Presentation on RAW WORKFLOW - Simplified

[Clint_Smith]

If you guys will indulge me, I am putting together a presentation for our local guild in January on a RAW Workflow. We seem to have a never ending flow of Speakers that down RAW and its capabilites, so I stepped up and said...Let me try to simplify it. So here is my RAW workflow and simplified photo editing:

The debate over whether to shoot RAW or JPG will probably not be resolved anytime soon. Those of us that shoot RAW sing it's praises because of extra exposure latitude, better color control, basically all aspects of what the image will look like, while those that shoot JPG tell us we spend too much time in front of the computer. I am not going to argue any points tonite, but I am going to explain why I choose to shoot RAW and why it is faster for me.

Reasons:

1. JPG is a compressed data file. For a point of reference, a Canon 10D RAW imaged processed will yield an 18MB TIFF file. While a JPG from the same camera will yield a file size somewhere between 1.5mb and 3.5mb in a Large Fine JPG setting.

Where did the approximately 15MB worth of data go? The camera threw it away, because it didn't think you needed that information. I think I am smarter than my camera...well I hope I am.

2. White Balance. During a shoot it is probably the last thing in my mind I want to worry about. If I shoot in JPG the WB is pretty much etched in stone. Yeah you can go into Photoshop and either fix it or tweak it, but personally I can never get the channel mixer set properly and I spend tons more time "fixing" WB in JPGs.

While with RAW, I can set the WB of ALL my images during a session with one click of the mouse. And they are the exact color I want, not what the camera thought I wanted.

3. Sharpening. My camera shoots JPGs fairly soft. I find that a Processed RAW file will produce sharper images.

4. More information, bigger - better prints. I recently did a test. I took a RAW file and Cropped it to 139% of the original size, saved it as a TIFF and had it printed in a 20x30. I took the same RAW file and processed it out as a JPG and had printed . The TIFF blew away the JPG print. Why? I am no computer guru, but I know what I saw in my test. More info means better prints.

Those are my 4 main reasons for shooting RAW. Now lets get into my workflow. I will be using Capture One Pro to process my RAW Images and Photoshop CS to do final touch ups. Also for this demonstration I should note that I also have my monitors calibrated for proper color rendition and my color management settings are set to the specifications that my lab has posted on their website - which for this case is sRGB. Also this is a demonstration for a single lighting setup.

First thing after setting up my strobes in studio, is to shoot a color card. From this card I set my exposure/histogram for my highlights and shadows and set my White Balance.



To set highlights select the WHITE SQUARE with the Highlight Eye Dropper. I generally set shadow detail to taste and do not use the Shadow Eye Dropper. Set the White Balance using the White Balance Eye Dropper. I gennerally use one of the steps of Gray rather than true white. - personal preference.







Once the exposure and Whitebalance are set you need to set the Focus. It is pretty much self explanatory. either soft or standard focus. I suggest playing with this setting to taste.

After setting the focus settings on the first colorcard image, SHIFT CLICK all the images from the session and use the first image as a reference to set the rest of the images paramaters.



As you can see the orginal unprocessed RAW file on the left and the Toned on the Right.



As you can see in just a couple of steps I toned and color corrected every image from a session.
If I would have shot in JPG, the camera would have made these decisions for me and I would have to pay $0.49 per 4x6 color correct proof instead of $0.29 per proof uncolor corrected at the lab.

I will continue this presentation in Part II using Photoshop to retouch this image

[mochaguy]

Thanks, Clint. I appreciate you sharing this.

[LoungeLizard]

you may also want to discuss the better editing that happens in RAW due to it's linear nature. I am not an expert - read about it a few months ago and have not had a chance to go back to it.

Only thing I'd suggest a bit different is that most people would add "see, you need special software". Would have been nice if you'd shown the same stuff (tougher since it's not YOUR workflow) using PSCS.

[Hogleg 44]

Raw is the only way to go IMHO. But as it is with any work project, you definitely need more than one tool in your workshop.

[jtford]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

Only thing I'd suggest a bit different is that most people would add "see, you need special software". Would have been nice if you'd shown the same stuff (tougher since it's not YOUR workflow) using PSCS.

