RAW or JPEG?

divine` said:
Can't say I agree with that as the sliders/editing within Lightroom work differently to photoshop, so if you did those three things, you could undo any one of the three without the other two being affected.

Photoshop is infinitely more flexible due to having layers but Lightroom is far from destructive in the manner you suggest it is.
Click to expand...

Ah right ok, sounds like LR probably gives you the same sort of controls as the RAW plugin you get when you open an image in photoshop before it 'loads' the image in.
EDIT: Actually it sounds a lot like Nikon Capture!

So I do indeed stand corrected :)

I'm defo more of a photoshop fan though because I like having ultimate control. If I had to process a LOT of images at once I may not be that way inclined!
 
LR is fantastic for batch imaging, because you can edit one image and apply the same changes to all your images, so if you found that for some reason all your images came out a bit flat and dark, you could increase the contrast and exposure on all of them in about 15 seconds.

Try the demo of it, it is an astounding piece of software, the only real reason I don't use it is all the time because i'm used to RAW Shooter.
 
Yeah, it has a dust removal tool, a fantastically intuitive cropping tool and can batch resize too. It'll even make you an HTML gallery if you want it to, just upload the folder, gallery done, thumbnails, watermarks, big, small, medium images whatever you want.
 
Well, it's called Photoshop Lightroom, it's the simple batch workflow tool as opposed to the image manipulator photoshop proper is.
 
Yeah, SilverPenguin you REALLY need to give LR a proper look.

I've lost count if how many I've converted to it...

And no processing is really destructive is it? You'd never edit the original file, even in PS. Surely you always save as an edited version. And with the undo/history functions of both LR and PS you'd have to be pretty lapse to permanently change a file accidentally.

Side note: LR stores image settings in the library. Another nice feature is that it writes colours/ratings and a few other EXIF type things to the RAW, so if you process some on one computer, then move the files to another computer you keep the settings.
 
robertgilbert86 said:
And no processing is really destructive is it? You'd never edit the original file, even in PS. Surely you always save as an edited version. And with the undo/history functions of both LR and PS you'd have to be pretty lapse to permanently change a file accidentally.

.
Click to expand...
No I mean destructive WHILST your editing. But sounds like the sliders give you the basics which may be ok for the basics...I'll check it you just in case, if it gives you control over curves etc than thats sounding good to me!
 
And if it doesn't do something that Photoshop does, hit Ctrl + E and it'll generate a TIFF as a copy, open it in Photoshop, and reimport changes every time you save from within Photoshop. It's great.
 
RAW 24/7 here for shooting, I convert everything to 100% (mode 12) JPEG though for usage requirements and gallery archiving. I have the RAW files in a subdir of my gallery on disk organised in the same structure so the RAW files with the XMP settings ACR creates are always there if I want to go back and reconvert them with different edits etc.

Either way RAW = best choice and no longer the system hog it once used to be both on camera and on the computer.
 
robmiller said:
Why would you remove the "except for sports" qualification? There are loads of times shooting sports when speed is vastly more important than quality, and where you can't afford to effectively make your buffer 10 times smaller by shooting RAW.
Click to expand...

I mainly shot motorsport and always use RAW, using a Canon 1dmkII and Sandisk ExtremeIII 16gb CF cards, i can shoot ~1500-2000 RAW photos onto a single card and ive never missed a shot due to the buffer, i also tend to do short bursts rather than prolonged bursts, which keeps the buffer under control.
 
Darryn said:
I mainly shot motorsport and always use RAW, using a Canon 1dmkII and Sandisk ExtremeIII 16gb CF cards, i can shoot ~1500-2000 RAW photos onto a single card and ive never missed a shot due to the buffer, i also tend to do short bursts rather than prolonged bursts, which keeps the buffer under control.
Click to expand...

Motorsport isn't the best example, though. Every pro I've ever heard actually talk about the issue shoots JPEG for football and things, where long bursts are essential—even with the huge buffers of the 1D. I'm perfectly willing to be proved wrong though, I don't shoot sports myself.
 
If your shooting RAW on Nikon, then Capture NX is the way to go. Granted the UI is a clunky and it needs a decent spec machine, but nothing comes close to handling NEFS like NX.
NX is the only one that reads the camera settings properly, there is more to it than that.

Only shot JPG once, now i just shoot raw.
 
Shoei said:
If your shooting RAW on Nikon, then Capture NX is the way to go. Granted the UI is a clunky and it needs a decent spec machine, but nothing comes close to handling NEFS like NX.
NX is the only one that reads the camera settings properly, there is more to it than that.

Only shot JPG once, now i just shoot raw.
Click to expand...

Yeah NX is alright but it's slow to use and it's one file at a time, like photoshop. And that's a big turn-off for me. LR still for the win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom