Professional Photography : Lightroom

Camera RAW 101: Why Shoot RAW?

Eileen Fritsch — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:49:00 GMT

Although blogs and websites are great ways to pick up snippets of useful information and insights, reading (and writing) photography books can help put a lot of complex information into perspective. My newest book was published by Amphotos Books in August.

Entitled Camera Raw 101: Better Photos with Photoshop, Elements and Lightroom, it was written for any digital photographer who is interested in going beyond the preset options in the camera and is ready to take control over the creative process. The book provides the information you need to make RAW work for you, including setting up a preliminary workflow, using and automating Adobe Camera RAW, and basic and advanced conversion options. The book also includes a detailed comparison of Adobe Camera RAW features in Photoshop Elements and Photoshop CS4 and Lightroom 2.1. In the following excerpt from the book’s introduction, I explain why you should shoot RAW and suggest when RAW isn’t the best choice.

Why You Should Shoot Raw: When total control and the highest possible image quality are needed, RAW is the perfect format to use. The greater dynamic range, color depth, and post-capture editing capabilities make the RAW format the best choice in most situations.

RAW files shouldn’t be seen as the lazy person’s way to great images, though. A poorly composed image, an out-of-focus image, or one with gross exposure errors isn’t going to be magically transformed into a quality photograph because you were able to edit the RAW file. It is the responsibility of the photographer to capture the best possible image at the time of capture.

Advantages over JPEG and TIFF: RAW files free the photographer from having to be satisfied with what the camera thinks are the correct values for sharpening, noise reduction, and white balance. The differences can be startling! Since this information is all stored in addition to the file, it becomes possible to make changes to them after the fact. This is where the RAW format becomes so valuable.

When shooting in JPEG the camera processes the color values based on the current white balance setting in the camera to create a final image. The file is then compressed to save space using the current quality setting in the camera. RAW capture, on the other hand, does no color interpretation in-camera but depends on the RAW converter software to handle this task. Hence, you have much more freedom after the capture to either fine-tune the image or make corrections to basic problems, such as improperly set white balance.

RAW is the only capture method that preserves the full color fidelity of the image. With JPEG, you automatically throw away one third of the color information in your image. The sensor in most cameras records data as a 12- or 14-bit file, giving each pixel one of 4,096 levels or more of color. To take advantage of this, you’ll need to shoot in RAW mode. JPEG only supports 8 bits per pixel, reducing the possible colors to 256 per pixel. Less color information means that yu have less latitude when editing the image for final output.

JPEG is a lossy compression method. Every time a file is saved in the JPEG format it loses a little more fidelity.

JPEG and TIFF also apply sharpening and noise reduction at the time of capture. If you’ve set these incorrectly, and don’t catch the error, you have little choice in the edit phase. I strongly feel that the camera does not know what my intended use for an image is and should never be allowed to choose the sharpening or noise reductions it “thinks” I want.

Saving in camera in TIFF is becoming much less common in recent cameras. Although some, such as the Canon DSLRs, actually tag their RAW files as TIFF, these are not true TIFF files. TIFF, or Tagged Image File Format, is a standard file type for bitmap, or raster, data. Unlike JPEGs, TIFFs are not subject to lossy compression or to only 8 bits of color information. The file sizes are large; a 16-bit TIFF file will be about three times the size of the same RAW file, because TIFF is saved to 16 bits rather than the 12 or 14 bits recorded by the camera. The extra bit depth is an advantage over JPEG, but the same control issues that JPEG suffers from are present in TIFF capture as well. Color balance, sharpening, and noise reduction are all applied directly to the image at the time of capture. The only advantage that TIFF offers over JPEGs is color fidelity and lossless compression. To be honest, I can’t think of a single instance where saving a TIFF file in camera is a good option.

When RAW isn’t the Best Choice: There are times when the extra work involved with RAW processing can’t be justified. As an example, photojournalists will typically shoot in JPEG when shooting for assignments. The image files are smaller, important for quick transfer to the newsroom, and the JPEGs can be used with little or no extra work before publishing. Another time when JPEGs may be a better choice is when you are shooting youth sports events and want to make prints for sale right at the site. This is another case of speed being more important than quality.

