Workflow for RAW, iphoto and PSE 11

[crotonmark]

Just because you took hundreds of images, doesn't mean you have to process them all. Unless you're shooting events where you are expected to deliver a hundred or so images; otherwise I can't see why you'd want to. Beyond that, if you got your exposure right, then you can just use a default preset to apply to all images on import, or you can edit one image and then synchronize those adjustments across all the other images. Lr was designed for people dealing with large amounts of images.

Beyond that, if you have PSE, it should come with Adobe Camera Raw, which is the processing engine in Lr. I have heard that the version of Camera Raw that comes boxed with PSE is stripped down compared to Lr and Ps ACR, but I can't confirm that from experience.

If you don't process them why shoot RAW? Isn't that the same as shooting jpeg?

 

[Scatterbrained]

Just because you took hundreds of images, doesn't mean you have to process them all. Unless you're shooting events where you are expected to deliver a hundred or so images; otherwise I can't see why you'd want to. Beyond that, if you got your exposure right, then you can just use a default preset to apply to all images on import, or you can edit one image and then synchronize those adjustments across all the other images. Lr was designed for people dealing with large amounts of images.

Beyond that, if you have PSE, it should come with Adobe Camera Raw, which is the processing engine in Lr. I have heard that the version of Camera Raw that comes boxed with PSE is stripped down compared to Lr and Ps ACR, but I can't confirm that from experience.

If you don't process them why shoot RAW? Isn't that the same as shooting jpeg?

No. Your camera records far more information than can fit in an 8 bit jpeg file. Shooting raw allows you to edit the image to compress the extra data into the viewable range as you choose to, rather than how the camera chose to. Once the image is compressed into a jpeg that data is lost forever.
As far as not editing every image. Do you really need every image you take? Just because you took the photo doesn't mean it needs to be edited. You need to learn to cull your work. Edit and present only your best. Don't be that guy who uploads 50 nearly identical images onto Flickr. Choose your best from each set and edit it. If it's an event, choose a representative image from each lighting scenario and edit it, then sync the settings across the other images. If you really need volume and speed then shoot jpeg and ship the images straight from the camera (journalists, sports shooters, corporate event guys, etc) but I get the feeling that's not where you are right now.
Right now I have just under 1,900 images on my Flickr page, and far few hanging as prints in my house. Meanwhile, I can easily shoot that many in an weekend. On our last trip to Disney I filled a 32Gb card, a 16Gb card, and several 8Gb cards. I don't process them all because there's no need. If I shoot a fireworks show, I pick the best image and that's it. No need to process 50 fireworks shots. If I shoot a building from 5 different perspectives, I pick the best one and that's it. The other images are just what it took me to work up to my final composition, no need to process them. Same goes when I set something up in my studio, I may take 50 shots, but I only need one. Therefore I'll only process that one image.

 

[deeky]

If you don't process them why shoot RAW? Isn't that the same as shooting jpeg?

No. Shooting JPEG, the camera does all of the processing automatically for you, but it is a very generic, broad processing. Shooting RAW, you have to do all of the editing and processing yourself later, but you can do it to accomplish exactly what you want and have more digital information to work with in the file.

I shoot RAW and only use Elements 11 (don't have iPhoto or Lightroom). In the Elements editor, click the "Open" button in the top left corner. When you select the RAW file you want to edit, it will automatically open into the Elements RAW converter. It is stripped down from the full version of Photoshop, but does most of what I need. Then you can save the file or open it into the full editor. Elements does not allow for mass processing all at once, but the shooting that I do wouldn't really work for that.

Tuesday I was at some gardens and shot around 250 shots. Like was said before, many of them are slight tweaks in composition, focus, aperture, etc. and I will only process one of the subject. Of the 250, I may end up putting processing time into a couple of dozen. Good work flow in anything starts with knowing when to say no - no, that one isn't worth my time. Why take time processing if you flat out missed the focus?

