Workflow Tweaks?

[Johnny D]

1) I take all jpgs
2.) Download from cardreader
3.) Toss out obvious goobers
4.) Edit in PS* (crop 4X6 300 dpi, levels layer then Hue/saturation, USM) then print.
5.) Keep the edited files in JPG in separate directory for a while and delete them keeping the original untouched jpgs.*
6.) Catalog everything in Imatch
7.) Smartrename by project, (ie Disneyland 2006)*

Questions: I'd like to keep the PS'd files but not sure what to name them or where to keep them in relation to the originals. to store them as PSD and what to name them so I dont get confused with the original jpgs?* Show I crop them for 8X10 then recrop then to print smaller thinking I won;t need them any larger than 8X0??

I'd like to get some feedback her. I did a search and didn;t have a clear answer.* *I am not a professional with clients.* I shoot different events, family, landscapes, nature and airshows.* I have almost 15,000 files.* Using Imatch I can find most any photo quickly just not sure how to handle the edited and originals.*

[cyclohexane]

to store them as PSD and what to name them so I dont get confused with the original jpgs?

You can stick 'em in a subfolder (named something like "Edits" or "Develops"), and/or tag 'em with a letter at the end (for example: "IMG_4429.jpg" becomes "IMG_4429c.jpg" or "IMG_4429t.jpg", or whatever). Personally, I do both: I stick 'em in a subfolder and add a "t" at the end for "touched", and often I'll include some of the adjustments in the name ("_MRC9905tcurvessharp.tif" is something like what you'd see on my computer).

I'm going to be transitioning to using Photo Mechanic to sort/rename everything like how we do it in the photo office, but Photo Mechanic is expensive and I'm not interested in spending money on it just this second.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Johnny D

1) I take all jpgs
2.) Download from cardreader

Burn disc(s) of raw images

3.) Toss out obvious goobers
4.) Edit in PS (crop 4X6 300 dpi, levels layer then Hue/saturation, USM) then print.

Burn corrected/retouched files (because you deleted the ones you edited out) to disc(s).

5.) Keep the edited files in JPG in separate directory for a while and delete them keeping the original untouched jpgs.

Do the reverse with regard to what you delete.

6.) Catalog everything in Imatch
7.) Smartrename by project, (ie Disneyland 2006)

Just my suggestions...It's what I do...Except I catalog with DiskTracker.

[Johnny D]

Originally Posted by cyclohexane

You can stick 'em in a subfolder (named something like "Edits" or "Develops"), and/or tag 'em with a letter at the end (for example: "IMG_4429.jpg" becomes "IMG_4429c.jpg" or "IMG_4429t.jpg", or whatever). Personally, I do both: I stick 'em in a subfolder and add a "t" at the end for "touched", and often I'll include some of the adjustments in the name ("_MRC9905tcurvessharp.tif" is something like what you'd see on my computer).

I'm going to be transitioning to using Photo Mechanic to sort/rename everything like how we do it in the photo office, but Photo Mechanic is expensive and I'm not interested in spending money on it just this second.

Interesting. Took a brief look at Photo Mechanic.* May switch over from Imatch after giving it a try. Thanks for the tip. Looks like $150. I paid $50 for Imatch. Considering the sheer volume and if it does what I want it would be worth it.

Problem with renaming and putting them in a different folder is that when I am looking for a specific picture I can't know easily if I have an altered version of it or not without searching to see if I have an edited version of it or not.* I'm thinking out loud guess I'd like to convert each jpg original to a "master file" whereby I can still preserve all of my options for editing going forward.* Do some processing in layers and don;t apply sharpening till I'm ready to print and sharpen for the output. (Not sure what I would do about cropping) Maybe batch them in PS and don't flatten them and save them as psd? Does this make sense??

[cyclohexane]

Problem with renaming and putting them in a different folder is that when I am looking for a specific picture I can't know easily if I have an altered version of it or not without searching to see if I have an edited version of it or not.

Then do what I used to do: Rename, and leave it in the same folder, so they're right next to each other when searching.

[Rense]

Originally Posted by Johnny D

Problem with renaming and putting them in a different folder is that when I am looking for a specific picture I can't know easily if I have an altered version of it or not without searching to see if I have an edited version of it or not.*

To solve that problem, I rename my files on import to YYYYMMDDHHMMSS_runningcounter and save this filename to the Image:Title field in the xmp-sidecar.

[Mark McCall]

Johnny,
Out of curiosity, why shoot in Jpg as part of your workflow?

Some of the editing (listed as part of your workflow) can be done to a Raw image in a converter, in real time, much faster than doing it with PS actions.
Color balance, exposure correction and sharpening, among others, are just some of the things you can do to hundreds of images at a time, instantly.

Time is money.

About the only thing you give up is hard drive space, which is cheap.