I love to share information on digital imaging and photography, and I hope my new book reflects this passion. I’d love to hear from you with comments about Adobe Camera Raw or to share your experiences.

Understand Your Imaging Software Needs

Eileen Fritsch — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:22:00 GMT

By Wayne Cosshall

The general assumption is that photographers need to use Photoshop as their primary image-editing and workflow software. But this may not be the best option. Just as we use the right lens for the right job, so it is with software.

While Photoshop is the most high-profile piece of software, it wasn’t designed primarily for photographers. In fact, many of its features have little to do with photography and more to do with prepress, graphic design, and web design.

So what are the alternatives for photographers? In the designed-for-photographers category are Adobe’s Lightroom (which has just announced Version 2) and Apple’s Aperture. Lightroom is for Mac and Windows; Aperture is for Mac only. Both programs enable you to organize your images not only so you can find recent work, but also so you can more efficiently manage specific tasks or projects. Both offer great overall image adjustments that are enough for most images.

The programs go beyond Photoshop in other ways too. Both can serve as a platform from which to print images. Although I haven’t yet had a chance to try Version 2 of Lightroom, I have been exploring the facilities in Aperture for using Apple’s printing service to print photography books.

A recent trip into Photoshop Elements caused a surprise. Since the last version I had a good look at, Photoshop Elements has evolved to include most of the Photoshop features that a photographer would ever need, including layers. This means it should be quite possible for a serious hobbyist or professional photographer to use Photoshop Elements as their main imaging software and avoid the extra cost and memory needs of Photoshop itself. Photoshop Elements is also quite responsive, making fast work in the field easier.

Beyond the AA (Adobe and Apple) products, are other products for handling RAW workflows, such as Capture One from Phase One (a new Pro version is expected before the end of the year), Bibble (which is expected to go to version 5 soon) and others. Each has various strengths and will appeal to some photographers, allowing all or most of the imaging work to be done without Photoshop. Of course, many photographers are also perfectly happy with Paint Shop Pro or other software.

There are now so many options, that your challenge is to figure out which software is worth spending the time on to give it a proper trial. Just like cameras, some software will feel better in some hands than others. And even though all software companies offer 30-day trials, it can be a hassle to take them up on the offer. Each product is sufficiently involved and uses quite different approaches that there is a fairly impressive learning curve. So you probably won’t have time to try all of the products yourself. That is where published reviews can come in handy. Better yet, now you can watch the increasing number of videos of the software being used so you see which seem to resonate with the way you like to work. All software requires changes in the way you work but you want to minimize how large the change will be.

Nothing is a given anymore in photography and Photoshop may not be necessary for you, or even the best solution to your needs. See if there is something that works better for you.

Streamlining Your Workflow

Eileen Fritsch — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:07:00 GMT

By Jon Canfield

If you’re anything like me, you are probably spending more time on the road and doing more of your initial image processing on a laptop in an effort to stay on top of the hundreds of images a typical shooting session generates. I used to just copy my images to something like the Epson P-5000, but now I always travel with a laptop and prefer to upload to that every evening. I travel with a Western Digital 320GB external drive that all my images are uploaded to.

My workflow tool of choice is Adobe Lightroom, which lets me import images directly to a location I specify, in this case the external drive, and assign keywords and other metadata to the images. After importing, I do a quick pass to delete the obvious bad shots (which I always seem to have plenty of).This works great for my field work, and saves me hours of time when I get back home. But, at home I work on a desktop computer, not a laptop. This is one of the reasons I settled on Lightroom. I can easily export all of my images as a catalog, including folders, keywords, and collections, from the external drive and then import them into my master catalog on the server. So, none of my field work is wasted, and I’m able to immediately start processing images for submission or web use.

There are plenty of other options out there, such as Aperture (Mac only), Microsoft Expression Media, even Adobe Bridge which is included with Photoshop, just to name a few. The key is to find a tool that you’re comfortable with and use it regularly, making it second nature to process your images every time you shoot. It’s more useful when you work on multiple computers, but even with a single computer, you’ll find that you are spending more time on shooting and image editing and less time on sorting and organizing them.

