# Editing programs for RAW files



## Kphipps (Dec 14, 2012)

I know how to shoot and edit RAW images but my problem is I take forever editing my images. I tend to baby my photographs.

What programs do you use when you edit RAW photos? Is there an easier workflow program that I should know about? Or am I doing the right thing by editing my RAW files in photoshop? It doesn't really bother me but I just wanted to know if there is a easier, quicker, reliable program out there. Any information would be great. Thanks guys!


----------



## Mully (Dec 14, 2012)

Work with Lightroom ..... It is a great program and keeps originals intact, it will improve workflow.  You can continue to use photoshop but using LR with Photoshop is a real plus.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 14, 2012)

What I use for my heavy lifting won't work with Canons format... Capture NX2.


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2012)

Sounds like you need Adobe Lightroom. 
It's designed specifically for photographers as a cataloguing and workflow streamlining software package. Many people I know who have shifted to using it now do almost all their editing in Lightroom and only shift into full photoshop for those more complex/specific editing  tweaks that are required. This is even more the case now as Lightroom has continued to gain features including selective editing capabilities. 

It's not as powerful as photoshop, but its good enough for most of you work. Combine that with the use of actions and pre-set editing methods to help speed your specific style of presentation and it could help you out a lot. 

Not only that bit its cataloguing features will help you with data management and file organisation .


Note  Lightroom is all RAW processing, but much more advanced than Adobe Camera RAW's features*; so not only is it helping to streamline the workflow, but it also performs editing in the manner of producing a file of changed parameters instead of changing the file itself (unless you save a JPEG/TIFF/PSD file of course).

It also has some neat publish online (facebook/flickr) and printing options so you can quickly edit and then present/print if you want. 


*note both use the same RAW processing codes, Lightroom just has more options and controls during the RAW stage


----------



## Overread (Dec 14, 2012)

I would recommend the latest version, it will not only have the longest potential shelf and support life span, but it also has expanded editing features which makes it superior over the earlier versions.


----------



## Mully (Dec 14, 2012)

4.3 is the latest version and you can get the 30 day trial to work out the rough spots. LR does have a learning curve but Adobe TV is good and look up Laura Shoe she is real easy to understand and has a great video set.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 14, 2012)

If it takes to long to edit photos you might need to upgrade your computer with more ram, like a lot more. Then you could batch edit files. If you are shooting with identical lighting conditions then the edits should be almost the same or at least some of the basic elements should be the same. Also if you have a particular style you might look into setting up your on actions so its just one click and the photo is edited.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 14, 2012)

Kphipps said:


> I've heard of lightroom and I've used it a few times. What version do you recommend? 3 or 4? Are there any real major differences?



You dont need lightroom, you have photoshop. Lightroom is for people that cant afford or need photoshop. Its basically just the raw editor that you have in photoshop already.

If you really want to go spend some money to improve your photography the upgrade to a 7d. You'll see a huge improvement due to the better capabilities of an improved motor.


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 14, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> You dont need lightroom, you have photoshop. Lightroom is for people that cant afford or need photoshop. Its basically just the raw editor that you have in photoshop already.



This is so absolutely and totally wrong.
LR + PS are a great combination with LR to manage images and do bulk edits and PS to do specific bit-level ones.

So wrong.
Maniacally crazy wrong


----------



## Mully (Dec 14, 2012)

DiskoJoe said:


> Kphipps said:
> 
> 
> > I've heard of lightroom and I've used it a few times. What version do you recommend? 3 or 4? Are there any real major differences?
> ...




This is poor information..... know what you are talking about ...First


----------



## KmH (Dec 14, 2012)

Kphipps said:


> I've heard of lightroom and I've used it a few times. What version do you recommend? 3 or 4? Are there any real major differences?


Yes, there are major differences.
Lightroom 4 uses Process Version 2012, while Lightroom 3 uses Process Version 2010.


> Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 * Process versions
> 
> *PV2012* offers new tone controls and new tone-mapping algorithms for high-contrast images. With PV2012, you can adjust Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks, Exposure, and Contrast in the Basic panel. You can also apply local corrections for white balance (Temp and Tint), Highlights, Shadows, Noise, and Moiré.
> *Process Version 2010* Images edited in *Lightroom 3* used PV2010 by default. PV2010 offers improved sharpening and noise-reduction from the previous process version, PV2003.
> *Process Version 2003* The original processing engine, used by Lightroom 1 and 2.



Additionally, Adobe stopped updating Lightroom 3 at the release of Lightroom 4.

Also note that for editing/Raw conversion, Abobe Camera Raw 7 (ACR 7) is used by Photoshop Elements 11 Camera Raw (de-featured to consumer grade), Photoshop CS 6 Camera Raw, and Photoshop Lightroom 4's Develop module.

You didn't say which Photoshop you have, but which ever one you have you already have a Raw editing capability.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 14, 2012)

I use Raw Photo Processor (RPP), which is a deceptively primative processor. I like it because it doesn't protect me from what the raw processor is doing. It's intended to be an analog to film processing machines, with more parametric controls than an emphasis on an intuitive GUI. Instead of dialing in specific white points and color temperature, you instead adjust RGBG channel data in convenient EV scale. RPP seems more "photographic" to me than most image processing applications. 

It also has several sensitometric-based film profiles which are intended to emulate the color and tonal quality, which can be pretty fun to play with.

However, it is only available on mac OS.


----------



## texkam (Dec 14, 2012)

You don't have an editing problem, you have a shooting problem. You're shooting too much! Try quality over quantity.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 15, 2012)

I agree. Often people kind of romanticize the prospect of a photographer who shoots hundreds of frames for that "one". It's a silly thing to idolize.


----------



## John27 (Dec 15, 2012)

Kphipps said:


> I disagree. I don't think I'm shooting too many photos. I don't shoot thousands of photographs each session and go "click crazy." I don't understand how someone can completely assume how a photographer works. For weddings (6-7 hrs of coverage) + a separate session, I give them about 500 images combined. I think that's pretty reasonable considering the day is filled with lots of different events. I spend more time composing the image and making sure all the details, lighting, location is perfect before I even start clicking.
> I was simply asking this question because I spend a lot of time editing each photograph and I was wondering if there was a program that worked with RAW images that would help with time but provide quality. Obviously, I make sure my clients receive quality images since their wedding is the most exciting time of their life.
> I have CS4 and I'm upgrading to CS6 this month. I think I'm just going to continue using the RAW editing program that comes with Photoshop since it sounds like LR does the same thing. Thank you everyone for giving me information about LR. It sounds like a great program.



Adobe Camera Raw is a part of both, but lightroom is really nice for keeping things cataloged and organized.  It's an excellent workflow tool.  It'll also do your small edits much faster, especially posed shots where everything is pretty close to right SOOC and you just need to tweak levels.  You can fly through shots and when you get to one that needs a little more tweaking, or you want to do something creative to; you can open photoshop to that image from within Lightroom!  

Certainly not a necessity, but I bet you find it saves you time, AND, I bet you'll find it saves you so much time you'll feel like you stole it at a price of $100, considering the time you'll save.

I use both, and love both.  CS6 when things get complicated, LR4 when it's just easy levels adjusting, cropping and straightening.


----------



## texkam (Dec 15, 2012)

> I disagree. I don't think I'm shooting too many photos. I don't shoot thousands of photographs each session and go "click crazy." I don't understand how someone can completely assume how a photographer works.


Of course you don't think you are, but I took the time to look at your blog and FB site and I'll stand by my statement. You have some talent, but you need to learn to cull. Your good stuff gets diluted by the mediocre stuff. This is a common misstep made by young photographers and digital medium provides the crutch. Trust yourself to find the very best images and let the client see only those. 





> spend too much time editing when the reality is, I know the client won't use all the images


This is very telling. It appears you have some idea you are not giving the client your very best.

Good editing advice given. You can always try LR for the 30 day trial and see if it's right for you. Of course the more you get things right in the camera the less editing you'll need to do.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 15, 2012)

I think being exposed to the methods and tools that SERIOUS, experienced shooters utilize would be very helpful to you. One of the easiest ways is to watch some of the 3-day or 4-day seminars on the web on the creativelive.com web site. There, you can see how high-level shooters handle their workflow, business details, client policies and procedures, and also usually a 1-hour segment out of a 12- or 16-hour webinar where you can watch these pros EDIT their images. You will see that there are multiple different workflow concepts, ANY or ALL of which can be made to work fast, and well. The key is to have a system.

It's surprising how many of the TOP-level wedding, fashion, and portrait shooters are using various types of actions, and pre-sets, and modified actions and pre-sets with both Photoshop or with Lightroom. A lot of these presets and actions have been designed by high-level professionals who understand how this type of post work can be integrated into processing by the skilled,experienced user. Kevin Kubota's software tools, Gary Fong's stuff, and Kai's are some of the software tools I have seen used by "big name" shooters.

These people all, to a person, stress prepping images quickly, and with a plan, and not ultra-refining each image, but just making it "good". No retouching every last single eyelash hair...but making substantive changes that make the image good, and saleable.


----------



## Kphipps (Dec 15, 2012)

Again, disagree. You misunderstood what I said. i explained earlier that I spend lots of time going through my images and editing. I spent a lot of time with each image because I want them to have the best. I never do half work or rush to give them bad images. We all have different photography styles with colors and composition. It's my work and I'm proud of it. My clients have been really happy with what I have given them.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 15, 2012)

If you're spending too much time correcting them, you may not be spending enough time taking them.

There's only so much you can do in post.  Editing should be tweaking the image, not salvaging it.  I rarely spend more than 3 minutes editing a single image.


----------



## Tee (Dec 15, 2012)

Going off topic for a moment:

KPhipps- I sincerely mean this when I say THANK YOU for not using the words 'passion' and 'whimsical' in your About Me section.  Seriously, you're the first female photographer's website I've visited in the last 2 months that doesn't have those words. :thumbup:  

LR is a great companion to Photoshop and is definitely worth the free download.  One thing to take a look at in your workflow is your process of final output sharpening.  A lot of your images appear soft on your website from compression (for instance in the wedding shot where the ring is supposed to be in focus and the bride out of focus- the impact is lost) and the final "pop" is missing.  Sharpening for blogs and social media is different than sharpening for high res images. Just food for thought as you look into improving your workflow.


----------



## texkam (Dec 16, 2012)

> We all have different photography styles with colors and composition. It's my work and I'm proud of it. My clients have been really happy with what I have given them.


Great. Stay with what you have. Maybe someday you'll be able to step back, understand, and appreciate the sound advice you are being given. Good luck to you.


----------



## unpopular (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm not sure what's more arrogant, not taking good advice or insisting that your own advice is good when it's not taken.


----------



## John27 (Dec 16, 2012)

Kphipps, I think the advice you are being given is in two parts.

1)  Maybe learning some new techniques could achieve the same look that you are going for in post, which could save you a lot of time and;

2)  There is a reason my Ford Taurus was built on an Assembly Line.  The reason is that it was $20,000 new, not $500,000.  There are some hand built cars that take years to make.  There are also cars like mine, that take 90 minutes to go from raw materials to driveable units.  It's romantic to think that we should be in the former category, but as a working photographer you should consider how much time you are investing in relation to what you are being paid.  If your market won't allow you to charge the kind of price you'd need to really come out ahead while doing that much extra PP, then you are doing yourself a disservice.

Nobody here is saying you should give the client straight out of camera images.  They are just saying that there are ways to achieve the exact same image with much less time, increasing your profitability.  You do you and your customers a disservice by going the long way.  They aren't saying you should go halfway, they are saying you should get there faster.

Take a second thought to the advice of the folks here.  Some of them are really really good at what they do.  They know what they are talking about.  Learning to achieve better straight-out-of camera techniques, AND faster post processing methods will make your work better and more rewarding.  It's something I'm working on too (but at a hobby level).  Even the big pros use filters, and do small, minor edits, because they have the experience to work quickly, and to start out with a nearly complete image.


----------



## texkam (Dec 16, 2012)

> I'm not sure what's more arrogant, not taking good advice or insisting that your own advice is good when it's not taken.




Just keeping up appearances. Cheers!
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/photographic-discussions/309393-snobs.html


----------



## The_Traveler (Dec 16, 2012)

John27 said:


> Kphipps, I think the advice you are being given is in two parts.
> 
> 1)  Maybe learning some new techniques could achieve the same look that you are going for in post, which could save you a lot of time and;
> 
> ...



^^ what he said.

There is no glory or honor in doing things the inefficient and arduous ways when the final product is the same - even mundane things.


----------



## Kphipps (Dec 18, 2012)

I'm not trying to be rude to anyone here. I just wanted to know what programs everyone was using as a main workflow. Looking back, I probably spend about 3-5 minutes on each photo (mainly removing blemishes, smooth skin ect) and maybe adding a filter. I guess my workflow isn't too bad but it's nice to know what other photographers are doing in regards to programs and their own workflow. I am always looking to improve my technique and images. I guess I saw a lot of comments that felt more like an attack than giving advice on improving my workflow & different programs out there. 

A lot of the advice given I do take it to heart and I am going to do it. It's always good to hear from fellow photographers who have a different & unique eye. I appreciate that everyone has different styles of photography and in the end, you have to do what makes you happy & also your clients. I really liked the first few posts that told me about the programs and what they do. Thanks! 

Tee- I will never use the cliche word "Passion" / "Whimsical" or any other overused words out there! haha...too funny. I could probably write down a list that I am tired of hearing.


----------



## texkam (Dec 18, 2012)

> I really liked the first few posts that told me about the programs and what they do.


I felt like you got good advice in this area.



> I am always looking to improve my technique and images.


Thank you. Join the club. We all are. It's nice to see that you have softened your tone. Let me explain where I was coming from. Because I saw some potential "red flags" in your OP, I decided to take the time and dig a little deeper. I took the time and energy to review your blog and FB page in an effort to see what specific problems you might be having. 





> I guess I saw a lot of comments that felt more like an attack than giving advice on improving my workflow & different programs out there.


I offered a bit of blunt criticism because in my opinion this wasn't just a workflow issue. I did this not to be mean, but in an effort to help you improve as a photographer. I also complimented some of your work as well. If I overstepped my bounds I am sorry, but I truly thought and still think it has relevance to your post. Hope this helps.


----------