 

[CowgirlMama]

When I do pictures of certain subjects, I take a lot of shots. Like, if I'm working with my 3 year old. He moves constantly, closes his eyes, grimaces, sticks his tongue out... I might process a picture with his tongue out (it is his personality, after all), but I'll skip the ones where I missed focus because he moved or his eyes are closed or whatever. Those are trash shots. Not worth time or effort. Mine or someone else's. If you put all your bad shots online to share, 2 things happen: 1. you make yourself look worse than you are because you're showing everyone your worst, instead of just your best and 2. you're wasting your viewers' time by having them click through a bunch of bad shots to see the good.

 

[crotonmark]

When I do pictures of certain subjects, I take a lot of shots. Like, if I'm working with my 3 year old. He moves constantly, closes his eyes, grimaces, sticks his tongue out... I might process a picture with his tongue out (it is his personality, after all), but I'll skip the ones where I missed focus because he moved or his eyes are closed or whatever. Those are trash shots. Not worth time or effort. Mine or someone else's. If you put all your bad shots online to share, 2 things happen: 1. you make yourself look worse than you are because you're showing everyone your worst, instead of just your best and 2. you're wasting your viewers' time by having them click through a bunch of bad shots to see the good.

I never share my photos because I hate them.
I hate to say that I don't know what needs processing and what doesn't
I can't make heads or tails out of PSE 11 and it is supposed to be for people like me!

Oy!

 

[CowgirlMama]

Here are some simple guidelines for what to trash:
Blurry
Underexposed (to the point it can't be fixed without massive noise)
Overexposed (to the point that areas are blown and cannot be recovered)
Important parts of the subject are cut off
The shot is uninteresting to you, once you see it on the screen

I have a million other criteria, but that's a good starting place.

As far as PSE, start a thread and ask some specific questions. Or post a photo and ask people to edit and explain how they did it. We're here to help.

 

[Scatterbrained]

http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/pselementsbasics/Photoshop_Elements_Basic_Tutorials.htm

Learn Photoshop Elements 10: Getting Started and tutorials

20 Photoshop Elements tutorials to try today | Photoshop | Creative Bloq

Learn Photoshop Elements 11 | Adobe TV

Watch the Online Video Course Up and Running with Photoshop Elements 11

 

[480sparky]

BTW: raw will do more than just change your workflow, it will change the way you shoot.

How?

Once you realize the potential raw files provide you, you start to view your images in the field different.

 

[deeky]

Once you realize the potential raw files provide you, you start to view your images in the field different.

Agree. I recently realized I see the pictures straight off my camera as simply raw material (no pun intended - think building materials), even if they are very close to finished as is. What I can do with them in post - don't have the ability with jpegs.

 

[tecboy]

Better option is Lightroom.

Why? And what about Aperture?

Since you got tips on PSE, try it out first and see how you like it. I find that Lightroom is easier to process with multiple raw files, and it gives me better workflow. I can sort these files and delete I don't want.

 

[Scatterbrained]

BTW: raw will do more than just change your workflow, it will change the way you shoot.

How?

I now shoot to retain as much image data as possible in a scene, not to get a finished image in camera. I use a very flat, neutral picture style with sharpening, contrast, and saturation turned way down. This gives me a historgram that is as close as I can get to what the raw histogram would look like if my camera could generate one (the Magic Lantern guys are said to have gotten that working, but it's still and alpha build). I know what I can and can't recover in post (shadow/highlight detail) and shoot to maximize that potential. Let me give you an example:

In this image I set my exposure to prevent blowing out the sky. If I was shooting jpeg with an eye to get a final image straight out of camera, I would have exposed for the subject (my daughter) and let the sky blow out. (The vignetting in the sky is from a CPL)


The final image after processing the raw file in Lr and finishing it in Ps:

Amelia as Sleeping Beauty by tltichy, on Flickr

I knew I could shoot raw, retain the sky, and balance it out in post. It was either that or shoot for the subject and let the sky go white. Personally, I like the blue sky and clouds.
Not only does a raw file retain more information, but it can be manipulated quite a bit. I tend to spend a good deal of time dodging and burning on my images. Most of my work is done with individual adjustment brushes rather than the global adjustments of the sliders. From the raw you can generate a 16bit TIFF file for further refinement in Ps. These hold up a lot better to manipulation than jpegs, especially if you have large expanses of color with smooth gradients, like soft light across a cheek in a portrait, or a shot with a lot of blue sky.

