RAW & CS3
1,969 posts
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 13:39
Hi Rees.
If you are interested in sheer speed; try Fastone Image Viewer. It's free; and you can perform batch jpeg conversion from PEF RAW files.
I always prefer the way my RAW files are shown in Fastone as opposed to how Photoshop initially previews them; and if I'm not bothered with a bit of post processing work (read: i've got LOADS to do and not enough time); i'm always happy in doing a batch conversion from Fastone.
For greater control and flexibilty, then yes you must use Photoshop, or Lightroom. But with that becomes the issue of time consumtion.
It's striking the balance between the two really....
Personally though I enjoy processing my pics in Photoshop, and for a pic to get just 'right' I dont mind how long it takes - it's part of my creative relationship with digital photography.
Bob
My website (Hadfield Photography)
Pentax Gallery Artist page:link
Flickr Photostream: link
If you are interested in sheer speed; try Fastone Image Viewer. It's free; and you can perform batch jpeg conversion from PEF RAW files.
I always prefer the way my RAW files are shown in Fastone as opposed to how Photoshop initially previews them; and if I'm not bothered with a bit of post processing work (read: i've got LOADS to do and not enough time); i'm always happy in doing a batch conversion from Fastone.
For greater control and flexibilty, then yes you must use Photoshop, or Lightroom. But with that becomes the issue of time consumtion.
It's striking the balance between the two really....
Personally though I enjoy processing my pics in Photoshop, and for a pic to get just 'right' I dont mind how long it takes - it's part of my creative relationship with digital photography.
Bob
My website (Hadfield Photography)
Pentax Gallery Artist page:link
Flickr Photostream: link
Last Edited by Snootchies on 26/05/2009 - 13:43
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 13:49
Hello Rees,
it may also be worth having a look at CaptureOne4 from PhaseOne http://www.phaseone.com/
Very intuitive work flow and batch processing if you want. I use it pretty much exclusively now with my RAW files.
BTW CaptureOne prefers PEF RAW format
Regards Huw
flickr
it may also be worth having a look at CaptureOne4 from PhaseOne http://www.phaseone.com/
Very intuitive work flow and batch processing if you want. I use it pretty much exclusively now with my RAW files.
BTW CaptureOne prefers PEF RAW format
Regards Huw
flickr
Last Edited by Greytop on 26/05/2009 - 13:50
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 13:58
Quote:
the moment came to transfer them for editing
the moment came to transfer them for editing
Do you mean "it took a long time to transfer the files to the PC", or do you mean "it took a long time to produce JPG images"?
i) Copying 2Gb takes a while - and this will be the same time whether it's 2Gb of JPG or 2Gb of PEF or 2Gb of DNG. I use the Sandisk Extreme III card reader - fastest card reader I have.
ii) Converting RAW into JPG/TIFF does take a while. You have more flexibility, and more options for noise reduction & sharpening. Some RAW converters are achingly slow, others are faster. Lightroom and Capture One provide background processing - so you can be working on the next shot(s) while the previous one is being processed. Other converters work in a batch mode (like Silkypix). I would reckon around 30 seconds per image for a K20D RAW file (even on a fast machine).
Do be aware that there is an embedded JPG image inside each RAW file. That can be extracted using a stand-alone tool.
If JPG suits your needs, then yes, without a doubt it will always be faster.
If you want to eek the greatest amount of detail (both sharpness and tone) then RAW is definitely the way to go.
I would say - consider using RAW if you have reached a "ceiling" in your image processing and expectations. RAW heightens the bar but at the cost of data storage and time
If you are not feeling limited by JPG - then continue using it!! 
HTH!
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 26/05/2009 - 13:59
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 14:30
Snootchies wrote:
Hi Rees.
If you are interested in sheer speed; try Fastone Image Viewer. It's free; and you can perform batch jpeg conversion from PEF RAW files.
I always prefer the way my RAW files are shown in Fastone as opposed to how Photoshop initially previews them; and if I'm not bothered with a bit of post processing work (read: i've got LOADS to do and not enough time); i'm always happy in doing a batch conversion from Fastone.
For greater control and flexibilty, then yes you must use Photoshop, or Lightroom. But with that becomes the issue of time consumtion.
It's striking the balance between the two really....
Personally though I enjoy processing my pics in Photoshop, and for a pic to get just 'right' I dont mind how long it takes - it's part of my creative relationship with digital photography.
Hi Rees.
If you are interested in sheer speed; try Fastone Image Viewer. It's free; and you can perform batch jpeg conversion from PEF RAW files.
I always prefer the way my RAW files are shown in Fastone as opposed to how Photoshop initially previews them; and if I'm not bothered with a bit of post processing work (read: i've got LOADS to do and not enough time); i'm always happy in doing a batch conversion from Fastone.
For greater control and flexibilty, then yes you must use Photoshop, or Lightroom. But with that becomes the issue of time consumtion.
It's striking the balance between the two really....
Personally though I enjoy processing my pics in Photoshop, and for a pic to get just 'right' I dont mind how long it takes - it's part of my creative relationship with digital photography.
