Plus time exporting to JPEG after post work.
I'm assuming shooting in JPEG is probably the better option here. I've never tried it but thinking about giving it a go the next weekend I shoot.
I do not do extensive post work for these big weekends, and my preset I apply is pretty basic.
LR3: vibrance, saturation, clarity, maybe a bit of fill light, along with a some noise reduction and sharpening. I think thats about it. Exposure adjustments are rare, but sometimes I'll adjust up/down no more than a stop if I really need to. I do a little more sharpening when render RAW->JPEG in LR.
I know some of this is already done when the camera processes a jpeg, so I guess I will figure out what is already being done and remove that from the typical preset, so the results end up being what I'm used to.
But is there anything else I may want to know when going back to JPEG?
I'll still set back to RAW for the "photography" stuff I try to do these weekends, but JPEG is just sounding better and better for the high volume, low editing stuff. Last time I had to pull out my laptop on the side of a racetrack because my last 32gb was filling up fast. Buying more (or bigger) CF cards just feels like I'm setting myself up for more headache.
____Motoception Photography____
www.motoception.com
www.motoception.com
0
Comments
I suggest that you run a trial project, preferably on a smaller event.
Set up to shoot RAW, as you usually do, but every so often shoot RAW + JPG for a half-hour or so. That way you get to test the hypothesis of exclusive JPGs (don't even look at the RAW files first) during the test periods, but you have the RAW files to fall back on.
Scenes with high dynamic range can be a killer for JPGs alone. In motor sports, light fluorescent colors can make the highlights extreme and if the highlights get clipped in a JPG, they're gone for good. (Generally, RAW files are more recoverable for both highlights and shadows.)
Night sports are also more difficult as artificial lighting can throw AWB considerably off (as some lights go through a 60hz cycle and change colors through the cycle.) RAW files allow a second chance to get WB correct.
For an important event, or during particularly difficult conditions, I think that using RAW capture is an important option to use, once you figure out how the JPG limitations affect your work and how happy you and your customers are with the results.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
As someone who has actually put a lot of energy into mastering both RAW and JPG capture, here's the biggest tips I can give you:
1.) Nail your exposure and WB, obviously. This is a given. But usually you're shooting in very constant conditions, parked in just a few spots all day, for thousands of photos. So really, it's not that big of a deal. Memorize your exposures for the handful of angles you need. And as far as WB is concerned, be sure to use Kelvin or whatever mode / tool helps you get the most accurate, locked-down results. Personally, I've tried those expensive WB tools but they just don't work for my subject matter. I trust my eye when shooting Kelvin. People say Kelvin isn't as "perfect" as custom WB, but honestly for me it's just a matter of comparing a few thousand images from 1-2 shoots, holding the back of your camera up next to your calibrated computer display, and boom, after that you usually know exactly what to look for when on-location.
2.) Pay attention to your in-camera Picture Controls / Picture Styles, and Active D-Lighting / Auto Lighting Optimizer. This one isn't as exciting on Canon since Canon dynamic range is a bit behind Nikons, but MAN, if you're shooting a modern Nikon and you turn your JPG Active D-Lighting to "Extra-High", get ready to see WAY into your shadows! I don't recommend shooting "Extra-High" all the time, though. What I do recommend is always turning your contrast down in-camera, and leaving your sharpening towards the very lowest settings too. Sometimes I bump my saturation up 1-2 notches in-camera though, especially if I'm shooting "Neutral" Picture Control which I often do. Although Nikon has this new Picture Control called "Flat", and it is truly a JPG version of a RAW file, it is just amazing how well it preserves both highlights and shadows. Of course it does this at the expense of overall contrast, but usually your JPG files are still good enough to proof them right out of the camera with zero editing.
TLDR, nail your exposure, nail your WB, and use "Neutral" Picture Control with the sharpening and contrast turned down a notch or three, and you'll be pretty impressed with the edit-ability of the JPG files. :-D
Good luck!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Alex
I didn't see what kind of tools you use for archiving and workflow. Lightroom for example has tools for handling JPG+RAW, though they are pretty limited. Others may also have non-intuitive handling for it if you capture both (on the same card generally). So if you decide to capture both, do a bit of experimenting with your workflow to make sure you can (as you prefer) eliminate them on import, take them on import and stash somewhere, or keep them together. Some things are just a bit quirky if you do both (for example, someone who wants to use/keep the JPG's but also keep a RAW just in case, in lightroom, doesn't have great options -- the reverse is easy, but not that direction).
The photos are very contrasty, the shadow areas are gone, black, the whites are, for the most part, ok.
It looks like you do batch processing. You can't.
You can't treat a white suited driver and white bike the same way you do a black suited driver on a black bike.
Those shots are going to need individual attention.
Open up the shadows more.
I could show you what I mean, but you have copyrights all over the page and right click disabled, so I won't be posting any.
I will say that I did a screen capture and had no trouble correcting the shot, at least to my liking.
Could I change them all to my liking, I doubt it. But then again, I'm looking at a very small sample image.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Sorry the processing isn't to your liking.
Some days have more images than others and doing individual work is tough sometimes. I honestly do not know how to individually go thru thousands of images without batch work and keep my sanity. I do individual work but not for all events. Yes I keep some protection on my galleries but I can open up some or post up images to a separate gallery, I am always open to learning more.
www.motoception.com
It's not so much that I don't like the processing, I would think that if you're trying to sell these, you'd want to do a little more.
I understand that you take lots of pictures, so do I when I go out.
I'm talking about your website. The photos that you put on line should be some of your better work.
I know I have duds on my site, but I am in no way selling anything.
Here's a quick example of what I'm talking about.
I did a screen capture of one of your files.
I brought in into camera raw in CS6.
In 15 seconds I went from the screen capture ( on the right) to something with some detail (on the left).
If you wanted to hang that photo on the wall, or use it in some other way, would you
want the one that's very dark, or the one with some detail?
That's all I'm saying.
As I said in the other post, even if you do a batch process on the shots, you're still
going to have to go through the ones you post on the website to make those shine.
You can't process a dark picture with the same setting as a photo with a lot of whites in it. (well you can, but the results will be less than perfect)
Good luck.
dave.
EDIT:
Here's the settings I used in camera raw.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Thanks for the post... I see what you're saying
I will work a bit on the settings more and see what works for different pics.
I'm on LR3 so my "Basic" settings are a little different. I think they changed it around in LR4 similar to what you've got but I'm sure I can work with what I have. Will keep at it and do some more research too. I toyed around with it a bit and see that there is improvement that can be done
www.motoception.com
I hate spending other peoples money, but when the sliders Highlights, Shadows, Whites and Blacks
came about, I was able to do much more in camera raw before I entered CS6.
If Lightroom 4 or 5 is set up this way, you may want to look into buying it.
It's a tool, and having good tools most of the time help the job get done quicker and easier.
Breaking up Whites and Highlights, Shadows and Blacks plus the fact that you can add or subtract
with the slider really makes it easier and a much more powerful tool.
I tried a shot of a rider with a white suit and a black bike. (think wedding photographer)
This is a tougher shot for more than one reason. Some of it has to do with the opposite ends
of the brightness scale, the other is the batch processing already been done to it.
But hey, I gave it a shot.
This was a bit more involved, I made a small video of what I did. It's about 2 minutes.
LINK TO VID
Hopefully you can see some of the differences between the sliders in the video.
I think if you get a newer Lightroom (I don't use Lightroom so I can't help you with what version)
and go through your shots and look for those that pop out at you, you can then
processing them individually.
It will make a big difference in the final image.
Good luck.
dave.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Nice work!
Toying around w/ the processing and such as well (thanks for the tips Dave).
I have to admit doing JPEG for high-volume stuff is the way to go it seems. Never had to worry about card capacity and I noticed my batteries were lasting way longer than usual, too.
Backups to hard drives was a breeze.
Obviously normally I'm sticking to RAW for the usual photography stuff, but I do see how doing thousands of RAW images can get out of hand quickly.
I think I made some good improvements to the post work, probably still have a lot to learn but it might be getting better. I'll throw up some images in the "Shots" subforums but might toss a few here when I get a chance. Looking back I see how the "Before" pics above are not great, so my standards have gotten better since posting.
www.motoception.com
Here is one from this past weekend, same rider/bike.
Obviously not the exact same lighting conditions but you get the idea.
