And as far as saving RAW files go, in most editors when you save the RAW file you also save the file that contains all your adjustments. So when you delete the JPEG to save space after it's been uploaded to a website or printed, you can easily go back to the RAW file and make another JPEG, same size, quality, or different. The scope is infinite!
VI
PS it also sounds like your getting the hang of making the shot in-camera. Although you can PP the heck out of pictures, there is nothing better than a great shot made on site. PP is good for little tweaks if you need it; much more becomes noticeable and detracts from final quality.
So, when it asks, "crw256 has been modified, do you want to save the changes?" if I say yes, it is actually saving two files - the one I've adjusted and the original? or have I permanently modified the original?
So, when it asks, "crw256 has been modified, do you want to save the changes?" if I say yes, it is actually saving two files - the one I've adjusted and the original? or have I permanently modified the original?
It is doing neither. It is not saving two copies, nor is it saving a permanently mod'd original.
It is NOT changing the original RAW file, it is saving that file alongside the set of adjustments that are applied when you open it in that editor. So you can always make changes to your adjustments without losing data in the original RAW file. Hence yet another benefit of non-destructive RAW editing. Cool, eh?
In fact I think in certain editors you can save different versions of an edit with NO changes or loss to data of the original RAW file and without duplicating the original file, just adding a different set of adjustments.
dgrin.com - making my best shots even better since 2006.
The waters have gotten a bit muddied in the last few posts.
In all the converters I have used, the original RAW file is not touched, the only thing that is being saved is a set of conversion instructions. Depending on the converter, this can be a sidecar file (e.g., Bibble) or in a central database (e.g., Adobe's products). Either way all that is being saved is your conversion steps. If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).
If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).
Une petite correction, SVP:
No siree. Nikon NX is non-destructive editor for Nikon RAW (NEF). I use it all the time! It may be destructive for JPEG or other RAW, but I don't know.
VI
dgrin.com - making my best shots even better since 2006.
No siree. Nikon NX is non-destructive editor for Nikon RAW (NEF). I use it all the time! It may be destructive for JPEG or other RAW, but I don't know.
VI
OK. I have read from some NX users that it wrote to the RAW file & caused them issues. I would prefer to be misinformed there.
The waters have gotten a bit muddied in the last few posts.
In all the converters I have used, the original RAW file is not touched, the only thing that is being saved is a set of conversion instructions. Depending on the converter, this can be a sidecar file (e.g., Bibble) or in a central database (e.g., Adobe's products). Either way all that is being saved is your conversion steps. If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).
So, just messing around, I 1. adjusted the image; 2. converted and saved as jpg; 3. saved changes to original RAW file. I now see in my folder the three thumbnails: The RAW, with noted change; a tiff file of same image; and the jpg. The RAW image looks great and shows the changes I made, the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right? Should I continue in this vein? What am I actually doing to the file if I'm not ending up with the changes I made?
So, just messing around, I 1. adjusted the image; 2. converted and saved as jpg; 3. saved changes to original RAW file. I now see in my folder the three thumbnails: The RAW, with noted change; a tiff file of same image; and the jpg. The RAW image looks great and shows the changes I made, the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right? Should I continue in this vein? What am I actually doing to the file if I'm not ending up with the changes I made?
But when I open up the image in ps it looks good, and it looks good on the web site.
It's all a little confusing - but I'll just keep cracking away at it.
But then I don't care for either (RSP's awful color rendition--a shame as the rest was very nice, LR's jack-of-all-trades compromises--bleh).
Well, that's nice, but the question was about a replacement for RSP now
that it's dead. Since Lightroom 1.1 is a continuation of RSP (Adobe bought
RSP and a couple of the people who worked on it), and it is based on its
engine, I think it is a perfectly valid answer, no matter what your opinion on
the software itself.
the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right?
That depends on what you mean by "don't look so good". Do the colors look
bland compared to what you see in Photoshop? If so, it's probably your color
profile. Try converting it to sRGB before saving the image as a JPG.
That depends on what you mean by "don't look so good". Do the colors look
bland compared to what you see in Photoshop? If so, it's probably your color
profile. Try converting it to sRGB before saving the image as a JPG.
My profile in DPP is set to sRGB.
The RAW file looks crisp and bright and reflects the changes I made. The converted jpg, as viewed beside it in DPP, looks dull, as if I had not adjusted it. But when I open the jpg in ps, it looks fine, seems to relect the changes I made to the original.
It must be the difference in the interfaces - if that's the correct language?
