what is are the correct steps for processing RAW files and how long does it take you?

[Janmc]

Ok, after reading about how much better it is to shoot RAW I decided to do so recently and am back with a bunch of RAW photos. So now I have a question.. what do you all use to get them from this RAW format into the final versions? Do you batch process any, or is it a standard one by one process (I can see how that would consume hours!!)
What is the correct sequence - noise removal -> toning -> color -> filters -> sharpening? Something else?
And most of all... how do you know, when you are DONE?
I suffer from a little bit of perfectionism.... and I'm scared of trying to finish a RAW file and feeling like its not "ready"

Finally, what is the best software to do all this? I have photoshop, but not lightroom. Or is another suite of products better entirely?

Please educate me!
thanks in advance!!

 

[Overread17 5]

There is no "perfect" approach. There are a multitude of approaches which can be adopted depending upon personal choice and also your desired end output; plus also the amount of editing and the time you wish to spend upon editing itself.

As such each person tends to have their own way of editing, even professionals have their own styles and workflows. The key is to read and learn what you can of different processes and then blend them together into your own workflow; whilst also looking at the workflows and the reasoning behind them, used by other photographers.

There are multiple guide books and websites that you can pick up for "how to edit in photoshop" - in my typical experience many DVD and book guides often go through workflows whilst many websites are great for often going into detail about specific processes (and a little less so on how to structure a workflow).


That said there are a few typical considerations:

1) Sharpening. During the RAW workflow all RAW converters apply an amount of basic sharpening to photos; this low default value is called "capture sharpening" and serves to provide the photographer work a working image that looks decently sharp to work from (if you ever disable this sharpening you'll get a shock as to how soft many photos look).

Outside of capture sharpening all other sharpening is generally done as the very final step in digital editing. This is because the process itself is destructive to data in the photo and as such when one sharpens one also reduces the amount of data present, and as such more editing over the top of that destruction can result in reduced overall quality of the end results. Furthermore the amount of sharpening needed on a photo depends greatly on its intended output medium. A photo resized for print and one resized for web display will not only be at different sizes, but also require different amounts of sharpening to look their best.
Note that sharpening is also not a universal element, some areas of a photo will want more or less than others and as such selective sharpening is often a very important tool. Also some areas won't want any at all (Eg the creamy blurred background). Of course many times (esp for web display) global sharpening will be "enough" for most needs.

2) Noise removal - this is also rather akin to sharpening in that its destructive to the data and is again something determined strongly by the output medium. It's often performed last and just before sharpening (since in areas where you perform both actions you don't want to "sharpen" noise data that you want to remove first).


Note also that the amount of editing you do in RAW will differ. Some people prefer to work a photo almost to a fully finished state within the RAW editor itself - using additional editing tools to just touch up or perform more complex adjustments. Others perform very little RAW editing itself and instead leave the editing for the more complex tools and controls in photoshop. Neither approach is "correct" they are simply different approaches with the former being often the most popular in general.



That video is the first of a series which you can watch which details the, in my observations, less used latter method of reduced RAW editing (it also contains a good workflow example from start to finish whilst going into some detail on each process in its own right).

 

[Light Guru]

Just about all your questions can be answered with it depends. Before I start with some specific responces to your questions I'm going to say that your your post has a tone that makes me believe that you think there is only ONE correct way to do things. THERE IS NOT. There is nothing wrong with trying out different ways and finding what works best for YOU.

what do you all use to get them from this RAW format into the final versions

Depends on what your final output is for. Web? Print?

Do you batch process any, or is it a standard one by one process

Depends on what you are you are doing to the images and whether or not they were all shot in the dame place with the same lighting conditions.

What is the correct sequence - noise removal -> toning -> color -> filters -> sharpening? Something else?

There is no one way you have to do it. There is no set in stone right way to do it.

And most of all... how do you know, when you are DONE?

When your image looks like the one you provisioned before you pressed the shutter button.

 

[Big Mike]

Here is a good article. Why Raw -- Part I

And the best advice I can give on this topic, is to get Adobe Lightroom.

 

[TATTRAT]

Here is a good article. Why Raw -- Part I

And the best advice I can give on this topic, is to get Adobe Lightroom.

Good read.

I really need to start shooting RAW

 

[kathyt]

LR and sync them, because I don't like to edit. I jump over to PS every once in awhile.

 

[TATTRAT]

LR and sync them, because I don't like to edit. I jump over to PS every once in awhile.

This will more than likely sound retarded, but what do you mean? I use LR here and there, but when you say synch them, do you mean all of them at once, batch file, or what? Please excuse my ignorance, my fear of post processing programs has been troublesome. . .even the PS for dummies book scared me.