The workflow for studio shots is much the same; Open the color/greycard image first in Adobe Camera RAW for white balance and sharpening, then apply your new profile to the rest of the shots.

If you change lenses or lighting, you need to run the process again.

In practical terms, the steps are:

1) Double click to open the color balance image.

2) Set the white balance with the white balance tool.

3) Zoom to 100% and set your sharpening to taste.

4) Make any other adjustments to taste, such as saturation for lenses that might happen to need a bump.

5) Save a profile.

6) Click "Done".

7) Return to Bridge.

8) Select all the images you need to apply this new profile to.

9) Right click and select the profile.

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by LoungeLizard

Only thing I'd suggest a bit different is that most people would add "see, you need special software". Would have been nice if you'd shown the same stuff (tougher since it's not YOUR workflow) using PSCS.

You are right, but I think I am gonna state that all of the steps can be done in PS, but I just like C1 better. BUT for some photogs PS is not a given. We have a couple that swear by Corel and won't buy PS.

My main goal is to show the ease, and make our photogs not affraid of RAW

[Clint_Smith]

Originally Posted by jtford

The workflow for studio shots is much the same; Open the color/greycard image first in Adobe Camera RAW for white balance and sharpening, then apply your new profile to the rest of the shots.

If you change lenses or lighting, you need to run the process again.

In practical terms, the steps are:

1) Double click to open the color balance image.

2) Set the white balance with the white balance tool.

3) Zoom to 100% and set your sharpening to taste.

4) Make any other adjustments to taste, such as saturation for lenses that might happen to need a bump.

5) Save a profile.

6) Click "Done".

7) Return to Bridge.

8) Select all the images you need to apply this new profile to.

9) Right click and select the profile.

I will make sure to add this to the presentation. Thanks!

[jheiliger]

To take Clint's workflow one step further...

I also use C1, and I love it.

About 2 version's ago, C1 introduced this little command called the "Quickproof".

Everyone is always griping about the amount of time processing RAW. Well... After my session, I "quickproof the winners" to jpg. After all the balancing, you select the images and hit a button. It can do a hundred images in less than 5 mins. It can produce a "Proof" that is as small as 15x10 pixels, and as large as 1500x1000. The largest size proofs are good enough to do some manipulations in PS if you like, and show them to the client.

I only do full processing on the images that my client chooses for prints, while all the others are only quickproofs, and get tossed. So, my processing time for RAW files is almost nothing.

If I shoot a wedding, I fix my images, and start the conversions in C1 before I go to bed. When I get up the next morning, my images are ready for a little post processing in PS. But my chages in post processing are so minimal because the JPGs are already color and density balanced.

The other gripe I have heard about working with RAW files is... "The files are too big... you are going to fill up your hard drives." I saw a drive at SAMS the other day for $.50 a gig on a 300GB drive. Gone are the days of expensive storage. If you don't have enough space, just do a simple upgrade.

I haven't shot a JPG in about 3 years, and I don't think I would ever give up the flexibility of RAW. With some of the tools available, it's worth at least looking at.

I also am not trying to make any converts. People can choose whatever works for them. But, man it sure makes things simple when you shoot RAW...

cheers,

Joe

[DEMDeepEllumMusic]

RAW files are like the whole store while JPG's are just a couple isles.

I may let the camera JPG some shots but I never deleate my RAW files. Heck you never know with software advancements what that unusable shot "now" may become usable in the future and having that RAW file leaves you with the source material.

As to having hard drive room, I burn my files to CD (2 copies burned of the files) so every so often I have a couple days that I spend burning and cleaning files off of the drive. Really You don't want to be dependent on a hard drive that could fail.

[engstrom]

Originally Posted by DEMDeepEllumMusic

Really You don't want to be dependent on a hard drive that could fail.

I agree with that. But, with the cost of drives being as low as it is and the cost of RAID controllers being not too bad I find it's an acceptable risk to run a RAID 5 set with an online spare.

[jheiliger]

That's kind of what I was saying Engstrom. And, my sentiments exactly DEM.

You can do a RAID 1 (mirror) with 2 300gb drives and shoot for a year or so (depending...)without filling up your array. Or, you could do a RAID 5 (cost you another drive...) and get a little more space.

I would never trust one hard drive. Murphy is bound to show up...

Joe