Hi guys,

I tried searching the forums for an answer for this one but I cannot seem to find it. How much time does it take you to process a raw file to get to a proof-material photo? What is your workflow technique until you get the picture to at least a proof-material photo?

Thanks,

Marco

Depends on so many factors.
Image size. Computer specs. Software you are using.

From images from a Canon 20D (8megapixels), using Canon's Digital Photo Professional Software, run on a Pentium 4 3ghz HT PC with 2 gig ram - it takes 8 to 9 seconds to convert an image from RAW to TIFF using the batch process.

With images from a 1Ds II (16.6 megapixels) using the same set-up, it takes 27-28 seconds per image.

Of course those specs are for pure conversion. Does not include the time you take tweaking the images prior to conversion. If the shots are a series taken with the same lighting set-up, the tweaking can be pretty fast. You just tweak one image, copy the recipe of adjustments, then paste that recipe to the rest of the photos. After all is done, batch process them.

Hmmm.. as short as 2 mins from RAW to Jpeg or as long as 2 hours per image.. this question is like how long is a piece of string? If you dont have to do much correction to an image.. extremely short time.. if you do.. can be hours for that perfect touch..

Depends on so many factors.
Image size. Computer specs. Software you are using.


This is probably the most accurate answer you can get Marco. :)

Thanks guys. The reason I am asking is, sometimes it takes me at least an hour tweaking an image and I am just wondering if what I am doing is normal.

Thanks guys. The reason I am asking is, sometimes it takes me at least an hour tweaking an image and I am just wondering if what I am doing is normal.

That's perfectly normal Marco. Believe me. :) It really depends sometimes on how you treat a specific image... The hours just seem to pass by if you think that you're getting somewhere and that the image has more potential than what is presented superficially in preview... Galing talaga ng Raw diba! :) Anyway, just keep track though of your XMP (sidecar) files; and find a way to manage them separately so that at least you can save your specific settings or tweaks--organized that you can still come back to them at a later time.

Thanks guys. The reason I am asking is, sometimes it takes me at least an hour tweaking an image and I am just wondering if what I am doing is normal.

What RAW software are you using?
Although Adobe's RAW conversion offers a lot more options, using the RAW conversion software provided by the camera manufacturer can make the process faster. For example, I notice that I have to do so much more tweaking with Adobe RAW to be able to get the colors right, etc. When I open a RAW file it often lacks a bit of saturation, contrast, etc. When I open the same RAW file in Canon's Digital Photo Professional, I find the images much more pleasing even without tweaking - the colors and contrast are so much better. The reason being that the camera manufacturer's software was tailor made for their own cameras. The specific camera profiles are built into the software, thus it is able to render the RAW images better instantly as it takes into consideration the nuances of the particular camera. In many cases, if exposure was done correctly upon capture, very little tweaking is needed.

Anyway, just keep track though of your XMP (sidecar) files; and find a way to manage them separately so that at least you can save your specific settings or tweaks--organized that you can still come back to them at a later time.

Mr. Earl,

What do you mean by this? What is XMP (sidecar) files? And how do I save the settings?

---------------
Mr Louie,

I have been using AdobeRAW. And I agree with you that files opened by it often lacks the contrast and saturation and sharpness too.

I have just downloaded Pixmantec's RawShooter Essentials (have to get it while it's free before Adobe turns it into another expensice product! he he...) yesterday and was playing around with it. I think it could significantly lessen my raw processing time (theoretically, from the User Guide). I have opened a file (in Photoshop CS) that was generated by it and somehow, I think it got the saturation, contrast and sharpness right right away. So one less step in Adobe.

Thanks,

Marco

Mr. Earl,

What do you mean by this? What is XMP (sidecar) files? And how do I save the settings?