 

[jwbryson1]

LR and sync them, because I don't like to edit. I jump over to PS every once in awhile.

^^^ This (you're so smart, Kat!!) :hug::


If you get LR4 (not expensive), you can edit 1 photograph to your liking. Then, once it's done you can do what is called "syncing" the image. What that does is make all of the same changes you did to your first edited photograph to all of the remaining photographs that you include within the sync. So, you edit 1 photograph by changing the WB, tone, hues, etc. Then, let's say you have 10 other images taken under the same conditions. You just "sync" all of the images and all of the changes that were made to image 1 will be made to the other images instantly. Presto! You can even check which changes you wish to sync, so for example, if you don't want to sync the crop you just unselect "crop" as a change and all the other changes will be synced.

It saves SO much time and energy doing them 1 at a time. Plus, LR4 is "nondestructive" editing which means that it will not change your original RAW file at all. You just make your changes, and export and save in JPEG format and U R Golden!

 

[hirejn]

I recommend Lightroom. Not only is it the professional standard, but it enables you to apply color profiles, another topic. I don't recommend Aperture. More people know LR and can help you. Lightroom suggests a workflow in its design. You work from left to right, top to bottom within the screens of the software. This isn't a hard rule, but it's a good flow. LR helps you organize and sort images and then go into RAW editing. What you can do is search for Lightroom tips and techniques because to answer your question can't be done in a small space, at least not to my standards. LR is only $120 and many images don't need Photoshop. You have to know your vision for every image so you can decide how to edit it. The goal is to be the least destructive and most efficient with the editing.

 

[runnah]

Dang how many photos are you guys editing? I only use lightroom for work photos when I have to go through a huge batch after several days of shooting.

For fun stuff I go through my top 5 and edit those.

 

[Pallycow]

I use LR for my workflow, and PS for my special ones.

I have to say, my workflow has gotten sooooo much easier. every little thing you can do at the shoot correctly, will make your processing sooo much quicker and easier.

My last shoot I processed, print ready, in 15-20 minutes. about 45-50 images.

A quick 12 shot shoot I did last weekend, I opened up, went to adjust...and realized "holy chit...they're good"

Every since I started metering for my strobes, and setting wb manually....things have gotten easier and quicker. given the occasional snafu....and that is where LR comes in handy. If I screw up exposure or WB just a tiny bit. I correct one, then apply to all and it does it for me.

I generally get my lens corrections, curves, wb adjust (if needed), sharpness, noise adjust, clarity, and exposure all set to how I like, then create user defined develop settings, apply to all. Then I view them each one by one to make sure I like the overall changes...if not adjust accordingly.

It seems like a lot...but it becomes routine...and quick. ;-)

 

[runnah]

I have to say, my workflow has gotten sooooo much easier. every little thing you can do at the shoot correctly, will make your processing sooo much quicker and easier.

Using the force, you are.

 

[desmondlewissmith]

What he said... when I shoot Weddings, I'm working with 600+ images... Lightroom is the app that saves the day.

I use LR for my workflow, and PS for my special ones.

I have to say, my workflow has gotten sooooo much easier. every little thing you can do at the shoot correctly, will make your processing sooo much quicker and easier.

My last shoot I processed, print ready, in 15-20 minutes. about 45-50 images.

A quick 12 shot shoot I did last weekend, I opened up, went to adjust...and realized "holy chit...they're good"

Every since I started metering for my strobes, and setting wb manually....things have gotten easier and quicker. given the occasional snafu....and that is where LR comes in handy. If I screw up exposure or WB just a tiny bit. I correct one, then apply to all and it does it for me.

I generally get my lens corrections, curves, wb adjust (if needed), sharpness, noise adjust, clarity, and exposure all set to how I like, then create user defined develop settings, apply to all. Then I view them each one by one to make sure I like the overall changes...if not adjust accordingly.

It seems like a lot...but it becomes routine...and quick. ;-)

 

[pjwarneka]

Dang how many photos are you guys editing?

There is a saying " the first 10,000 photos don't count." I bet others here will say more, but yeah, when things are rolling, 700-1,000 photos to cull a week is not out of the norm. the wedding photogs will laugh at that number.

Unless you were born and raised on Photoshop, I would say grab lightroom. It is fantastic for what it does and the price.

 

[pixmedic]

step 1: Open RAW file in editor of choice.
step 2: Edit photo until satisfied with it.
step 3: Save photo as .jpeg

I believe that to be the correct steps for processing a RAW file. that's how I do it anyway.
Time varies depending on what i need/want to do to a photo. simple editing just to correct color and WB may only take a few minutes. composites, cloning, or major pixel editing may take a little longer. your mileage may vary.