So it does take time to transfer load and edit then - perhaps it was just me - only I don't have anything to compare you see, but thanks for that Snootchies
Not everything in life is Black & White, If only it were!
Kind Regards,
Rees
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 14:34
Greytop wrote:
Hello Rees,
it may also be worth having a look at CaptureOne4 from PhaseOne http://www.phaseone.com/
Very intuitive work flow and batch processing if you want. I use it pretty much exclusively now with my RAW files.
BTW CaptureOne prefers PEF RAW format
Hello Rees,
it may also be worth having a look at CaptureOne4 from PhaseOne http://www.phaseone.com/
Very intuitive work flow and batch processing if you want. I use it pretty much exclusively now with my RAW files.
BTW CaptureOne prefers PEF RAW format
Thanks Graytop - The fact your using another photo editing make, does that mean Photoshop is slow then? I am using DNG with adobe, if I went to CaptureOne4 I trust there are no problems?
Not everything in life is Black & White, If only it were!
Kind Regards,
Rees
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 14:43
MattMatic wrote:
Do you mean "it took a long time to transfer the files to the PC", or do you mean "it took a long time to produce JPG images"?
i) Copying 2Gb takes a while - and this will be the same time whether it's 2Gb of JPG or 2Gb of PEF or 2Gb of DNG. I use the Sandisk Extreme III card reader - fastest card reader I have.
ii) Converting RAW into JPG/TIFF does take a while. You have more flexibility, and more options for noise reduction & sharpening. Some RAW converters are achingly slow, others are faster. Lightroom and Capture One provide background processing - so you can be working on the next shot(s) while the previous one is being processed. Other converters work in a batch mode (like Silkypix). I would reckon around 30 seconds per image for a K20D RAW file (even on a fast machine).
Do be aware that there is an embedded JPG image inside each RAW file. That can be extracted using a stand-alone tool.
If JPG suits your needs, then yes, without a doubt it will always be faster.
If you want to eek the greatest amount of detail (both sharpness and tone) then RAW is definitely the way to go.
I would say - consider using RAW if you have reached a "ceiling" in your image processing and expectations. RAW heightens the bar but at the cost of data storage and time If you are not feeling limited by JPG - then continue using it!!
HTH!
Matt
Quote:
the moment came to transfer them for editing
the moment came to transfer them for editing
Do you mean "it took a long time to transfer the files to the PC", or do you mean "it took a long time to produce JPG images"?
i) Copying 2Gb takes a while - and this will be the same time whether it's 2Gb of JPG or 2Gb of PEF or 2Gb of DNG. I use the Sandisk Extreme III card reader - fastest card reader I have.
ii) Converting RAW into JPG/TIFF does take a while. You have more flexibility, and more options for noise reduction & sharpening. Some RAW converters are achingly slow, others are faster. Lightroom and Capture One provide background processing - so you can be working on the next shot(s) while the previous one is being processed. Other converters work in a batch mode (like Silkypix). I would reckon around 30 seconds per image for a K20D RAW file (even on a fast machine).
Do be aware that there is an embedded JPG image inside each RAW file. That can be extracted using a stand-alone tool.
If JPG suits your needs, then yes, without a doubt it will always be faster.
If you want to eek the greatest amount of detail (both sharpness and tone) then RAW is definitely the way to go.
I would say - consider using RAW if you have reached a "ceiling" in your image processing and expectations. RAW heightens the bar but at the cost of data storage and time
If you are not feeling limited by JPG - then continue using it!! HTH!
Matt
Thank you Matt, Processing the J peg, I suppose I have got use to, but when I tried the RAW it seemed to take a long time for a batch to be ready for adjustment in the converter. I don't mind how long, as long as the quality is there, I just did not know if there were any adjustment in Photoshop I had to make. Transferring the files to the PC did seem to take longer in RAW than Jpeg, but that could be down to my expectations,
Not everything in life is Black & White, If only it were!
Kind Regards,
Rees
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 15:00
Hi Rees,
I wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion with regard to speed, all I can say is that I have tried pretty much all the converters including Adobe PS & Lightroom, speed wise I find CaptureOne quick. I can work through the various (logically laid out) settings quickly and can have an average PEF ready to be processed in 1 to 2 minutes, possibly quicker if not a lot of work is required.
You can use DNG with Captureone but it then uses default parameters for that file type. If you use PEF you gain some additional optimisations for your camera type. You can process your PEF then output Jpeg, Tiff or DNG.
I have no problems at all with CaptureOne, I think it's a great package. Like most converters you can 'try before you buy'. I think it's a 30 day trial that they offer.
Hope that helps
Regards Huw
flickr
I wouldn't be able to draw a conclusion with regard to speed, all I can say is that I have tried pretty much all the converters including Adobe PS & Lightroom, speed wise I find CaptureOne quick. I can work through the various (logically laid out) settings quickly and can have an average PEF ready to be processed in 1 to 2 minutes, possibly quicker if not a lot of work is required.
You can use DNG with Captureone but it then uses default parameters for that file type. If you use PEF you gain some additional optimisations for your camera type. You can process your PEF then output Jpeg, Tiff or DNG.
I have no problems at all with CaptureOne, I think it's a great package. Like most converters you can 'try before you buy'. I think it's a 30 day trial that they offer.
Hope that helps
Regards Huw
flickr
Last Edited by Greytop on 26/05/2009 - 15:01
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 16:27
Thank you Greytop I will certainly give it a go and let you know how I got on, thanks again.
Not everything in life is Black & White, If only it were!
Kind Regards,
Rees
Not everything in life is Black & White, If only it were!
Kind Regards,
Rees
Link
Posted 26/05/2009 - 17:44
I don't have any experience with more than one raw converter as I'm still relatively new to this and have stuck with just the one program which is Aperture on the Mac.
Speed wise, a full 4GB card copies over in about 5 minutes using the free Sandisk reader that came with the card. Whatever I apply to the raw file, wether it be sharpening, boosting colour etc. it just seems to be instant. If I then export a full size JPEG in full quality that seems to be instant as well. It may take a second or two, but by the time I flick over to where I have stored it, it is always there.
Admittedly, we do have a Mac Pro, so that is probably to be expected, but the same applies to the MacBook Pro so far, but not used it so much on there yet so that may change.
The question that intrigues me is wether Aperture is just doing a far better job / better written / more efficient / better use of more processing cores (8 on the Mac Pro!) or are the other converters out there doing so much more work that it takes that much more time? Have no experience with others, so therefore no basis for comparison. Now that we have the MacBook Pro, we can bring it along to the next meet, and maybe someone can have a play to give some kind of comparison?!
Website・Blog・Gear・Twitter・Facebook
Speed wise, a full 4GB card copies over in about 5 minutes using the free Sandisk reader that came with the card. Whatever I apply to the raw file, wether it be sharpening, boosting colour etc. it just seems to be instant. If I then export a full size JPEG in full quality that seems to be instant as well. It may take a second or two, but by the time I flick over to where I have stored it, it is always there.
Admittedly, we do have a Mac Pro, so that is probably to be expected, but the same applies to the MacBook Pro so far, but not used it so much on there yet so that may change.
The question that intrigues me is wether Aperture is just doing a far better job / better written / more efficient / better use of more processing cores (8 on the Mac Pro!) or are the other converters out there doing so much more work that it takes that much more time? Have no experience with others, so therefore no basis for comparison. Now that we have the MacBook Pro, we can bring it along to the next meet, and maybe someone can have a play to give some kind of comparison?!
Website・Blog・Gear・Twitter・Facebook
Link
Posted 27/05/2009 - 09:53
Mattmatic - "there is an embedded JPG image inside each RAW file" - how does that work??
my PEF are 6meg pix @ 12bits per pix = 9Mb ie no room for anything else.
Do you mean embedded PEF to JPEG conversion settings?
my PEF are 6meg pix @ 12bits per pix = 9Mb ie no room for anything else.
Do you mean embedded PEF to JPEG conversion settings?
Link
Posted 27/05/2009 - 12:50
Malcolm,
The RAW format is not just a binary dump of the sensor data. There is a huge amount of EXIF data, plus the embedded JPG.
Check out http://thomer.com/howtos/embedded_jpg.html
and http://www.rawworkflow.com/rawworkflowcom-download-page/
Can't remember off-hand what size or quality the PEF embedded JPG is - but it's in there
If you want to really find out how the PEF format works, then check out the DCraw source code (from Dave Coffin) - it's fairly well laid out, but you have to pick through all the other RAW formats too.
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
The RAW format is not just a binary dump of the sensor data. There is a huge amount of EXIF data, plus the embedded JPG.
Check out http://thomer.com/howtos/embedded_jpg.html
and http://www.rawworkflow.com/rawworkflowcom-download-page/
Can't remember off-hand what size or quality the PEF embedded JPG is - but it's in there
If you want to really find out how the PEF format works, then check out the DCraw source code (from Dave Coffin) - it's fairly well laid out, but you have to pick through all the other RAW formats too.
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 27/05/2009 - 12:52
Link
Posted 27/05/2009 - 17:30
So far as I know the photo your looking at when looking at a raw file with your camera is that embedded JPG.
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Stefan
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ
Link
Posted 27/05/2009 - 17:45
Update: The embedded JPG is full sized, but low quality - taking around 1Mb of space (for a K20D).
Extra note - that embedded JPG is very useful for tying in the colours of the camera's RAW converter to the PC one. When you use RAW+ (in the K10D/K20D) then the separate JPG is saved with the specified quality. But the embedded still has the camera's RAW processing applied - colour, sharpness, etc.
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Extra note - that embedded JPG is very useful for tying in the colours of the camera's RAW converter to the PC one. When you use RAW+ (in the K10D/K20D) then the separate JPG is saved with the specified quality. But the embedded still has the camera's RAW processing applied - colour, sharpness, etc.
Matt
http://www.mattmatic.co.uk
(For gallery, tips and links)
Last Edited by MattMatic on 27/05/2009 - 17:46
Add a Comment
You must be registered or logged-in to comment.
Rees
Member
Cymru
Not everything in life is Black & White, If only it were!
Kind Regards,
Rees