Work flow frustration, Your workflow?

[TAFNAP]

I am starting to get frustrated with some of my pictures and needs some advice / guidance or ideas. I shot RAW and my process is/was like this.

1. Import into Lightroom using a preset I created

2. Rotate images in library mode

3. Start at first picture in develop mode in full screen

4. Look at picture to quickly decide Reject or Pick, if reject, mark reject and go to next picture

5. If it was a pick then I would start editing it, WB, Exposure, Birghtness, Crop, etc.

6. Go to step 4 until I was done.

7. Export files as .jpg

Here is my deliema I have noticed some of my pictures have been becoming mushy looking. I wasn't sure why so last night I shot in RAW + Jpg and followed basically the same steps as above except I imported the pictures with no preset. Then compared the RAW to the JPG and started processing them. Looks like my preset I use to import is fine for outdoor well lit scenes/people but not low light theater photography like I have been doing this week.

So I looked at my preset and it looks like I set it up to do noise reduction, sharpening and some other minor tweaks all while importing. Then I was touching the images more after importing which is why I think my images were a little mushy (if that is even a word). I know I should do noise reduction first, edits then sharpening last. But obviously that does not work as a preset under different lighting situations like I am shooting now.

So my work around I tried last night was import without any presets, make my selections then edit the picks, then I was going to go back and do noise reduction then as a last step sharpen before exporting but this has tripled my editing time which was all ready longer than I want.

Help.

Tools I have to use Lightroom 2.3, Photoshop CS3, Capture NX, Noise Ninja and various pluggins.

[Gary Mayo]

Post an example of an image you think looks soft.

[TAFNAP]

Here is an example of one photo taken Tuesday night.



Nikon D300
85mm 1.4 Prime Lens
Manual mode
1/125 shutter @ F1.8
ISO 1000
Exposure comp -1.3
Metering pattern
No flash
Spot focus (I believe)
Auto white balance
I Used Lightroom 2.3 on my calibrated monitor to edit it.

First thought this is an ok image but I have taken much better images with this lens setup in the same theater. I did not post a tighter crop but if you can see near her eyes and face it is soft? or mushy? I definitely focused on her face because that is how I shot all my theater images.

I feel my work flow may have hurt the picture more than helped it in this case. Again this is just one example maybe not even the best example to explain my thoughts. So I did as I said above. I imported my RAW file in Lightroom using a preset I created which does a little of everything to include noise reduction and sharpening. Then I probably did a exposure adjustment, white balance and then crop. Then I exported the files as jpg.

Here is a picture taken Wednesday of the same actress in almost the same spot but camera setting were a little different and my post processing was different.



Nikon D300
85mm 1.4 Prime Lens
Manual mode
1/160 shutter @ F2
ISO 800
Exposure comp -1.0
Metering pattern
No flash
Spot focus (I believe)
Auto white balance
I Used Lightroom 2.3 on my calibrated monitor to edit it.

This time I imported the RAW file with no presets, made my general edits and crop to all my pictures, went back and did noise reduction to all the images then went back and did sharpening then immediately exported to jpg. Obviously Wednesday set of pictures took me longer to process. But the overall quality of this image is much better.

So it got me thinking is my work flow messed up or just a bad night of picture taking.

I know some people are going to say it is probably motion blur causing my problem and I don't disagree. I also could have bumped the ISO up to 1600 and shot at a higher shutter speed. But I thought that at 125th of second bracing myself in my chair with my elbow tucked in tight to me and the actress not moving much I should have been able to get a better picture than I did.

Please also know no one is complaining about the image or saying anything negative about it is just me and my thoughts on trying to improve. I just feel I need to improve not only my image taking technique but my post processing. That is why I started this thread.

Sorry for the long post I just want to learn and see what others are doing for their work flow.

[TAFNAP]

Since posting my image I thought maybe I just missed focus because my DoF range is pretty small with that setup. In looking it up at DOFmaster.com I am guessing I was about 15 feet so with my 85mm at

F1.8 my window of focus was only .66 Feet at
F2 is was about .75 feet.

I don't think I missed focus by more than 6 inches in the first picture or else I would have had alot more OOF.

[mcbit]

I'm presuming that you still have the RAWs from the first night. That would mean that you could reprocess the images with no preset applied and see whether the fault is in camera or in PP.

[fintastic]

Tafnap
Just a guess, look at your noise reduction?? I noticed first one is at 1000iso and second 1 is at 800Iso .maybe you have it coming on at 1000iso.

[TAFNAP]

I agree I could reprocess the first one and true the noise reduction on the first set could be changed and I could get a better image. What do you guys/gals do for a work flow?

[mcbit]

Originally Posted by TAFNAP

I agree I could reprocess the first one and true the noise reduction on the first set could be changed and I could get a better image. What do you guys/gals do for a work flow?

Well if you're going to do step 5, why import on a preset? Why introduce noise reduction which you may not need which is ultimately going to degrade the .jpg?

I prefer to start unprocessed RAW
edit one then 'sync' photos with similar lighting conditions
Check the 'sync'd' images and fine tune if necessary
Move on to the next....

[fintastic]

Tafnap
I fallow a similar work flow as you, except I will shoot jpeg for documentations type stuff and raw for fine art type of stuff.
I only use presets or batch for the jpeg!! and only adjust the raw one by one and file as a tiff file for storage.
I dont see a need for the presets if you are going to shoot the raw image file
Why would you do this??

John

[jbrembat]

If you go with Capture NX, I suppose you get a better speed on workflow and, probably, a better rendition.

Jacopo

[TAFNAP]

Originally Posted by mcbit

Well if you're going to do step 5, why import on a preset? Why introduce noise reduction which you may not need which is ultimately going to degrade the .jpg?

I prefer to start unprocessed RAW
edit one then 'sync' photos with similar lighting conditions
Check the 'sync'd' images and fine tune if necessary
Move on to the next....

See I think this is exactly what my issue was. I have PP a couple more shoots since and I believe it was my importing that was causing the issue. I was trying to do to much when importing. I have since imported without presets which give me a true untouched raw file to work with and then PP. My images seem to be much better now. Thank you to al who have commented. I just need to realize my PP time might be longer to get the quality I expect.

[TAFNAP]

Originally Posted by mcbit

Well if you're going to do step 5, why import on a preset? Why introduce noise reduction which you may not need which is ultimately going to degrade the .jpg?

I prefer to start unprocessed RAW
edit one then 'sync' photos with similar lighting conditions
Check the 'sync'd' images and fine tune if necessary
Move on to the next....

Originally Posted by fintastic

Tafnap
I fallow a similar work flow as you, except I will shoot jpeg for documentations type stuff and raw for fine art type of stuff.
I only use presets or batch for the jpeg!! and only adjust the raw one by one and file as a tiff file for storage.
I dont see a need for the presets if you are going to shoot the raw image file
Why would you do this??

John

Thank you I was trying to simplify my PP steps and I think like my previous post I was just doing too much and that might work in some situations but not all. So I now am just importing without any presets then going from there. I am still interested in hearing others work flow.

Thank you again. I appreciate it

[TAFNAP]

Originally Posted by jbrembat

If you go with Capture NX, I suppose you get a better speed on workflow and, probably, a better rendition.

Jacopo

I don't disagree with you statement I just find Capture NX not very friendly as Lightroom. I have tried to learn it and it seems sluggish and hard to grasp the tools and layout. Lightroom feels much more comfortable to me so that is why I use lightroom more.

Thank you.

[Carusoswi]

Tafnap, this has nothing to do with your question, but, looking at your settings, I wonder why you dial in exposure compensation when shooting manual. Do others of you also set exposure compensation in manual mode?

Manual exposure is manual exposure, no matter what combination of settings (shutter, aperture, compensation) you use to get there, but it seems to me that, dialing in compensation is one more variable that you shouldn't have to concern yourself with when shooting manual. If you want one stop less exposure, adjust shutter or aperture to suit.

I'm no expert, by any means, so some of you may have reasons for using exposure compensation.

I also tend to avoid presets when developing/converting RAW files. I have stopped using ACR because I don't like what it does to my Sony RAW files. I am certain there must be a way to turn everything "off" in ACR, but I haven't found it, and, besides, for me, the software that Sony provides seems to do a better job with noise on high ISO shots than ACR.

. . . and that would be my one exception concerning presets, but only when developing high ISO shots. The Sony software has a preset that seems to give me the most satisfying results when I have to develop high ISO, high-noise shots (3200 - 6400 ISO).

I shoot with a Sony A700, and, I have seen reviews where its high-iso takes a back seat to other makers, however, I often wonder if all us consumers/users don't allow ourselves to get shot in the foot by not accounting for the effect the manufacturer's software has on the photos produced by the camera.

I'd like to think the difference I see in results from IDC vs ACR are me, but I think it's more than that.