Next, I will learn how to batch process. I have figured out how to get the desired files into the batch folder, now - how to assign the changes to the batch?
The converted jpg, as viewed beside it in DPP, looks dull, as if I had not adjusted it. But when I open the jpg in ps, it looks fine, seems to relect the changes I made to the original.
This sounds exactly like a color profile problem. Try this, open the JPG in
Photoshop, go to Edit->Convert to Profile and tell us what is in the "Source
Space" field.
This sounds exactly like a color profile problem. Try this, open the JPG in
Photoshop, go to Edit->Convert to Profile and tell us what is in the "Source
Space" field.
I don't have that option. I'm too embarrassed to say what version ps I'm using.
Another option... DxO
I just mentioned this in another thread, and it seemed to be more or less on target for this discussion too. I have a Rebel XTi and too recently considered how to sort all this raw processing out. I purchased DxO Optics Pro and use it for all of my raw processing. I really like the output, the interface isn't bad, and the options are pretty cool. The only thing it doesn't do is any kind of auto color fixing. There are a lot of (too many?) options for controlling color and white balance. Just not a one-click fix my color button.
Thought you might be interested, because this helped me a lot. It has given me a pretty reasonble workflow for a very reasonble price. Incidentally, many of the fixes (especially the gemotric ones) are calibrated to an enourmous collection of dSLR's and lenses.
I don't have that option. I'm too embarrassed to say what version ps I'm using.
PS is just a tool.....I have tools (cameras ) that are over 30 yrs old and I can still use them....and when I do I am not embarrased to do so....as far as PS goes I still have PS7 along with CS installed on my PC.....I have been keeping 7 due to the fact that when I get my digital imaging down pat (as comfortable with digital as I was with film) that I have $1000's of plug ins to play with and I have found many of them have never been upgraded past PS7....oh yeah I still have ps 5 & 6 lying arouund here somewhere....had to uninstall them for some reason when I installed CS but 7 was able to stay.......
Also by letting those trying to help what your using it may help them to help you more easily.
PS is just a tool.....I have tools (cameras ) that are over 30 yrs old and I can still use them....and when I do I am not embarrased to do so....as far as PS goes I still have PS7 along with CS installed on my PC.....I have been keeping 7 due to the fact that when I get my digital imaging down pat (as comfortable with digital as I was with film) that I have $1000's of plug ins to play with and I have found many of them have never been upgraded past PS7....oh yeah I still have ps 5 & 6 lying arouund here somewhere....had to uninstall them for some reason when I installed CS but 7 was able to stay.......
Also by letting those trying to help what your using it may help them to help you more easily.
I am still using the edition of ps I purchased many years ago when I was working for a newspaper, at the time that we made the HUGE switch over to scanning negatives and e-mailing our images - seems like ancient history now. Of course it was a big improvement over shooting, developing, printing, and hand-delivering the prints, but just the beginning of the revolution, the tip of the iceberg. Must have been '99 or so. Anyway, it's ps 5. Every year I tell myself, when I master this version I'll upgrade, and of course I haven't mastered it yet. Well, who ever does?
I also have hung onto two 10-D's, that I love and use for everything - weddings, family shoots, etc. 1. I can't afford the latest models; 2. I am comfortable with the 10-D and, again, wanted to learn it thoroughly before upgrading; 3. It takes perfectly fine pictures - without the seemingly overwhelmingly large files of the newer cameras.
I would be happy to upgrade everything - I am more than ready - but can't afford to right now. I am a poor struggling student, and photography, while it is a huge love - has been for thirty-five years - is only a part time gig for me.
But I very much feel out of the loop when I read conversations about cs2, cs3, and the later model cameras.
Meanwhile, I plug away with what I've got.
This has been a helpful conversation about RAW - Thank you! - I am hooked now. I figured out how to save, copy and paste recipes, making my workflow go very smoothly - especially when shooting a large number of images unde the same lighting conditions; much faster than ps, like being able to click "auto adjust" on every image.
Still don't understand "save," though. I was able to save some RAW files and DPP seemed to save parallel files - jpg and the original RAW - but I tried it again, saving the changes to the original RAW file, and it applied the changes, therefore changing the negatives.
Meanwhile, I plug away, poke around, and keep at it.
I still have a copy of MASTERING PS5 .....and a few other "outdated books" I use from time to time...but I will need to start a downsizing real soon ....you are very correct about not mastering one version before getting into another......they have been coming so fast that I doubt that Scott Kelby has time to actually MASTER any version of PS ..............
