[Marc Sabatella]

I have used LightRoom 3 BETA (anything for Free!) even though it has its own viewer and one can see the RAW file larger - it is slow - much slower than say FastStone Viewer and it isn't even full-screen and zooming and examining parts of the photos is awkward

The awkwardness of full screen preview is my least favorite thing about LR from what I've seen when I've played with the trials. ACDSee Pro suits me better.

[Marc Sabatella]

.
1) It's hard to describe why you do what you do without sounding like you're slamming the other guy's method.

Well, the person I was responding to was complaining about the results he got from PP. I haven't seen his results, so I'm not criticizing them. Just observing that the fact that someone does not the results he gets from PP doesn't mean PP is inherently incapable of good results. This comment actually had nothing whatsoever to do with RAW versus JPEG, but was a simple statement about PP. So I think your response here is a bit misdirected.

[Jewelltrail]

Marc Sabatella: The awkwardness of full screen preview is my least favorite thing about LR from what I've seen when I've played with the trials.

Yes, those were exactly my feelings when I tried LR, as well as many other softwares.

[UnknownVT]

The awkwardness of full screen preview is my least favorite thing about LR from what I've seen when I've played with the trials.

Yes, those were exactly my feelings when I tried LR, as well as many other softwares.

So... one then asks where is this reputed fast workflow using LR come from?

It seems slow to me when I cannot quickly examine the shot full-screen or at 100% quickly to decide if the file is even worth opening/converting......
whereas with JPGs it is is at least right there and Windows Explorer understands the files.

Fortunately I use Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) via PhotoShop Elements -
ACR seems faster to display the RAW (DNG) images so when there are fewer images (less than about 20 for my PC) I can actually afford to preview the entire folder via ACR - otherwise I have to use FastStone viewer which is reasonably quick - well, let's just say not slow.

But either way as RAW files do have to be converted before any visible image PP - that does NOT take zero (or negative ) time - so it cannot possibly be faster than opening a JPG - can we at least agree on that?

So any workflow using RAW by definition has to be slower than a JPG workflow.

Now whether one can tolerate it and find the gains/trade-off worthwhile is a matter for the individual.
eg: I have streamlined my personal RAW workflow (as posted earlier) enough that at least it is not a PITA -
but for my usage it is not worth shooting storing and processing RAW -
even when I understand that RAW is intrinsically superior -
but just not enough for my usage and output.

[Alfisti]

You just view the files first in Faststone which uses the camera's jpg, delete the crap and you are set. It makes no difference to the time taken otheer than the need to open another program. Either way you're doing a quick check to delete the rubbish wheather it's LR only or LR + Faststone or just JPG in windows or faststone.

[jsherman999]

Well, the person I was responding to was complaining about the results he got from PP. I haven't seen his results, so I'm not criticizing them. Just observing that the fact that someone does not the results he gets from PP doesn't mean PP is inherently incapable of good results. This comment actually had nothing whatsoever to do with RAW versus JPEG, but was a simple statement about PP. So I think your response here is a bit misdirected.

.

Marc, Unfortunately it looks like I was responded specifically to you because I used your quote as a lead-in, but it really was a general observation about how these discussions usually lead to misinterpretations of intent which lead to arguments. It was about me as much as anyone, don't take it personally!

[Lowell Goudge]

.

Marc, Unfortunately it looks like I was responded specifically to you because I used your quote as a lead-in, but it really was a general observation about how these discussions usually lead to misinterpretations of intent which lead to arguments. It was about me as much as anyone, don't take it personally!

I think you and Marc have proved the point quite well.

It is impossible to say anything without someone taking it the wrong way

What would be really good, since I maintain there is a time and place for both RAW and JPEG is to somehow construct a survey or chart that lists multiple situations, conditions etc, and whether using our beloved pentax cameras which situations are better for RAW, JPEG or which can be either.

it would include news, uploading instantly to the net, high frame rates, as well as wedding, fine art, portrait, snapshots, HDR etc....

I am not even sure yet how to set all the criteria and perhaps it is more a subject of another thread.

[Ron Boggs]

Last summer I shot some sports stuff to go along with daily press releases I was sending to a bunch of newspapers. I shot JPEG's at the lowest resolution setting on a K10D--is that 2 or 4 megapixel? Shots were at 1600 iso as well. But with good flash for lighting more than 10 shots were published, one in seven newspapers simultaneously. Post processing was with whatever the Microsoft Vista stock software was in the computer I used. So if the issue is publication or sale for publication the raw vs JPEG discussion isn't even pertinent. Fine art may be different (I use film and medium format for art--just my bent and my equipment preference).

Attached image shot as JPEG from a photo blind and quick processed in the Microsoft Vista stock software...

[Marc Sabatella]

So... one then asks where is this reputed fast workflow using LR come from?

I gather there are a couple of keyboard shortcuts that will take you to a larger view pretty quickly - it's just not as convenient as you or I would prefer. People tell me they get used it and it's no big deal in practice. But in ACDSee Pro, it's a simple matter of hitting Enter to get an uncluttered full screen preview.

But either way as RAW files do have to be converted before any visible image PP - that does NOT take zero (or negative ) time - so it cannot possibly be faster than opening a JPG - can we at least agree on that?

I'd agree that opening the RAW image for processing might take any extra second or two, depending on what program you use. I would disagree that this would end up making a noticeable difference in the time spent in one's workflow. The non-destructive nature of RAW processing saves far more time than this costs. Of course, LR and its ilk may provide non-destructive editing for JPEG as well, so *if* you happen to be taking advantage of them, then it would be fair to say you're eeking out a tiny more advantage from the non-destructive workflow by shooting JPEG - but if you're doing enough processing where this makes a difference of more than a few seconds out of your life, you'll likely still end up saving time by processing RAW rather than JPEG, because the adjustments can be made more easily and you don't spend as long trying to overcome the shortcomings of JPEG. if you don't do enough PP for this to matter, then it's also not enough PP for that extra second or two per image process to add up to much.

[Marc Sabatella]

.
Marc, Unfortunately it looks like I was responded specifically to you because I used your quote as a lead-in, but it really was a general observation about how these discussions usually lead to misinterpretations of intent which lead to arguments. It was about me as much as anyone, don't take it personally!

Understood. I do try to learn from these discussions, and by that, I specifically mean, learn how to word things in ways that will leave less room for misunderstanding. So I do appreciate your suggestions here.

Just to back up for a second: when I talk about the advantages of RAW as I see them, my point is never (?) to try to talk someone out of shooting JPEG if they aren't having problems with JPEG. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. My concern is always for the people posting questions along the lines of "I'm having a problem with <X>, and I have heard that shooting RAW would allow me to fix that problem, but I'm afraid that shooting RAW would be too hard or take too long".

In these cases, the fact they *are* having a problem worth posting about suggests that for them, the return on the investment would *not* be insignificant. So I consider it very valuable to try to stress that the actual cost in time or effort for shooting RAW is *not* high at all if you take the time up front to change your workflow in a way that minimizes that cost.

Of course, making the change itself has a cost in time and effort, so it's still not worth it if there is no problem to solve. Which is why, again, I'm not out to 'convert" anyone without a problem to solve - and you'll also note I'm usually one of the first to discourage people from shooting RAW just because they've heard it's "better" than JPEG and they think they'll magically get better results by switching to RAW. To be clear: the *advantages* of shooting RAW are directly proportional to the amount of PP you do. The switch only makes sense if you think you'll be doing a fair amount of PP.

But I do want to encourage people that once they've paid that initial cost and implemented a RAW-friendly workflow, shooting RAW will no longer have to seem like a hardship. It won't result in any additional work over doing that same amount of PP for JPEG, but it will be likely to produce better results. Whether any of this is worthwhile depends entirely, again, on how satisfied one is with what JPEG is doing for them already.

[UnknownVT]

You just view the files first in Faststone which uses the camera's jpg, delete the crap and you are set. It makes no difference to the time taken otheer than the need to open another program. Either way you're doing a quick check to delete the rubbish wheather it's LR only or LR + Faststone or just JPG in windows or faststone.

Agreed I use FastStone because it is acceptable/tolerable - like I said I don't delete files but it is very easy in doing an "open" for ACR via Elements just to choose the opens I want - ACR's preview of the chosen file is reasonable but not particularly quick (it is still SLOW in LightRoom 3 BETA).

I can then just hit open image in ACR which converts and opens only the selected/chosen files in Elements -
this part takes time - yes perhaps only matter of seconds for each -
but it is still finite amount of time......

I'd agree that opening the RAW image for processing might take any extra second or two, depending on what program you use. I would disagree that this would end up making a noticeable difference in the time spent in one's workflow. The non-destructive nature of RAW processing saves far more time than this costs.

Well at least we agree -
my so-called workflow for JPGs is that I open the files - I save files renamed to an entirely different folder (Elements always offers the default name with "copy" appended - so there is no accidental overwrite) - so in JPG it is non-destructive - I have never even thought of overwriting any original photo file JPG or otherwise.

We just have agree to disagree - timed by stopwatch I still would say all other things being equal a JPG workflow has to be faster than a RAW workflow - one cannot get away from the fact the RAW file has to be converted -
whether the difference is "negligible" is surely up to the individual - if one is doing a lot of processing some people would quibble over a few extra keystrokes - we are talking about several seconds difference per photo-file - say on average 12 at a time that's probably minutes difference.....

Out of curiosity I just put a stop-watch to opening RAW and JPGs -
I happen to have DNG+JPG files on disk - for this ad-hoc casual timed test I used 12.

Elements 7 with Adobe Camera RAW (ACR) on my PC -

RAW/DNG
18+ seconds to initially open/display 12 RAW/DNG in ACR
select all and hit open image -
3min 07sec to convert and open into Elements (remember this is using just the default camera settings - without any setting adjustments - which I feel is one of the major advantages for RAW)

So total of about 3min 25sec to have 12 DNG ready for PP using ACR in Elements (on my PC)

JPG
Straight open of the 12 paired JPGs into Elements -
48 secs total ready for PP in Elements

So there is a 2min 07sec difference
(or on average a 10.5 sec difference per photo file)
- agreed, hardly worth writing home about -
but it is nevertheless not insignificant -
and not trivial if you are waiting for the files to be ready to PP.

Think of it this way - how many are still on dial-up? why?
surely it's just a few seconds difference for each web page to display when compared with broadband..........

But, like I said for some it is well worthwhile for the 10+ sec wait for each photo to have the gains in quality and flexibility - I have long acknowledged that.

But it is not worth it to me, I still shoot and use JPGs, even though I think I have quite a reasonable RAW workflow that is more than tolerable.......

No disrespect meant to anyone -
it's just that even an optimized RAW workflow cannot possibly be faster than an equally optimized JPG workflow - everything else being equal - from the sheer fact that RAW files have to be converted.

YMMV - that's what makes the world go round.

[Marc Sabatella]

my so-called workflow for JPGs is that I open the files - I save files renamed to an entirely different folder (Elements always offers the default name with "copy" appended - so there is no accidental overwrite) - so in JPG it is non-destructive - I have never even thought of overwriting any original photo file JPG or otherwise.

Yes, but that's not the same thing at all as what I'm talking about. Not even close. Can you then, after saving, revisit one of those files to change just one setting - say, to revert back to the original WB after altering it? Can you copy the WB setting from one hand-tuned image to the rest of the files from that shoot without affecting the rest of the settings you made to those other files? Can you apply a custom preset to a bunch of images all at once in one click then go into selected files from that set individually to further tweak the settings - including the ability to back out any of the individual setting that comprised the preset? These are the sorts of things non-destructive editing facilities offer - it's *way* more than just "not overwriting your original". In that sense, the term "parametric image editing" is more accurate, but for whatever reason, "non-destructive" is the term that has caught on.