If I bump up the Fill Light in LR3, at some point it starts getting a little hazy and although makes the shadowed sections easier to view... to me makes the image, as a whole, a bit "meh".
I found a few ways to help fix it but it seemed like I was chasing my tail.
No clip warnings (well, minimal I mean) in the blacks or whites so i guess it's at least better than the above shot (which surely has clipping in the black side).
Dave's first example looks really good although I'm not sure how to emulate it with what LR3 offers. I'll probably look to upgrade eventually, but for now trying to use what I've got.
www.motoception.com
I also did some different things in some galleries, so I can go back with a clear mind and review when I'm not sleep deprived, to see what I think. I do like a "contrasty" image but agree the images Dave used as an example are way too dark.
Although this wasn't the direction I intended with this thread, it's probably a good direction in any case.
www.motoception.com
I did mean to hijack the thread and turn it into a tutorial thread either, I just wanted you to know that there was, even with a jpg,
a lot of info being thrown away.
I don't shoot events, I just shoot for fun.
I'm not sure how many shots you're taking in a day, or how many you're trying to process to put on your site.
I can tell you, that I regularly shoot 300 to 600 shots when I go out.
When I get home, I download them to a folder on the computer and open the folder in CS6 bridge.
I make a run through the shots. As I see a shot that stands out, I do a quick 15 - 20 second process right then,
and save the file by adding a one to the file name.
It's now real easy to find that file again at a later time to maybe try something different to that file, or one that
may have been taken a few before or a few after.
My goal the first time through to to find 10 good shots, it doesn't always happen, but that's the goal.
Then I go through them again. I try to find 5 more. Call them second tier shots. Good, but nothing great.
Then I walk away for at least a couple of hours. Then I revisit the shots I processed to see what I missed,
and also take a more relaxed look at some of the other shots, maybe find a couple of B sides to toss in the mix.
Ok, back on track.
The reason I jump into these raw/jpg threads is because I'm one of the few that didn't make the switch to raw.
That said, there are some situations that I do shoot raw, mostly when there is mixed lighting like sunlight
through a window and a bulb in the corner. Two totally different color temps drive me crazy when using jpgs.
Full disclaimer, is there more info in a raw file? yes there is.
Do you always need all that info to produce a quality product? No you don't.
Are you ever going to have shots while shooting jpgs that you wish you would have shot in raw? Absolutely.
But it won't be the dark areas driving you crazy, it will be the whites.
In saying that, for the most part in your shots, it seems that you are handling the white areas pretty well.
A quick tip, lower the contrast by a notch in your picture styles. If you get a blown out area, it shouldn't
be as large.
Another tip, shoot at -⅓ ev. Stay in control of the whites.
You always hear, expose to the right. Not with jpgs. If you over exposed by ⅔ to a stop over, those
whites aren't coming back.
I know that you're trying to get through the shots fast. All I can say is, slow down.
I've been shooting digital since 1995, I have no Photoshop actions or presets that I use on a regular basis.
I go through everything on its own.
But I have the luxury of doing this as a hobby. No one is waiting for my shots to get posted, I have no deadline.
Wow, did I get carried away with that thought.
Sorry about that.
A couple of thoughts on your last shot.
The darks are still to dark, the highlight are still a bit harsh, but knowing that you're in midday sun, I don't know if that
could be changed.
Now, I know this is an example shot, but look at your background. Hundred of dead tires.
Two things to do. One, move to a different spot so the tires aren't in the shot.
Two, and this is tough and takes practice, use an ND filter, slow that shutter speed, and pan longer blurring the background.
One time I had a person see the big lens and told me that there where some bald eagles in the dump.
I love photographing wildlife, bald eagles are great, but what kind of shots am I going to get of them sitting
on a huge pile of garbage. Not very good ones.
Sure, maybe a few flight shots but no, I thanked them for the info, but I never went to dump for the eagles.
Sorry about being so long winded.
Closest thing I have to motorsports.
I got my car stuck in a ditch looking for snowy owls. These kids were on the other side of the highway
jumping the road.
Someday I'm going to get rid of that pole.
Oh yeah, the snowy.
