RAW workflow suggestions?

I am using a Pentax K-x, with Aperture 3.03, OS 10.6.4, and current RAW updates.
Color shifts on the RAW conversion in both iPhoto and Aperture are unpredictable and extreme, where they once worked flawlessly, even on my "unsupported" camera.
My thoughts and concerns:
Is there a danger in continuing to use Aperture or iPhoto to open these RAW files, and having them permanently changed to these bizarre colors, or losing image data?
Am I just a Software Update away from having everything work as it used to, or should I archive all the images Aperture can't read, and save them for import at a later time?
Maybe just downgrade everything back to 10.5.xx and Aperture 2, where everything worked as expected?
If the images aren't permanently damaged by importing to Aperture, I would probably plug along with it (maybe using JPEGS) hoping for them to resolve their RAW processing issues.
Would really like to get productive again, I am so disappointed in Apple.

Well, i guess if you don't want the latest improvement in Apertures raw file processing don't have Aperture reprocess, if you are happy with the results you have.
Personally the image processing in 3 is much better than in all earlier versions.
As Aperture only reads the raw files, how does it change them? i just can't see that happening!
I do know that some raw files are strictly speaking not raw, as some manipulation has been done in the camera to the raw data. That was some years ago and i can't imagine it having stopped if it makes us think, oh this new one is much better than the old one. Keeps the cash registers working.
The WB issue is always a hot topic. In a raw file it is not fixed and you get comments about jpeg being better then the raw files. This may be to do with no agreement in the industry as to a standard for the raw file, or the notraw file as may be. Were as the jpeg is an international standard image file format. Aperture has to deal with a multitude of different makers raw files. That means we suffer the consequences, and costs. I guess different manufactures keep as much of it as secret as possible. The option is there for us all to use what we want. I guess Aperture makes the best of a bad job, or why do we keep using it.
You always have to think of the raw files as just that; the raw information to be used like building material for a house with no drawings. Different builder, different house. We need some plans but who's, and then there is you and i, given the same raw file and i guarantee two totally different results. Who's is correct? Both i suspect. Then how boring when the system churns out perfect pictures and we all go back to B&W in the dark, just for something to do, and no subjective colour issues. Color issues.
Allan

Similar Messages

  • Looking for some RAW + JPEG Workflow suggestions

    I'm looking for some suggestions on how best to organize my workflow now that I've started shooting with RAW +JPEG. I previously shot only in RAW, but the time spent in post-production was killing me. I've realized that for 95% of my shots that already have the correct exposure, white balance, etc, a JPEG photo is really all I need and saves me a ton of time. I've become convinced that editing every single photo from a shoot in RAW is overkill. I want to have the RAW versions, however, to rescue that occasional great shot where I unfortunately miffed the settings.
    Through reading other posts here and experimenting, I've found that Aperture basically defulats to showing me only the imported RAW photos and that I need to click "New Version from Master JPEG" to see the JPEG version. This seems counterintuitive to the workflow I'd like to establish though. (i.e. I'm thinking it would be nice to see only the JPEG versions, and then only bring up the RAW version when the photo needs some serious correction).
    I suppose I could highlight the entire batch of imported photos and select "New Version from Master JPEG" and then sort through each RAW/JPEG stack, but I'm still hoping there's a less cumbersome way. Anyone out there have any good workflow suggestions for this issue? I'm curious how other people out there deal with this issue in their workflow.
    Thanks in advance!
    Message was edited by: Nate Cannon

    Try this - I do this as a matter of course:
    -select all of the photos after importing them into a project
    -create a new album from selection/call it JPG
    -with all of the images still selected create new version from master JPEG. all of these should now be the album pick
    -close all stacks, the JPEG will be the one showing up on top for that album.
    RB
    More here: [Aperture RAW+JPG|http://photo.rwboyer.com/2009/01/14/aperture-2-quick-tip-shooting-rawjp g>

  • Looking for Pre-Rendered Editing / Color Grading Workflow suggestions.

