Options
So I shot in RAW, now what?
Duckys54
Registered Users Posts: 273 Major grins
I have never shot with RAW until yesterday when I got my first paying job. Most of the time I shoot what I like because I enjoy doinbg it and so I would use the Large-Fine mode on my camera (Canon 40D). Well, for this job I decided it had to be good so I shot with sRAW + Large-Fine (I did this so I konw I would have copies I could send right away if needed).
Anways, what do I do now? I have CS3, so do I just open it up like a JPEG and work on it like a JPEG? What's the big deal about it? Does it maintain more quality when changing the picture (filters, curves, saturate, etc.)?
Thanks,
Trevor
Anways, what do I do now? I have CS3, so do I just open it up like a JPEG and work on it like a JPEG? What's the big deal about it? Does it maintain more quality when changing the picture (filters, curves, saturate, etc.)?
Thanks,
Trevor
I am Trevor and I have upgraded:
Canon 40D
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS
http://www.flickr.com/trevaftw
Canon 40D
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS
http://www.flickr.com/trevaftw
0
Comments
Working in RAW gives you better control over exposure, white balance and makes global changes easier to adjust. It doesn't replace the selective fine tuning you can do in PS.
When you open a .CR2 file in CS3, it will open in ACR, Adobe's RAW converter. Everything you do at this point is non-destructive, that is, it does not actually change the pixels. When you have finished making the adjustments you want, hitting the Open button will open it in PS.
ACR is quite powerful, but like all good tools it has a learning curve. I suggest you look around for a good book. Here's a quick overview that's a good start: Photoshop CS3 training, Adobe Camera Raw 4 feature overview and tutorial
Cheers,
I just stepped up this mountain and found it a bit of a curve to get here. But, boy is it worth it. My practice was this: go to Barnes and noble and read the chapter on RAW in several PS books. Actually, the better thing is to read one, go home and play, come back and read another, go home and play, etc.
You have several sliders that do similar things, but they are not exactly the same. Also, watch the histogram graph at the top and see what it does, as well as the picture itself. It gives you a better idea of what is changing.
good news is, as Richard pointed out, it is non-distructive, so if you get a more thorough knowledge of it later, you can come back and change it again. of course, i might still have a back up of the originals.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
Or I would suggest getting a copy of lightroom to use for all raw conversions or one of the many free wares that have been mentioned on the forum amny times.....I left ACR for LightRoom sometime ago.....there is a LR 2.0 BETA out there you can use free of charge also for ashort period.
good luck.
AFAIK, LR and CS3 use the same engine for RAW conversion, though the user interface is somewhat different. This may change at some point but for now, LR gives you no advantage for RAW conversions. It does have other features, of course.
Well I think LR gives you the advantage of doing the same operations whether it is RAW or JPEG, and providing more capability that otherwise you would need to enter PS to manage. In LR, I never think about RAW...I just process my images. In PS, you have to do ACR, then go into PS, and do this for each image. If you are really fancy, you can use some actions, but if you ask me, LR is app that makes RAW workable.
If all you need are the adjustments offered by ACR, there is no need to go into PS at all. You can use Bridge to cycle through your files and save them as JPG directly from ACR.
OK, we disagree. I found Bridge to be impossible.
Btw for those without an opinion, I suggest you read this from Adobe:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshoplightroom/productinfo/faq/lr_bridge.html
That was certainly true in CS2 and earlier, but it has been radically improved in CS3.
Filer in CS (and pre-CS) was a joke, CS2's Bridge was a first step in a right direction yet quite slow indeed, and CS3 totally made it. Not saying it's perfect, but works well enough.
To be clear, Bridge is nothing more than a browser. It can make calls to ACR which is doing all the Raw rendering here.
LR is a database, its far from Bridge+ACR. But that's another story.
For the OP, you may wish to read this:
http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf
Then perhaps download the Raw to Print video tutorial at Luminous Landscape which will get you up to speed far faster than any book for about the same cost. There's also a new video on ACR:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/CR_1.shtml
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Andrew, we did discuss this issue many times..
Let's just agree that they are different, suit different purposes and different needs of different people.
your sRAW files are going to be at only 2.1MP or so (if i remember correctly, it is in the manual), just remember that when it comes time to print.
Like some others here, I prefer to do all my RAW stuff with Lightroom instead of ACR (which I did try, just didn't like using the UI).
If you would like to try out Lightroom 2.0 until the end of August, PM me your email address and I'll hook you up with the Beta license.
No, they (ACR and LR) in terms of Raw processing use the same engine (albeit, there are some tiny differences in UI controls). But Bridge doesn't do squat but call ACR! To say that Bridge does anything but point to a Raw and call ACR, then suggest its "faster" when in fact it doesn't process anything whatsoever needs to be clarified (at least by anyone else reading the post you made).
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
You are correct again: Bridge just calls ACR, and that's it.
Apparently, LR, while using the same CameraRaw.8bi dll (which is the heart and soul of Adobe raw engine), spends all the rest of the time updating its wonderful SQLite database for whatever purposes it deems necessary, thus consuming an ungodly amount of CPU cycles...
Well it did in the beta releases, in fact I was not at all impressed with those. But, the shipping version doesn't have the same issues. I have been running it fine on an AMD Athlon with 1GB memory. In fact, it was the UI that was slow, not database ops that I could tell. On my new machine, it runs perfectly.
Seriously, I tried LR, again and again, all the available betas, all the major releases and upgrades. It seems like it simply cannot handle my volume of data, be it UI or database. For me, that is.
And yes, I know a lot of people are happy with it, to which I have no objections whatsoever, just like I don't use any gear whose name starts with "i";-) and many happily do.
There is enough RAW tools on the market (LR, PS/ACR, PM, etc.), most have trials, I think if a person is really interested in it, s/he should simply go and try to find out what suits her/his needs the best.
I think this is actually good through August 31 if you get a registered user to invite you. I asked for an invite on this forum, gave my email address and had one in 2 hours.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
Does anyone use Photoshop Elements for Organization? I do and I love it. When version 2 of LR comes out, I may migrate to that. The beta version does import catalogues. Until then, Elements is great for organization. Also, you can do things like make videos with songs and pictures. As far as I know LR or CS3 can't do that.
Las Cruces Photographer / Las Cruces Wedding Photographer
Other site
If you are going to shoot in RAW don't use sRaw. It is not worth the trouble. Just shoot in RAW or RAW +JPEG.