newbie question re RAW

[kleung]

I have always shot JPEGs with my K200d. Today, I tried a raw+ capture indoor with my family, and it appears that the raw file has much better texture and correct exposure than the jpeg. Could be luck of the draw. But I think I am gonna shoot raw files from now on.

What program do you guys recommend to batch-convert raw to JPEG w/ a fixed setting that guarantees better quality than in-camera jpeg? I really don't want to tweak conversion settings on an image by image basis. Of course, a free program would be the best.

Thanks!

[ftpaddict]

You could try Picasa or XNView.

[Arpe]

Apparently Irfanview, another freebie, can do it.

[Russell-Evans]

Originally Posted by kleung

Of course, a free program would be the best.

Photoscape is a pretty interesting piece of free software. The only issue is the file browser can't display the jpegs in the raw files. I use another free program, FastStone, as a front end to it and this works out well. I actually use FastStone as a front end for a number image related software tools. It allows any number of programs to be added to a left click menu.


Thank you
Russell

[marlon]

UFRaw + GIMP
Yes, once you go RAW you never go back. eheheh.

[audiobomber]

Originally Posted by kleung

What program do you guys recommend to batch-convert raw to JPEG w/ a fixed setting that guarantees better quality than in-camera jpeg? I really don't want to tweak conversion settings on an image by image basis. Of course, a free program would be the best.

Thanks!

Pentax Photo Brqwser and Photo Laboratory are free. They came with your camera. While you're in Pentax Photo Browser, click on:
Edit -> Select All
Tool -> Extract jpeg and it will generate jpeg files.


Or if you do want to process, from Photo Browser you can highlight the files you want to process and then click on:
Tool -> Pentax Photo Laboratory
Change any settings in Photo Lab, then click:
File -> Save and it will process all the selected files.

As far as I've heard the free Pentax programs can't be beat for quality RAW conversion, and they definitely understand all of the K20's in-camera settings.

[rfortson]

Originally Posted by audiobomber

Pentax Photo Brqwser and Photo Laboratory are free. They came with your camera. While you're in Pentax Photo Browser, click on:
Edit -> Select All
Tool -> Extract jpeg and it will generate jpeg files.


Or if you do want to process, from Photo Browser you can highlight the files you want to process and then click on:
Tool -> Pentax Photo Laboratory
Change any settings in Photo Lab, then click:
File -> Save and it will process all the selected files.

As far as I've heard the free Pentax programs can't be beat for quality RAW conversion, and they definitely understand all of the K20's in-camera settings.

I'll second what Dan says about the Pentax programs. I prefer them to Photoshop Elements 5 and Lightroom for most of my post processing. Raw processors have different "looks" so you might want to look at some of the others. However, I have found that the Pentax programs (as they should) do a very good job at raw conversion.

The interface is a little different, but once you've learned it, it's no harder than any other program. If you have dual monitors, it works great as well. The preview can be on one screen, and all the adjustment menus can be on the other screen.

[Marc Sabatella]

As far as I am concerned, while the Pnetax programs might produce good results, any program that forces you to convert your image to another format (eg, JPEG) before you can do anything with it belongs back in the 20th century. In *this* century, RAW processing programs allow you to work directly with your RAW files at all times. They include their own browsers that let you visit a file, tweak some settings, and return to browsing without ever forcing you to "save" or 'convert" anything. They let you copy those same settings to other files - again without forcing you to convert anything. They allow to select a bunch of files and apply some previously sdaved preset to them. Again, all without ever explicitly "saving" or "converting" anything, so you don't have to commit to your changes before moving on to another file. You can process a bunch of files a little with some generic settings (like "bump exposure 1/2 EV for all of them, and shift WB to tungsten), then go back to a few of them and tweak them further. When you're done fiddling with your images, it should be easy to select as many or few files as you wish and generate conversions for posting to the web or whatever purposes you might actually *need* a JPEG for, at whatever resolution and compression/quality setting you deem appropriate. But even for the files you don't convert, the original RAW files should still remember the processing you did to them, and you should be able to display or print directly from them without ever having to make a separate JPEG version of them.

The Pentax software is from the Dark Ages as far as this stuff is concerned. The programs that make RAW processing easy in this way include Photoshop CS, Aperture, Lightroom, ACDSee Pro, Photoshop Elements, Lightzone, and Picasa. These are roughly in order from most to least expensive, - and the last of them is free. I can't speak to Picasa's quality, but the price is obviously nice.

