talkFestool  

Go Back   talkFestool > Social Club (Off Topic) > Photography and Video

Photography and Video Helping you take better photos and videos

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2008, 05:34 AM
DanClark's Avatar
Founding Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Bellevue, WA, USA
Posts: 414
Default Re: Work Flow

The main reason that I got LR was the PSE6 photo management library kept corrupting. This has been reported by multiple users. I suspect it's related to large libraries (I have 15,000 images).

Regards,

Dan.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 08-14-2008, 02:00 PM
A Festool User First
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Lincoln, NE
Posts: 0
Send a message via AIM to TimmyC Send a message via Yahoo to TimmyC Send a message via Skype™ to TimmyC
Default Re: Work Flow

This is a great thread. I posted on the old tF regarding Lightroom. I admit that I haven't had the time to get into it, but I will say that it is part of my workflow.

Typically it goes like this:

Lightroom (auto adjust) >>> Photoshop PS3 (where I optimize for web and size) >>> Post

There is not much too the process now. For me it is functional, and quick. Reading about this validates the facts that there is so much more that I can be doing. I suppose it is all about the learning curve, and how much time I am willing to allocate to the process.

Looking forward to learning,

t
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 08-15-2008, 12:50 AM
joraft's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley (SoCal)
Posts: 6,575
Default Re: Work Flow

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvgordon View Post

You are going to use Lightroom instead of CS3 for your RAW files?

Tom, opening a RAW (NEF) file in either LR2 or CS3 brings up a control panel for tweaking the file, but the CS3 panel has far more controls. Of course, once the file is converted to another format, those panels are useless and they disappear.

I'll probably use LR2 mostly for photo file management like Dan said. If the RAW file doesn't need much tweaking, it would much easier and faster just to do it in LR before converting it to JPEG, rather than taking it to CS3 first. I do have many years of experience using Photoshop, so I to tend to gravitate towards that for everything I do in bitmap files.

However, I haven't yet been able to compare the conversion results of the two programs, so I'm still not sure how my workflow will go. I do know that I don't care much for the ViewNX software that came with the camera, but some say that it does the best job of conversion to JPEG.

Maybe this is one of those cases where the results of any of this software are so close that only a true expert can tell the difference.

Right now, my biggest challenge is learning to use the camera itself.
__________________
John

Last edited by joraft; 08-15-2008 at 12:54 AM.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 02:24 AM
joraft's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley (SoCal)
Posts: 6,575
Default Re: Work Flow

Quote:
Originally Posted by tvgordon View Post

You are going to use Lightroom instead of CS3 for your RAW files?

After working with numerous files yesterday, and in various software packages, there is no doubt in my mind that CS3 is the best overall for processing RAW files (except possibly for file organization).

I'm also surprised at the extent to which RAW files can be tweaked before conversion. This is a boon to a borderline photographer.
__________________
John
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 03:15 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bourbonnais
Posts: 66
Default Re: Work Flow

Quote:
Originally Posted by joraft View Post

However, I haven't yet been able to compare the conversion results of the two programs, so I'm still not sure how my workflow will go. I do know that I don't care much for the ViewNX software that came with the camera, but some say that it does the best job of conversion to JPEG.


John,
Why would you want to convert to a JPEG , It's a half rate picture format. Its compression routines lose quality, I dont know if you know this ( read up on JPEG compression techniques ) all my Digital shots are saved raw and in .TIFFS if then I want to publish them on the web I make a copy of the pic and down grade size and quality and publish as a .gif
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 02:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Pikes Peak region Colorado
Posts: 14
Default Re: Work Flow

Sorry to complicate this further, but I find Aperture 2 to be dynamite in both photo management and tweaking.

I tried lightroom 1 and thought aperture 1 was way better. I don't know about LR 2, but AP 2 is the cat's meow.

Of course, you have to have some very good hardware to run it!
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 02:58 PM
MichaelKellough's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: The northernmost end of the southernmost county of New York
Posts: 4,525
Default Re: Work Flow

Quote:
Originally Posted by justaccord View Post
Sorry to complicate this further, but I find Aperture 2 to be dynamite in both photo management and tweaking.