 

[Derrel]

Thanks all

Question
If I come back from a day of shooting and have a hundred shots - do I have to process each one? Doesn't that take forever?

If you have Lightroom, you can easily process hundreds of photos in a reasonable amount of time by processing "ONE" image, then copying its settings and pasting those settings to other, similar images. Or, you can just run through the hundreds of images and hit the "P" key, and flag the best shots as "picks", then have the software select only those flagged picks, and you can work on those and be done in really very little time.

Lightroom is basically the old Adobe Camera Raw module, streamlined, then with some newer features added,some advanced features of Photoshop omitted, and a cataloguing and tagging function integrated into the software.

About five weeks ago, I downloaded the PSE 11 trial. Oh-My-Gosh....what a horrible interface PSE 11 has. Utter rubbish! I found it kludgy and awkward and totally,totally God-awful. Nearly useless in terms of interface for an image editor. It appeared to me to have been deliberately designed in an inferior manner, so as not to compete with ANYTHING...

I sympathize with anybody who uses PSE 11.

 

[crotonmark]

If you have Lightroom, you can easily process hundreds of photos in a reasonable amount of time by processing "ONE" image, then copying its settings and pasting those settings to other, similar images. Or, you can just run through the hundreds of images and hit the "P" key, and flag the best shots as "picks", then have the software select only those flagged picks, and you can work on those and be done in really very little time.

Lightroom is basically the old Adobe Camera Raw module, streamlined, then with some newer features added,some advanced features of Photoshop omitted, and a cataloguing and tagging function integrated into the software.

About five weeks ago, I downloaded the PSE 11 trial. Oh-My-Gosh....what a horrible interface PSE 11 has. Utter rubbish! I found it kludgy and awkward and totally,totally God-awful. Nearly useless in terms of interface for an image editor. It appeared to me to have been deliberately designed in an inferior manner, so as not to compete with ANYTHING...

I sympathize with anybody who uses PSE 11.

And that is one of the reasons that I can't make heads or tails of PSE

 

[deeky]

About five weeks ago, I downloaded the PSE 11 trial. Oh-My-Gosh....what a horrible interface PSE 11 has. Utter rubbish! I found it kludgy and awkward and totally,totally God-awful. Nearly useless in terms of interface for an image editor. It appeared to me to have been deliberately designed in an inferior manner, so as not to compete with ANYTHING...

I sympathize with anybody who uses PSE 11.

It's all I have and do just fine with it. I don't need your sympathy (unless you want to spot me for other software). Is it a stripped down version of Photoshop? Duh, that's why it's so cheap. If you don't do enough to justify or can't afford the hundreds of dollars for the full version, I think it's a pretty good option.

Is it different? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's rubbish to be completely dismissed by everyone. It's like people - even those with pissy personalities usually end up finding someone to love them and it works for them.

 

[crotonmark]

About five weeks ago, I downloaded the PSE 11 trial. Oh-My-Gosh....what a horrible interface PSE 11 has. Utter rubbish! I found it kludgy and awkward and totally,totally God-awful. Nearly useless in terms of interface for an image editor. It appeared to me to have been deliberately designed in an inferior manner, so as not to compete with ANYTHING...

I sympathize with anybody who uses PSE 11.

It's all I have and do just fine with it. I don't need your sympathy (unless you want to spot me for other software). Is it a stripped down version of Photoshop? Duh, that's why it's so cheap. If you don't do enough to justify or can't afford the hundreds of dollars for the full version, I think it's a pretty good option.

Is it different? Yes. But that doesn't mean it's rubbish to be completely dismissed by everyone. It's like people - even those with pissy personalities usually end up finding someone to love them and it works for them.

How did u learn it?