Adobe Lightroom?

[andyoxon]

Thanks.  Anyone know about how to display jpegs and RAW files in the Lightroom catalog view - I only seem to be displaying RAW atm?

edit.   oops. in prefs - treat jpeg &RAW as separate.

Andy

[mike]

do you need to have both? 

I switched to raw-only when I moved to LR, and export from there in jpeg when I want to print/email them but dont see any reason to keep original-sized copies of both.

[docsquid]

From my POV RAW does cost a huge amount of time in both transferring the images and also in processing because each image takes minutes to load, rather than seconds. If you are taking hundreds of images every day, that adds up to many extra hours. I cannot think of a single image where RAW has really made a lot of difference, maybe a tiny bit on one or two. With a modern camera there is virtually no difference. I can't see any, TBH, on my 5D3. Used to be a lot of difference when I had a 50D, but hardly any on the new camera.

I really can't be faffed to wait for 3 hours to download 100 pictures from a CF card, or for five minutes for each image to load into LR so I can look at it. And I have a 3gHz quad core machine. JPEG is so much quicker. 

[mike]

3 hours for 100 pics?  somethings wrong Squids...  My 2 yr old imac imported about 1,000 5d3 raw files from a fashion show last weekend in less time than it took me to make and drink a cup of tea.   My laptop (macbook air) is marginally slower but really not that much

opening each raw file once its imported is normally instant, worst case it takes 2 or 3 seconds .

[Biggsy]

Docsquid must have a very slow memory card and a very slow card reader (USB 1.0?).  It takes a very few seconds per RAW image with my 7DayShop high-speed SD card and a cheapo (but fast) card reader to transfer from card to any computer via USB 2.0.  (Cameras: Pentax K-7, Panasonic LX2).

Then converting from RAW to JPEG and applying all processing (simultaneously) with Silkypix takes 3 or 4 seconds per image on my best computer, or up to 10 seconds on my older more humble computers.  This is not much longer than processing JPEGs.

As well as RAW having a greater dynamic range, I prefer Silkypix's sharpening and noise reduction to my cameras'.  (Some cameras still do some sharpening and NR for JPEGs even with the settings at zero).  You do need to use software skillfully though to get much advantage from RAW.  On the other hand, more skillful photographers don't need to do so much post processing.  I admit I'm not a great photographer.

[andyoxon]

In Lightroom - I've created a catalog of all my HDD and Ext HDD images by 'adding' so not actually moving them into LR.  If one makes changes to the image, what happens to the original, is it left untouched?  In other words are the changes one makes, recorded & applied through LR but not saved over the original..?

I've been playing around with some of my RAW files, and until now I've not really realised just what I can get from them, in terms of recovering shadow & highlights.   

[mike]

the changes are stored in a tiny file which lightroom references every time you open the raw file, so the original 'negative' raw file is completely untouched.

[Charlotte]

My MacBook Air (bought from Mike, as it happens) manages to handle pulling hundreds of RAW+JPEG files out of my D700 in a couple of minutes over regular USB 2 with a 133x CF card.  The import into Lightroom is just as fast.

Maybe it's because I'm not usually a spray-and-pray kind of shooter, but I've always felt comfortable shooting on maximum resolution and saving everything.  I keep the in-camera JPEGs but unless it's just snaps for the internet, I tend to work on the RAW files and export the keepers to a separate file with Lightroom.

[Afasoas]

I'm figuring it's horses for courses. I've met many Pros now and it's a good mix between those who shoot RAW and those who shoot JPEG. And it really depends on what they are shooting and the associated work flow. In the following situations, in my experience, JPEG is common:

 - Sports - due to sheer quantity and required speed of workflow
 - News
 - Studio - conditions are completely controlled
 - Event
 - Documentary
 - Medical/Forensic

Conversely in the following situations, RAW is common:

 - Anything on-location


I've not met a Wedding Tog in the flesh who would shoot JPEG instead of RAW. I've seen a few claims on-line, but still not one in the flesh.

Shooting in JPEG can be a bit like taking your negatives to the lab to be developed. If you want to/need to tweak the contrast/saturation/sharpness/toning of your negs then you need RAW. If you are happy with the results you get from the lab (it's fast, it's consistent) then shoot JPEG.

I know that analogy doesn't quite hold because it is possible to set your own picture controls in camera which affect the way the camera generates JPEGs and I have experimented with these, even building custom picture controls and uploading them to the camera. However, unless shooting in optimal or controlled conditions, I've found this approach to be a little inflexible.

[Jaded]

My RAW speed, even for sports (8 frames per sec) is fine. As is the processing speed. 5 year old Mac Pro or 18month old MacBook Pro of 6 month old iPad, all deal with RAW files pretty quickly.

