[ManuH]

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.

The downside of not converting is slower preview when you just want to look at your pictures, do a slideshow etc. And a good converted jpeg is not that much worse than an uncompressed 16 bits file. I don't think you would notice the difference anyway.

[Marc Sabatella]

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.

I'll add one more thing. It's not that I don't still use batch conversion. I do - but now with more specific purposes in mind. Here's the main one:

My laptop drive is not nearly big enough to fit every picture on it I've ever taken. That would be true even if I shot JPEG - the PEF files from the K200D aren't *that* much bigger, and with the DS, I converted PEF to compressed DNG. So my images live on a pair of external hard drives. But of course, I like to have my images available on my laptop in *some* form at least.

So what I do is go through my RAW files, rate them all to identify the "keepers". I keep them *all* on my external drives, but less than half are marked as "keepers" I want on my laptop. Now, the original RAW file on my external drive is perfectly usable as is, and if I ever want to make a large print, I'll be home and able to access it directly. So I don't need full size JPEG copies on my laptop for that. All I need is something big enough to view full screen, email to friends, post online, and *maybe* print 4x6. So I take the "keepers" and batch convert them to JPEG, but only at 1200x1800 resolution, and only medium-high quality. The resulting files - I call them "proofs" - are about 1/10 the size of a full-size highest-quality JPEG, and I'm only keeping less than half of them on my laptop. As a result, it is not a problem at all to have proofs of all the keepers I will ever shoot in my lifetime on a single laptop hard drive.

These are, in most cases, the only JPEGs I ever generate. They are the ones I view when browsing for my own enjoyment. They are the ones I post online, email to friends and family, and print from when making 4x6. But the original RAW files are still perfectly usable on drives sitting on my desk. If I want to make a large print of a picture I took last year, I can go right back to that RAW file, find all my settings right where I left them, make further tweaks if necessary, and either print directly if using my own printer, or do a quick conversion to to TIFF or JPEG or just that image to take to a professional service if printing larger than my printer can handle.

[Marc Sabatella]

The downside of not converting is slower preview when you just want to look at your pictures, do a slideshow etc.

Depends on how fast your software is, whether it caches its own previews, etc. but see my post immediately above - I actually *do* generate batch covnersions for just those sorts of purposes - but only on the images I am likely to want to include in slideshows, and no reason to make it super high resolution or quality. Best of both worlds, as far as I am concerned.

[rfortson]

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.

Correct, that's what I meant. Since we were talking about raw converters, I was refering to just Photolab, not Photobrowser. Thanks for the clarification.

[rfortson]

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.



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.



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.

I see your point, though it's not like my raw file turned into a jpeg. I still have the raw file and the processed jpeg. However, the times I've had to go back and re-edit a file aren't that often so I guess it hasn't bugged me enough yet. For my purposes, it's much quicker to edit my raw files in the Pentax software than either of the Adobe products, though judging Adobe products on speed isn't really fair to them. I will say that Lightroom is quicker than Photoshop Elements, but then it screws up my exif info (the version 2 beta), so I'm hesistant to use that anyway.

I guess for my needs I haven't seen it as that big of an impact (or any) to how I do business. Since I've owned PSE for a few years, and tried both betas of Lightroom, and I didn't really even notice that difference, I guess it's not a deal breaker. If I was a pro and needed consistency in my files so I could sell an identical shot over and over again. But then, a high quality 6-8MB jpeg that's been properly processed is pretty much indistiguishable from a raw file anyway.

I guess I process raw files the same way I spell - differently every time.

[robert]

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!

What program did you use to convert your raw files that you liked? I would go with it if you iked it....Bob

[JETninja]

If you read the K200D review at DP....they got consistitly better (so they thought) using LR over Pentax Lab....

I can't afford LR at this time....but I do have PS CS...may install it soon and check it out.

[Marc Sabatella]

I see your point, though it's not like my raw file turned into a jpeg. I still have the raw file and the processed jpeg.

Which, of course, almost doubles your storage space requirements right there.

However, the times I've had to go back and re-edit a file aren't that often

That's actually true for me too if you are referring only to going back days/weeks/months/years later, but it still misses an important aspect of how programs like LR work: I'm talking more on a *minute by minute* basis.