Anyhow, the speed gains from this type of workflow can completely dwarf that extra second or two load time for RAW. I mean, probably by a factor of at least ten, maybe even a hundred - we're not talking slight 10% differences here. As I said, you *can* get these benefits with JPEG with some of these tools, and then *maybe* you'd eek out a 1% speed improvement over RAW, but you'd likely spend that again and then some trying to make up for the deficiencies in JPEG. For instance, adjusting color in RAW is a simple WB slider adjustment. You can try the same in JPEG, but you'll probably then find your color undersaturated, and you'd have to go to another tool to try to fix that. Or, making a curve adjustment would take longer to finesse with JPEG to because of the artifacts that tend to be introduced.

if one is doing a lot of processing some people would quibble over a few extra keystrokes

Indeed, which is why the fact that the workflow you just described - that requires an explicit "save as" operation after every edit - that right there already counters the couple of seconds you saved by loading JPEG. Couple that with the extra few seconds (or longer) you spend contemplating whether you are truly "done" editing (because presumably you don't want to have to start over to make a change, nor do you wish to have to edit an already edited file), and you're losing all sorts of time that a true non-destructive workflow would have saved. It's really hard to appreciate this until you've experienced it fully and become comfortable with the workflow, but the difference is incredible. We're not talking a second or two or two differences per images - we're talking about cutting the entire workflow down to a tenth of its length in a traditional workflow like what you describe.

Out of curiosity I just put a stop-watch to opening RAW and JPGs

I make no claims as for the speed of Elements 7. But a 10 second difference per file is *way* out of line with most other programs. With ACDSee, it's about one or two seconds of difference. Again, just not having to do a "save as" at the end of the operation nullifies that, to say nothing of the *many* seconds (minutes, in many cases) you save through true parametric/non-destructive editing.

it's just that even an optimized RAW workflow cannot possibly be faster than an equally optimized JPG workflow - everything else being equal - from the sheer fact that RAW files have to be converted.

That's only true if you make no effort whatsoever to make up for the deficiencies of JPEG in your PP, and even then, we're talking one or two seconds per image, not 10. And since a preview displays instantly, those two seconds aren't wasted - you can spend them sizing up what your first step will be.

[Alfisti]

I am going to post this again as it absolutely NAILS what I have been trying to say.


Can you then, after saving, revisit one of those files to change just one setting - say, to revert back to the original WB after altering it? Can you copy the WB setting from one hand-tuned image to the rest of the files from that shoot without affecting the rest of the settings you made to those other files? Can you apply a custom preset to a bunch of images all at once in one click then go into selected files from that set individually to further tweak the settings - including the ability to back out any of the individual setting that comprised the preset? These are the sorts of things non-destructive editing facilities offer - it's *way* more than just "not overwriting your original". In that sense, the term "parametric image editing" is more accurate, but for whatever reason, "non-destructive" is the term that has caught on.

Anyhow, the speed gains from this type of workflow can completely dwarf that extra second or two load time for RAW. I mean, probably by a factor of at least ten, maybe even a hundred - we're not talking slight 10% differences here. As I said, you *can* get these benefits with JPEG with some of these tools, and then *maybe* you'd eek out a 1% speed improvement over RAW, but you'd likely spend that again and then some trying to make up for the deficiencies in JPEG. For instance, adjusting color in RAW is a simple WB slider adjustment. You can try the same in JPEG, but you'll probably then find your color undersaturated, and you'd have to go to another tool to try to fix that. Or, making a curve adjustment would take longer to finesse with JPEG to because of the artifacts that tend to be introduced.


which is why the fact that the workflow you just described - that requires an explicit "save as" operation after every edit - that right there already counters the couple of seconds you saved by loading JPEG. Couple that with the extra few seconds (or longer) you spend contemplating whether you are truly "done" editing (because presumably you don't want to have to start over to make a change, nor do you wish to have to edit an already edited file), and you're losing all sorts of time that a true non-destructive workflow would have saved. It's really hard to appreciate this until you've experienced it fully and become comfortable with the workflow, but the difference is incredible. We're not talking a second or two or two differences per images - we're talking about cutting the entire workflow down to a tenth of its length in a traditional workflow like what you describe.