[jfrancho]

Even if shooting in jpg mode is your preference, you should not keep saving in jpg format throughout the workflow. Take your source jpgs from the camera, and convert to 16 bpc mode, and save as a tiff or psd format. Then when your done editing, you can convert to 8bpc, and save as a jpg. I keep source files, dev files, web, and print output files in seperate folders. In the root dirctory, I keep a contact sheet so I can see what is in that folder.

[Athena]

I agree about shooting in raw.
I save the original raw file, the changes to it, the PS file and a small editted jpg for reference.

[jfrancho]

Raw is great for most things, but I've gone back to jpg for certain stuff. For instance, I shoot most of the pottery catalog stuff in jpg, but I use a custom WB, and take some time with the in camera parameters to get exactly what I want. The result is one pass sharpening after resize for thumbnails and detail images. This cuts processing time time way down. The key to the whole thing is to do the trial and error routine right after getting the basic lighting solved. Then as you work through the inventory, you can concentrate on exposure and lighting knowing the color, contrast, saturation, and basic sharpening is already done. I've basically applied the sportshooter method to mini-studio work.

Now if your going on a trip to Yellowstone to shoot landscapes, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE shoot raw of course. Basically, the important thing to realize is that no one workflow is the answer for every situation. Be prepared to use all the tools to their maximum.

[Johnny D]

Originally Posted by Athena

I agree about shooting in raw.
I save the original raw file, the changes to it, the PS file and a small editted jpg for reference.

Sounds logical.* What if you'r just taking snapshots, say at a birthday party.* Not going to have any that go in your ortfolio.* Shooting RAW sounds like overkill.* Woudl you shoot jpg in that circumstance?

[Johnny D]

Originally Posted by jfrancho

Raw is great for most things, but I've gone back to jpg for certain stuff. For instance, I shoot most of the pottery catalog stuff in jpg, but I use a custom WB, and take some time with the in camera parameters to get exactly what I want. The result is one pass sharpening after resize for thumbnails and detail images. This cuts processing time time way down. The key to the whole thing is to do the trial and error routine right after getting the basic lighting solved. Then as you work through the inventory, you can concentrate on exposure and lighting knowing the color, contrast, saturation, and basic sharpening is already done. I've basically applied the sportshooter method to mini-studio work.

Now if your going on a trip to Yellowstone to shoot landscapes, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE shoot raw of course. Basically, the important thing to realize is that no one workflow is the answer for every situation. Be prepared to use all the tools to their maximum.

I see your point in going to Yellowstone.*

When you shoot jpg for the pottery project, do you batch process or are you saying that your upfront work for custom WB and camera settings ahead of shooting makes it easier?

[Johnny D]

Originally Posted by Mark McCall

Johnny,
Out of curiosity, why shoot in Jpg as part of your workflow?

Some of the editing (listed as part of your workflow) can be done to a Raw image in a converter, in real time, much faster than doing it with PS actions.
Color balance, exposure correction and sharpening, among others, are just some of the things you can do to hundreds of images at a time, instantly.

Time is money.

About the only thing you give up is hard drive space, which is cheap.

Interesting. have not worked with RAW. Been wantiong to upgrade from PS 7 to CS2 to get the integrated RAW converter. What you said makes sense from the point of view of "Color balance, exposure correction and sharpening, among others" can be done easier. I did not realize this.

Taking this into account and dismissing the storage issue both on card and computer, would you only shoot raw and never jpg??

[jfrancho]

When you shoot jpg for the pottery project, do you batch process or are you saying that your upfront work for custom WB and camera settings ahead of shooting makes it easier?

Both All the prework - getting the in camera settings, WB - and using .jpg means I don't have to open each image in ACR, tweak the settings, convert to .psd.... They are good to go right out of the camera. I use an action (as a batch) that flips each file to 16 bpc mode, and saves as a .psd. Then I open each, crop to 1:1 aspect and save. Then I have two more actions that resize, sharpen using high pass filter, convert to sRGB, convert to 8bpc, and save as a .jpg, quality-12. One makes 75x75px. thumbs and the other 650x650px. images. Processing took about 25 minutes for 100 or so images, starting at copy from the cardreader to burn a CD-R.

You can apply a standard set of ACR settings to a bunch of raw files, which is what I did in the past for these. But I figure why go through the trouble when the camera does the conversion faster, and - with the right parameter serttings - just as well.

[Mark McCall]

Johnny,
Although I'd recommend stepping up to CS2, Don't upgrade just to get ACR.
Your own camera manufacturer provides a converter free (unless your Nikon) that has a couple of advantages over ACR. Nikon charges $99 for their converter, I believe.
#1. Your changes are applied to all images (or as many as you select) in real time, instantly. Much faster than ACR.
#2. Camera manufacturers that do not share their algorythms with Adobe, Capture One, Bibble or any of the other third party converters. All third party converters are reverse engineered.
Your own manufacturers converter will provide the best quality file, regardless of price.
(you should have seen the crowd's face when I made that statement on stage in front of 300 photographers at PPA last January).

Our tests at Shoot Smarter University in Chicago and the Texas School of Professional Photography at Texas A&M University both expended the same results:
The software provided by each camera make yielded the best quality image when compared to the same image converted with a bevy of converters, regardless of what it costs.