[Afasoas]

Decision to use JPEG is more around sending the data quickly when your in the field or wire several thousand images to a  print lab.

[Jaded]

They send every image as it is taken?

[Afasoas]

Do you mean send straight away or send without editing?

If working as freelance news/sports photographer, the winner is the person who's photo first hits the picture desk. Snap. Crop. Send.

Photographing a sports tournament or an event where you are selling photos to the general public, there are often runners ferrying memory cards backwards and forwards between photographers. At some events, photos are selected, cropped and sent away to a nearby lab for printing. At others, they are displayed to people at kiosks and printed on demand.

I know some events people who have tried wireless setups for transmitting images from camera to  assistants who are selecting and cropping photos, but generally, unless you are shooting at the same place (e.g. karting track, equestrian hall) they're a bit fiddly to setup and a bit too fragile.

As I said, it's horses for courses. Personally I prefer shooting RAW and processing through LR.

[Ham]

Here's a little bit of advice for all you Lightroom users out there.

Lightroom creates thumbnails of all your images in a hugely complex cache directory. If youhave lots of images this can grow alarmingly, mine was 20Gb  (note the past tense).

It is PERFECTLY safe to delete the cache files, Lightroom will re-create. There is in fact a setting inside Lightroom telling it how long to hang onto to cache files.

If you do this, you may want to remember first that by default it is the same directory as your catalogue file. Not only that but by default, LR puts the catalogue backups into this directory too. Now might be a good time to consider putting that on another drive - maybe even saving externally.

During the import process you will now be forced to do, LR will thumbnail every single image. This may take a while.

Of course, this does mean that someone doing this will lose every single freakin' edit, up to the last backup which you might just have moved onto another drive.

DNAHIKT

[Charlotte]

Here's another:

Save your files to XMP 'sidecar' files and keep them with the original image files.  This option automatically saves any changes you make to a RAW file in Lightroom (basic adjustments, crop, B&W conversion, sharpening etc) into the XMP sidecar files that are saved right next to the original RAW files.

It's one of the most important features in LR and if you don't tick it, you won't get the benefit of keeping the way you made your edits in these sidecar files as well as in the general catalogue.  What it means is that even if you lose or corrupt the catalogue, you can reconstruct it from the RAW+XMP files.  Also, you can send someone else a RAW+XMP combination and they can see your edits.



http://photographyconcentrate.com/lightroom-tip-turn-automatically-write-changes-xmp/

[Pedal Castro]

FWIW I think JPEG is absolutely fine 99% of the time. Like I say, having talked to a lot of photographers, the pros hardly ever use RAW unless there is a particular reason eg for some landscapes. All the keen amateurs use RAW because they have been told it is "better", just like they never use automatic settings on their camera because they have been told manual is "better".

Raw is essential for the Sony NEX 5, which is why I bought LR as my version of Photoshop (CS2) wouldn't upgrade Camera Raw sufficiently.

[Ham]

Here's another:

Save your files to XMP 'sidecar' files and keep them with the original image files.  This option automatically saves any changes you make to a RAW file in Lightroom (basic adjustments, crop, B&W conversion, sharpening etc) into the XMP sidecar files that are saved right next to the original RAW files.

It's one of the most important features in LR and if you don't tick it, you won't get the benefit of keeping the way you made your edits in these sidecar files as well as in the general catalogue.  What it means is that even if you lose or corrupt the catalogue, you can reconstruct it from the RAW+XMP files.  Also, you can send someone else a RAW+XMP combination and they can see your edits.



http://photographyconcentrate.com/lightroom-tip-turn-automatically-write-changes-xmp/

Thanks for rubbing it in. Somewhere along the line over the last 5 years that setting changed

As it turns out I found a not-too-old catalog backup (10 months?) so it could have been a whole lot worse. Of course I then had to delete the new catalog, import from the old then add the new. As I've done pretty much bugger all photography this last year, no real loss.

edit: I might have switched it off myself in view of the volume of images, preferring to keep everything online if I could.

[tonycollinet]

If I check that box now, will it automagically create xmps for all the edits I've done to date?

[mike]

for anyone who does use Aperture (or photoshop), there's a great set of software made by 'Nik' for enhanced editing with loads of actually useful and tweakable presets, including a fantastic black and white converter (Silver Efex) and quite a cool selective editor.  Google bought 'nik' a while back and are selling a bundle of everything for 150 USD, compared to the 700USD individual prices.

I think it's all stuff that's possible in lightroom anyway, but this makes it a damn sight quicker and easier.