    Looking for Pre-Rendered Editing / Color Grading Workflow suggestions.
    All my material is rendered via RenderMan, our resolution is 1280x544, and our format is generally .exr in 32 bit space.
    Our editor has been converting over to 32-bit tiffs, and using Apple Intermediate Codec for editing, mostly for speed concerns.
    We need to re-vamp our workflow so that we can edit our footage, and then do color grading of the edit head to tail to smooth the look between scenes. We want to do this in Color, being fed by Final Cut Pro's timeline.
    We want to keep our bit depth as high as possible when coming into Color.
    My question is, does anyone here have any workflow suggestions for doing what I am talking about.
    I wasn't sure if we should just export and EDL from FCP and try to get Color to load our single frames from that. Or if there is a special Quicktime wrapper we should be using, or converting our 32-bit .exr files into some other format more readily available for using in Color?
    Any thoughts would be great, thanks in advance!

    You're not going to get anywhere beyond 10-bit. That's it.
    Try encoding to 10-bit LOG dpx if you need upscale RGB.
    jPo

  • DNG in Smart Object RAW workflow?

    I'm totally immersed in the Smart Object RAW workflow. I've been on the fence about using DNG as SO layers, but it suddenly dawned on me that, since you're building in raw layers, rather than having access to your original RAW files easily, that DNG becomes essential to ensure an archival process.
    That is, if I have separate RAW files I can always, at some point, convert them to DNG. Once they're in the file as a SO, I'm hosed. (Yes, I can extract them, but I lose all my work in the TIFF.)
    Is anyone out there slamming to DNG before working with a Smart Object RAW workflow? (Is anyone working in a SO workflow even? Sometimes I feel like the only one... heh)

    Been requested since B2 or so. Still a wait.
    Don
    Don Ricklin, MacBook 1.83Ghz Duo 2 Core, Pentax *ist D
    http://donricklin.blogspot.com/

  • Camera Raw Workflow options

    HI
    when i open jpag (or tiff) in camera raw Workflow options,
    i have option to size image.
    may question it's: if i choose the large size, what hapen to
    may image - interpolation like in Ps?
    thank

    I don't know which algorithm Camera Raw uses ... but the result of the upsampling is virtually the same as Bicubic Smoother in Photoshop. Except for one thing: Camera Raw's upsampling will add tiny ringing artifacts to the result; Photoshop's won't. The artifacts are bright, horizontal or vertical, 1-pixel-wide lines along sharp, high-contrast edges. So for perfect results I recommend to convert the raw image to its native size in Camera Raw, then do the upsizing in Photoshop using the resampling method Bicubic Smoother. Before upsizing, apply some gentle source or capture sharpening.
    However those ringing artifacts are really
    i very
    small; it takes a very close look at high magnification to notice. In most cases they'll go unnoticed. So you may decide not to care. However they tend to get emphasized by subsequent sharpening.
    -- Olaf

  • RAW workflow questions - image degradation over several edits with 08?

    I currently use Aperture to manage (and edit) my digital photo library. After reading about iphoto 08, the only major thing I can see preventing me from using it would be the RAW editing.
    An example would be a photo taken in RAW format and edited in iPhoto. It is saved as a JPEG. Any future editing ontop of that jpeg and the image begins degrading as levels of compression are added ontop of it (I think).
    In Aperture, the raw file is maintained and any editing to the RAW file becomes non-destructive as the RAW format is retained in "real time" (so to speak).
    I know iPhoto also retains the original RAW file, but not the edited RAW file.
    My question is this: with the great extra features of iPhoto (such as easier integration with .Mac) I am seriously considering a switch, but am concerned about image degradation. For all the semi-pro users, what is your RAW workflow in regards to iPhoto? Do you edit the file once, then when editing is required in the future just re-edit the JPEG or go back to the original RAW?
    For any former Aperture users who switched to iPhoto, was it worth it?
    Thanks!!

    Terence,
    Once again, thank you for a most helpful answer. I was wondering about the same issue. I guess this means that when you edit RAW files in iPhoto, it uses a similar approach than Aperture and Lightroom now. With far less options of course, but if you just doing basic editing of white balance and shadow/highlight, iPhoto is an appealing alternative.
    If I understand correctly the Raw conversion is done at the system level, so iPhoto and APerture even use the same conversion engine, right?
    Thank you
    Bo

  • Songwriting workflow suggestions needed!