Previewing Black-and-White Conversions

BlogArchive — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 15:19:00 GMT

By David Saffir

Deep down, I’m in love with the look and feel of black-and-white prints. When I was 11 years old or so, I dove into photography in a big way. And because it was less expensive, black-and-white was my medium of choice.

The wonder of watching prints magically appear in the darkroom has never left me. I still experience many of the same feelings when watching a print I’ve worked on come off the inkjet printer. Perhaps it’s a bit less mysterious, but it’s always a thrill.

So now the puzzle: What’s the best way to make high-quality black-and-white images using digital technology? I’ve tried using the presets offered in some cameras, but the trade-offs in image quality are even worse than the ones involved in shooting JPEG instead of the RAW format. It just dumps too much image information to be really useful.

That means the best choice is to shoot in color, and convert the image to black and white later.

What’s the best way to do this?

One way is to use image-editing software such as Adobe® Photoshop® Lightroom®. Lightroom comes with a number of presets that let you replicate traditional darkroom processes for toning, contrast, and special effects. These presets are remarkably easy, quick, and fun to use. And the previews are a snap! Simply roll your mouse pointer over the preset, and voila! The thumbnail shows you a preview (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1

If the range of presets that Adobe provides isn’t sufficient, you can download other presets that have been created by individual photographers.

Or, you can try some of the conversion presets included with the black-and-white adjustment layer in Adobe Photoshop CS3. These presets are very useful, and many correspond to film-based techniques (i.e., they simulate the use of a colored filter to increase contrast, etc.)

One thing that has always troubled me when testing options for black-and-white conversions is the “before and after” issue. What’s the best way to visually compare the converted image to your original?

I’ve tried using duplicate windows, layer comps, and other techniques, but the pace was too slow. Recently I came up with another idea (which may not be new to many of you). The method is illustrated in Fig. 2, and involves six steps in Photoshop CS3.

Make a selection in the image.
Create an adjustment layer from the selection.
Experiment with different conversion settings.

Fig. 2

Working this way lets you see the changes side-by-side with the original, in real time. I have found that I prefer this method over other viewing options in Photoshop. And the new dialog box in CS3 includes six channels, up from three available in the Channel Mixer dialog.

Save the combined settings you’ve developed as a preset by clicking on the tool in the Photoshop dialog box in Fig. 3.
Delete the partial adjustment layer.
Create a new adjustment layer, and load your saved preset.

Fig. 3

Your image is now a custom-tuned black-and-white masterpiece!

Gritty Photos Made Easy

BlogArchive — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:52:00 GMT

By Jon Canfield

Last month I wrote about creating HDR (High Dynamic Range) photographs. This is a process in which you merge several different exposures together to get an expanded amount of detail. There’s been a lot of interest on the web lately about using HDR to create what many people are calling the “Grunge” look. These are images that are processed beyond the ordinary to have a nearly illustrative look.

While HDR still gives you the most flexibility in creating this type of imagery, you can create a similar effect with a single image. You just need to process it with extreme settings.

Please note that I make no claim as to creating this method, and I’m really not sure who did create it, but it’s a look that I found interesting and decided to explore.

I’m using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom for this example, but you could do the same thing in Adobe Camera Raw or, most likely, many of the other RAW converters. I prefer to work with RAW images for this type of editing as there is more information to work with, and the edits are not destructive – I can always go back and process the image in a more normal fashion.

To start with, select the image you want to process. Now, do something you’d never otherwise consider doing:

Move the Recovery slider all the way to the right so it reads 100.

Move the Fill Light slider all the way to the right so it reads 100.

Move the Clarity slider all the way to the right so that it reads 100.

Move the Vibrance slider, you guessed it, all the way to the right.

Right now, the image is looking pretty bad, and you’re probably thinking I’m nuts. But, this is where the magic begins.

Move the saturation slider to the left (I threw you on that one, right?) to bring the saturation way down. It looks best if you leave a little color in the image, so don’t go all the way to -100.

Now, increase the Blacks to build some black back into the image. (You might have to play with the Exposure setting to get something that looks right.)

The final step for me is to use the Vignette control to darken the corners, which really enhances the feel.