[Raybo]

Well, the person I was responding to was complaining about the results he got from PP. I haven't seen his results, so I'm not criticizing them. Just observing that the fact that someone does not the results he gets from PP doesn't mean PP is inherently incapable of good results. This comment actually had nothing whatsoever to do with RAW versus JPEG, but was a simple statement about PP. So I think your response here is a bit misdirected.

That was my quote and I did not complain about my PP results.
Heck, I don't even do any PP.

[UnknownVT]

Yes, but that's not the same thing at all as what I'm talking about. Not even close. Can you then, after saving, revisit one of those files to change just one setting - say, to revert back to the original WB after altering it? Can you copy the WB setting from one hand-tuned image to the rest of the files from that shoot without affecting the rest of the settings you made to those other files? Can you apply a custom preset to a bunch of images all at once in one click then go into selected files from that set individually to further tweak the settings - including the ability to back out any of the individual setting that comprised the preset? These are the sorts of things non-destructive editing facilities offer - it's *way* more than just "not overwriting your original". In that sense, the term "parametric image editing" is more accurate, but for whatever reason, "non-destructive" is the term that has caught on.

I am going to post this again as it absolutely NAILS what I have been trying to say.

Thank you for the explanation of "non-destructive".

Yes, you have both firmly put me in my place (said in good humor )

However my crude "non-destructive" was to not touch the original -
and anytime I need to do something else - I do have to go back to the original - most of the time this is not a disadvantage for me and my usage - but just knowing I can do that may open vistas for me -
although my modus operandi is to PP my image post it and forget about it -
I hardly ever revisit the image because I am dissatisfied with it, or its PP.

However once in a rare while people ask me for larger files or a print - then I do have to revert back to the original JPG to do it - which is not such a bad thing - I do use my smaller posted processed shot as a sort of template to make my adjustment. As most of my posted shots are shrunk/resized and that's normally the first step from a visible image
If the "undo" can just remove the resize step, so every other PP step then can still be applied - this would be a real boon to me when I do have to produce the large file or print - but this is reasonably rare that I currently don't mind going back to the original JPG.

I make no claims as for the speed of Elements 7. But a 10 second difference per file is *way* out of line with most other programs. With ACDSee, it's about one or two seconds of difference. Again, just not having to do a "save as" at the end of the operation nullifies that, to say nothing of the *many* seconds (minutes, in many cases) you save through true parametric/non-destructive editing.

Thanks for the reference to ACDsee -
I downloaded the trial of ACDsee Pro 3.0 - 386 - and I am very impressed - like you said to open/process a DNG only takes a few seconds - on my PC it varied between 4 to 7 seconds - I watched the progress bar for it to finish - the longer time appears that the progress bar goes through its motions twice - don't know why - since I've only just become acquainted with ACDsee -

but my first impressions of ACDsee are very favorable. I'll work over the next few days to see if I can get my workflow to be something I would find acceptable.

I actually find my JPG "workflow" to be quite enjoyable since I know my editor well and the stuff I do has more less become second nature - even for those "exceptions" when I have to work extra to get the image I want -
to be honest I have not found that many images where I wished I shot in RAW - but I do take and accept your points.

But ACDsee Pro 3.0 was a real eye-opener -
especially after having played/used LightRoom 3 BETA and ACR with Elements.

Thank you
(and chagrined -
but not that repentant
since I am still probably going to use JPGs)