Do you process all of your RAW files?

[table1349]

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

No............ ACR batch processing works on ALL the images. It just screws (not the word I wanted to use) up all the images not shot in the same lighting. :mrgreen: :lmao:

 

[KmH]

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

No............ ACR batch processing works on ALL the images. It just screws (not the word I wanted to use) up all the images not shot in the same lighting. :mrgreen: :lmao:

:thumbup:

Edit: The ACR batch processing is essentially only useful for those images shot in the same lighting.

 

[TCampbell]

I just thought I'd chime in with a quick comment. One of the advantages of digital asset management / raw-workflow products such as Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture is that you can actually process en-masse. Since you don't open & save individual files, you can apply image adjustments to collections of files at the same time.

I don't have Lightroom -- I use Aperture. But essentially the workflow allows me to take one image out of a set of shots taken in similar conditions. I can process the full-image adjustments (e.g. adjustments that you don't localize to a specific area of the shot -- things like "white balance" or "exposure" or "levels / curves" types of adjustments.) When I'm happy with it, I can tell it to apply those same adjustments to the other images.

The localized adjustments (e.g. if I just wanted to sharpen the eyes a bit or apply some skin smoothing, etc.) would need to be done one at a time.

Being able to process images in a good RAW workflow / DAM tool is VERY nice. I noticed that I hardly open images in Photoshop anymore unless they need some TLC.

 

[usayit]

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?

Nope.... given similar conditions I will apply basic adjustments in Lightroom to all/most of the RAW files (its quick/easy.. cut and paste develop settings) then just process the ones I like. I later split the files into two groups. One for DNG for archive. Another for JPG archive.

 

[shortpants]

No, I don't bother. I don't delete any RAW files though unless they are very obviously garbage/mistake shots wasting space.

 

[one90guy]

There is a good possible my eyesight is not that good. I tryed Raw-Jpeg, enlarged to 8x11. I could not see any difference between the two. I use Photoshop Elements 8 only so I can not compare to other software. Just my 2 cents worth.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

There is a good possible my eyesight is not that good. I tryed Raw-Jpeg, enlarged to 8x11. I could not see any difference between the two. I use Photoshop Elements 8 only so I can not compare to other software. Just my 2 cents worth.

There's no difference until you manipulate your photos much. Like me, I often underexpose to get the highlights back (I don't have problem with noise after increasing brightness in PP because my camera has very low read noise) to extract as much info from my camera as possible.

 

[DiskoJoe]

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.

You dont have to process all of them. Just select the ones you want to work with and you can open all of those at one time. When you go to select the file just hold down control and you can select multiple files. Doing it one at a time would take days just to open and close all of them. Batch processing does not mean that you have lay the same adjustment on each file, but you could if needed. Try it. You'll like it!

 

[12sndsgood]

i seem to process around 10% of what i get from a shoot. the rest i dont bother with. I got thru each photo pick and rate the ones i like a 3. then i'll go thru the 3s and rate the best ones a 4 and then go thru those sometimes to rate a 5 so by the time im done ill edit the 5's and its in that 10% range

 

[EDL]

Mechanical hard drives are also a big bottleneck. Sustained write speeds are usually around 15-26MBps. Although the high RPM Raptor drives will do a bit better none fo the mechanical drives come close to what a Solid State Drive (SSD) can do.

For dealing with large amounts of large files like this I would recommend any computer upgrade you do to contain at least a SATA II connection and a decent solid state drive. Even the more economical versions of the SSD's are immensely faster than mechanical drives.

For example, I currently have a Crucial brand M4 model, 256GB SSD in my work laptop (which only has a SATA II connection on the motherboard) and the performance increase in read/write speeds are phenomenal. My laptop is a Dell E4300, P9600 Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz CPU, 4 GB memory running Windows 7 Pro 32-bit. Being a sys admin, I also run a VM on it with Win XP, and I do MS Exchange as well, so I run the EMC and power shell windows, and various other tools. Typical boot times on the old Western Digital caviar black drive were in the 6-8 minute range to get booted, logged to desktop and start up my base set of tools, Outlook, etc.

I imaged the old mechanical drive to the SSD (did not load the system on the SSD from scratch) I can now boot, log in and have all my tools up and running in less than a minute. Since Windows is so memory intensive (and thus likes a large swap file) pretty much everything runs faster. It would be even faster still if my PC had a SATA III connection!

Reviews of this drive running in RAID 0 configurations are hitting speeds of 800-850MBps read (mega bytes per second, not mega bits per second!) and write speeds of 500-550 MBps.

Single M4 drives on a SATA III connection are easily hitting 500-525 MBps read and 220-250 MBps write speeds.

Of course, archiving gigs of photos wouldn't be ideal for the expense of an SSD, but for running the system, importing and processing it'd be the way to go.

Or, if you are so inclined and have the stacks of $$$, there are even PCI based SSD solutions. One PCI SSD card (OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2) which consists of basically 4 SSD drives on the card with a built in RAID controller is hitting 1.5 GBps read speeds and 1.2 GBps write speeds! It's not a bootable drive though being PCI based. It's pricey at around $3,150 for the 960GB version, down to about $550 for a 240GB capacity version.

 

[Kolia]

There is a good possible my eyesight is not that good. I tryed Raw-Jpeg, enlarged to 8x11. I could not see any difference between the two. I use Photoshop Elements 8 only so I can not compare to other software. Just my 2 cents worth.

You won't see any difference because PSE 8 only work with JPEG files. Once you go through the Adobe Camera RAW (not sure of the name) what you see in PSE is 8 bit JPEG.

I no longer use PSE 8 and only process and file with Lightroom. There the difference between RAW and JPEG is clearly apparent.

Back to the OP question, I only process the best images. I try to get rid of the not so good images but it is very difficult. Especially when family members are the subjects.

My library is almost 30,000 files, dating back to 2004

 

[one90guy]

You won't see any difference because PSE 8 only work with JPEG files. Once you go through the Adobe Camera RAW (not sure of the name) what you see in PSE is 8 bit JPEG.

I no longer use PSE 8 and only process and file with Lightroom. There the difference between RAW and JPEG is clearly apparent.


I used Picasso to convert from raw to jpeg. Also still learning the digital, for 44 years I used film only. If not for the "revert" I would have a lot less images

 

[one90guy]

Also poor computer skills, have not learned how to reply with a quote either

 

[Alex_B]

I roughly sort into three categories

1 - technically flawed or composition disaster with no documentary value
or accidental doublet or triplett image or anything but the best of a series with different settings
-> erase RAW file

2 - no current use, not outstanding, but might be useful for later projects
-> keep RAW, no processing

3 - outstanding or useful for current projects
-> keep RAW, process

 

[Buckster]

I roughly sort into three categories

1 - technically flawed or composition disaster with no documentary value
or accidental doublet or triplett image or anything but the best of a series with different settings
-> erase RAW file

2 - no current use, not outstanding, but might be useful for later projects
-> keep RAW, no processing

3 - outstanding or useful for current projects
-> keep RAW, process

That describes my way of doing it as well.