Apres shooting processing

[Giles 1]

Ok so I have many programs i use ..

I use ACDSee for quick exposure adjustments of my jpgs

Photodraw for quick simple editing and image editing

and sometimes Photoshop for the things i know how to use on it.

 

I admit i dont know photoshop all that well and have found all books and online course boring at best and too lengthy.

 

What I want to know is this

 

If saving the image in jpg format does it matter that i use something like Microsoft Photodraw to edit the images, i.e. is the end result less quality driven less pixels or diff colours, what I am asking does photdraw save the image in a way that is not as good as the way photoshop saces the image.

 

I ask this .. cause for the most part Photodraw does everything that photoshop does just in a quicker way, I know i should learn photoshop properly .. but i really cant be bothered !

 

any words of wisdom anyone ?

 

Giles

[Simon K. 0]

Not exactly a word of wisdom but of common knowledge:

Don't use JPG to store your Images!

 

Here is what I do:

 

Shooting in RAW

 

Converting Using Photoshop (RAW Plug In with 7.01or build in in CS ) doing Exposure- and WB-Corrections

 

Editing them in Photoshop storing them as PSD.

Here is my standardworkflow

- Adjust Levels (Manually as Adjustment Layer)

- Adjust Brightness/Contrast (Manually as Adjustment Layer)

- Adjust Saturation/Lightness (Manually as Adjustment Layer)

- If neccessary use "Selective Color" (Manually as Adjustment Layer) to remove stuff like "red reflections" in the sand etc.

- If necessary using Healing Brush, Clone Stamp or Smart Blurr to remove Backscatter or other "stuff" i don't want.

- Sharpening using Unsharp Mask

(For all this steps I use sometimes some masking to apply different values to diffrent parts of the image)

 

Storing a Copy with Copyright stamp in JPG for Web/Public use

 

Storing a Copy w/o Copyright stamp and flattend layers as TIFF for Printing ETC.

 

 

Now I'm Curious how the digital Workflow of the other looks like.

 

Simon

[Giles 1]

Ok I just have to say one thing

 

ouch, is it even fun for you ?

 

Please tell me you only do that with the really good images ?

 

Oh and common sense also suggest that not everyone has a camera that they can take RAW images underwater (yet) so jpeg is the only option or TIFF, but whats the point in TIFF apart from larger file size, you can always convert it too tiff once on a pC and it looks the same !

 

My work flow is as follows

 

1. Download all images to new dated folder

2. Auto Expose using fuzzy logic with ACDSee

- 5 mins so far -

3. Rotate all images to suit my viewing pleasure on my screen.

4. SOrt out into filing system on my computer for easy searching

5. Add really good images to Portfolio on Hard drive

6. Add descriptions and Key words to new portfolio images

7. Upload to website.

- 15 mins maybe 30 mins depending on quatity -

 

 

Anyway, what I was after here is some information on the d=saving methods of Photoshop as compared to other.

IF I am saving in Photoshop as a JPEG does it happen to save it as any better quality or generally in a better way than saving as aa jpeg from any other program, does the editing in Photoshop have finer pixel efftects that other programs, i.e. what I am asking, apart from being an over complicated prgram, does it have other proffessional attributes like actually editing the image technically better like in finer detail etc ?

 

Giles

[lindai 1]

I have a question for Simon .... why do you do only the exposure and WB adjustments with the raw image? Then do the rest of the adjustments subsequently with layers?

 

I can see one reason - you can back out the layers, whereas if you do the contrast/brightness/etc. adjustments with Photoshop CS on the raw image it is saved as part of the image and you can't back it out once you say "OK"? But I was wondering if there is a difference in the quality or amount of control between the two

1. doing the adjustments against the raw image with PS CS

or 2. doing the adjustments in subsequent layers

 

I hope I am making myself clear!

Regards, Linda I.

[scottyb 0]

so jpeg is the only option or TIFF, but whats the point in TIFF apart from larger file size, you can always convert it too tiff once on a pC and it looks the same !

 

File degradation. Every subsequent time you save a JPEG, it compresses and degrades the file. You should save it as a TIFF or other non-degradable format first, then reduce it to JPEG for web related purposes.

[Giles 1]

ok but still .. the original question stands ...

 

does saving the images in different programs create different levels of quality of the image ?

[craig 0]

ok but still .. the original question stands ...

 

does saving the images in different programs create different levels of quality of the image ?

With fomats like JPG, yes.

[Giles 1]

thanks craig .. that answers it ...

 

and i suppose the bluntness means ..

 

learn photshop

 

and get ya canon d60 in a damned housing and shoot RAW !! lol !!

[donauw 0]

Yes - learning Photoshop is, IMHO, rather necessary. It is an investment of time with great returns. It is like learning darkroom techniques back in the middle ages - it greatly enhances your enjoyment of the process.

 

Regards,

[craig 0]

I think there are alternatives to PS, but learning PS sure wouldn't hurt!

 

You need to avoid lossy compression steps as much as possible, either through using TIFF/RAW or by minimizing the number of times you save. Doing both is good. JPG compression at light levels is generally not a problem but repeated application of it can be.

 

RAW shooting is a huge benefit underwater even if you don't value it above water. You can get good pictures shooting JPG, then converting to TIFF, but subtle JPG artifacting that is not visible at first can come back to bite you when you adjust color/brightness/contrast. Damage done to an image is not always visible at first. There are tools that claim to repair JPG artifacting but I don't have experience with any.

 

It's also best to maintain 16 bit quality throughout if you can. If you can't, then try to get the bulk of your color/brightness/contrast adjustments done before converting to 8 bit. If the image is 8 bit out of the camera (due to JPG) I'm not certain switching to 16 bit is a great help. It can't hurt.

 

If file sizes are causing trouble, upgrading memory or drive space is the way to go. The only thing you can't do is retake your shot. Good excuse to take some more.

[Simon K. 0]

I have a question for Simon .... why do you do only the exposure and WB adjustments with the raw image? Then do the rest of the adjustments subsequently with layers?

 

I can see one reason - you can back out the layers, whereas if you do the contrast/brightness/etc. adjustments with Photoshop CS on the raw image it is saved as part of the image and you can't back it out once you say "OK"? But I was wondering if there is a difference in the quality or amount of control between the two

1. doing the adjustments against the raw image with PS CS

or 2. doing the adjustments in subsequent layers

 

I hope I am making myself clear!

Regards, Linda I.

 

I don't think the possibilities of the Raw pluging come even close to what i can do with the standard features of Photoshop. At least in 7.0.

 

I havn't looked enough into CS to see if it is really better. I think I have mor control ehen I use the PS Standard functions (using layers because I can play around better and us maskings (I use them more and more)) because i get a lot more control and don't see that beside of WB and Exposure Correction I get better results by doing it in the Raw Plugin. But I would have no problem in being thought otherwise.

 

Simon

[lindai 1]

Thanks, Simon. I have Photoshop CS, but am just learning it, so I am not a good judge of which option provides better results. But you're right, if you are doing any masking you have to do it with the layers.

 

Regards, Linda

[jong@seaotter.com 0]

The nice thing about photoshop CS is that you can have your adjustment layers, while retaining the 16bit color space of the converted raw image. It's like having your cake and eating it too. I can keep all my color data, but I can have adjustment layers that I can back out of, or tweak later to get the final image.

 

And yes, it does make for larger image sizes, but given the price of disk space and ram these days? Not really a debate in my mind.

[james 0]

Make sure you have a lot of RAM if you want to work with 16bit adjustment layers.

 

Play around w/ it a bit. The first adjustment layer doubles the filesize and subsequent layers boost it even more.

 

Cheers

James

[kjc 0]

I just got a new Canon Digital Rebel and have been playing around with the files, formates, etc. I did a RAW image conversion to TIFF and found that the RAW file (5.8 MB) balloons up to 36 MB when saved in 16 bit TIFF format. Is this normal? If so any idea why all the extra space is needed relative to RAW. Thanks.

[herbko 0]

I just got a new Canon Digital Rebel and have been playing around with the files, formates, etc. I did a RAW image conversion to TIFF and found that the RAW file (5.8 MB) balloons up to 36 MB when saved in 16 bit TIFF format. Is this normal? If so any idea why all the extra space is needed relative to RAW. Thanks.

Yes. That's the way it is.

 

Here's how they got so big:

 

sensor raw data: 12 bits per pixel x 6.3 Mpixels = ~ 10 MBytes

lossless compression in camera brings it down to 5 - 7 MB

Full 48bit tiff is: 48bits per pixel x 6.3 Mpixel = ~ 36MB

 

A little smaller if you use LZW coding, but not much.