Geeze, I even bored him.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
For the motorcycle races, I am usually doing 2,000-3,000 shots per day, or maybe 6-7k shots per weekend. I did over 10k on a 3-day weekend
It's usually bad if I can't get them done before the following weekend, so I've got 5 days and sadly I have a day job so everything gets done at nights after dinner.
I make a quick sweep through the bad compositions, blurry shots, and ones where the exposure is just too awful to attempt to fix. I then go through for the images that are blurry or soft at 1:1
Images do not need to be tack sharp so long as they look pretty solid at full screen.
During this same sweep I will rate/star tack sharp images and ones that I need to keep for the Highlights gallery. Highlights gallery ends up being the top 5-10%, basically if I were to shoot to show off my work and nothing more.
In a ideal world I would only upload the best, stuff I would show off to another photographer type stuff. But I have to keep reminding myself that I am not selling to other photographers, and there are many other reasons to buy a photo for these guys. Stuff like a buddy being in the background (to rub it in they were getting beat), a sponsor sticker with a nearby starburst that highlights the company name, etc, etc.
For these events I tend to lean towards safe shutter speeds. I'd prefer to shoot at 1/160 or less (which is when the panning starts to look really good at my setup) but my keeper rate drops. Which isn't a problem photography-wise, but I start to miss images that were a shame to loose. So I have been doing 1/250 when at 200mm (crop sensor body). I will probably drop back down to 1/160 soon as my keeper rate is getting better than when I started a few months ago.
This last weekend I used 1/320 at 200mm as a test to see how the results were. Keeper rate was a little better but 1/250 was similar keeper rate so will go back to that. I used 1/400 when I had the 1.4x TC on. Hand-holding with the TC was difficult, I moved to a monopod which was the first time I have ever panned w/ a 'pod... and I was horrible. After the third race I got much better but it is a way different to me than hand-hold panning.
I have the baby 70-200mm, f4 and non-IS... by the way.
I'm not sure how much the non-IS is hurting me, if at all, but due to some of the distances I have to stay at... I am probably going to look into a 300mm in which case I might just opt for the IS so I can see for myself. I'm also hoping the 1.4 TC works better on a 300mm prime because it is really tough to get a tack image on the baby 70-200mm with it. The f2.8 version of the 70-200 is something I will upgrade to eventually, maybe a sharper lens than the f4 baby brother.
Ok, back on track..
The last image I posted was probably the worst type of shot as that day was really bright. And that guys bike is really dark
The track I was at is nororious for all those tires. I do move around a lot to always change perspective (something I was bad at but am getting better) so the tires in the background for my example was probably just a fluke.
I took your advise and dropped my contrast down a little and it does help with the shadows a little. So I will keep playing with it.
I'm also still learning my LR3 as this week I've found a few things I have been doing wrong with it, which will help speed up my post work when I have a high-volume day. I probably need to take some online classes or tutorials because there is probably other things I'm doing wrong. All in due time, I suppose.
www.motoception.com
For the bikes it looks like you're mostly at 200mm.
Are you cropping the shots, if not, a 300mm lens isn't going to help.
Or, are you using a non-reporting tc?
I've never used a Canon 70-200 f2.8, but a lot people swear by them.
I use a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 with a 1.4 or 2x tc for reach.
It's a really good lens.
I have the version before the 'Sport' version that is being sold now.
It's a heavy lens, around 8 pounds, but it works great.
I also have a Canon 300 f2.8 i.s. version I, it's a hell of a lens, but for me, the zoom works better
so the Canon will be up for soon.
Another thing that I'm going from memory on, that the 70-200 f4 with i.s. is supposed to be very sharp.
As sharp or sharper than the 70-200 f2.8 with i.s. version I.
I don't think I've ever really done any panning.
I'm mostly trying to stop wing movement, so shutter speed is where it's at.
I guess I got nothing.
I think right now the best money you can spend would be an update to LR whatever.
The updated sliders and whatever else that's been updated will probably be the least expense for the most return.
I know I never wanted to update Photoshop, but ever time I did, my shots got better.
Well, that and over the years I may have gotten a bit better at using it.
Anyway, good luck.
dave.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Not cropping. I try to position myself where I'm not reaching too far at 200mm.
Problem is there are some turns a 200mm would just not work. So some spots I just don't/can't shoot.
At the end of some days I feel my perspectives do not vary as much as they should.