EDIT?
: AS A student you could probably pick up PS elements5 for way cheap thru Academic Superstore and I believe it processes raw files but the gimp and bibble could be a way to go for free (gimp is not sure about bibble)......
I still have a copy of MASTERING PS5 .....and a few other "outdated books" I use from time to time...but I will need to start a downsizing real soon ....you are very correct about not mastering one version before getting into another......they have been coming so fast that I doubt that Scott Kelby has time to actually MASTER any version of PS ..............
EDIT?
: AS A student you could probably pick up PS elements5 for way cheap thru Academic Superstore and I believe it processes raw files but the gimp and bibble could be a way to go for free (gimp is not sure about bibble)......
As one who started with Elements, used it for a couple years and learned how to get a lot out of it, I generally recommend that people start out with Elements and later upgrade to CSx if they ever get to the point where they feel like they have mastered the power in Elements and are outgrowing it.
For folks who never grew up with Elements and own CSx, this will seem like heresy and I'm sure they would recommend CSx, but the deal is that Elements is amazingly powerful and it's way more than most people ever master. Also, Adobe tends to offer upgrade deals to Elements users so you can probably eventually upgrade to CSx for less than buying it to start with if you end up wanting it after awhile.
The one exception to my Elements recommendation is if you intend to do a lot of event shooting where you have to routinely process hundreds of photos at a time. If that's the case, then you need something that's really geared for the workflow of managing and processing lots of photos. From Adobe, that would mean either Lightroom or CSx, not Elements. But, for pure photo editing Elements is very powerful, is easier to get started with and can usually be upgraded to CSx later in a cost effective manner if needed.
Comments
So, when it asks, "crw256 has been modified, do you want to save the changes?" if I say yes, it is actually saving two files - the one I've adjusted and the original? or have I permanently modified the original?
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
It is doing neither. It is not saving two copies, nor is it saving a permanently mod'd original.
It is NOT changing the original RAW file, it is saving that file alongside the set of adjustments that are applied when you open it in that editor. So you can always make changes to your adjustments without losing data in the original RAW file. Hence yet another benefit of non-destructive RAW editing. Cool, eh?
In fact I think in certain editors you can save different versions of an edit with NO changes or loss to data of the original RAW file and without duplicating the original file, just adding a different set of adjustments.
In all the converters I have used, the original RAW file is not touched, the only thing that is being saved is a set of conversion instructions. Depending on the converter, this can be a sidecar file (e.g., Bibble) or in a central database (e.g., Adobe's products). Either way all that is being saved is your conversion steps. If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
Une petite correction, SVP:
No siree. Nikon NX is non-destructive editor for Nikon RAW (NEF). I use it all the time! It may be destructive for JPEG or other RAW, but I don't know.
VI
OK. I have read from some NX users that it wrote to the RAW file & caused them issues. I would prefer to be misinformed there.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
So, just messing around, I 1. adjusted the image; 2. converted and saved as jpg; 3. saved changes to original RAW file. I now see in my folder the three thumbnails: The RAW, with noted change; a tiff file of same image; and the jpg. The RAW image looks great and shows the changes I made, the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right? Should I continue in this vein? What am I actually doing to the file if I'm not ending up with the changes I made?
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
But when I open up the image in ps it looks good, and it looks good on the web site.
It's all a little confusing - but I'll just keep cracking away at it.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
You wouldn't what?
Well, that's nice, but the question was about a replacement for RSP now
that it's dead. Since Lightroom 1.1 is a continuation of RSP (Adobe bought
RSP and a couple of the people who worked on it), and it is based on its
engine, I think it is a perfectly valid answer, no matter what your opinion on
the software itself.
Ummm, yeeees, that is why a replacement was asked for, nay?
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
That depends on what you mean by "don't look so good". Do the colors look
bland compared to what you see in Photoshop? If so, it's probably your color
profile. Try converting it to sRGB before saving the image as a JPG.
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
My profile in DPP is set to sRGB.
The RAW file looks crisp and bright and reflects the changes I made. The converted jpg, as viewed beside it in DPP, looks dull, as if I had not adjusted it. But when I open the jpg in ps, it looks fine, seems to relect the changes I made to the original.
It must be the difference in the interfaces - if that's the correct language?
Next, I will learn how to batch process. I have figured out how to get the desired files into the batch folder, now - how to assign the changes to the batch?
