Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: streamling digital workflow

  1. #21
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bt Timah
    Posts
    453

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    Quote Originally Posted by nemesis32 View Post
    i think this method of skipping tiff file also mean you are limited by LR's ability to correct the photos as compared to CS.
    i'm not much of a PP person actually... n LR is definitely good for making small changes to a big number of photos hasslefree..some shots that need to PS, i will PS it..

    i dunno much about tiff..y must tiff then PS? ok i shall not ask stupid qns n will instead google about difference btwn tiff n jpg
    Canon: 5DMkIII, 7D, 2470f2.8L, 50f1.8, 70200f2.8L IS II, 430EX II, 600EX
    kineticexpressions.org

  2. #22

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    in my opinion, one should save the RAW files... not only would you be able to reprocess your files differently in the future, as well, with improving RAW processing software providing better noise handling and sharpening, one could process better images with the same RAW files in the future...

    as for processed image files, using layered compressed TIFs not only allow the use of layers and masks and all that post-processing goodness, it also potentially produces much smaller files than PSDs because of its lossless compression...

  3. #23

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    Quote Originally Posted by theRBK View Post
    as for processed image files, using layered compressed TIFs not only allow the use of layers and masks and all that post-processing goodness, it also potentially produces much smaller files than PSDs because of its lossless compression...
    compressed TIFF with layers = TZW TIFF?

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    3,717

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    Quote Originally Posted by jkaiser View Post
    i'm not much of a PP person actually... n LR is definitely good for making small changes to a big number of photos hasslefree..some shots that need to PS, i will PS it..

    i dunno much about tiff..y must tiff then PS? ok i shall not ask stupid qns n will instead google about difference btwn tiff n jpg
    Raw and Tiff are "lossless" whereas jpeg will have degradation of quality after PS, especially if excessively done.

  5. #25

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    Quote Originally Posted by skopio View Post
    compressed TIFF with layers = TZW TIFF?
    losslessly compressed TIFF = LZW or ZIP TIFF (but with ZIP you might not get a preview of the image in your OS browser...)
    to save layers the relevant option has to be checked...

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    I always save my raw. This is my original. Sometimes I go back to them and reprocess them as I learn new techniques or acquire better software. After initial adjustments in my raw converter, I convert it to jpeg at the highest quality and process it in Photoshop or whatever. Then I save this processed jpeg at the highest quality. Then as needed, sometimes right away, sometimes later, I resize it for printing and print it or resize it to post in Photobucket to use it online.

    Saving the raw, a tiff, a PSD, and a full size jpeg and a resized jpeg used for printing or monitor view? No thanks. What practical use is a tiff over a full size jpeg except for taking up a lot of space? What good is a PSD if I have to start all over again from scratch to process it differently later, again due to learning new techniques or acquiring different software? Jpegs are lossy? That means once you downsize it, you can't make it bigger. The 100% jpeg image is surprisingly close in appearance to the raw image after conversion and needs to be compared at beyond 100% to actually see any difference. So why bother with huge tiff files?

    Can anyone show me 100% crops of a tiff and a jpeg from a raw image that are in any way better both going into Photoshop and also after processing? They're both 8 bit original size files. How much difference is to be expected in them? What about jpegs from the camera that the majority of people (and I often use) for monitor display and printing? We should worry they are not tiffs?

    Those kind enough to educate me on the notieceable difference between full size jpeg files and tiff files, perhaps you can then downsize them to 1/4 their size to show how they might look in a 300 ppi print at the actual size shown on screen. And then downsize them to 700x900 for a nice monitor view and we'll see how much difference there really is between a tiff and a jpeg. Tiff is for sending photos to magazines. They need them for that type of printing. I use jpeg for monitor views and printing with a inkjet printer. I honestly see no reason for using tiff and I can bet many people using it have never done the comparisons to determine if it's actually needed at all.

    Actually doing a comparison oneself is of course the best way to really make the right decison. I honestly don't see any difference in my final results using tiff over jpeg. Some may and I'm not one to judge how others do things despite my ranting tone making it seem that way. I rant because I see so many comparisons of things with photography that people have not actually tested themeselves and go only by what they hear and many who do actual comparisons, raw vs jpeg, digicam vs dslr, Is vs no IS, film vs digital, Canon vs Nikon, 4/3 vs cropped sensors, do them in such an uncontrolled way, or compare only one detail from an entire system of details that matter also, it's as if some of these people first decide their results and then are trying to make them come true.

    My suggestion to the OP is to try just about everything and save everything for awhile and look for ways to minimize your workflow, stop doing what isn't worth the effort, keep doing what is and never stop looking for better ways. Better for you, not better for someone else. Find the unique approach, the combination of convenience, results, expenditure of time or money that is right for you and only you are actually capable of finding. Only by actually trying many approaches will you really find the right one for you.

    My choice is to shoot raw+jpeg, save both as originals if they're keepers, delete them if they're not, convert the basically processed raw to jpeg if I decide I need to use the raw and save my final processed 100% jpegs. The greatest impact on reducing my workflow is to immediatelly delete 80% of my photos. Of those remaining, perhaps 1 in 10 is what I would consider an outstanding photo and gets printed. The rest, I tend to let them grow on me, spend a while to determine why they are not oustanding and eventually print some, may delete some. I do this on purpose, always have, simply because it keeps me motivated to keep learning new ways to improve and trying to implement them. If I kept everything, processed everything, used post processing to fix mistakes, I'd never get out of the house to get enough experience to actually improve my photography. The fact that I often immediatelly delete shots that years ago would have been considered definite keepers shows it's working. As I said, try everything, discontinue what is not necessary and keep doing what is.

