Showing posts with label workflow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label workflow. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Which software can batch-process RAW photos on Linux?

Question

I'm interested in efficient processing of RAW photos on Linux. I've played with RAW a little, but so far I've always reverted back to JPG as I can't be bothered to spend hours doing post-processing. But if I could find a pretty quick way of tweaking RAW photos then I might try again.

There are many tools for working with RAW files in Linux, but which of them let you do things like:

  • correct the white balance on one photo and then apply that to a whole set of photos?
  • have a process of a couple of clicks per photo in some application?

or is RAW post-processing simply not worth doing if you don't take the time to process each photo individually?

Asked by Hamish Downer

Answer

May I suggest RawStudio? It has support for batch operations of the type you're asking for, and has dramatically simplified my post-processing workflow over my old approach of ufraw + GIMP. If you're familiar with similar "workflow" products on other platforms, the UI should feel pretty comfortable.

Answered by esm

Monday, May 7, 2012

Card cloner software for Windows

Question

As part of my workflow I would like to clone the SD card first thing before I do anything.

Does anyone know of a good external USB drive cloner for Windows 7? Mac has this functionality natively (boohoo for Microsoft for not having this yet).

The idea is to clone it as read only, mount the cloned file as an external drive and then read it. (delete it after 90 days, but that's a different story) I would then copy the files and do anything from that cloned, mounted, drive.

That way I can then erase the SD card right after cloning to reuse it right away, but know I have all the info for a while in case I need it. A little extra paranoya, I know, but a healthy one. I've had it where I lost files on a move (don't know how, but it happened).

Asked by Joao

Answer

It sounds like MacOS is just creating a disk image file (.dmg I would guess) for the USB drive, which can then be mounted. I'm curious if you can actually clone an SD card, or just USB drives...SD/CF cards are usually treated differently than USB drives, and the MacOS clone feature is usually intended as a means of backing up literal external USB drives.

Windows 7 actually does have direct support for mountable drive images in .vhd (Virtual Hard Disk) format. You could create a VHD via the Windows 7 Disk Management tool, mount it, and copy the files from the memory card to your VHD (which, being a file, can be mounted, unmounted, copied for backup, etc.), and delete the VHD when you no longer need it. This would not be a 100% exact clone (although I suspect neither is the MacOS clone...its probably a new disk image with the contents of the external drive.) You could also use a backup tool like Acronis True Image to create USB drive clones, however it does not seem to support cloning SD/CF cards (at least, the version I have, 2011, does not.)

To create a VHD and copy the memory card contents to it, which would pretty much be as good as a MacOS DMG, do the following:

  • Right-click Computer, choose "Manage"
  • Expand the "Storage" node
  • Right-click "Disk Management"
  • Select "Create VHD"
  • Fill out the form
    • Size XYGb (i.e. 16Gb)
    • Fixed Size
  • Watch the status bar for progress
    • May take a few minutes...
    • Virtual disk will appear as an unallocated drive when done
  • Right-click "Disk" (should appear bright greenish-blue, unlike normal drives which are silver)
    • Select "Initialize"
      • Use MBR format for greatest compatibility
  • Right-click "Unallocated Volume" (should have a black "Unallocated" strip color)
    • "New Simple Volume..."
      • Next...
      • Next...
      • Pick a drive letter or mount to folder
      • Next...
      • NTFS or FAT32 (NTFS offers more features)
      • Add a Volume Label
      • Perform a quick format (Checked)
      • Next...
      • Finish
  • The drive should automatically mount, ready for use

Once you have a VHD, you can just drag-and-drop copy everything from a CF card to the VHD. In windows, cameras themselves show up as devices in Computer. You can open up the camera, and directly access the memory cards inside them, and just copy the DCIM and any other folders across to the VHD. If you have a card reader in your computer, the cards will usually show up as removable drives once you pop a memory card in. You can again just copy the DCIM and any other folders across to the VHD. Cameras usually have pretty fast interfaces, and copy pretty quick. Some memory card readers for computers, particularly cheap ones, are often limited to USB 1.1 speeds, so you might only get a few mb/s out of them. USB 2.0 ones will usually get you about 20mb/s. If you have the option, even for non UDMA-7 memory cards, picking up a $20 USB 3.0 PCI-e card and USB 3.0 CF/SD card reader will get you about 40-50mb/s (and significantly more, up to 150mb/s, on todays native UDMA-7/USB3 compatible CF cards.)

Answered by jrista

Thursday, May 3, 2012

In Lightroom how can I see all photos that have been modified after they were exported

Question

I am using Adobe Lightroom 4 and shoot RAW+JPG. I normally post process all my images and then bulk export them back out to JPG when done overwriting the original JPGs but sometimes I might forget to export a day or two. Is there a way in Lightroom to display all the photos that have been modified but NOT exported?

I imagine there is someway to define a filter or smart collection to do this but have not been able to find the correct combination of fields to choose.

Asked by Joe Solano

Answer

According to the Lightroom 4 Missing FAQ the only place that you can currently determine whether a photo has been exported is in the develop history, which is not searchable, ruling out filters/smart collections.

A hard drive publish service would keep track of unexported photos, but you would need to manually add the images to the service, and unlike the export dialog there is no option to automatically import the images back into the catalog, you would need to synchronize the folders containing the published images every time.

Until Adobe makes it possible to filter images based on being exported the best approach would seem to be either, as @Akram suggests, use a specific collection for images that need to be exported or have a 'not-exported' keyword added to your images when they are imported, which would permit you to create a smart collection of images that both have adjustments and have not been exported. Either way requires manual intervention to keep accurate however.

Answered by Steven Cunningham

Monday, April 23, 2012

How does photography for digital display only differ?

Question

I only want to capture images with the intent of displaying them on a digital screen. I do not want to print the images, ever. Do any specific considerations need to be made upon capturing the image or during post processing beyond these three things:

  • Screen color calibration/profiling
  • Sharpening
  • Resolution and display pixel density

I bring up this question because I feel like film photographers are more keen at producing work for their intended output format, and I would like to know what a strictly digital based workflow would require.

Asked by dpollitt

Answer

Additive vs Subtractive Color Space

One thing to think about is that an additive color space (RGB) is different from a subtractive color space (CMYK or others). There are colors you can display that you cannot print, and there are colors that you can print that you cannot display.

enter image description here

Notice how some yellows will print, but are not displayable, yet some greens are displayable, but not printable.

Blacks

Black is another really good example of a color that prints very differently that it displays, and displays differently depending on what device it displays on. Black on a CRT is the absence of light. Black on a cheap LCD is just very dark. (This is because an LCD is backlit and the back lighting is always on. Even when the cells are turned opaque some light leaks through.) You would think that this would mean a CRT would better contrast but in practice LCDs can get much brighter than CRTs.

Glow

Another aspect of displayed images is that they are luminous. A printed image needs room lighting reflecting off of it to be viewed. (And of course the color of the room lighting matters!) Consider the same image printed on paper and printed on transparency, a slide. Now illuminate the back of the slide. I suspect the slide will appear more vivid, since the brighter areas will glow.

This is a perceptual change, one that you probably can't account for while shooting, but I don't know. For example, I know this photo of mine has far greater impact displayed rather than printed:

enter image description here

Non-Traditional Inks

Another area is that printed images can have non-traditional inks, say a varnish or a foil. This would be exceptional difficult to capture on a display. (This is also getting way out of the realm of photography and into commercial printing, but it is worth noting in such an interesting question!)

Aspect Ratio

If you sell you work matted and framed it is prudent to restrict yourself to a small number of aspect ratios and sizes. This avoids an annoying, and expensive, inventory control problem. For example, I only sell 11x14, 10x20, and 12x12 images. (And I'm phasing out 12x12!) This restriction sometimes impacts your artistically. Your subject might not fit into either ratio but you are essentially forced to move to one of those ratios. This also changes the way you shoot. I constantly frame the shot and then widen it some, which is a challenge since I almost also shoot wide angle, say in the 20mm range on a crop body, and widening it sometimes isn't possible. I do this so there is some extra image in case I need to crop it just so.

This is not the case with displayed images. You are free to crop each image exactly like your vision tells you to crop it, which means you are free to shoot it exactly like you want to shoot it. However, almost all displays are landscape, not portrait, and if you are shooting for a display you'll probably find yourself avoiding portrait shots.

Future Proofing

From a future proofing standpoint I think you would need to say the image and the post-processing steps in a non-destructive and open format so that future display technologies could re-render your image. That's pretty pie-in-the-sky thinking though.

One thing you can do is shoot in Adobe RGB, not sRGB, just so you have a wider color space.

Answered by Paul Cezanne

Is there a ticket system available for photographing the general public?

Question

This is something I have been looking to do for quite some time. When the royal wedding happened last year(2011) we went into the centre of town where there was a big street party.

I started taking a few photos and in amongst the crowd a chap saw my DSLR round my neck and said "hey mate can you take a photo of us?" I replied with sure I can.

I took the photo and the guy said what's my number? I was like what number? he said you know the number, so we can find the shot on your website.