Originally Posted by kleung

I have always shot JPEGs with my K200d. Today, I tried a raw+ capture indoor with my family, and it appears that the raw file has much better texture and correct exposure than the jpeg. Could be luck of the draw.

Actually, I'd say probably so, Really, if all you do is a default conversion of your files without tweaking anything, there should be no discernible difference at all. The advantages of RAW come in when you want to tweak things.

[kunik]

Indeed. A lot of people shoot RAW because they think the photos automatically come out better which is not true. I shoot RAW about 10% of the time when I am in tricky lighting or if I'm shooting a job and I get an uncontrolable fear that I'm screwing something up. The other 90% of the time JPG is perfect for me. Remember that eventually you are going to put these files in JPG format anyway so if you get your exposure dialed during the shoot you should not have to mess with the files in the end.

[rfortson]

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

As far as I am concerned, while the Pnetax programs might produce good results, any program that forces you to convert your image to another format (eg, JPEG) before you can do anything with it belongs back in the 20th century. In *this* century, RAW processing programs allow you to work directly with your RAW files at all times.

Hi Marc,

Not sure where this is coming from, but the Pentax software only works on raw files. It won't even open a jpeg. The OP asked for a quick way to batch process some files, using a free/cheap option. Dan posted a method that used the Pentax software for doing just that.

I use the Pentax software regularly, so I know it only works on raw files, and it does all the adjustments (even lens corrections) that most of the others do. It doesn't do dust cloning or localized editing, which is the big deficiency of the program, IMHO.

<edit> I see your point now. After making the changes to the raw file, you have to save it as another format. AFAIK, you can save as a TIFF if you want lossless, or save it as jpeg, but the original editing adjustments are lost. I know Adobe writes these settings as a sidecar, but I'm not sure what the other programs do. Do most other raw converters save the editing adjustments? I thought most didn't, but then I haven't done a complete survey of the other programs out there.

[gawan]

Originally Posted by Marc Sabatella

As far as I am concerned, while the Pnetax programs might produce good results, any program that forces you to convert your image to another format (eg, JPEG) before you can do anything with it belongs back in the 20th century. In *this* century, RAW processing programs allow you to work directly with your RAW files at all times. They include their own browsers that let you visit a file, tweak some settings, and return to browsing without ever forcing you to "save" or 'convert" anything. They let you copy those same settings to other files - again without forcing you to convert anything. They allow to select a bunch of files and apply some previously sdaved preset to them. Again, all without ever explicitly "saving" or "converting" anything, so you don't have to commit to your changes before moving on to another file. You can process a bunch of files a little with some generic settings (like "bump exposure 1/2 EV for all of them, and shift WB to tungsten), then go back to a few of them and tweak them further. When you're done fiddling with your images, it should be easy to select as many or few files as you wish and generate conversions for posting to the web or whatever purposes you might actually *need* a JPEG for, at whatever resolution and compression/quality setting you deem appropriate. But even for the files you don't convert, the original RAW files should still remember the processing you did to them, and you should be able to display or print directly from them without ever having to make a separate JPEG version of them.

The Pentax software is from the Dark Ages as far as this stuff is concerned. The programs that make RAW processing easy in this way include Photoshop CS, Aperture, Lightroom, ACDSee Pro, Photoshop Elements, Lightzone, and Picasa. These are roughly in order from most to least expensive, - and the last of them is free. I can't speak to Picasa's quality, but the price is obviously nice.

Actually, I'd say probably so, Really, if all you do is a default conversion of your files without tweaking anything, there should be no discernible difference at all. The advantages of RAW come in when you want to tweak things.

Well said! When I bought my K10D I shot a handful of photos in JEPG but soon changed to RAW and started to look for an "batch converter". When I the started to use Picasa and Lightroom, I soon abandoned the idea of batch converting, it is simply no needed as a compulsory work flow phase.

It is essential to understand that your don't have to convert anything, but work non-destructively directly with the raw files, only converting if needed to put something in a web gallery or for other similar purposes! And always keep the RAW's as the first source for any further development!

[ManuH]

I agree with Russ, the best and cheaper option is to use the software that comes with your Pentax camera. It is based on the very well regarded Silkypix (a free version of this software is also available). You can also download the latest version (3.51) from Pentax website.

A note: Irfanview doesn't develop raw, it just shows the embedded jpeg. You can extract it with the Pentax Photo Browser or a small utility called PEF2JPEG. This jpeg is compressed to quality * but will have full size (10MP).