    Hi,
    I am a beginning/intermediate Logic user. Am writing songs/tunes... and am experimenting all over the place. This is leading to an Arrange page nightmare.
    For instance, I usually sing a melody over chord changes... so there's my A section let's say. Then I reharmonize the chords a few times before I find just the right combination, then I sometimes fiddle with the melody, then I come up with a few possible B sections... then I have a few arrangement ideas - one bassline.. perhaps a different one... maybe I'll transpose a B section...
    Anyway - you get the idea. My arrange page is a MESS. And I mute parts and then listen back - and really end up wanting a little from this take, and this one... and ...
    I get confused.
    Who has workflow suggestions?
    Thanks in advance!

    What you need to do is comp your takes to one master track, this applies to the bass, the guitar, the flute - whatever. Once you have taken all of the best bits and put them on to a master track, you can put all of the unused bits into a folder, label it "bass takes" for example. Then - very important - change the track from being a folder to being "no output". This way you are assured of not accidentally unmuting things you don't want to hear.
    I find that color-coding various takes helps to keep them straight. I usually use red for my first take and move through the color chart for each later take.
    So, read the manual about packing folders, coloring objects, changing the track type (from audio to audio instrument to midi to folder to no output).
    Organization is crucial. While you are at it, read about saving as a project. You at least want all of the audio files relating to a song/project in one folder. Don't worry so much about having the samples in the project folder unless it is a project you will be moving to another studio.
    It also helps to choose the option "name audio files after audio object" on the page that assigns the record path. You can then name the object according to the instrument you are recording. If the object is named "Bass", the takes will be named "Bass#01" and so on.
    You have some reading to do!
    HL

  • IPad & Aperture: general workflow suggestions?

    Fell in love with the iPad screen -- purchased one (excellent as a portfolio).  Looking for general advice on using it as part of my RAW workflow.  (I have Apple's "Camera Connection Kit".)
    Thanks  .
    OK:  what I've done so far:  uploaded "shoots" to the iPad,  Cropped to suit. Separately imported same files into Aperture via the camera card.  Tried and failed to delete the photos albums on MiPad. That's it.  Decided to not use the iPad in my workflow until I learn more.  Removed all photos-syncing via iTunes.  Posted this message.
    Message was edited by: Kirby Krieger

    Well, at least _someone replied .
    leonieDF wrote:
    No answer, Kirby - I am thread-jacking . Which model did you choose? I want to buy one too, but I'll want it for geotagging and navigation, and maybe for browsing images, if I am away from home and do not want to take my 17" laptop along. It is funny - my 13" MBP went with me everywhere, but since I have a 17" model, that is no longer true.
    I wonder if it may be possible to go on a week long photo safari with only a camera and an iPad.
    So this thread is now officially completely OT.
    I bought the semi-inexpensive one:  black, 32 GB (according to the iPad itself, 28 GB capacity), no 4G.
    - black because photos look better on it.  I prefer the white, but the white plastic has a slight yellow cast, and no one likes to look at face in a greasy collar
    - 32 GB because I knew from my iPhone that 16 wasn't enough, but 32 is.  I don't use it for video or storing music (I subscribe to XM and may subscribe to Pandora or equivalent).  More storage is always better, but I'd rather save the $100.
    - no 4G because I already pay way too much for my iPhone contract, I live in a city (lots of free WiFi), and I have very fast WiFi access at home and at the two places I work.  With iCloud, I only need cellular access on one device, and I already have it on MiPhone.
    Obviously, without 4G (or whatever you have over in Euro-land ), you can't do geotagging or navigation.
    I recently tested a camera with built-in GPS (Sony a77).  _Very, very_ handy.  I've been adding Aperture Locations by neighborhood, and had become used to that level of granularity -- and am simply giddy with the "This photo was taken in the middle of this block" specificity of the on-camera GPS tagging.
    I added a great little keyboard I am happy to recommend: the Adonit Writer+ (for the new iPad -- the old one won't work well).  I touch type, I needed an iPad cover -- and now I have one that includes a BlueTooth keyboard.  Fantastic.  Should I want the iPad naked, it pops out and snaps in in 1s.  The keyboard charge is said to last a year.  So I have an iPad convertible to a netbook.  Did I say "Fantastic"?  I got the red one.
    Also in my recommended column: the Wacom stylus for the iPad -- pricey but excellent, once you get used to writing/drawing with rubber on glass -- and the Adonic Jot pen -- the best drawing (not painting, drawing) tool for the iPad.  I draw on MiPad every morning and every evening.  Six hundred years ago artists used pads they prepared with flour (iirc -- haven't looked this up in a long time).  They sketched on them till they were dark with marks, then wiped them clean and put another layer of flour and glue on them.  A great way to learn.  The iPad comes close.
    It's an _excellent_ size for light-weight travel.  I lived with a 12" Powerbook for a few years -- still, imho, the best form-factor of any computer ever (CinemaScope® makes sense at room size, but I've never thought it right for paintings, books, or computers) -- the iPad is close to a scaled down version of that screen.  The iPad, in the Adonit cover, fits right in the unused back sleeve of my most used camera bag (ThinkTank Retrospective 20).
    But can it substitute for a laptop on a safari?  I don't know -- but having read widely on fitting the iPad into a photography workflow, I can report that most who've tried say "No".  It's certainly an excellent viewer -- I got, and you'll want (and want to include in your budget), the Apple Camera Connection Kit, which consists of two adapters: Applejack to USB, and Applejack to SC card.  Uploading RAW files (I use Sony cameras) works without a hitch.  Editing, adding metadata, or doing any organizing however has to wait until you're back with a real computer.  (OK, you can crop on the iPad, and tart things up with SnapSeed.)  The iPad works well for storage/backup, and for viewing the pictures as shot.  You can email those.  That's it.  If you record JPG only, don't edit, and don't keyword or use other organizing, the iPad will meet your needs.  If you have 6,000 "maven" points in the Apple Aperture discussion forum, you're going to find it more toy than tool.  On the other hand, if you can do without a computer on a safari, it is probably worth its weight to carry along as a viewer.
    The screen is delicious.  It's absolutely fantastic for showing photos (if you're OK with showing them on a screen).
    I haven't settled on a workflow yet, but I suspect I'll end up syncing a couple of Aperture Smart Folders (wirelessly, btw), possibly via iCloud, showing my "Portfolio" pictures and my "Shot in the last 23 days" pictures. At some point it will be a live camera viewer -- but we're not there yet.
    So that's the rundown from Pittsburgh.  Let us know what you decide.  .

  • Camera raw Workflow?

    1.) Can you edit raw format files in Photoshop CS5 or do you have to do this in Camera Raw?
    2.) Which edits should be done in Camera Raw before bringing the file into PhotoShop?
    White balance, tonal range, contrast, color saturation, sharpening? What else?
    3.) Is the idea of this workflow to perform the steps listed in #2 and then to do any of the retouching, such as healing brush, clone, etc. in Photoshop and then to sharpen the image in PhotoShop at the end?
    Thanks.

    Are you suggesting that Camera Ra is optimal place for adjustments for raw images or for images in general? Is it better to adjust jpgs in Camera Raw also?
    What is the Capture Sharpening feature?
    Thanks!

  • IPhoto v7.x (iLife 08) RAW workflow

    I'm looking for some opinions on a workflow here.
    I have an Olympus E-510 and shoot in RAW. For my amateur needs, iPhoto's editing tools are sufficient and I like iPhoto's library characteristics. I import the Oly RAW files and then edit as needed which of course creates a jpeg. There are some pictures that I really don't care about keeping the RAW file as it considerably increases the size of the iPhoto library. I can of course right click on the particular photo and select show original file which shows the RAW file in the Finder, and of course can then delete the RAW file if so desired.
    The problem (which I guess isn't really a problem, just kind of anal on my part) is that the edited (jpeg) picture in iPhoto still "points" to the original RAW file's location. I.e., you can right click on the jpeg and select show original file and it opens the folder in the finder where the original RAW file was. I've tried rebuilding the iPhoto library after deleting the RAW file but it makes no difference.
    I could of course use another editing program first to edit the RAW image and save a high quality original size jpeg to import to iPhoto, but I kind of would like to keep everything to one application.
    If there's no solution to this I simply need to make the decision to either keep the RAW files or ignore the jpeg thinking there is still an original RAW.
    Just wondering if anyone else has considered this or has any opinion/suggestion.
    Thanks,

