Do you process all of your RAW files?

[Rotanimod]

This may seem like a silly question, but I'm wondering what you all do with your RAW files. Do you process some of them or all of them?

I have thousands of CR2's. I find that I only process the photos which I plan on using in some capacity.

I know there are batch processing methods (which I have not used yet) and maybe I should be processing all of them? I'm wondering what you guys do.

I use Adobe Bridge and ACR built into CS5 fyi.

[Ads]

[bhop]

I only take time to process the keepers. I toss out the crappy ones. I might keep some that i'm on the fence about to look at later. Why waste time processing shots that you're not using?

[Balmiesgirl]

I load them all in Lightroom with a basic developing preset applied on import. It's fast and easy and I can have the previews ready for the client very quickly. Then after the files are picked I go ahead and develop them to their full potential.

[Trever1t]

I import all into LR and process the ones I want. Rest are filed.

[KmH]

The ACR batch processing only works for those images shot in the same lighting.

[Designer]

I load them onto flash drives and boil them for at least two hours. I found that the microwave is not the best place to cook flash drives.

[Derrel]

I often cannot keep up with all of the RAWS I have shot, and frankly, only the very best of the best are of any interest to me. I try and make my efforts actually count, so the sub-optimal stuff is simply off-archived, for "later" work.

I don't like to be too hasty in eliminating images, but by the same token, I can spot images that are just not worth spending much time on. For example, in one particular sequence, there is often a BEST shot, and a few almost-as-good, and then a number of shots that are just B-list.

If a file is a Megan Fox...I am interested in it...if it is a Rodney Dangerfield...I don't care...it gets no respect.

[slackercruster]

No, I shoot in jpeg pretty much. I scan old negs in TIFF and process them all.

[bratkinson]

After much "ballyhoo" about RAW here and other forums I follow, I finally decided to put my toes in the water and switched from Large JPG only to RAW+Large JPG in my 60D.

I wasn't (and still am) not ready for the extended computer processing times with RAW files. Just to copy from my SDHC card to my hard drive (via USB 2 reader) 100 RAW pictures is perhaps 15-20 minutes. Did I mention I am still using a single-processor 3.2 ghz AMD Athlon processor on my main computer? So, it's S-L-O-W by todays standards. Importing 100 RAWS into Lightroom 3 is another 20-30 minutes, and simply bringing up the next RAW in Lightroom is 30+ seconds, each, to start processing them!

So, to speed things up, I've taken to copying the JPG folder to my HD first. That's perhaps 2-3 minutes for 100 pix. Then I open the folder and look at the small pictures, deleting the really obvious losers such as WB card shots, obviously under/over exposed, etc.

I then make a fast pass through the folder, clicking on the survivors of round 1 and bringing them up in Photoshop. I can then delete perhaps another 20% or more as out focus, slow aperature too much blurred, or even "too repetitive" of other shots (dumping the "could be be a keeper" but I have better shots of the same subject). Round 2 knocks off another 10-15% of the pictures.

Round 3 is matching the camera supplied file numbers of the 'good' JPG folder with the file numbers of the RAW CR2s on the memory card. I simply delete the CR2s that are -not- matched by a JPG of the same name. I simply have each folder open, side by side on my screen, and delete the unmatched CR2s. I've thought about simply writing down which JPGs I'm deleting in round 1 and 2, and then going from that list to delete the CR2s, but taking my hand off the keyboard (I'm left handed), picking up the pen, writing down the number (OK, I could have an open NOTEPAD on the side of the screen if I wanted) seems a lot longer to me than simply eyeballing two side-by-side lists and making sure they have the same file numbers.

Then, I FINALLY copy the "good enough to process" CR2s to my hard drive, and then import them into Lightroom. Once in Lightroom, I get yet another chance at round 2 processing, getting a better look at the pictures and deciding keep this one or keep the one next to it? Keep them both? Dump them both? etc. I may decide when I open it up, or wait until after I've developed it to decide. I may even decide to keep them both for now, but decide later on (final cut) to dump one or more.

I know my post processing procedure is lengthy, involved, and I probably deleted a couple of good CR2s by mistake. That's life. Certainly, upgrading my computer will likely cause a change in my methodology. But, at the same time, I have a backup of everything along the way...especially if I copy the CR2s to the hard drive before doing RAW/CR2 matching deletions.

[Derrel]

Good post. My suggestion: get a FASTER card reader!!! They are out there!!! USB 2 is not that slow of a transfer protocol,so you ought to be able to do a bit of on-line research to find a faster, a much faster card reader made by a leading brand, like say Lexar.

Your step #3 is EASY under Macintosh OS. How? FILE LABELING, which Macs can do. The files culled out and sent to the trash? Select all, label them a specific color, then move them back out of the trash and into the CR2 file folder, and Voila! Each color-coded "Junker" sits right there, next to its equally worthless same-named CR2 parent...select both and right click and Send to Trash. You can steamroll right down a long list, and not make mistakes! Much easier than having two windows open, side by side, and going back and forth comparing tiny little numbers...but then, that is a Macintosh system advantage I have used for many years...

If I have read your workflow correctly, you are culling images off of the memory card, using the USB 2 interface??? Again, that sounds like a waste of time...I think a high-quality,modern Lexar USB 2.0 card reader will allow you to import 100 CR2 files to the hard disk in around four minutes, along with the JPEG Large image files...

Something seems weird that it takes 20-30 minutes to import CR2 files and 30 seconds to open each RAW in Lightroom....is your computer's hard disk defragmented and in good order??? Those time seems awfully,awfully slow, even with a modest computer. again, fast card reader, and hard disk defragging??

One comment: one pro tip from Rob Galbraith is to set in-camera sharpening to HIGH when shooting RAW + JPEG so that the degree of focus can be easily evaluated in ANY image viewer application. ANd BTW, Photo Mechanic for example, can open and handle and tag and edit/sort images faster than probably ANY software app. it is what most large newspapers use to ingest and tag image files...it is MUCH better at that task than LR or Aperture or PS, or any other app, for that matter....that is its MAIN goal!!

[Skaperen]

USB 2 can go to at least 46 MB/sec because I had a USB hard drive once that achieved these speeds. Clearly my computer's USB controller and that drive's USB controller both achieved the speed. A solid continuous data transfer in USB would be 60 MB/sec, but that is not achievable due to all the overhead from addressing, protocol turnarounds, negotiations, waits, etc.

I have yet to see a USB memory stick that can get above 22 MB/sec, even though they claim more. And I did continuous sequential tests which should be the fastest.

As for a camera card controller attached via USB (most common), this makes for even more delays. Ironically, my fastest SDHC is on a netbook which has it wired up as its own device instead of via USB.

On to RAW files ...

I have turned them on in my 7D, and have been archiving everything. I have processed none of them, yet. I save them in case I later decide to do so. I use Linux and have dcraw installed. I experimented with it a couple times, but did not figure out all the options. I will get back to it at some time.

My general intentions are to do most non-stitching post-process with my own programs I write. But I may make use of some graphical interactive programs in the future, too. I would convert camera RAW files to pixel linear RAW files first. My program would then read the PLRAW (96 bits per pixel, 3 numbers representing linear light levels in RGB, after the Bayer interpolation done in dcraw). But I may also try to get a PLRAW equivalent of a NON-interpolated image (e.g. I'd just get the single pixel value and know which color channel it is) and attempt to see if I can improve on the interpolation (not likely, but linear math problems like this I find to be fun).

[Kolander]

...I know there are batch processing methods (which I have not used yet) and maybe I should be processing all of them?...

I worked as an assistant for a photo studio in Spain many years ago, making outdoor fashion reports for a week.

In one of the locations, the photographer took more than 3.000 pictures. When I saw the catalogue there were just 2 shots from that place -not a mistake, two shots. Of course they just processed a handful, rest to the trash after checking with Bridge.

[Skaperen]

...I know there are batch processing methods (which I have not used yet) and maybe I should be processing all of them?...

I worked as an assistant for a photo studio in Spain many years ago, making outdoor fashion reports for a week.

In one of the locations, the photographer took more than 3.000 pictures. When I saw the catalogue there were just 2 shots from that place -not a mistake, two shots. Of course they just processed a handful, rest to the trash after checking with Bridge.

Digital makes this cheaper. Had it been film, they would probably have made only 600 to 1000 shots.

[EchoingWhisper]

I'm switching from RAW to RAW+JPEG. I decided to give my JPEGs to those who wants my half decent photos (I'm not a pro) quickly while I play with the RAW happily by myself.

[Kolander]

Digital makes this cheaper. Had it been film, they would probably have made only 600 to 1000 shots.

I meant with film It was so usual to see dozens of contact sheets with the same posing, the same headshot.