Other free option: RawTherapee or even Picasa, very basic, but useful to sort or send by e-mail.

Another simple option: the camera itself ;-) You may find better settings to get the jpeg you want. And you can still develop the raw within the camera after the picture has been taken (unique to Pentax, but I think some other brands do it too now).

[tybeck]

I only use batch conversion after I have tweaked my settings and I have a set of shots what same shots. Unless you want to change settings, white balance, exposure, etc. you might as well just shot JPEG in camera. In my experience some of the free/cheap raw converters yield pictures that are the same or worse than what you'd get from the in-camera processing and the correct exposure.

My primary RAW file converter is RAW Developer (Mac only, sorry). It has a batch processing mode where you can process a block of images based on a saved settings file applied to the whole block or the image settings for each image. So I just run through my "roll" and apply the settings that I like and they let the program chew on them while I go do something else. I think Aperture will do something similar. My computer is bit underpowered (old Powerbook G4) so I really can't process images easily while editing others.

[noblepa]

Originally Posted by rfortson

Hi Marc,

Not sure where this is coming from, but the Pentax software only works on raw files. It won't even open a jpeg. The OP asked for a quick way to batch process some files, using a free/cheap option. Dan posted a method that used the Pentax software for doing just that.

I use the Pentax software regularly, so I know it only works on raw files, and it does all the adjustments (even lens corrections) that most of the others do. It doesn't do dust cloning or localized editing, which is the big deficiency of the program, IMHO.

<edit> I see your point now. After making the changes to the raw file, you have to save it as another format. AFAIK, you can save as a TIFF if you want lossless, or save it as jpeg, but the original editing adjustments are lost. I know Adobe writes these settings as a sidecar, but I'm not sure what the other programs do. Do most other raw converters save the editing adjustments? I thought most didn't, but then I haven't done a complete survey of the other programs out there.

Pentax Photo Browser, which came with my K10D, clearly DOES open jpegs. I'm looking at several, right now.

Pentax Photo Laboratory, is strictly a raw converter.

[Marc Sabatella]

Originally Posted by rfortson

Not sure where this is coming from, but the Pentax software only works on raw files.

Right - but the only thing it can *do* with that RAW file is convert it to another format. Basically, you have no choice but to convert to JPEG in order to then actually do anything with your images. And indeed, you then need to use a different program to do any of those things, because once you've converted to JPEG, PPL is done and out of the picture.

Whereas program like Lightroom, Aperture, ACDSee Pro, Lightzone, and Picasa have an *entirely* different use model, in which you leave your files RAW at all times and never bother converting except when necessary to post to the web or some such. Everything you need to do with an image - make adjustments, print it, do further processing, add metadata to help in organization, etc - you do from the original RAW file, and all from the same program. You never "save" or "convert" anything, unless you want a separate JPEG copy for whatever reason, such as to post to the web. But normally, everything you do is remembered automatically, and completely non-destructively.

The OP asked for a quick way to batch process some files, using a free/cheap option.

Indeed. I'm just staking a step back and asking a much more fundamental question - why would you assume that a batch convert to JPEG is the way to process RAW? It was 10 years ago. Maybe even 5. But really, the change that has occurred in RAW workflow over the last few years is as fundamental as the change from command-line interfaces to GUI interfaces, as I mentioned elsewhere.

I see your point now. After making the changes to the raw file, you have to save it as another format. AFAIK, you can save as a TIFF if you want lossless, or save it as jpeg, but the original editing adjustments are lost. I know Adobe writes these settings as a sidecar, but I'm not sure what the other programs do. Do most other raw converters save the editing adjustments?

The ones I mentioned all do - and they do so *automatically*. You don't have to hit a button to "save" your adjustments and then "load" them again later. At any time down the road, you can go back to your file with just a click and find all your settings exactly where you left them, ready to pick up where you left off (or reset and start over if you like). And since you can print and do other things directly from the RAW file, you really don't need to generate JPEG conversions except for files you intend to share with others. And of course those need not be full size or highest resolution versions. The RAW file itself can remain the "main" version of the file that you use for most purposes, rather than being some sort of "negative" that you file away in box and never look at again after conversion to full-size highest-quality JPEG.

As I've said, it's a *fundamental* change in how one uses RAW. I would no more go back to a conversion-based workflow like that made necessary by PPL than I would go back to DOS and the "C:\>" prompt.