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
This sounds exactly like a color profile problem. Try this, open the JPG in
Photoshop, go to Edit->Convert to Profile and tell us what is in the "Source
Space" field.
http://bertold.zenfolio.com
I don't have that option. I'm too embarrassed to say what version ps I'm using.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I just mentioned this in another thread, and it seemed to be more or less on target for this discussion too. I have a Rebel XTi and too recently considered how to sort all this raw processing out. I purchased DxO Optics Pro and use it for all of my raw processing. I really like the output, the interface isn't bad, and the options are pretty cool. The only thing it doesn't do is any kind of auto color fixing. There are a lot of (too many?) options for controlling color and white balance. Just not a one-click fix my color button.
Thought you might be interested, because this helped me a lot. It has given me a pretty reasonble workflow for a very reasonble price. Incidentally, many of the fixes (especially the gemotric ones) are calibrated to an enourmous collection of dSLR's and lenses.
http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo
http://jeffwolfe.smugmug.com
Canon 7D / EF 24-105L F4 / Tokina 12-24 F4
PS is just a tool.....I have tools (cameras ) that are over 30 yrs old and I can still use them....and when I do I am not embarrased to do so....as far as PS goes I still have PS7 along with CS installed on my PC.....I have been keeping 7 due to the fact that when I get my digital imaging down pat (as comfortable with digital as I was with film) that I have $1000's of plug ins to play with and I have found many of them have never been upgraded past PS7....oh yeah I still have ps 5 & 6 lying arouund here somewhere....had to uninstall them for some reason when I installed CS but 7 was able to stay.......
Also by letting those trying to help what your using it may help them to help you more easily.
I am still using the edition of ps I purchased many years ago when I was working for a newspaper, at the time that we made the HUGE switch over to scanning negatives and e-mailing our images - seems like ancient history now. Of course it was a big improvement over shooting, developing, printing, and hand-delivering the prints, but just the beginning of the revolution, the tip of the iceberg. Must have been '99 or so. Anyway, it's ps 5. Every year I tell myself, when I master this version I'll upgrade, and of course I haven't mastered it yet. Well, who ever does?
I also have hung onto two 10-D's, that I love and use for everything - weddings, family shoots, etc. 1. I can't afford the latest models; 2. I am comfortable with the 10-D and, again, wanted to learn it thoroughly before upgrading; 3. It takes perfectly fine pictures - without the seemingly overwhelmingly large files of the newer cameras.
I would be happy to upgrade everything - I am more than ready - but can't afford to right now. I am a poor struggling student, and photography, while it is a huge love - has been for thirty-five years - is only a part time gig for me.
But I very much feel out of the loop when I read conversations about cs2, cs3, and the later model cameras.
Meanwhile, I plug away with what I've got.
This has been a helpful conversation about RAW - Thank you! - I am hooked now. I figured out how to save, copy and paste recipes, making my workflow go very smoothly - especially when shooting a large number of images unde the same lighting conditions; much faster than ps, like being able to click "auto adjust" on every image.
Still don't understand "save," though. I was able to save some RAW files and DPP seemed to save parallel files - jpg and the original RAW - but I tried it again, saving the changes to the original RAW file, and it applied the changes, therefore changing the negatives.
Meanwhile, I plug away, poke around, and keep at it.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
EDIT?
: AS A student you could probably pick up PS elements5 for way cheap thru Academic Superstore and I believe it processes raw files but the gimp and bibble could be a way to go for free (gimp is not sure about bibble)......
Do I want elements or CS?
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
As one who started with Elements, used it for a couple years and learned how to get a lot out of it, I generally recommend that people start out with Elements and later upgrade to CSx if they ever get to the point where they feel like they have mastered the power in Elements and are outgrowing it.
For folks who never grew up with Elements and own CSx, this will seem like heresy and I'm sure they would recommend CSx, but the deal is that Elements is amazingly powerful and it's way more than most people ever master. Also, Adobe tends to offer upgrade deals to Elements users so you can probably eventually upgrade to CSx for less than buying it to start with if you end up wanting it after awhile.
The one exception to my Elements recommendation is if you intend to do a lot of event shooting where you have to routinely process hundreds of photos at a time. If that's the case, then you need something that's really geared for the workflow of managing and processing lots of photos. From Adobe, that would mean either Lightroom or CSx, not Elements. But, for pure photo editing Elements is very powerful, is easier to get started with and can usually be upgraded to CSx later in a cost effective manner if needed.
Homepage • Popular
JFriend's javascript customizations • Secrets for getting fast answers on Dgrin
Always include a link to your site when posting a question