I got what he meant, but I explained I was just a guy with a cam to which he called me a pervert and left. Charming!

Anyway it got me thinking if there was a system I could use for photographing people and giving them a number to find themselves on my website. This could be used at any public event - maybe even at fun runs etc.? or using peoples running numbers as locators?

Asked by Rob

Answer

You are looking for a software package that handles photography known as Event Photography. There is an awful lot out there, some is probably great, some crap. So read the reviews, blogs, look for free trials.

Here's some to start you off, but I just googled and got them:

and some other sites

Answered by Paul Cezanne

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

What are the disadvantages of post processing only those pictures that I want to show?

Question

When I go out for a shoot, I usually come back with 50 to 200 pictures based on that day's productivity. I am a busy person when I am not photographing. Here is the problem, post processing consumes a lot of time. Sometimes I lag behind in post processing and the pictures pile up to be processed. Ultimately, I can't keep up. Of course, I present only a chosen few out of the lot. So doesn't it make sense to process only those that I want to present/show? Do I miss out on something if I don't post processing everything I shoot?

EDIT

mattdm helped me rephrase the question better. So the questions as it stands after mattdm's answer and comments is -

Is it worth spending time on photographs which are good but which aren't my very best work?

Asked by Chirantan

Answer

You may find a gem you overlooked — something which you passed over but which on further inspection works better for you than an image you selected on the first pass. This may simply be a detail that wasn't obvious, or that a blurry image caught a far better expression than a sharp one, or it may be that some creative work brings out something in an otherwise overlooked image.

You may get some benefit from looking at the images you didn't select, and identifying for yourself why you didn't select those. You might not necessarily want to post-process these, but winnowing your work is an excellent way to learn.

Another thing to consider is to work on taking fewer pictures you're not keeping. That's a challenge, particularly in these days of ten-frames-per-second burst rates and no obvious monetary cost for each one. There is, as you've clearly discovered, a cost, though — each click means some amount of later work. Beyond that, you may find that putting more thought into each image means you bring home the same chosen few, surrounded by less baggage.

To me, a holy grail of photography is making every shot a "keeper". I'm nowhere near that, but getting closer. One thing I noticed is that when I take a number of shots, it's usually the first that's the best — that was the moment, and the rest are just second-guessing. Learning to second-guess less leaves me more time for the next moment.

As with other affectations like shooting with only prime — no zoom — lenses, this is a luxury in having photography as a hobby. I don't have to get the shot to sell to a client or put on the front page. If I miss something because I wasn't clicking enough, or didn't have the right focal length on the camera, I try to learn from that too, and be in the right place the next time — because, hey, there's always tomorrow (and if there isn't, no one will be there to look at my photographs anyway).

Answered by mattdm

Thursday, March 8, 2012

How do I track what has been published to flickr from Lightroom?

Question

I'm not so much interested in which method to use for publishing (like this question), I'm more interested in how I should go about marking images as "selected for publishing" and keeping track of images that have already been published (smart collection?). I've not published any yet, so I don't know what Lightroom does for me and what I should be doing for myself. I was thinking about having some "meta" keywords that aren't exported as meta-data but are indicate whether an image is ready for flickr and when an image has been published? How do other folks do this? I'd prefer to know how it works before pushing the button for the first time :-)

Asked by ninesided

Answer

When you configure the Flickr publish service (either Jeffrey's or the built-in one), you create one or more "publish collections" that correspond to your Flickr photostream or sets on Flickr. When you add a photo to a publish collection, it appears there under a "New photos to be published" heading. After you upload it to Flickr using the "Publish" button, it stays in the publish collection under "Published Photos". If you ever modify it, it again stays in the publish collection, but under another heading, "Modified photos to re-publish", and again, you can click Publish to upload the modified version, and it goes back to "Published Photos" in Lightroom.

So Flickr keeps track of your main bookkeeping concerns: What do you intend to publish to Flickr, and what has been published to Flickr. That's really the joy of publish services in Lightroom.

Also: An entry in the edit history is created for your images whenever they're exported or published, so you can always go back to the published version in Lightroom. Jeffrey's plugin has the ability to also record a "Snapshot" of each image when it's published; this appears under "Snapshots" on the left side of the Develop module, and makes it even easier to go back to the published version(s) after you do some editing.

Answered by coneslayer

Tuesday, February 28, 2012

What are the rules for editing a photo?

Question

I just got a comment that I must edit my photo. God know how many hours I have spent editing my photos. Thus I was a little bit surprised. It was explained that there are certain rules when doing editing. These rules applies no matter which software you use. She tried to explain it to my in short, but I am not sure that I got it.

What are these editing rules? Is there any workflow when starting to edit a photo? What should I think of when editing a photo? Is there any good tutorial that I have missed?

I have searched the Internet, but I cannot find a good guide. I know the basic editing rules like these. But what else?

BTW I take pictures using RAW and I do basic editing such as sharpening, adjusting the white balance and cropping.

Answer

My general principles:

  • always work on a copy of your image
  • work on your best images - don't waste time editing all of them, just the ones you want to share/print/pulish
  • work non-destructively where possible (RAW editing, using layers, save intermediate steps if necessary)
  • when you are done, you image shouldn't look "edited"

Back up your files

Before you edit, make sure you have the originals backed up, so you only work on copies. Copies of your files should ideally be on a 2nd hard drive, external drive, CD/DVD, and if possible stored in a different location in case of fire, flood or theft.

What method is best to take backups of your digital photos?

Culling Process

Go through your images and flag or even delete the obviously bad ones (out of focus or otherwise). Use some sort of ranking system to arrive at what your best images are, and concentrate on editing and sharing those. Some people may cull their bad images out before backing up, so save space.

What's a good strategy for choosing which photos to keep?

Non-destructive RAW editing

Using a tool like Adobe Camera Raw (in Photoshop or Lightroom), make global adjustments to:

These changes may be all you need to do, and they are non-destructive (you can go back and undo/redo them. If you shoot JPG, you still make the same adjustments, but the changes will not be completely reversable, so you may want to Save As a copy once you're done.

Local editing

Next, depending on the image you may need to do further local adjustments, for example:

  • spot removal - removing dust spots or anything else small and distracting
  • remove color casts
  • dodging and burning (using dodge/burn tools or curves/levels layers with masks)
  • landscapes - you might use gradients to darken skies
  • portraits - skin smoothing and retouching

Effects

Once any defects are removed and the overall color and contrast are good, you may want to do conversions or effects (these could also be done earlier in the workflow)

Output

For printing, uploading to the web, etc. you'll need to

  • resize appropriately
  • crop (you may want different crops from the same image for different purposes)
  • final output sharpening - depends on if you're printing, saving to web
  • select color space
  • you may want to add a vignette or digital frame/border
Answered by MikeW

In which order should I edit a photo between Lightroom and Photoshop?

Question

Quick question: I currently use Lightroom and have Photoshop installed. If I intend to make an edit to a photo in Photoshop should I make my raw adjustments in Lightroom first then perform my Photoshop edits last, or the other way round?

Asked by IAmAI

Answer

You would normally do the raw development work first in Lightroom or Camera Raw and then do the remainder of the work in Photoshop. Lightroom and ACR represent kind of the darkroom initial development stage of the image (white balance, exposure correction, etc) and Photoshop represents the cleanup or manipulation stage (depending on your needs) after the development. Your edits in Photoshop will probably result in either TIFF, PSD, or JPG files and not edits to the original raw file or sidecar file as Lightroom would do.

Answered by John Cavan

Friday, February 24, 2012

Tagging stuff: plural or singular?

Question

My photo collection is pretty meagre but I've noticed that over time I seem to have moved between tagging photos with the plural of a noun, like "bridges" or "mountains" and at other times, the singular "bridge" or "mountain". Anyway, it got me wondering whether anyone has any thoughts on which way is preferred, or if there are advantages/disadvantage/conventions etc.

Asked by ninesided

Answer

I think it is most important to consider how you will use tags to actually retrieve and categorize photos. If you need to search for a photo using the word "birds" you will(and should) search for "bird" to find both forms of the word. This is really the end of the debate as far as I am concerned. I can tag with either in cases like this but when I go to search that is where it becomes important to consider the most general form.

Answered by dpollitt

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Is version control software used for photos?

Question

I am a software developer at heart and by trade, and spend a lot of time in development tools... One of the more useful development tool types is version control, and for the uninitiated, it works something like as follows:

  • Create a file
  • Start working on the file
  • Check in the file (create a version 1 of it)
  • Open the file and edit again
  • Check in again (version 2)
  • Realize you deleted something important from version 1, go back in time, get the thing you deleted...
  • ...
  • Profit...

Anyway, I am wondering if something similar is used with photos? Essentially, I was thinking something along the lines of:

  • Import Photos (V1).
  • Start tagging photos (V2... XMP side cars should only really change here).
  • Start adding stars, more tags (V3)
  • Start adjusting some settings (V4+)

With the flow above, you should be able track a lot more changes... and give you some sort of backup strategy...

Asked by TiernanO

Answer

Photographic workflow applications such as Adobe Lightroom and Apple's Aperture provide this sort of history as a built in part of their functionality.

When you edit a RAW file in these, no changes are ever made to the original image. Instead, they are saved as 'instructions' separately. Thus, you can see a history of all changes made, and with a click of a mouse go back to any previous point in time non-destructively.

If you are just using Photoshop, then this does not happen, and you would have to manually save different versions of your photo before working on it each time.

(I'm guessing there's no reason you can't use an SVN repository for photos?? ie. Binary files?)

Answered by Mike

Is anyone using version control software for photos?

Question

I am a software developer at heart and by trade, and spend a lot of time in Development Tools... one of the more useful development tool types is Version Control, and for the uninitiated, it works something like as follows:

  • create a file
  • start working on the file
  • check in the file (create a V1 of it)
  • Open file and edit again
  • check in again (version 2)
  • realize you deleted something important from V1, go back in time, get the thing you deleted...
  • ...
  • profit...

Anyway, I am wondering is anyone using something similar with photos? Essentially, i was thinking something along the lines of:

  • Import Photos (V1).
  • start tagging photos (V2... XMPP side cars should only really change here).
  • start adding stars, more tags (V3)
  • start adjusting some settings (V4+)

With the flow above, you should be able track a lot more changes... and give you some sort of backup strategy... Any one using something similar?

Asked by TiernanO

Answer

Photographic workflow applications such as Adobe Lightroom and Apple's Aperture provide this sort of history as a built in part of their functionality.

When you edit a RAW file in these, no changes are ever made to the original image. Instead, they are saved as 'instructions' separately. Thus, you can see a history of all changes made, and with a click of a mouse go back to any previous point in time non-destructively.

If you are just using Photoshop, then this does not happen, and you would have to manually save different versions of your photo before working on it each time.

(I'm guessing there's no reason you can't use an SVN repository for photos?? ie. Binary files?)

Answered by Mike

Sunday, January 15, 2012

Should I perform the final color space conversion before or after final sharpening of an image?

Question

When preparing an image for the web (or other media), the last two steps is usually to resize the image to the desired resolution and sharpen it at that resolution. However, when working in a larger/different color space than the final result is going to be exported in, when should I convert to the target color space relative to these two operations?

Answer

My last steps, in order, are resize, sharpen, convert color space from ProRGB to sRGB, convert to 8-bit.

The only really critical orders are sharpening after resizing and changing to 8-bit after changing the color space.

In fact, I was curious, so I just tried. One copy, I did my above steps. On the other copy, I converted color space, converted to 8-bit and then resized and sharpend. I put the images over each other and changed the blending mode to difference.

There was absolutely no pixel level difference between the two. I expect to see a few minor differences at 100% that would never show up on the print, but in the case of this one particular photo, there were absolutely no differences at all.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

How To work with Pick and Reject in Lightroom?

Question

I'm new in Lightroom and looking for Pick/Reject Workflows strategies. Actually I'm following the Workflow suggested at the lighroomlab.com (Using Pick and Reject Flags in Lightroom) which roughly says:

  • Mark as Pick all the Pictures that deserves to have a second look on it
  • Delete all Pictures not flagged as Pick
  • Go through the pictures again and mark the one not wanted as Rejected
  • Delete the Rejected

What are other good alternatives to this Workflow?

Answer

I usually work by rejecting, in several passes.

First eliminate ones that are out of focus and other technical problems. I keep an eye on the rest to get an idea of what the better shots are, but I don't make any picks yet. I might get rid of 20% in the first pass.

Second pass, having had a quick look at all the images, I eliminate another 20-30% that are obviously not going to make the cut.

Depending on how many images are left, I may do further passes eliminating the worst images, or I may change tack and start picking out the best ones. Sometimes it's pretty obvious, sometimes not. Really depends a lot on how many images I start with and how many I need to "keep".

The workflow you mention asks you to "pick" the ones you want a second look at. That is perfectly valid, and I sometimes do that. But I take a lot of shots usually, and my keeper rate is probably not that high, so for me, eliminating the bad ones first usually works best.

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Is there a way to sort Lightroom images by 'edit' status?

Question

Usually my workflow involves 'picking/flagging' photos to edit and leaving the rest alone (RAW files that is). However, sometimes I jump right in and start editing before rating/picking. In that case is there a way to filter images based on whether they've been edited/cropped? I haven't looked too hard, but nothing obvious stands out from the visible filtering options. I appreciate any insights.

Answer

Ditton on creating a Smart Collection, that's really the way to go. I'm wondering if "Has Adjustments" only applies to specific adjustments, i.e. will it catch if you just cropped the photo, for example? That's OK though, you can add the "Cropped" + "is true" rule to your collection.

You could also create a Smart Collection that will display recently edited photos. The rule could be "Edit Date" + "is today" or instead of "today" try "is in the last" + x + "days" (or "hours"). This can be combined with "Has Adjustments" of course.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

What Photoshop plugins are must haves?

Question

This is a question for professional or enthusiast photographers who use Photoshop .

When you as a photographer edit your photos in Photoshop (after some processing using Camera Raw or Lightroom) are there any Plug-ins/Actions/etc. (free or paid) that are must haves for you as a Photographer?

What do they do and why are they so important to your photography be it workflow or effects?

Answer

I use most of the Topaz Labs Photoshop Plug-in Bundle regularly, and consider it to be one of the greatest bargains available in the world of digital photography at the moment (when purchased as a bundle — and there's a fully-functioning 30-day trial so you can assess them yourself, as with most of the better plug-ins). But it is perhaps worth examining what "must-have" means before making any decisions. And while I use and love the Topaz plug-ins, they aren't the only ones out there by any means.

"Must have" to fix technical deficiencies

Because of the Laws of the Universe, the best expressions in portraiture and the most exciting action in sports are always going to be captured on a frame that has something else wrong with it. Maybe the lighting is off, maybe the only camera you have with you is on your phone, maybe there was a glitch in the autofocus, maybe you forgot to reset an extreme setting you made on a previous photo. But it will only happen with the very best, unrepeatable images.

As others have noted, in-the-box noise reduction in Photoshop and Lightroom has come a long way, and recent DSLRs are a lot better-behaved than those of only a few years ago in this regard, what with sensor and microlens improvements and better in-camera noise reduction and all. But I've found Topaz DeNoise to be significantly better than anything else I've tried at reducing noise while retaining detail. Yes, that's a "for now" assessment -- no doubt others will catch up. But whether we're talking about my old D70 at ISO 1600 or a D3s at ISO 12,800, the highest ISO on the camera that isn't flagged as "special" becomes just another setting; the resulting photos can be indistinguishable from well-exposed shots taken at ISO 200 (or 100 — whatever the base ISO for the camera is). And when you're working with what comes from a compact's 1/2.3" sensor, the results can approach what a "real camera" can do.

Shooting RAW isn't always practical either. Whether you're conserving space on a card or need to shoot at your camera's maximum frame rate, there can be very good reasons for shooting JPEGs with a camera that can provide RAW data. And again, there may be times when you're not shooting with your SLR. Or you may be asked to tweak a friend's or relative's pictures. There's no need to pay a huge penalty for JPEG compression (or even huge JPEG compression). While the "remove JPEG artifacts" checkbox in Photoshop does an OK job, it's nothing like as capable as an outboard filter. DeJPEG hasn't let me down yet, and it was one of the things in the bindle that I didn't know I wanted until that "impossible" image came along (I had resigned myself to careful retouching before I noticed the name in the filters menu, and said "what the heck... I can always undo it").

Minor focus errors, depth of field that just misses being deep enough and lens softness are better handled by deconvolution than by contrast manipulation (like unsharp masking). Adobe recently demoed their own deconvolution/de-blurring filter, and it looks great. Unfortunately, it's not in CS5 and it probably won't be ready for CS6; it's very much at the alpha stage. Topaz InFocus (and other deconvolution filters) can rescue images that are "almost there". (It can also be used to derive detail from images that have significant subject or camera motion, but that's more of a forensic thing — it can cause some pretty heavy-duty ringing artifacts throughout the picture.)

"Must have" for artistic expression

Most of the rest fall into the category of time-and-sanity-saving extras. They become must-haves only in relationship to your stylistic preferences and artistic vision. Many of them can be duplicated (or nearly duplicated) with a little bit (or a lot) of playing around in the host program (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.); the plug-ins simply make things a lot easier and more convenient.

There are, for instance, any number of ways to do B&W conversion in Photoshop. You can simply drop to greyscale, you can select a channel to work with, etc., and manipulate the image colours before doing whatever B&W conversion technique you eventually use. But you'll get the results you want more quickly and more easily with a B&W conversion plug-in that gives you real-time feedback on all of your tweaks. I really like Topaz B&W Effects — the user interface is consistent with the rest of their bundle — but I've also used and like Nik Silver Efex Pro. Either is a whole lot easier than the back-and-forthing you need to do to get the same results in Photoshop alone, and achieving the look of traditional toned images (sepia, gold, platinum, platinum/palladium, etc.) or hand-tinting is an awful lot harder in PS.

The same sort of thing can be said for contrast (global and local) and colour adjustments. Not so much at the level of correction, mind you, but for expressive purposes. Again, I like the Topaz option, Adjust 5, but I've also used and like Nik Color Efex Pro for many of the same reasons. They're just a whole lot easier, more workflow-friendly and, yes, more fun than doing things the hard way in Photoshop alone, particularly when it comes to things like emulating colour film emulsions, faking toy cameras (Lomo, Holga, etc.) and exaggerating detail illustratively (the one-shot HDR look).

Lens Effects can be a lot of fun to play with, and a great way to make the most of images that have distracting backgrounds or too great a depth of field. Like AlienSkin Bokeh 2, it will let you apply very realisic and progressive lens blur to various parts of the image (you get to set the number and curvature of the iris blades, the "creaminess" of the bokeh and the speed of focus transition). You can also simulate vignetting, pinhole cameras, LensBaby-style tilt/shift effects, fisheye barrel distortion, light leaks and so on. You can also "use filters" ex post facto, like graduated ND or polarizers (for blue-sky deeping, not reflection control) as long as the data are there in your image. It can let you "use" cameras you don't have or make lens or filter choices you wish you had made when you took the picture. It's not exactly a do-over, but it's as close as you can get in the real world, and it's a lot easier than doing the same things in Photoshop alone.

If you do any compositing, you'll know that masking is a geniune pain in the posterior, especially if you need to handle transparency and translucency. A good masking plug-in can make the process something you can easily tough out instead of something that makes you want to dial 911 (or 999, or whatever is applicable where you live). The edge-aware tools in the latest versions of Adobe's products are immensely better than what has gone before, but they're still not quite as easy to use as the better masking plug-ins. I really like Topaz ReMask 3.2, but OnOne Perfect Mask is also an excellent tool (as was UltiMatte/Corel Knockout in its day). In addition to compositing, they can make selective application of other filters and adjustments a whole lot quicker and easier.

I happen to like the results I can get from Topaz Detail compared to other sharpening techniques. There's just more simultaneous control over more aspects of detail enhancement/reduction than you get with the built-in tools. Being able to work selectively at levels I'd call "shape", "detail" and "texture" (Topaz calls them large, medium and small details) can make both general and output image sharpening a lot simpler -- it's a lot easier to emphasize what you think is important in the image.

I have found less use for the Clean and Simplify plug-ins, but I can see why other people might find them useful. You would have to decide for yourself, based on your own artistic inclinations.

Try 'em, then decide

Almost all of the high-quality commercial plug-ins have a fully-functioning trial available for download. Which ones you'll find merely useful, which ones are distracting toys, and which are must-haves depends entirely upon your photographic style, your artistic vision, and the holes in your personal arsenal of photographic weaponry (and there will always be one). And there is much to be said for having the ability to salvage pictures that are either otherwise excellent (or important) but which suffer from some technical imperfection that make them less than desirable as they are. You won't know what plug-ins can do for you until you've tried them yourself on both your best and your worst images. You might just be amazed.


† Don't laugh — it will sync with strobes at 1/8000s and with i-TTL flashes at 1/500 because it's a CCD camera that uses a hybrid shutter. The focal plane (mechanical) shutter never goes faster than the X-sync speed; it's always fully open during the exposure. 6MP and a low maximum ISO is a reasonable trade-off in a lot of situations, considering that I can use full-power flash at 1/1000s or higher with a lot of flash heads. No ND filters, no loss of power using high-speed sync. Great for web work, and prints up to 8x12 inches look pretty darned good if you're not using a loupe.

Saturday, December 3, 2011

In Lightroom, how can I move a set of filtered images preserving the folder order?

Question

I'd like to move all my raw (.nef) files in my Lightroom catalog to another hard drive to free up space. However, I want to preserve the folder structure from the source drive to the other hard drive. Additionally, I'd like to preserve my non-destructive edits I made on those images and history.

Currently I have one catalog that spans two hard drives. I import photos on the main drive, work on them, and when I'm finished I'd like to easily move them to the second.

I can easily filter the ones I want, but I cannot seem to preserve the folder structure when moving between the two drives. I could do things folder by folder, but that will take too long. Finally, I can do a vanilla export and delete, but I will lose edits and I'm not sure I can preserve the folder structure I'm looking for.

Answer

UPDATE: I found a simpler solution here.

  1. In your Lightroom catalogue, in Folders, click the + and add a new folder on the new drive.
  2. Still in Lightroom, now drag folders from your existing hard drive and drop them on the new drive.