    Terry:
    Deleting the RAW file as you've described is tantamount to committing the cardinal sin of iPhoto, messing with the contents of the library via the Finder. There's really no way to do what you want other than exporting those edited photos you want to keep to the desktop at full size and quality, import into iPhoto and delete the first copy of them.
    Another possible workflow would be to upload the RAW files to a folder on the Desktop from the camera. Using a 3rd party editor create a folder of jpg files from the RAW, burn the RAW files to disk or another drive to store as digital negatives and import the folder of the jpgs.
    Since iPhoto uses nondestructive editing you're always only one generation away from the originals jpg file. You won't get any significant image quality loss due to multiple edits.
    Unless you use a 3rd party editor, like Photoshop, to edit the RAW files there's little advantage to using RAW in iPhoto. With an application like PS RAW files can be handled/edited far better than any other format but you need such an editor. Also, all edits are then saved to another format leaving the RAW untouched.
    Since you're only using iPhoto for your editing needs just shoot jpg as that will eliminate several steps in your workflow and save lots of disk space.
    Happy Holidays
    TIP: For insurance against the iPhoto database corruption that many users have experienced I recommend making a backup copy of the Library6.iPhoto database file and keep it current. If problems crop up where iPhoto suddenly can't see any photos or thinks there are no photos in the library, replacing the working Library6.iPhoto file with the backup will often get the library back. By keeping it current I mean backup after each import and/or any serious editing or work on books, slideshows, calendars, cards, etc. That insures that if a problem pops up and you do need to replace the database file, you'll retain all those efforts. It doesn't take long to make the backup and it's good insurance.
    I've created an Automator workflow application (requires Tiger), iPhoto dB File Backup, that will copy the selected Library6.iPhoto file from your iPhoto Library folder to the Pictures folder, replacing any previous version of it. It's compatible with iPhoto 08 libraries and Leopard. iPhoto does not have to be closed to run the application, just idle. You can download it at Toad's Cellar. Be sure to read the Read Me pdf file.

  • LR Workflow Suggestions Needed

    Now that I will be processing all my RAW images through LR, I'd like someone to help me with my workflow. My current workflow is a bit complicated, and may have to stay so, even with LR; however, if anyone has a good idea on how to simplify it, I'd appreciate it.
    I am a Pet Photographer (www.NYPetShots.com) and I usually shoot around 130 photos in an outdoor session. This is what I do, as of now.
    I shoot RAW and JPEG and import them into the computer with Canon Breezebrowser.
    I review all of the shots, in Breezebrowser, and eliminate both the RAW and JPEG duplicate shots which I feel are absolute losers.
    I rename and renumber the RAW and JPEGS in Photoshop Elements 3.0, so that they are consecutively numbered and the RAW corresponds to the JPGS; so, Steven107 is the same in RAW and JPG, and so on, and so there are no gaps in the numbers.
    I reduce the JPEGS in size around 1/3 in PSE, so I can put them on my SMUGMUG page for the client to review, in a password protected file. I lightly process a few in PSE to include in an email to the client, with the password, so as to give them some idea of what we can do with the finished product.
    I import them into the PSE organizer so I can go along with them and the client on the phone. I import the RAW into the LR library.
    This seems very cumbersome. What I must do is prepare JPGS in the same naming convention as the RAW, so they can go onto the web for viewing. They must be reduced in size for easy uploading. I have to be able to refer to the exact same named RAW file as the client refers to in the JPG file.
    In any event, I'll have to take my finished RAW and export it from LR and finish it in PSE for a quality JPG to send to the printer.
    So, does LR give me tools to simplify this? If so, what would you suggest.
    Thanks
    Steven