These images were done on the 1.4x TC (at 280mm) and I would not shoot at this spot w/ only 200mm.
I was also a little unhappy w/ the sharpness, I just could not get anything that was super sharp.
In fact the only reason I was even there at this turn was I was shooting with another photog running a 400mm (full frame).
I moved to a few other outside turns and it was even further away, images are almost not worth uploading IMO.
Since I have a few tracks coming up where I will be even further away (larger tracks) I know I'm going to want more reach.
I think the 70-200mm is treating me well but I am learning it just can't shoot most outside turns, which is a bummer for motorcycle stuff since inside/outside shots are very different (bike lean) while cars more or less look the same whether inside/outside.
It's also a reach to get head-on shots.
I'm not sure what a non-reporting TC is? It's a Canon 1.4x II
For sure will be looking into upgrading LR as well.
www.motoception.com
The Sigma looks nice
But f2.8 glass of that size is way out of my price range.
I'll probably be looking at 300mm f4 lenses this weekend, I live right by KEH so might get something lightly used to stay within budget.
Use the savings towards newer LR maybe
www.motoception.com
KEH has a few of the Sigma's without o.s., $1400 - $1000.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
This (along with a whole bunch of others) were taken at the big trash dump in Anchorage.
They hang out at the perimeter so as long as you are shooting outward no one would ever know.
Both of these were actually taken from the comfort of a rental car using the window as a prop (it was quite freezing out, AK in January).
I had a few panning shots within the landfill with a lot of blur which turned out interesting with the odd colors from the trash, really weird juxtaposition with the eagles in flight, but subjects too blurry to keep.
www.motoception.com
Since Jan this yr I've not been able to view the raws I shoot, because I bought a 7Dm2 (first new dslr for me) because of various issues associated with age of pc / operating sytem / software versions etc.
Fortunately the 7Dm2 has twin card slots, so I've been saving raws to one, jpgs to t'other.
Been an interesting time ...I do have access to a much newer LT (mrs pp's) that has dpp4+ on it and can be used if absolutely necessary ... which I've found to be rare.
I obviously edit / cull the jpgs on my normal machine, then dump the associated raws.
Re backgrounds ... my usual venue (15 mins bike ... with pedals, ride away) is a council run country park, open to everyone, close to signs of both domestic and industrial use / habitation ... so taking pics without any of this in frame is a frequent challenge ... especially when dinghy / triathlon / Newfoundland dog / model boat clubs etc place dayglo yellow / orange buoys in the water as course markers.
Local bird friendly organisations have also created artificial nesting / resting sites in some of the 10 or so lakes ...
There's nowt like the feeling, of willing a bird to 'get a move on' when landing / taking off, because I know that it's going to go past one of these sites with sides made of sheet perspex, with organisation's details painted on the side in 2 - 3 ft high characters
So, why do I continue going there, some might ask
Convenient, don't want to drive, exercise thro' biking, challenge, etc ... but I also think it's possible to get half decent shots of supposedly 'boring / common' subjects ... without traipsing halfway round the world
I also have no interest in 'ticking off' subjects from some sort of list ... but like Dave, I'm an amateur, so I only have to please myself, not some employer / publisher etc.
Not that I expect others to agree, of course ...
pp
One example of the bg issue was previously mentioned here .. post 7
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=246360
Edit
Sometimes we even get a bit of drama + media coverage of events at the above venue
(not my pics, btw ... for those who won't read the text ... which is essentially a load of bs anyway)
LDBCii gives an accurate account of the scenario.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3109883/Pick-size-Dramatic-moment-dog-swan-come-blows-lake.html
Flickr
Fine shots.
I've had a few opportunities to shoot eagles where it's kind of a can't miss.
I couldn't see me standing in a dump trying to get a shot.
It was 400 miles from the house, but worth the drive.
dave.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I try very hard to get the background right.
Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.
Like you, I go to areas mostly by the house or by the trailer we have on a lake.
There are times that if I can't get the background right, I don't even take the shot.
I've been to these places so many times, and the fact that I know I'll be there again gives me the luxury of being able to wait.
Of course, sometimes you have to take the shot when you feel that you may not get the chance to see it again.
Then you find out if you're any good at Photoshop.
dave
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.