Marco

XMP or eXtensible Metadata Platform are files or standardized data platforms which are based on XML (eXtensible Markup Language). In a nutshell, this file stores Metadata... Now (.xmp) sidecar files are files which store said metadata if this files cannot be directly stored inside an XMP file. Whenever you modify settings in your Raw file, so that these said settings won't be lost, these are saved separately in the form of a (.xmp) "sidecar" file in the same folder which your original Raw file resides. :)

Mr. Earl,

Are these done by Photoshop, or some other kind of software? I saw that RawShooter saves its settings on an .RWS file. I think it performs the same kind of thing you are talking about. What's good with RawShooter is you can also make snapshots of your raw files so as you change it, you can view the difference from one setting against another immediately. And all these without ever touching your RAW file.

Thanks.

Hi Marco, I know what you mean. I also use RS premium... It's a fast RAW processor. (look here (http://www.digitalphotographer.com.ph/forum/showthread.php?t=126)) Anyway, just remember when you modify RAW files, its properties doesn't really get changed physically or directly. The settings you apply to it are just saved as a separate file, if it cannot be integrated within the RAW file's metadata. But these settings aren't permanent and can be changed and tweaked anytime you work with the file. That's the beauty of RAW, all changes are reversible, unlike working with destructive JPGs. :)

[QUOTE=Marco_Ingco]Hi guys,

I tried searching the forums for an answer for this one but I cannot seem to find it. How much time does it take you to process a raw file to get to a proof-material photo? What is your workflow technique until you get the picture to at least a proof-material photo?


funny the subject of raw shooting is discussed in the wedding forum. if i'm not mistaken only a minority of wedding photographers shoot raw.

:<)

funny the subject of raw shooting is discussed in the wedding forum. if i'm not mistaken only a minority of wedding photographers shoot raw.

:<)

:Grin: True (Sir) Eddie Boy.

funny the subject of raw shooting is discussed in the wedding forum. if i'm not mistaken only a minority of wedding photographers shoot raw.
:<)

Oh boy (no pun intended)... that puts me in the minority then. It's just that sometimes the camera's white balance gets the scene wrong and sometimes I would get minor exposure errors. With raw, I don't have to think about this and just worry about composing the pictures. I am not a seasoned pro like you, Sir Eddie Boy, so I need the flexibility that raw gives me.

Cheers!

Oh boy (no pun intended)... that puts me in the minority then. It's just that sometimes the camera's white balance gets the scene wrong and sometimes I would get minor exposure errors. With raw, I don't have to think about this and just worry about composing the pictures. I am not a seasoned pro like you, Sir Eddie Boy, so I need the flexibility that raw gives me.

Cheers!

:) We're on the same boat Marco. I shoot raw too, most of the time... For archival quality that is.

Oh boy (no pun intended)... that puts me in the minority then. It's just that sometimes the camera's white balance gets the scene wrong and sometimes I would get minor exposure errors. With raw, I don't have to think about this and just worry about composing the pictures. I am not a seasoned pro like you, Sir Eddie Boy, so I need the flexibility that raw gives me.

Cheers!

sus, don't get me wrong, i'd shoot raw, too, if i could, but having to go thru over 1000 pics per wedding will drive me absolutely nuts.

:<)

sus, don't get me wrong, i'd shoot raw, too, if i could, but having to go thru over 1000 pics per wedding will drive me absolutely nuts.

:<)

I'm sure (Sir) Eddie Boy you can nail most of your shots, shooting in Raw or not... :)

I've been shooting RAW for years now.. that doesnt mean I dont have to nail my shots.. but there are so much more advantages to it that nailing exposure. I wont go into this debate.. no point.. you just wont know until you make it part of your workflow.. and the time taken from downloading card to outputting for print is actually faster for an average wedding than shooting jpegs because I do not have to open up each file in full resolution in photoshop to correct stuff. Those that say professional wedding photogs dont shoot RAW doesnt know squat. Internationally renown wedding photogs like Joe Buissin shoot RAW. How do I know this? He uses Aperture.

The other advantage of shooting RAW is the quality of workfiles that we can produce from RAW. Shooting jpegs means you start work from a compress source.. shoot RAW means you can work from an uncompressed tiff. The only drawback I can see from RAW is the huge amount of storage space needed. Incredible.. have 3Tb of files now.. over 2 yrs.. and loads more in DVD archives.