Keep in mind, I'm not knocking ACR. I know people who use it in their studios.

My comments are solely based lab results and time investments, and how fast I can complete the job, and move on to something else in a busy studio.

To answer your question directly, I use JPG for vacation photos, but that's about it.
You don't have the flexiblity advantages of Raw with Jpg, as well as being able to make a solid print from an under or overexposed file.

[cyclohexane]

Your own camera manufacturer provides a converter free (unless your Nikon) that has a couple of advantages over ACR. Nikon charges $99 for their converter, I believe.

Luckily, Johnny's shooting Canon like you. =)

Actually, Nikon discontinued the $99 converter/camera control software, and replaced it with a $150 attempt at competing with Photoshop (but as far as I know it still doesn't have a clone tool- I haven't used it in a while except for conversion), For working on multiple images at a time, it's near useless thanks to poor implementation of batching (I'm going to go through the manual again when I get a chance, but it's not a priority), so I ended up switching to Capture One LE (which was free and fast), as the colors are close, noise reduction is much better, and it runs much better.

Personally, I'm shooting JPEG for work, but only because that's what the office wants as server space is limited and out of our hands. I was shooting RAW 24/7 before this.

[Jim Sykes]

...
Our tests at Shoot Smarter University in Chicago and the Texas School of Professional Photography at Texas A&M University both expended the same results:
The software provided by each camera make yielded the best quality image when compared to the same image converted with a bevy of converters, regardless of what it costs.

Keep in mind, I'm not knocking ACR. I know people who use it in their studios.

My comments are solely based lab results and time investments, and how fast I can complete the job, and move on to something else in a busy studio.

There you go, stating your opinion as fact again. Actually, your comments are also based on your OPINION.

You are right in talking about how the 3rd party converters are created and all that, but its still your opinion as to which one processes a photo the best as the final output is a subjective thing and you cant state as fact that one is better than another.

Personally, I hate the way DPP processes images and I think that there are other better RAW processors than DPP.

If you are going to suggest someone shoot RAW, then you should also sugget they work with different processors till they find the one that they like the best, you shouldnt be stating your opionion as a fact as you do.

Likewise, back to the speed thing as well, for your workflow you find RAW to be fast, for others thats not always the case and we wont get into that again, but I can personally batch process a couple hundred photos much faster than I can process those in RAW.

So state the facts, state how RAW processing works and how it might be faster for someone, state how 3rd party processors are reverse engineered and may not give you the best output, but dont state as fact that RAW is always faster or that that the manufacturer RAW processor will always look better to another individual.

And to anser the posters questions.

I download photos from my camera into a folder for that event/shoot. Immeidately they are copied to an external hdd so that I have two copies on site, one on the laptop and one on an additional hdd.

Those two folders are never touched so that I always have original files to work with, whether jpeg or RAW.

Then when working on specific files they are all kept in a current photoshop projects file and are always saved as .psd files till the final saving which is saved as tiff or jpeg depending on what is required.

I dont normally save the edited photos, but if I do for some reason, there is a second "edited" folder within the main folder of the shoot where those will reside. If the final images are important enough to save, then they are also copied to the backup folder for the shoot as well.

[Mark McCall]

Jim,
I didn't post my opinion.

I posted test conclusions from two photographic schools.
One being the largest photographic school in the world, administered by Don Dickson, current board member of the Professional Photographers of America, holding the Photographic Craftsman and Master of Photography degrees.
The second one is run by Will Crockett, the "father of modern digital worklow" as he is called by Professional Photographer Magazine.

For the record, I never said Raw was faster than Jpg.
I said manufacturer's converters were faster than ACR.

I'm going to politely ask that we keep this on a professional level.

[Johnny D]

Thanks so much for the advice.* I'm sure I still have the software that came with the 20d.* I'll dig it out and experiment.*

This leads to more questions:* What method do you recommend for getting a reference for white balance?* From what i have read, shoot a frame with 18% grey and set the white point in PS shooting RAW.* *

Been reading about Whibal (grey card), and Expo Disc, (suitable for JPG?).*

Any need for the Minolta Color Meter IIIF ?

[Mark McCall]

Install Canon Digital Photo Professional from the CD.
(there's several other programs on the CD as well).
Then update CDPP from Canon's website for free to get the latest version.

Your 20D manual suggests shooting a white sheet of printer paper (low tech by Canon standards), but it works.
Shoot the paper, filling your frame, exposure normally.

In* your camera's menu, select Custom White Balance>select the last image you took>click OK button>you'll get a message that says "Change to Custom White Balance". This setting is on the LCD on the top of the camera.
That's it.
These instructions are under Custom White Balance section of your user's manual.

The camera will now be balanced to the color temperature of the lights you used to shoot the white paper. (usually within 100k).
Studio stobes are very close to the color temperature of natural sunlight, so you can white balance in broad daylight or under studio strobes, then shoot in either condition.