Using Camera Raw to convert to jpeg

windoze

if i use Camera Raw ( CS3) to convert my Raw files to jpegs, is the quality the same as if i was shooting jpeg + raw,
what i mean is actually....
Can i just shoot in raw and forget (raw + jpeg) all together now?


troy

arodney

windoze wrote:

if i use Camera Raw ( CS3) to convert my Raw files to jpegs, is the quality the same as if i was shooting jpeg + raw,
what i mean is actually....
Can i just shoot in raw and forget (raw + jpeg) all together now?



troy

The quality, depending on how you render the images will likely be better. But they probably will not match.

In-camera rendering and conversion to JPEG is something you have little control over. And then the Raw, which is always created is tossed away.

In a Raw converter, you have enormous control over the rendering. Just White Balance and highlight control is vastly more powerful. If you do this, then build JPEGs, the two will match color appearance perfectly. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, you'll spend a lot of time trying to reproduce the in-camera JPEGs and the processors do this on an image by image basis making it hard to build even a set of default rendering controls in the Raw converter to 'match' the JPEG. So, I don't see the point of shooting RAW+JPEG unless you are under a huge time crunch and need to upload JPEGs AND the people getting the JEPGs understand the likelihood is the final Raw processing will likely not match the JPEGs and will likely be preferable.

This article explains the processes used in both situations:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

windoze

arodney wrote:

The quality, depending on how you render the images will likely be better. But they probably will not match.

In-camera rendering and conversion to JPEG is something you have little control over. And then the Raw, which is always created is tossed away.

In a Raw converter, you have enormous control over the rendering. Just White Balance and highlight control is vastly more powerful. If you do this, then build JPEGs, the two will match color appearance perfectly. If you shoot RAW+JPEG, you'll spend a lot of time trying to reproduce the in-camera JPEGs and the processors do this on an image by image basis making it hard to build even a set of default rendering controls in the Raw converter to 'match' the JPEG. So, I don't see the point of shooting RAW+JPEG unless you are under a huge time crunch and need to upload JPEGs AND the people getting the JEPGs understand the likelihood is the final Raw processing will likely not match the JPEGs and will likely be preferable.

This article explains the processes used in both situations:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

thanks Andrew again!!!!
i find myself using camera raw for many more things I never used it for - kinda becoming my best friend.


troy

arodney

windoze wrote:

thanks Andrew again!!!!
i find myself using camera raw for many more things I never used it for - kinda becoming my best friend.


troy

Its even faster and easier in Lightroom!

windoze

arodney wrote:

Its even faster and easier in Lightroom!

ok Andrew - let me ask you this....
I just got a handle on how to use ACR in CS3.
Im using Bridge -> ACR making adjustments -> Photoshop if necessary.
Now you bring up Lightroom ( a product I know nothing about ) If i use Lightroom does that replace using Bridge & ACR? Or are they kinda built into lightroom with additional features and also the ability to mange RAW files.

Im just trying to think how that changes the workflow: would it be shoot in RAW - open in Lightroom -> make adjustments and then if necessary export to PhotoShop?

troy

arodney

windoze wrote:

ok Andrew - let me ask you this....
Im using Bridge -> ACR making adjustments -> Photoshop if necessary.
Now you bring up Lightroom ( a product I know nothing about ) If i use Lightroom does that replace using Bridge & ACR? troy

Yes, you'd replace CR and Bridge with LR if you wanted to. Bridge is a browser, LR is a database. It just provides yet another level of functionality over what can be done with Bridge+CR.

I now do about 85%+ of all work in LR, the rest in Photoshop only when pixel editing is necessary. All the heavy lifting is done in LR.

claudermilk

LR tried to be an all-in-one that does replace Bridge, ACR, a DAM, and printing. Get the trial and try it before spending any money. A lot of people like it, but others (including myself) hate it.