    Its not a question of what I don't want. I need to eliminate the ones that are simply not presentable and let the client see all the rest, including those which are marginal. So, when the client looks at them on the web, it makes a better presentation if they look at Steven 1 through 120, and don't skip from 87 to 94. Gaps are no good. When they say they like Steven 37, I need to be able to find the exact RAW image to work on.
    I guess I can do some experimenting to see what a RAW to JPG shot looks like, without applying any adjustment to the image. I have to present something good but not finished to the client. I can't process 120 shots, when the client is only picking 5 or 6. (BTW: Most of my shoots are outdoors, where lighting and other conditions change frequently and fast. It is very rare that a shot is absolutely perfect right out of the camera, and it is not possible to apply the same changes to a most of the shots at the same time. I can batch process groups of shots taken with the same backdrop or locale)

  • Workflow Suggestion

    Hoping someone may be able to set me off in an efficient direction...
    I have 2 libraries of 130GB and 38GB (one is an older, pre RAW processing and now my current - all RAW) All my new photos will continue to go in the new RAW library. I primarily work on my desktop where the libraries reside, but I would like to continually update my laptop with my libraries, particularly for when I travel. I use Time Machine back up on a 1 Tb drive. I also have a 640GB portable that I can "drag and drop to or a 500BG Time Capsule no longer used for backups. I am not currently using vaults, as I am not sure with Time Machine I need them, but am starting to think differntly.
    My primary question is, what is the best way to update the laptop with ongoing changing libraries?
    SHould I be implementing Vaults and restoring from them? Right now I drag and drop libraries from imac to drive to laptop-VERY long. Also, if vaults are the way to go, should I/could I keep the two libraries on separate vaults?
    any suggestions for making this less painful welcome!
    thanks
    Nancie

    There ain't one way to do what you want, there are many. As your system gets bigger and maybe your needs change as it does, you need to be in a versatile position with whatever you choose.
    At the present i use Managed when mobile then transfer to Referenced when it is convenient, and back up manually Project by Project keeping the Projects small ( Aperture works better too with smaller projects ) so they are easy and quick to retrieve if need be. I may also keep a separate copy of rated images/versions. A typical workflow would go like this:
    Card Reader Download to MBpro > Rate the whole project with 2 Stars > A quick scan through to re- rate + or - > Trash the rejects > Empty Trash > Back up the Rated ones to usb stick > Format the card in the camera. Hope that helps. Allan

  • ARRI RAW WORKFLOW

    Hi Friends,
    Please suggest the best workflow while using arri raw footage in FCPX.
    I'm not sure whether the arri raw files can be directly ingested to final cut pro X.
    Thanks in advance
    Sreekumar Nair

    Hi Friends,
    Please suggest the best workflow while using arri raw footage in FCPX.
    I'm not sure whether the arri raw files can be directly ingested to final cut pro X.
    Thanks in advance
    Sreekumar Nair

  • Adobe Camera Raw workflow question #2901

    Now that I have my new digital camera-dedicated rig up and running I have been using ACR and CS2 to process my backlog of Canon 30D CR2 files. I am trying to get them ready for posting on the internet. Currently I am using ACR only to tweak Exposure and White Balance, then I move the file in 16 bits/AdobeRGB to CS2 where I do noise reduction, levels, curves adjustment, saturation then resize, sharpening then convert to an 8 bit, sRGB Jpg.
    I have adopted this workflow because it was similar to the one I used when my old creakin' PC required me to use DPP to do my RAW conversion (and I subsequently did PP in CS with a 16 bit TIFF)
    But I notice ACR has many choices and options such as contrast, shadows, saturation, sharpness, noise reduction controls that one can perform prior to RAW conversion. I have read in the past theoretical comments that adjustments are best made to a file during RAW conversion rather than while as a jpg. Does the same apply to a 16 BiT TIFF? In the workflow above, am I working on a TIFF?
    I am wondering if I am better off to make all of the adjustments in ACR window instead of the more lengthy process in CS2. Are there any advantages to doing these adjustments prior to RAW conversion? Or is it better to do PP on 16 bit files using layers?
    What are the relative merits of processing the file in either ACR window or as an 16 bit file in CS2?
    If it matters, I work on a PC and prefer to PP each file separately rather than in batches. But I DO use batch runs in CS2 to save time using Actions with around 10 file batches to do noise reduction and resize/convert to sRGB/save as.
    As always, thanks for the time you take to help me out!!