    Just be careful who you listen to in determining what may be right for you. Some people do things a certain way without even knowing why except that many others do it like that so it must be right. That's not the best way, that's the average way. Surely there's a better way than that to do things. Without trying and judging for yourself, it's unlikely you'll find these ways.

  7. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    I always save my raw. This is my original. Sometimes I go back to them and reprocess them as I learn new techniques or acquire better software. After initial adjustments in my raw converter, I convert it to jpeg at the highest quality and process it in Photoshop or whatever. Then I save this processed jpeg at the highest quality. Then as needed, sometimes right away, sometimes later, I resize it for printing and print it or resize it to post in Photobucket to use it online.

    Saving the raw, a tiff, a PSD, and a full size jpeg and a resized jpeg used for printing or monitor view? No thanks. What practical use is a tiff over a full size jpeg except for taking up a lot of space? What good is a PSD if I have to start all over again from scratch to process it differently later, again due to learning new techniques or acquiring different software? Jpegs are lossy? That means once you downsize it, you can't make it bigger. The 100% jpeg image is surprisingly close in appearance to the raw image after conversion and needs to be compared at beyond 100% to actually see any difference. So why bother with huge tiff files?

    Can anyone show me 100% crops of a tiff and a jpeg from a raw image that are in any way better both going into Photoshop and also after processing? They're both 8 bit original size files. How much difference is to be expected in them? What about jpegs from the camera that the majority of people (and I often use) for monitor display and printing? We should worry they are not tiffs?

    Those kind enough to educate me on the notieceable difference between full size jpeg files and tiff files, perhaps you can then downsize them to 1/4 their size to show how they might look in a 300 ppi print at the actual size shown on screen. And then downsize them to 700x900 for a nice monitor view and we'll see how much difference there really is between a tiff and a jpeg. Tiff is for sending photos to magazines. They need them for that type of printing. I use jpeg for monitor views and printing with a inkjet printer. I honestly see no reason for using tiff and I can bet many people using it have never done the comparisons to determine if it's actually needed at all.

    Actually doing a comparison oneself is of course the best way to really make the right decison. I honestly don't see any difference in my final results using tiff over jpeg. Some may and I'm not one to judge how others do things despite my ranting tone making it seem that way. I rant because I see so many comparisons of things with photography that people have not actually tested themeselves and go only by what they hear and many who do actual comparisons, raw vs jpeg, digicam vs dslr, Is vs no IS, film vs digital, Canon vs Nikon, 4/3 vs cropped sensors, do them in such an uncontrolled way, or compare only one detail from an entire system of details that matter also, it's as if some of these people first decide their results and then are trying to make them come true.

    My suggestion to the OP is to try just about everything and save everything for awhile and look for ways to minimize your workflow, stop doing what isn't worth the effort, keep doing what is and never stop looking for better ways. Better for you, not better for someone else. Find the unique approach, the combination of convenience, results, expenditure of time or money that is right for you and only you are actually capable of finding. Only by actually trying many approaches will you really find the right one for you.

    My choice is to shoot raw+jpeg, save both as originals if they're keepers, delete them if they're not, convert the basically processed raw to jpeg if I decide I need to use the raw and save my final processed 100% jpegs. The greatest impact on reducing my workflow is to immediatelly delete 80% of my photos. Of those remaining, perhaps 1 in 10 is what I would consider an outstanding photo and gets printed. The rest, I tend to let them grow on me, spend a while to determine why they are not oustanding and eventually print some, may delete some. I do this on purpose, always have, simply because it keeps me motivated to keep learning new ways to improve and trying to implement them. If I kept everything, processed everything, used post processing to fix mistakes, I'd never get out of the house to get enough experience to actually improve my photography. The fact that I often immediatelly delete shots that years ago would have been considered definite keepers shows it's working. As I said, try everything, discontinue what is not necessary and keep doing what is.

    Just be careful who you listen to in determining what may be right for you. Some people do things a certain way without even knowing why except that many others do it like that so it must be right. That's not the best way, that's the average way. Surely there's a better way than that to do things. Without trying and judging for yourself, it's unlikely you'll find these ways.

  8. #28

    Default Re: streamling digital workflow

    Quote Originally Posted by xperiencdsnapshooter View Post
    What practical use is a tiff over a full size jpeg except for taking up a lot of space? What good is a PSD if I have to start all over again from scratch to process it differently later, again due to learning new techniques or acquiring different software? Jpegs are lossy?
    TIFs and PSDs are useful for working on files with layers... I come from a commercial retouching background and saving files with layers is just essential for having the flexibilty to make adjustments to any changes I make to a file, even on my own personal images... PSDs tend to load faster but are larger than compressed TIFs, which is why I recommend archiving in compressed TIFs with layers intact... and before anyone makes claims of shooting it just right so that postproduction work is not required (not targeting anyone in general, and not targeting xperiencdsnapshooter in particualr, just that there will always be some out there who will mention this and I thought of just cutting in first ), well, YMMV and personally, I see so many images out there which require work to improve them... I'm can be very picky with images, which comes in handy in some circumstances...

    Quote Originally Posted by xperiencdsnapshooter View Post
    Tiff is for sending photos to magazines. They need them for that type of printing. I use jpeg for monitor views and printing with a inkjet printer. I honestly see no reason for using tiff and I can bet many people using it have never done the comparisons to determine if it's actually needed at all.
    actually jpgs for magazines should be just fine if it is a final image that has passed QC by all parties involved and no more retouching work is required, and if RGB images are acceptable as might be the case for some digital presses... its just that if CMYK images are required, jpgs are not much use cause the files end up being about as big as TIFs anyway...
    Last edited by theRBK; 8th May 2008 at 02:15 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •