I would like to know your opinion: how much processing-generally - do you do in RAW editor? Is it better to process as much as I can within or after the conversion?
(I suppose 16-bit conversion and further processing in PS, for the web presentation.)
Newest top raw converters like ACR 4.1 or LR offer many sophisticated functions and numerous parameters to adjust prior the raw-conversion, including capture sharpening, saturation, curves and many others. Up to now, I personally avoided to process much at the RAW-stage, while adjusting everything (except for exposition and WB) in PS via Layers after the 16-bit TIFF conversion.
But it seems like a new trend to process much more directly from RAW, what do you think? Does it then lead to the better output quality?
I now prefer to do most of the adjustments in converter itself and few things in photoshop.
I really am interested in ACR4.1 but can not use it with current PSCS2 version I have.
I'm interested in knowing what most of you do too...I find lots of good features in ACR, but I'm new to it as well as CS3. I've always heard that you should do very little in the RAW converter, and most in PS, but I like the features of ACR, especially the color adjustment. I'll have to experiment to see what works best for me...in the mean time I hope you get plenty of responses here so I can learn too!
To me it's about using the right tool for the right job. Raw converters do a better job in compensating for exposure and for color temperature, as well as correcting chromatic aberration. Photoshop is better (as in - gives you more precise control) at just about everything else.
Making adjustments in the raw converter is also a good way to go when you need to minimize your processing time, which is another valid reason, but not one that is relevant to my own work.
Guy
Posted by Doug Andrews on June 22, 2007 at 12:21 PM
Because I use RAW Shooter Essentials (it was a free download) I really don't have much choice but to do only color temperature and exposure adjustments during RAW conversion. For everything else I use my photo editing software (Paint Shop Pro). When I eventually deicde to fork over some $$ and get a more versatile RAW conversion software package, that may all change.
In addition to exposure compensation and white balance I do some sharpening in ACR at the suggestion of West Coast Imaging -- about 50. I like the results I'm getting. I think Alice is on to something. Experiment and do what works best for you.
Kind of "all the above" for me. In general it depends on the image and a question of efficiency, but the better job I do in inititial capture, the less there is to be done in RAW. For me, RAW processing boils down more to an important rescue technique when things go wrong rather than a platform of choice for normal adjustments. I.e., when I need it I REALLY need it, but otherwise I try not to use it.
I would echo Guy's opinions - I have found that about the only thing that RAW converter is exceptionally good for is exposure and color correction adjustments.
As another note, I find that Photoshop allows much finer control of adjustments than the raw converter.
Thank you, that is very interesting. I also think that practically everything can be done better later on in PS, provided I have a 16-bit capture. But after reading this arcticle http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/
and namely the passage about RAW sharpening capabilities, I started to think about some optimization of my digital workflow. Today´s raw converters, unlike earlier software, are more and more complicated, and substitute PS in many ways. Many functions duplicates, many others are rather confusing, at least for me. It is necessary to understand it better and thus to spend much more time in front of computer instead of working in the field. I wonder how will the future of the raw conversion look like. I would also prefer just very simple, straightforward and effective processing, followed by less-or-more complicated post-processing in PS, depending on the technical quality of the original capture. BTW, the above mentioned "sharpening issue" (capture sharpening in RAW, then final again in PS) is a pure alchemy.
Interesting responses...I echo the fact that we should strive to get the best possible image at capture so processing is kept at a minimum. But there are always those images that need some help no matter how careful we are...I have one now that I shot at sunrise that has a terrible color cast that I'm having a hard time with. I'm still learning, but have found the color correction in ACR has worked much better than that in CS3. I still have a lot to learn though! What about the curves function in ACR? Do any of you use that? I'm still a but confused with curves as a whole, but I'm studying and practicing.
For landscape/nature shots, I tend to use the converter more. I will use the sliders to tweek shadows and contrast, and exposure and brightness. Sometimes I use the selective color in the converter as well, but often times I find PS to have tighter control. There will (almost) always be finishing touches done in PS.
For portraits, I use the converter much less. In fact, I tend to process the images fairly flat, so I have more latitude once the image is in PS. Then I do blemish touch up and skin softening, using a multitude of layers and masks, as well as color correction on the skin. I find that for fine tuning, PS gives much tighter control.
David J wondered what the future held for RAW processors. I sincerely hope they're DOA, and instead the capabilities are folded into Photoshop. I'd use the tools a lot more if they were that handy, and would therfore probably shoot RAW as a matter of course. Until my dream comes true, I'll continue using RAW selectively.
Discussion
13 replies(I suppose 16-bit conversion and further processing in PS, for the web presentation.)
Newest top raw converters like ACR 4.1 or LR offer many sophisticated functions and numerous parameters to adjust prior the raw-conversion, including capture sharpening, saturation, curves and many others. Up to now, I personally avoided to process much at the RAW-stage, while adjusting everything (except for exposition and WB) in PS via Layers after the 16-bit TIFF conversion.
But it seems like a new trend to process much more directly from RAW, what do you think? Does it then lead to the better output quality?
I really am interested in ACR4.1 but can not use it with current PSCS2 version I have.
Making adjustments in the raw converter is also a good way to go when you need to minimize your processing time, which is another valid reason, but not one that is relevant to my own work.
Guy
As another note, I find that Photoshop allows much finer control of adjustments than the raw converter.
and namely the passage about RAW sharpening capabilities, I started to think about some optimization of my digital workflow. Today´s raw converters, unlike earlier software, are more and more complicated, and substitute PS in many ways. Many functions duplicates, many others are rather confusing, at least for me. It is necessary to understand it better and thus to spend much more time in front of computer instead of working in the field. I wonder how will the future of the raw conversion look like. I would also prefer just very simple, straightforward and effective processing, followed by less-or-more complicated post-processing in PS, depending on the technical quality of the original capture. BTW, the above mentioned "sharpening issue" (capture sharpening in RAW, then final again in PS) is a pure alchemy.
RAW converter for general Global processing.
PS for local and regional processing and spotting.
For landscape/nature shots, I tend to use the converter more. I will use the sliders to tweek shadows and contrast, and exposure and brightness. Sometimes I use the selective color in the converter as well, but often times I find PS to have tighter control. There will (almost) always be finishing touches done in PS.
For portraits, I use the converter much less. In fact, I tend to process the images fairly flat, so I have more latitude once the image is in PS. Then I do blemish touch up and skin softening, using a multitude of layers and masks, as well as color correction on the skin. I find that for fine tuning, PS gives much tighter control.