Post processing how to.

[Mike Hill]

I was in process of coming up with an answer and then the question was gone.  Here's my answer to the workflow question anyway.

As an old film (mainly transparency) guy - my old habits are hard to break.  I try to rely on everything being right before I hit the shutter.  I also gauge what the final use of what I am taking.  I've been well pleased with my camera's jpeg settings and unless I know the exposure or something has to be adjusted or on the remote possibilty I am going to make a large enlargement, I stick with jpeg mostly, but increasingly (as I get bigger and faster cards) shooting in duplicate (RAW and jpeg) formats.  Post-processing, I tend to stay with something simple like Picasa.  If I've done my job correctly there usually isn't just that much that that is needed.  Some images may need a tweak on the sharpness button to look better, but more often than not, a small tweak on brightness or contrast  is all I do.  On purpose, I tend to shoot slightly underexposed so I don't blow out the highlights.  Unless I forget to correctly set my white balance, there is not much I do.  I'm old school, large amounts of post processing stick out like a sore thumb at times.  I "know" from film experience that that image could not have looked like it looks unless a lot of post-processing has occured.  And unless you are trying for some sort of special effect for artsy effect, a lot of post-processing is sorta ......untruthful.  In other words, how can I trust the image I'm seeing is a truthful representation of reality if it is post-processed - what may you have added or taken away?  OK for "art", but not ok for recording reality.  Ok, I'll get down off my pulpit now. 

Is RAW better - certainly!  But is it necessary (such as 24.5 mp sensors)?  No, not most of the time.  Especially in snapshot mode or for the web or for many publications.  That much information is not necessary.   Having said that do I have CS3 (hoping to get CS4 upgrade for Christmas) on a 17" MacbookPro and am I wishing for the new D3x - you betcha!  Right now, I only use CS3 for special processing - I don't know it well enough yet to use for my everyday shots. 

My workflow is pretty simple. 
1.  Download via hot wire reader. 
2.  Open Picasa and view one image at a time
3.  Pick the best of my bracketed shots (yes Virginia, I still bracket)
4.  Crop the shot for best composition.
5.  Use the sliders to adjust brightness and or contrast if needed
6.  Then try the sharpness button and if it improve the image I keep the setting.  \
7.  Save and repeat on next image. 

If it is a more serious shot, then I might open the RAW in CS3 (the first "photoshop" to open Nikon RAW files natively) and use 16 bit processing and use the curves to set and adjust brightness and contrast on different layers in a digital blending technique that allows you to adjust the highlights and the shadow on different layers by fine tuning the curves into classic
S shapes, and then blend.  The unsharp mask is also useful for helping you make the image look sharper (probably overused and abused).  Color correction is adjusted by using the appropriate color sliders and then possibly a saturation "correction" (another possibly overused and abused) before saving it as an 8 bit image.  All this takes some time, especially since it is not second nature yet, and would take quite a while with 250 images.  Since I don't make a living at it, I can't put that much time into it. 

BTW one of the more important things to do for post-processing is color-correcting your monitor. 

[MikeA]

Sorry MIke I was in the process of reading google and wanted to repost my questions. I edited your post title.

The original post was about jpg IQ loss and what’s the best way to process images out of the camera. I'm getting tired of losing IQ to jpg and want to start using RAW format for most everything. I asked Mike and Eric to describe their workflow from camera to print.

[MikeA]

Mike one of the problems I run into is I'll pick out the best images at home and batch resize and save them to a flash drive for upload elsewhere (high speed connection...). Then when I get elsewhere sometimes I want to crop or do something else to the photo. However at this point it's already been resized and any adjustments (especially crop) degrade the IQ  dramatically.

As I progress I’m discovering that storage, processing, etc are as vital to shooting good images as the shooting part. I want to learn to maximize my cameras ability 100% since I often blame equipment for bad shots. I want to be able to remove any doubt that it’s anything but the nut loose behind the viewfinder when I’m not happy with results.

I use Picasa also and I admint it’s a great program. Maybe if I made my crops and changes to the original jpg I’d be better off but as of now I don’t. That means I save it three times in jpg 1. in camera, 2. batch resize save, 3. edits to saved pics before uploading. From what I understand about jpg each save causes loss and IQ degradation.

Of course I've debated this before and though I know RAW format wins hands down, the post work was just overwhelming for the amount of shooting I do.
I’m interested in the Camera Raw converter program that Adobe uses. I have CS2 and when I get home I’ll find out if my A700 is supported. If not I sure can’t afford CS4!!!   

[MikeA]

Dug this up today. Pretty good easy to read article on RAW vs jpg.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

[MikeA]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

[Mike Hill]

Not too sure if I've read Ken Rockwell's take on this, but I can imagine his take is that RAW is great, but not usually necessary.  I value Ken's opinions over just about any others.  Down to earth and to the point - plus he has generally actually done some of the testing when others only write about something they have heard.   

One of the "problems" with RAW is that is just the recording of the actual data from the sensors - it is not a picture shall we say!  The algorithims and other data processing that goes into taking that data and make it a viewable image are proprietary programs - Canon is diff. than Nikon, and they are diff. than XYZ, etc....  While JPEG (JPG) is an industry "standard".  There is quite a possiblilty that the RAW file you save today, you might not be able to open 5 years from now with the software available then.  Ever try to open old word processing files or old spreadsheet files?  JPEG format "should" be more standard over the years. 

Is RAW better - Probably!  If you are a tinkerer or really don't want to take the time to get the shot correct in-camera then RAW is the way to go.  But for most of us JPEG is the route.  In actuality there is very little difference in the quality or the look of an image in RAW or JPEG - or at least not that most would even be able to discern.

I seldom make changes to the original JPEG file.  So I am usually saving the original and the changed image.  Any changes except for very minor brightness, sharpness, etc... are made on a copy.  Just making a copy on your machine doesn't cause any noticable degradation.  It's when you open and resave the file the degradation occurs.  If I have to make a copy of the JPEG, I usually make it in file manager, not in a photoediting program.  I've heard of some guy who tested this and said that he did it hundreds of times with no problems.  Another problems while copying is mainly when copying from your computer to a CD or DVD.  JPEG is a compression, and then when copying to them is also a compression.  Theoritically that will also degrade RAW files also.  I just remembered I did save the guy with the saving tests on Delicious.  Here is the link http://www.prophotoshow.net/blog/2008/03/25/file-format-degradation-saving-destructive-edits-compared/

Most RAW programs don't make the tweaks to the original data, but to the processed data.  I believe that there are some programs or add-ons available now that streamline the RAW workflow and make it faster.  I believe they also work with elements.  That may be the route you need to go.  I can't recall any names or where to buy them, but it should be an easy google search. 

I'm probably not the best to ask, because I just don't post process much.  A cropping because I might have been too lazy to get the best position, and maybe a tweak to brightness or contrast.  I usually don't resize until it goes onto photobucket or wherever i'm using for hosting.  Those highly saturated or tonal blended HDR images out there are technically amazing, but unnatural to me.  Even your eyes don't have enough dynamic range to make everything in a scene be as sharply focused as these heavily processed images are.  They are just not "natural" to me.