    >"What does Pixelgenius PhotoKit Sharpener do that I can't do, perhaps with more trouble, by applying what I've read in his book? And would I have a problem trying to use it with CS3? "
    I have a few observations and perhaps Jeff can comment. With images taken with a digital camera at high ISO, noise reduction may be necessary in the capture phase of sharpening. PhotoKit offers the sharpen and smooth option for this purpose. One can exert some control over the smoothing process by changing the opacity of the smoothing layer and the blend if sliders.
    In his sharpening book Bruce uses Photoshop's reduce noise and despeckle filters to reduce noise (sometimes using the despeckle filter multiple times), but I don't know what filter is used in the PhotoKit smoothing operation or what parameters are used for the reduce noise filter if it is used.
    If you use Bruce's book and the "roll your own" approach, you have more control over the noise reduction process and also the possibility of using a third party NR product such as the Noise Ninja plugin. Furthermore, just as an edge mask is used to restrict the sharpening to the edges, a surface mask may be used with NR to keep the smoothing away from the edges. The surface mask may be derived by inverting the edge mask used for sharpening, but Bruce says that some tweaking may give improved results.
    An alternative would be to use the third party NR prior to using PK sharpener. However, you would still need to make a surface mask for optimum results, but I doubt that many users take the trouble of doing this.
    In my own work with the Nikon D200 (which has rather high noise at high ISO), I find that I often get unacceptable noise and artifacts with PK Sharpener when used with high ISO images.
    Also, many landscape photographers mask off areas of clear blue sky and foliage that do not need sharpening, thereby avoiding accentuation of noise secondary to sharpening in these areas.
    >Bruce gave you the recipies...he didn't give you the exact numbers to use. So, you'll have to do what he and I did...trial and error, to arrive at optimum numbers...
    For output sharpening, the PK defaults seem to work quite well and the trial and effort of rolling your own is usually not worthwhile, IMHO.

  • Raw Workflow PS CS3 and Camera Raw 4.5

    Hello
    I just started working with raw files, that's why I'm not sure about the best workflow with Camera Raw 4.5 and Photoshop CS3. My aim is to post process in raw 4.5. and in CS3 with as less quality loss as possible.
    So when I finished the processing in raw 4.5 do I have to save it before I can continue working with the file in CS3 and in which format am I going to save it? If I save the raw file as psd, will I have quality loss? After post processing in CS3 what is the best format (for quality) to save it (there is no DNG possibility).
    Thank you very much for your help!
    Sarosa

    You will probably get a lot of different answers your question because everyone has their own preferred workflow. Generally speaking, however, I think it is best to do as much of your postprocessing in Camera Raw as possible because it is nondestructive. You do not have to save your image to a different format before you start working on it in Photoshop. By clicking the Open button in Camera Raw, any changes that you have made are stored as metadata, and then the image along with all those changes is opened in Photoshop. Once you have the image in Photoshop you are now going to be editing the pixels of the image directly. And once those types of modifications have begun you cannot save the image as a raw image or a DNG file. It will be necessary to store it in a different format. I think good choices are either as PSD or TIF because either of these formats will save your work without doing any damage to the image data. From either one of those formats you can create JPEG or any other type of image that you need when required. JPEG images are saved with a type of compression that can, over time and through multiple saves causes your image to deteriorate.
    In summary, you always have your raw images to go back to if necessary to start over. Use PSD or TIF to save your working files in Photoshop. And only create JPEG images from those PSD or TIF when they are required for the Web or for e-mail, etc..

Maybe you are looking for