While this works great with some images, you’ll need to evaluate what you’re trying to accomplish. The samples shown here were good subjects since they had an old and neglected look to begin with. I certainly wouldn’t try this on a portrait.

Finally, I print the image on a luster or gloss paper. This is one of the few times I’ll use gloss media, but I find that it gives a nice contrast and usually helps to show the fine details in the image

Integrating New Workflow Tools

Eileen Fritsch — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 17:14:00 GMT

By Michael Frye

It was one of those moments when you think, “Of course. Why didn’t someone think of this before?” I was at Photo Plus Expo in New York in 2005, watching a demonstration of Apple’s new Aperture™ program. I’d been shooting digitally for two years, and I was seeing a tool designed to solve one of my biggest problems: how to sort, edit, and organize the vast number of digital image files I was producing. Aperture was designed to work with Raw files, and featured tools like “stacks” that could quickly sort similar images into groups for comparison, and a “loupe” for zooming in and checking sharpness. It had basic image processing tools, including a way to retouch dust spots.

Photoshop has long been the image-processing gold standard, but here was an application that might allow me to do everything from editing to printing or building a web page without ever touching Photoshop. I was anxious to try it, but initial reports of slow performance made me hesitate, especially since Apple didn’t offer free trials. Then in February 2006 Adobe announced a public beta release of its competing product, Lightroom™.

I’ve since tested each update of Lightroom, and finally broke down and purchased Aperture (just before they began offering a 30-day free trial!). Here are a few thoughts:

User Interface
To me, Lightroom is much easier to learn. With Aperture I’ve often delved deeply into the manual or online help to learn things that should be obvious. Lightroom doesn’t have a manual (it’s still in beta) but I haven’t needed it.

Features
Both have many good features, but Aperture clearly has more of them, including the stacks, loupe, and retouching tools. The Light Table is also a great idea, allowing you to make and print completely custom pages. Maybe the final version of Lightroom will add similar functions, but we won’t know until that day comes. Of course, these extra features add complexity and account for some, but not all, of Aperture’s steeper learning curve.

Speed
Owing to the difficulty of working directly with Raw images, neither program is zippy, but the latest (beta 4) version of Lightroom renders changes a bit faster than Aperture 1.5 on my Intel-powered Macbook Pro.

Image Processing Tools
Lightroom is more sophisticated here, offering Curves where Aperture only has Levels, camera calibration, and corrections for color fringing and vignetting (if you’re familiar with Adobe Camera Raw, the tools are similar in Lightroom).

Compatibility
Aperture only works with Macs, and only the latest and most powerful ones at that, so Windows users are out of luck, and many Mac users will have to upgrade their hardware.

Neither program is a clear winner. They both have advantages and disadvantages. If you want to avoid using Photoshop and don’t need the most sophisticated processing controls, Aperture is probably the best choice, as it just does more. The lack of any way to way to retouch dust spots in Lightroom (at least so far) limits its use as a standalone program. If you intend to bring most images into Photoshop anyway, and want more sophisticated raw conversion tools, Lightroom might be a better choice. For now, I’m using Lightroom to edit and do Raw conversions, but finish the processing in Photoshop. I use Lightroom’s color fringing correction on about half of my images, so that feature alone makes Lightroom a better choice for me. And I’m not ready to delete Photoshop’s muscle from my workflow.

Lightroom, Aperture, and Photoshop will continue to evolve and add new features. And other tools will emerge as well. Maybe we’ll have another collective moment where we go, “Why didn’t someone think of that before?” As more choices become available, we will all face decisions about whether to adopt these new tools as part of our workflow, or stick with what’s worked in the past. These will never be easy choices.

It helps to get other people’s opinions. But what works for me might not work for you. Free software trials are great, but nothing is really free: you still must spend time learning the program.

The whole process of researching and trying new tools has simply become part of our job description. No one likes spending hours learning new software, and you certainly can’t try everything. But if a new program offers the real possibility of improving your productivity or the quality of your output, you can’t afford not to try it.What do you think about Aperture or Lightroom? And what about learning and adapting new tools into your workflow? I’d really love to hear your thoughts.