As for your shots, I'm wondering why you don't try a slower shutter speed and, perhaps, an even higher ISO, both of which would give you the opportunity for more DOF so that dead on focus isn't such an issue. My guess is that this performance doesn't involve a lot of super fast movement, but, in delivering her lines/song/whatever, she will be changing positions enough that keeping her face in perfect focus will be a constant task. Greater DOF will give you more margin for error, IMO.

Given a choice, I think I'd rather deal with the noise than have to contend with less than what I consider the sharpest RAW image. I don't know your camera, so have no idea what its ISO range is, or how it performs nearer the top of that range, so, please excuse me if I'm suggesting settings that don't make sense for your camera.

Caruso

[TAFNAP]

Originally Posted by Carusoswi

Tafnap, this has nothing to do with your question, but, looking at your settings, I wonder why you dial in exposure compensation when shooting manual. Do others of you also set exposure compensation in manual mode?

Manual exposure is manual exposure, no matter what combination of settings (shutter, aperture, compensation) you use to get there, but it seems to me that, dialing in compensation is one more variable that you shouldn't have to concern yourself with when shooting manual. If you want one stop less exposure, adjust shutter or aperture to suit.

I'm no expert, by any means, so some of you may have reasons for using exposure compensation.

Caruso

Reason I did this in this situation was I was trying something new and it worked out well for me. By dialing in the negative expsoure compensation I could get there faces better exposed. Yes I could have just dialed in a different shutter speed, aperature or ISO combination. But I would had to guess how much lower I wanted it. This way I could place my view finder meter at dead "0" when taking the picture every time like I would in a normal shooting situation and the negative compensation helped to properly exposed there faces. I am not saying this was perfect but it worked pretty well and my exposures were pretty consistant frame to frame.

Yes my camera is capable of much higher ISO I was just trying to get as fast of shutter speed as I felt I need without bumping the ISO. But it looks like I probably was just on the fence and some worked out while others did not. Next time I will just shoot at a higher ISO and shutter speed/aperature to get a greater DoF.

Again as this was more for fun I wanted to use it as an training exercise and i learned alot.

Thanks.

[Arved]

Originally Posted by jbrembat

If you go with Capture NX, I suppose you get a better speed on workflow and, probably, a better rendition.

If you have any tips on getting CNX to run faster than Lightroom or Adobe Camera Raw, please pass them on. CNX is a pig. Having to rewrite a 12+MB file when saving a change is a serious handicap compared to the couple hundred KB XMP sidecar file.

I use both CNX (2) and ACR (4.x), and lately the results I've been getting out of ACR are supperior. Between the new camera profiles, and the ability to click on the auto adjustment tab, these get me a lot closer a lot faster than fiddling with CNX (although I love the split threshold feature for setting white and blackpoint).

But, I'm willing to learn. Heaven knows I don't want my $150 investment in CNX2 to have gone to waste.

BTW, I have Jason Odell's eBooks (both on CNX and CNX2), Ben Long's Real World Nikon Capture NX 2, and Vincent Versace's DVD. I've invested a lot of time and money trying to make CNX2 work for me, but I keep coming back to ACR.

[jbrembat]

Arved,
I'm not a Nikon user.
I performed a conversion of a nef file using dcraw+PhotoResampling, as a very experienced photographer and retoucher did the same with Lightroom.
No story.

This was before Adobe releasing of profiles.

But I can give you a link:

Comparing the ACR Nikon Settings and NX Pic Control

You can find suggestions to speed up NX2.

Jacopo

[Arved]

Originally Posted by jbrembat

Comparing the ACR Nikon Settings and NX Pic Control

Picture 4 is pretty damning. I'd thought there would be more of a difference. The methodology is sound, though. This is exactly how I'd have run the test if I'd done it myself. Only difference is, I'd choose a larger sample size. 1 photo is anecdotal. It's not statistically significant.

Originally Posted by jbrembat

You can find suggestions to speed up NX2.

Every time I find one, I incorporate it. However, the fundemental problem cannot be overcome - when CNX(2) saves a change, it has to write the entire 12+MB NEF file (from the D300 - D70s files are substantially smaller, but still problematic). ACR/LR only save a small XMP sidecar file. There's an order of magnitude difference in the file size written, resulting in an order of magnitude difference in file save time.

On my particular system, it takes about 20 seconds to save a NEF file in CNX2. This is down from a full minute after doing things like turning off Active D-lighting and disabling high ISO noise reduction (which penalizes the file save time, even if the shot was at ISO 200, the "native" sensor ISO). I'd already used the tip for putting the cache on another drive (Windows, Capture NX and Photoshop caches are all on a dedicated hard drive, and each in their own partition on that drive). Forcing the user to eliminate features to gain performance points out some very poor design decisions on Nikon and Nik Software Engineers part, IMHO.

It's not too bad if I have 100 images from a typical weekend activity, such as the Scottish Highland Games a few weeks ago, or even a portrait shoot. If I have 400 images from a military retirement ceremony or 800 images from a wedding, 20 seconds each image to just rewrite the file to the hard disk after an edit quickly ads up (800 images at 20 seconds each works out to 4 hours 26 minutes just saving the NEF - does not include any time making the adjustements being saved).

I could upgrade my system from a Core2Duo processor to a Quad core processor. This would improve my processing speed (and might help eliminate the God awfull slow screen refresh in CNX2), but I don't think that's the slow point in saving the file. I'd have to go to a RAID solution to decrease file save times.

And anything that I hardware-wise to speed up CNX2, also speeds up ACR/LR, so the difference in speed will always be there.

[Carusoswi]

Originally Posted by TAFNAP

Reason I did this in this situation was I was trying something new and it worked out well for me. By dialing in the negative expsoure compensation I could get there faces better exposed. Yes I could have just dialed in a different shutter speed, aperature or ISO combination. But I would had to guess how much lower I wanted it. This way I could place my view finder meter at dead "0" when taking the picture every time like I would in a normal shooting situation and the negative compensation helped to properly exposed there faces. I am not saying this was perfect but it worked pretty well and my exposures were pretty consistant frame to frame.

Yes my camera is capable of much higher ISO I was just trying to get as fast of shutter speed as I felt I need without bumping the ISO. But it looks like I probably was just on the fence and some worked out while others did not. Next time I will just shoot at a higher ISO and shutter speed/aperature to get a greater DoF.

Again as this was more for fun I wanted to use it as an training exercise and i learned alot.

Thanks.

If dialing in compensation works for you, then, go for it. I didn't even realize that exposure compensation would work from manual mode. I guess you are metering each shot separately in this situation, and, again, if that works for you, then, (and yet again), go for it. Personally, in that sort of situation, I would tend to select a manual exposure setting, then stick with it for most of the shots, checking the histogram to make certain that my exposures are within tolerance (no blown highlights, no shadows off the scale).

If you are centering the exposure meter with each shot, then, every change in scenery can throw your exposure off. Not saying it happened in this situation, but it could happen in situations similar to this. Let's say this performer is replaced by another who is wearing a white costume. If you've set the correct exposure for the first performer, then, the meter may likely indicate that you need to reduce exposure for a performer (or performers) wearing all white.

If a troupe wearing all black takes the stage, your meter will tell you to increase exposure. In all likelihood, the best exposure setting is the one you already set with the first subject - no changes necessary. That's one of the real beauties of setting the exposure manually.

Your technique sort of overrides this advantage.

. . . but the examples you shared seem fine to me, so use my advice if it makes sense to you, otherwise, carry on.

Good luck.

Caruso

[Arved]

BTW, TAFNAP, I think these are some pretty darn good pictures. There are many who'd love to get the results you have with stage/theatre shots. Well done!

There are some sharpening "tricks" you might want to try. First off, in your RAW converter (CNX or ACR/LR), apply a little bit of capture sharpening. If you want Jason Odell's recommendations, send me a PM with your (Nikon) camera model number, and I'll give you his recommendation.

Before anyone flips a lid about pulling the info out of Jason's for-pay book, he also publishes these values as presets that are freely available on his website, and it doesn't take hardly anything to reverse engineer his recommendations.

Next, import into PSCSx, and try a little smart sharpen. If that's not doing for you, try using the High Pass Filter sharpening technique, and if that alone isn't enough, combine the smart sharpen filter with the High Pass Filter option.

Apply a final sharpening step after you've resized for final output. For the web, I do a pretty high sharpening after resizing. For prints on my inkjet, I let QPrint Pro handle the resizing and final output sharpening, and for lab prints, I use a pro lab that does the appropriate sharpening for the printer/size print I'm ordering (WHCC and Reedy - I think MPIX does this, too).

The Light's Right Studio has a couple of sharpening actions for free, as well as some good tutorial information not only about how to use it, but how and why to sharpen in general. Mitch seems to be an excellent student of Bruce Fraser.