Of course, you have to have some very good hardware to run it!
I nominate this post for "Most appropriate emoticon".
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 04:59 PM
joraft's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley (SoCal)
Posts: 6,575
Default Re: Work Flow

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColinWhite View Post

Why would you want to convert to a JPEG , It's a half rate picture format. Its compression routines lose quality, I dont know if you know this ( read up on JPEG compression techniques ) all my Digital shots are saved raw and in .TIFFS if then I want to publish them on the web I make a copy of the pic and down grade size and quality and publish as a .gif

Colin, in choosing the best file format the most important factor is the destination for that file.

TIFF (Tagged Image File Format) is a completely "lossless" format, so it will retain all of the original image information. That's good, but these files are also very large, and the only way to reduce their size is to reduce the resolution, and that's not good if you need to reduce it too much.

JPEG is a compression format, so of course it is considered a "lossy" format, but it's size is reduced both by lowering resolution and/or removing image information. For most tonal images, a lot of color information can be removed without resulting in a noticeable difference to the eye (most eyes). This results in a smaller image file but still with decent resolution. The quality of this image depends on the quality of the conversion software, the amount of compression you need, and the number of times you compress it. Every time you open a JPEG, modify it, and then save it back to JPEG more information is lost in the compression process.

GIF files are "index" files, which means they are produced with a color set in the hundreds (or as low as only a few) instead of millions as with RGB or CMYK. These files are generally very small, but they do lose a lot of image quality in the process. You will never be able to produce bright colors with a GIF, they are best for images with solid colors or pastels. They almost never print well, but are great for the Internet because of their small size.

Files that will be viewed only on a monitor (or simliar device) are best left in the RGB (additive primary colors) color space, because that is how they are reproduced on the screen. And any resolution higher than the display device, usually 72-96 ppi (pixels per inch) is a waste of file space.

Files that go to an inkjet will automatically be converted to the CMYK (subtractive primary colors) color space by the printer's RIP (Raster Image Processor) because that is how they are reproduced. Since CMYK can produce fewer colors than RGB, the RIP must replace many colors with something close by using a CLUT (Color Look Up Table). Some color information is lost, but with a good quality image it is usually not noticeable to the eye (most eyes). Inkjets with more than four ink colors generally have variations of the Cyan, Magenta, Black. This increases the number of RGB colors that can be reproduced by CMYK and is often called CcMmYKk. Clean Blacks and Grays are a big problem for CMYK, so if a Gray ink is present it greatly enhances the tonal aspect of an image.

And most printer RIPs tend to discard any resolution over 200-300 ppi, so any resolution over that is a waste of file space.

So, what was your original question again? Why would I use JPEGs?
__________________
John
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 06:32 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Bourbonnais
Posts: 66
Default Re: Workflow

John,

I wasn't trying to get into the technicalities, and obviously you know your onions, With external storage being so cheap I have a terabyte of storage available just for pictures, Any I want to keep are stored here as TIFFS, If I want to post them on the net or do something else with them they are copied and manipulated to the desired size format etc. Maybe I misunderstood you, I took you to mean you were storing your photos as .JPGS and the point I was trying to make was why spend thousands of dollars to get the perfect picture Quality wise then save the result as .JPG a format that actually degrades the Image, which seemed kind of strange to me and wanted to make you aware of this , obviously you was One other reason I like to save images like this many photos I have taken a have been ok and then after I havent seen them for awhile I can see another photo within the photo that was not apparent in the first place with some creative cropping and having the maximun image quality availble good photos can be made great.


Colin
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 08-18-2008, 07:49 PM
joraft's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Fernando Valley (SoCal)
Posts: 6,575
Default Re: Workflow

Colin, the point I was trying to make (albeit in a very long winded fashion ) was that TIFFs are nice but often not that useful or portable.

If you are going to view them on a display, I doubt that you could tell the difference from a smaller (well handled) JPEG.

And the same goes for outputting them on an inkjet.

I do agree that copies of important original images should be saved, but if you're shooting in RAW, why not just archive those? That way, you maintain the extra munipulation abilities.
__________________
John
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:22 AM.