RAW??????

[Hinfrance]

Indeed Simon, LR does have all of those things. I do use it for basic conversion, exposure, highlights, shadows, maybe a bit of noise reduction, but anything more complex I find much more quickly done in a 'proper' editor. Being used to using layers and precise selections the adjustment brushes are just too vague and limiting. Aftershot Pro has a super one click conversion called perfectly clear, precise selections and layers. It is inferior to LR in many ways, but better in few others.

I appreciate that it is horses for courses, but the point I was trying to make is that you don't need LR to live happily with a RAW workflow.

[Reinardina]

H, which of the Topaz products do you use? I have Adjust and B&W effects, which I love..

And this is probably a very stupid question, but what does ACR stand for? I know it as a rifle, but as you do the shooting with a camera, I doubt you are talking about that.

For me it is far too early to talk about 'living with RAW!'

The talk about shooting, reminded me I have got another RAW conversion. This was done for me, to demonstrate 'how to.'
It is my shot though.

[donoreo]

I'm still learning it but suspect I'll hardly ever need Elements now.

Simon

I hardly ever do.  I use any of the Nik programs more than Elements.  I did just upgrade to Elements 12 before Christmas because I got it on a great sale ($54!). 

[Andrew]

Indeed Simon, LR does have all of those things. I do use it for basic conversion, exposure, highlights, shadows, maybe a bit of noise reduction, but anything more complex I find much more quickly done in a 'proper' editor. Being used to using layers and precise selections the adjustment brushes are just too vague and limiting. Aftershot Pro has a super one click conversion called perfectly clear, precise selections and layers. It is inferior to LR in many ways, but better in few others.

I appreciate that it is horses for courses, but the point I was trying to make is that you don't need LR to live happily with a RAW workflow.

+1. I'm an LR fanboi - but I know many people who won't touch it, and some who won't even touch anything with Adobe on the cover. Haven't seen them suffering.

[Andrew]

And this is probably a very stupid question, but what does ACR stand for? I know it as a rifle, but as you do the shooting with a camera, I doubt you are talking about that.

Adobe Camera Raw - it is Adobes Raw conversion software and is at the heart of all of its photo import and manipulation software.

[Reinardina]

And this is probably a very stupid question, but what does ACR stand for? I know it as a rifle, but as you do the shooting with a camera, I doubt you are talking about that.

Adobe Camera Raw - it is Adobes Raw conversion software and is at the heart of all of its photo import and manipulation software.

Thank you. Very obvious once you know it!

[Hinfrance]

H, which of the Topaz products do you use? I have Adjust and B&W effects, which I love..

I have acquired most of the Topaz set over the years. I have Adjust and Black and White, as you do. I use Remask from time to time whenever I want to do a cut out - I find it a lot better than the alternatives. The full list is:
Adjust
Black and White
Clarity
Clean
Denoise (now outclassed by the both the LR adjustment and the Nik plugin)
Detail
In Focus
Lens Effex
PhotoFX Lab
Star Effex

A few of these were impulse purchases of special offers. I haven't even run Star Effex yet 

I really do need to play with the FX Lab a lot more. I've barely scratched the surface on that one, but it does look really powerful as it enables you to click on an image on 500px (for example) and it will automatically load that look onto the image you are working on. It also has layers (I really struggle with software that doesn't have layers  ) and masking as well as loads of controls similar to the develop module in Lightroom.

[Reinardina]

H, thanks for that! I bought Remask in the last 'sale' but haven't mastered the subtleties yet. The really difficult bit (hair for instance) is very demanding on my eyes.

I was tempted to buy the whole lot, when it was on offer last time, but resisted. It's all wonderful stuff to play with, but I want/need to learn RAW converting before I buy more software.

[ABERS]

I'm in a bit of a quandry here. Having always shot in RAW can anyone tell me the difference between working in RAW and working in Jpeg. When I read about all the different software and gizmos available I get confused and think perhaps I'm missing out on something.

Surely if what ever you have works, or you can work it to your satisfaction, carry on using it. After all if your image has nothing to commend it in the first place, whatever you shoot in is irrelevant.

I attended a demonstration of digital manipulation Tuesday evening and I was amazed at the route the 'demonstrator' took to arrive at his final image. There must be a few permutations on how to use the software to end up with what you plan because the way he went was nowhere near the way I would go, a bit like going to Paris via Glasgow starting out from London, if you get my drift.

[Oldboy]

There must be a few permutations on how to use the software to end up with what you plan because the way he went was nowhere near the way I would go, a bit like going to Paris via Glasgow starting out from London, if you get my drift.

It was cheaper going that way!   

[SimonW]

Hi Abers,

I'm not certain, but I think jpgs can only carry 8 bit per channel colour, while your camera can save 12 or 14 (possibly more?) bpc in a RAW file. A raw editor should be able to use all those bits and output as a Tiff or another format which can preserve them.

I've sometimes seen jpg files which have been colour, contrast etc adjusted till their histograms resemble combs and banding is evident in skies etc. which I thought was due to the lower bpc. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that editing the original RAW file (if there was one) would have avoided this.

Simon

[Hinfrance]

Alan, there really is not that much difference in day to day terms in editing RAW and jpgs. With RAW you can keep the original image without thinking about first saving a master copy (but I usually only work on a virtual or duplicate anyway - I just think it's a good habit), and also with RAW the image, because it has a lot more colour information - a much higher bit depth, is able to take more extreme editing without showing signs of degradation. This gives you a lot more leeway in editing the shadows and highlights for example. You may also notice that colour gradients in RAW images are much smoother. In 8 bit images a graduated blue sky, for example, may appear to have bands of colour rather than an overall smooth change.

As for getting where you want to go with an edit there are probably more ways to a result than there are spots on a leopard, many of them equally good.

[Andrew]

I'm in a bit of a quandry here. Having always shot in RAW can anyone tell me the difference between working in RAW and working in Jpeg. When I read about all the different software and gizmos available I get confused and think perhaps I'm missing out on something.

Surely if what ever you have works, or you can work it to your satisfaction, carry on using it. After all if your image has nothing to commend it in the first place, whatever you shoot in is irrelevant.

I attended a demonstration of digital manipulation Tuesday evening and I was amazed at the route the 'demonstrator' took to arrive at his final image. There must be a few permutations on how to use the software to end up with what you plan because the way he went was nowhere near the way I would go, a bit like going to Paris via Glasgow starting out from London, if you get my drift.

Alan, if it works - stick with it... JPG has its place, as does RAW & as does TIFF or DNG.

Some one was good enough to point out how to use a keyboard combibation to select the eraser option in the brush tool in LR.
My response was "why not just click on the eraser icon? Or is that the lazy way?" I asked.
An amused reply came back that they were just trying to make people aware of keyboard controls.

[Oldboy]

Some one was good enough to point out how to use a keyboard combibation to select the eraser option in the brush tool in LR.
My response was "why not just click on the eraser icon? Or is that the lazy way?" I asked.
An amused reply came back that they were just trying to make people aware of keyboard controls.

In the days before mice and PCs only had a 10mb hard drive, shortcut keys was all you had. The trouble was Wordperfect used a different setup to Lotus 1-2-3. To help you out you had a card that fitted over the Function keys with the shortcuts listed, when changing from Lotus 1-2-3 to Wordperfect you swapped the card. 

[Markulous]

My RAW was definitely helped along by my first dSLR only shooting RAW - and haven't shot JPG since that day. I'm sure if my shooting life revolved around the aseptic conditions of a studio, I'd be shooting JPGs as everything can be totally controlled - but I shoot outside and, in the main, it's rapidly moving subjects in any direction under changeable weather - so RAW helps towards getting as good a start point as possible. Never batch process for the same reason; each shot is nudged towards what I consider to be an optimum final image (which may be for a website, news, press release, print, a canvas or the side of a vehicle/marquee)