Turning Raw into JPG (using automated batch action

[SimonD]

Personally I avoid using RAW, far easier getting jpegs right in camera than spending time correcting images in post processing, all the tweaks you see in RAW processing you can achieve in the camera, levels, WB & Saturation etc.

I appreciate it's easier said than done, but you will probably come accross things you need to change all the time, lets say WB is always too warm (too much yellow) then use maual WB and select a lower temperature (low temp = cold & high temp = warm)
The on camera Flash setting in WB is crap don't use it, it's mainly for flash guns not studio flash, I always use manual WB.

But if RAW is your prefereance then as ecucamman says Canons Digital Photo Professional is what you need, very easy to change a batch, once that's done I convert em to jpegs & batch process resizing as normal in potatoshop.

Hope that helps, but trust me, forget wasting your time in RAW and invest that time tweaking in camera.

[puretotty]

Well Simon I keep asking you to come and teach me how to take good pics... but no matter how much I bribe you, you just keep on refusing me

I am now using manual WB and like the results... but they are still in need of a little tweek... which I seem to be able to do better with the RAW format as opposed to the JPG

I may invest in LightRoom... I juat downloaded the 30 day trial so will have a little play

[M_IMAGE]

I take Simon's point about just using .jpg and at one time I agreed - but not any more - all work shot in RAW.

The key is the 'work flow process' after shooting and LightRoom is outstanding for this, as an example last week I did a shoot:

1. copied all the images, about 600, into a single folder then sorted on created time
2. uploaded into LightRoom and converted to DNG and backup at the same time
3. Batch process for white light balance, exposue, sturation etc
4. tagged and caption and label as required
5. selected best and outputed as .jpg and sent to client within the afternoon

Add to above all the other featiures in LightRoom and you still have the original non-desturtive file if needed.

[Studio3]

It's interesting to see this being debated, and more so to read the differing approaches adopted. I personally used to shoot jpeg, but with the arrival of CS3 I became easily converted to using Camera Raw. I now shoot everything in Raw, dump the card onto one of the office machines, bring the set up in bridge, select the whole lot and open in Camera Raw. I then opt to select all and do a few rudimentary adjustments that suit the first image in the set, then I quickly scroll down and stop at any shots that look like they need further tweaks, adjust accordingly (it's surprising just how little time it takes to do the adjustments on a large set) and then I select the output size and destination folder and batch save as Jpegs... Job Done and time for a cup of tea or go work on another machine while the batch processes.

I do however agree that all the major adjustments can, and should be done on the back of the camera in the first place, and usually find with strobe lighting there are few tweaks needed in Raw, but under some circumstances Raw can be very useful indeed. For example, if I am doing stills using constant lighting while a video is being shot then the ballance between depth of field and shutter speed will usually dictate a higher ISO, in which case the noise reduction settings in Raw are a real bonus (it's also worth noting that a certain degree of skin smoothing can be acheived this way with minimum fuss). Furthermore, I can hardly stop a video shoot in full swing because I am not 100% happy with some of the shadows (particularly true of wet and messy shoots). In Camera Raw the fill light and recovery sliders can often rescue a shot that would have been scrapped in jpeg. This is also true of events coverage and outdoor work where less control of lighting is inevitable (in a perfect world we'd all have an assistant on hand with a bag full of slave flashes and reflectors).

And finally, if you are shooting on an older camera body with a modest number of megapixels (I usually have a 20D with a 50mm prime under the seat of my bike or in the glove compartment of the car for opportunistic purposes), then shooting in Raw will give you the facility to produce some surprisingly large prints. I once shot a landscape on Southend beach at sunset with my ex and the kids in the middle ground, using an old 300D with a plastic ?50 prime lens, and because I'd shot in Raw I managed to produce an enormous canvas (4 and a half foot wide), simply by selecting the largest output and then working on the subsequent jpeg using a few handy filters (despite the relatively low light levels at the time of day, you can clearly see who the subjects are, even though they were over 100 yds away).

Well that's my two penny's worth

[M_IMAGE]

Any one else any pionts on this?

[andytaylor]

I'm a Mac user, so I have Aperture - similar to Lightroom, but way better.

My workflow is RAW -> Aperture where I adjust, then export as jpg for the web. I then run another program, iWatermark, to add the watermark.

[beck images]

Hi,
Just to add to this debate on the RAW v jpg question. If someone is shooting for themselves, for their own site etc that is one thing, if you intend to shoot with view to selling to a wider marker I would always suggest shooting RAW. Some publications won't entertain sets unless they have both RAW and jpg. And again as stated by others, once you have shot RAW, using Lightroom is the way to go. Keep the untouched RAW images, and convert to jpg. Then you can edit in photoshop after if you wish. Most art directors prefer unedited RAW and corrected jpgs. Also as stated above, it's always best to try and make sure the image you take needs as little correction as possible. Spend the time in making sure the lighting is correct etc. Also from my point of view, always, always,always take as many pics as possible. A lot of togs take sets of 60 - 100 images, my togs shoot between 250 - 800 images per set. It's far better to get one really good or amazing set of a model than 3 shit ones. Not sure if this info is of any use.

[JB]

puretotty wrote:

> Hey Mate downloading the 30 Day Trial of the product Now
> all I need to do is pay you to come round and teach me how to
> use it

OK, my training rate is 50 quid an hour. !happy!

Lightroom relieves so many headaches in managing photos, you'll wonder how you lived without it. I'm using 1.4 but will upgrade to 2.0 soon - I rarely need to open Photoshop any more.

[JB]

SimonD wrote:

> Personally I avoid using RAW, far easier getting jpegs right in
> camera than spending time correcting images in post processing,
> all the tweaks you see in RAW processing you can achieve in the
> camera, levels, WB & Saturation etc.

That's true Simon, but depends what type of photos you're taking. A lot of shoots have a mix of white balances for example. It's much easier to shoot away and then fix the WB later for each pic. The RAW also contains a lot of info missing from the JPG so you have more control over fixing exposures etc.

[puretotty]

Thanks for that input I am definetly edging towards shooting it all in RAW and processing exactly the way you described... even though I am looking at Adobe LightRoom too