To copy your photos to another drive:

  1. Apply the filters that you want.
  2. Select all the filtered photos.
  3. Goto File->Export as Catalog.
  4. Keep "Export selected files only" and "Export negative files" checked.
  5. Specify a path in your other hard drive.
  6. Wait for it to make a copy of all your files.

To use these copied photos in Lightroom:

  1. Goto File->Open Catalog.
  2. Select the newly created catalog on your other drive.

This will meet the following of your requirements:

  • Preserve your folder structure.
  • Maintain your non-destructive edits and history.

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

What are the differences of bringing RAW or JPEG into Photoshop?

Question

Most of my images are in RAW format. When I bring an image into Photoshop, does it make a difference whether it's a JPEG or RAW? I understand the difference between JPEGs and RAW images. I'm just wondering if it is better to bring in a JPEG or RAW into Photoshop, not Camera RAW?

Answer

The short answer to this question is: The raw option is better.

The slightly longer answer is: The raw image data gives you the chance, in ACR, to effectively "develop" the image based on your own desires and do that many times in a non-destructive manner with a lot more data available because it's the base data for the image. Drop into jpeg and you've already started with data being lost, partly a result of the 8 bit image format, but also because jpeg is lossy in compression. So, you've already dropped some color information and you've also discarded some pixels. Not to mention, your start point is what the camera maker decided was a "good" result.

So, seriously, there is no condition in which jpeg is superior to raw when you have the time ans space to deal with the image. The only time I would recommend jpeg is when you won't have the time to post-process, but in the last 4 or 5 years, for me, that has never happened... Your mileage may vary.

Monday, October 24, 2011

Is there an EXIF standard for tagging people in photographs?

Question

There are a number of websites that let you tag people in photos, such as Facebook and now flickr, but is there an EXIF standard for tagging who is in a photo, and where they are?

Answer

There is not. IPTC, another image metadata standard, also does not contain a "People" field. There's a Contact field, but that is used for contact information for the photographer.

Most people I know will store people as keywords. The main debate is whether or not to include spaces (would a photo of me be tagged as aaronhockley or as "aaron hockley"?). I don't use spaces since that simplifies things at times, but it's pretty subjective. I think the main thing is consistency... pick one method and stick to it.

Thursday, August 11, 2011

How to improve my current workflow?

Question

To handle a large number of pics a a smooth and efficient workflow is needed. I am currently doing the following, which I find too cumbersome and annoying. This has a bad effect on my pics, which don't get the attention that would deserve.

I'm on Windows 7 with a Canon camera.

  1. Import from the CF card via the canon utility ZoomBrowser EX. I don't particularly love it but it is relatively unobtrusive.

  2. Three alternatives for the raw files

    of these DPP appears to extract the best information from the raw files (they appear more realistic and sharper) but it offers only the most basic functionality. UFraw and Rawtherapee are much better, if only I were able to achieve the same quality of DPP. I will add that I have noticed this only in some photo, maybe because it is not so apparent, or because I have begun shooting with a new lens, or I simply got better at spotting the differences.

  3. Import to gimp: this depends on the source. Both ufraw and Rawtherapee directly call gimp, while with DPP I have to convert to TIFF. This has a huge impact in terms of disk space: from a 20M raw file to a 80M TIFF.

  4. First thing in gimp: save to its own native format (xcf) and kill the tiff if importing from DPP. This is needed because I am doing backups and so all these useless TIFFs floating around annoy me.

  5. Proceed to work on the image as I am capable of (that is, not much! :-) )

  6. Backup everything on an external hd

  7. Empty the CF card

This is not efficient or smooth. How can I improve it?

Please note that given the limited set of features of ZoomBrowser I am not systematically tagging/starring the pics. This is going to bite me, I am sure.

PS: I am still trying to pinpoint the differences between DPP and UFraw/RawTherapee. It could be the subject of another question...

Answer

In general - switch to a one program solution like Lightroom.

It gives pretty good results (I don't know how it compares to DPP though, but it must be at least comparable given its popularity). It will handle the import, tagging, sorting, labeling, and most of your basic edits to the photo all in one program without keeping multiple copies of the image around. It will do all the color corrections, spot removal, sharpening etc without the need to go into Gimp. (If you want to start cutting stuff out of the image or adding stuff in, or selective color, or stuff like that, you'd still need to go to Gimp though. But that stuff should be much more rare.)

I'm a fan of Gimp, I am. But both GIMP and Photoshop excel at making detailed changes to one photo at a time. Lightroom ( or heck even Picasa) allow you to do many of the basic modifications in stride, rather than stopping to mess with switching files around.


Picasa is an option, but really Lightroom is in a whole different league. I was a big Picasa + Gimp fan for awhile, but Lightroom is just so much easier/faster.