For example, consider getting home from a shoot with a couple hundred images all shot at the same location. I might go and do a very rough cut at WB and NR and apply these to all the pictures in the shoot together. Nothing is "converted", and I don't really think I'm done, but I have a better starting point from which I can then pick up. I might then select a bunch of similarly-exposed files and crank up the fill light by some constant amount. Select another bunch and just add some constant amount o highlight recovery. Again, not necessarily bringing me to a final product for all of them, but in just a few quick strokes, having all my files at a *much* better starting point. And then I might go in file by file for just the "keepers" and custom process them if necessary. Many won't need further custom processing, but even for the ones that do, it's great that I don't have to commit my processing right away. I might spend a few seconds applying a custom curve to one, then move on to another. I don't obsess about the first one because I know full well I may discover something in processing one down the line that makes me want to go back and revisit a previous image. On the other hand, I might find I like the results I got on one file a lot, and when moving on to the next, I might just hit the "last used" button to copy all the settings from the previosu image to this one. I might even find I have really *nailed* the WB while custom processing one image, and then decide to go back and apply that same WB for *all* the images in the shoot if I think I've really nailed it on one. Again, this is doable in just a few keystrokes, without messing up anything else I've done to those other images.

This sort of "flitting about" within a single batch of images, as opposed to having to methodically process each file one at a time and then call it done, is really where the advantages shine. It allows you to gradually push your images toward the state you want them in. The fact that all of this can be done without ever stopping to convert or save/load anything makes this all very easy. In just a few minutes, I can have *all* images from a shoot looking pretty good, most looking very good, and have a few be pretty much done. If I want, I can stop there. Or I can come back after lunch and fiddle with things a bit more. Although it might sound like all this "flitting about" means you're spending more time per image, quite the opposite is true. both because I can take advantge of multiple small batch operations, but also because it eliminates that agonizing pause and debate as I consider whether a given image is "done" or not. Instead, I just say, "good enough for now" and move on. Maybe I come back, maybe I don't.

Well, enough of my soapbox. I'm not out to convert anyone to my religion - really! Just pointing out that there *are* some pretty fundamental difference in use model between PPL and more modern programs.

For my purposes, it's much quicker to edit my raw files in the Pentax software than either of the Adobe products

I'm wondering, BTW, what in particular you find faster. I don't use Adobe products regularly, but have test-driven Lightroom and found it supported this super-quick mode of work I am talking about. Even if any given setting took an extra couple of seconds, I'd still save a *ton* of time overall by using the type of approach I am talking about. If, on the other hand, you insist on using LR like one uses PPL - one file at a time, stay with it until it's done because there is no coming back - then indeed, it won't seem any faster. The speed is in the use model, not the tool itself.

[rfortson]

Which, of course, almost doubles your storage space requirements right there.

Which is really a non-issue for me. By the time I fill up my hard drives, the 1TB drives will be under $100. That's many 10's of thousands of raw files.

Well, enough of my soapbox. I'm not out to convert anyone to my religion - really! Just pointing out that there *are* some pretty fundamental difference in use model between PPL and more modern programs.

Eh, I still think they're all pretty much the same. I just checked and you can save the settings for individual raw files and then recall them later, so I reckon the programs are closer in function than we thought. It's just not a feature that I need. I find that I can go through several dozen shots in about an hour and do whatever adjustments I need. I'm probably not as picky as some (in fact, I know I'm not), but that still includes exposure, WB, contrast, sharpness, cropping, and sometimes NR and lens corrections.

I'm wondering, BTW, what in particular you find faster. I don't use Adobe products regularly, but have test-driven Lightroom and found it supported this super-quick mode of work I am talking about. Even if any given setting took an extra couple of seconds, I'd still save a *ton* of time overall by using the type of approach I am talking about. If, on the other hand, you insist on using LR like one uses PPL - one file at a time, stay with it until it's done because there is no coming back - then indeed, it won't seem any faster. The speed is in the use model, not the tool itself.

Not really just the user, but actual load times for either of the Adobe programs is just glacial, then it loads the catalog, takes a while to load a file, etc, etc. And I'm using a new, quad-core computer, 3GB ram, 1 TB of drive space. This is not even counting the fact that LR actually changes the EXIFs on my raw files (incorrectly putting the edit date into the original file date, which screws up my filing system), which is pretty much a no-no in my book. Even with that, I've considered LR twice (both betas) and still didn't see a reason to change. Speed of managing the files was the primary reason.

The Pentax software is a popular target, and I used to dismiss bundled software too. However, when I was forced to use it while waiting for K100D pef update to come from Adobe, I got over the hump on the learning curve and found that I could do my processing faster, and I liked the results better. Obviously, YMMV.

Arguing raw processors is like arguing religion (or Mac vs PC, or Yankees vs Red Sox). I wonder which religion the Pentax Photolab would be? I'd better not go there. The only guarantee is that someone will get upset.

[Lowell Goudge]

I guess I may be in the minority here, but I have almost exclusively shot JPEG, and not RAW.

I have done some trial shots, and also one in very difficult conditions, but generally try to set the JPEG settings right when I take my shots.

This means taking a trial shot, looking at the exposure and histogram, amd making decisions about saturation and contrast, as well as white balance to suit the conditions. In many instances, I have found that the JPEGs are just as good as raw files tweeked and then converted, and my view is that part of photography is understanding how to make these settings, based upon the varrying lighting conditions.

[rfortson]

I guess I may be in the minority here, but I have almost exclusively shot JPEG, and not RAW.

I have done some trial shots, and also one in very difficult conditions, but generally try to set the JPEG settings right when I take my shots.

This means taking a trial shot, looking at the exposure and histogram, amd making decisions about saturation and contrast, as well as white balance to suit the conditions. In many instances, I have found that the JPEGs are just as good as raw files tweeked and then converted, and my view is that part of photography is understanding how to make these settings, based upon the varrying lighting conditions.

This is the 6th tenet of the dSLR catechism. Of course, then there's the 7th tenet....

[troywhite]

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.

You left Bibble Pro out of your list. A really impressive RAW tool.

[philmorley]

have a look at Status report of RawTherapee 2.4 milestone 2 very good for the price (free / donation)

[Marc Sabatella]

By the time I fill up my hard drives, the 1TB drives will be under $100.

True. That is admittedly not a huge factor.

I just checked and you can save the settings for individual raw files and then recall them later, so I reckon the programs are closer in function than we thought.

Not really. You have to explicitly save and reload the settings. That's still entirely different from the sort of "flitting about" I mentioned. If I had to stop to save and reload settings every time I moved from one file to another, I figure that would probably *double* the amount of time I spent in the process. And of course, PPL still lacks the ability to do things in incremental batches - not *convert* in batches, but just, say, set WB. Meaning I'm still limited to a one-file-at-a-time model if I want to do anything beyond converting everything using the exact same settings. It's not even *close* to the same thing - there is just no way to use PPL to implement the sort of workflow I am describing.

I find that I can go through several dozen shots in about an hour and do whatever adjustments I need.

Now, this is an interesting point of comparison. If I have several dozen shots to process, I probably spend about 5-10 *minutes* on RAW processing.

I'd say this is *in part* because of the whole batching model I mentioned, where work done on one file can easily be applied to others, and this process is additive and can be done in stages. Meaning a little work goes a long way. It's also in part because I don't feel compelled to get things perfect before moving on, because I know I can easily come back. Some files get more attention than others, and that's OK with me.

But of course, it's also probably the case that I just don't process my files to as high a standard as you do. And this may be a significant differentiator here. If you're processing shots to a very high standard, the sort of batch operations I mentioned may be as valuable - only significant time spent custom processing each file will get you where you want to be. Meaning the workflow benefits I describe might not be worth anything. Which could explain why you didn't find any advantages to the tools that support them.

On the other hand, for my purposes, the approach I am discussing gets me 80% of the way there with only 20% of the effort, and realistically, that's good enough for me. Whereas with the use model enforced by PPL, that 20% of the effort would probably get me only 20% of the results.

Not really just the user, but actual load times for either of the Adobe programs is just glacial, then it loads the catalog, takes a while to load a file, etc, etc.

Yeah, I can see that. I think these are probably designed to be things you leave up all the time. I know that's how I treat ACDSee Pro 2. It's always running, and is my main browser for images. When I want to process an image, within two seconds of selecting it, I can be moving sliders. LR is even faster when used in this way.

This is not even counting the fact that LR actually changes the EXIFs on my raw files (incorrectly putting the edit date into the original file date, which screws up my filing system), which is pretty much a no-no in my book.

Mine too. You sure there is no way to make it not do this? I'd be really surprised, as it does indeed totally defeat most DAM schemes. There are several different date-related EXIF fields. I think of "image:date/time original" as the one that shouldn't ever be messed with, but the others might be considered fair game ("digitized" in particular).

Arguing raw processors is like arguing religion (or Mac vs PC, or Yankees vs Red Sox). I wonder which religion the Pentax Photolab would be? I'd better not go there. The only guarantee is that someone will get upset.

Well, so far, I'm not upset at all, and if you are, I do apologize...

[Jewelltrail]

Marc Sabatella: "and the last of them is free. I can't speak to Picasa's quality, but the price is obviously nice."[QUOTE][/QUOTE]


Hey Marc:

Can you point me to the link for the free Picassa download--I tried a search but could not find it--thanks.