# Do you process all of your RAW files?



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 4, 2012)

This may seem like a silly question, but I'm wondering what you all do with your RAW files. Do you process some of them or all of them?

I have thousands of CR2's. I find that I only process the photos which I plan on using in some capacity. 

I know there are batch processing methods (which I have not used yet) and maybe I should be processing all of them? I'm wondering what you guys do.

I use Adobe Bridge and ACR built into CS5 fyi.


----------



## bhop (May 4, 2012)

I only take time to process the keepers.  I toss out the crappy ones.  I might keep some that i'm on the fence about to look at later.  Why waste time processing shots that you're not using?


----------



## Balmiesgirl (May 4, 2012)

I load them all in Lightroom with a basic developing preset applied on import. It's fast and easy and I can have the previews ready for the client very quickly. Then after the files are picked I go ahead and develop them to their full potential.


----------



## Trever1t (May 4, 2012)

I import all into LR and process the ones I want. Rest are filed.


----------



## KmH (May 4, 2012)

The ACR batch processing only works for those images shot in the same lighting.


----------



## Designer (May 4, 2012)

I load them onto flash drives and boil them for at least two hours.  I found that the microwave is not the best place to cook flash drives.


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2012)

I often cannot keep up with all of the RAWS I have shot, and frankly, only the very best of the best are of any interest to me. I try and make my efforts actually count, so the sub-optimal stuff is simply off-archived, for "later" work.

I don't like to be too hasty in eliminating images, but by the same token, I can spot images that are just not worth spending much time on. For example, in one particular sequence, there is often a BEST shot, and a few almost-as-good, and then a number of shots that are just B-list.

If a file is a Megan Fox...I am interested in it...if it is a Rodney Dangerfield...I don't care...it gets no respect.


----------



## slackercruster (May 4, 2012)

No, I shoot in jpeg pretty much. I scan old negs in TIFF and process them all.


----------



## bratkinson (May 4, 2012)

After much "ballyhoo" about RAW here and other forums I follow, I finally decided to put my toes in the water and switched from Large JPG only to RAW+Large JPG in my 60D.

I wasn't (and still am) not ready for the extended computer processing times with RAW files. Just to copy from my SDHC card to my hard drive (via USB 2 reader) 100 RAW pictures is perhaps 15-20 minutes. Did I mention I am still using a single-processor 3.2 ghz AMD Athlon processor on my main computer? So, it's S-L-O-W by todays standards. Importing 100 RAWS into Lightroom 3 is another 20-30 minutes, and simply bringing up the next RAW in Lightroom is 30+ seconds, each, to start processing them!

So, to speed things up, I've taken to copying the JPG folder to my HD first. That's perhaps 2-3 minutes for 100 pix. Then I open the folder and look at the small pictures, deleting the really obvious losers such as WB card shots, obviously under/over exposed, etc. 

I then make a fast pass through the folder, clicking on the survivors of round 1 and bringing them up in Photoshop. I can then delete perhaps another 20% or more as out focus, slow aperature too much blurred, or even "too repetitive" of other shots (dumping the "could be be a keeper" but I have better shots of the same subject). Round 2 knocks off another 10-15% of the pictures.

Round 3 is matching the camera supplied file numbers of the 'good' JPG folder with the file numbers of the RAW CR2s on the memory card. I simply delete the CR2s that are -not- matched by a JPG of the same name. I simply have each folder open, side by side on my screen, and delete the unmatched CR2s. I've thought about simply writing down which JPGs I'm deleting in round 1 and 2, and then going from that list to delete the CR2s, but taking my hand off the keyboard (I'm left handed), picking up the pen, writing down the number (OK, I could have an open NOTEPAD on the side of the screen if I wanted) seems a lot longer to me than simply eyeballing two side-by-side lists and making sure they have the same file numbers.

Then, I FINALLY copy the "good enough to process" CR2s to my hard drive, and then import them into Lightroom. Once in Lightroom, I get yet another chance at round 2 processing, getting a better look at the pictures and deciding keep this one or keep the one next to it? Keep them both? Dump them both? etc. I may decide when I open it up, or wait until after I've developed it to decide. I may even decide to keep them both for now, but decide later on (final cut) to dump one or more. 

I know my post processing procedure is lengthy, involved, and I probably deleted a couple of good CR2s by mistake. That's life. Certainly, upgrading my computer will likely cause a change in my methodology. But, at the same time, I have a backup of everything along the way...especially if I copy the CR2s to the hard drive before doing RAW/CR2 matching deletions.


----------



## Derrel (May 4, 2012)

Good post. My suggestion: get a FASTER card reader!!! They are out there!!! USB 2 is not that slow of a transfer protocol,so you ought to be able to do a bit of on-line research to find a faster, a much faster card reader made by a leading brand, like say Lexar.

Your step #3 is EASY under Macintosh OS. How? FILE LABELING, which Macs can do. The files culled out and sent to the trash? Select all, label them a specific color, then move them back out of the trash and  into the CR2 file folder, and Voila! Each color-coded "Junker" sits right there, next to its equally worthless same-named CR2 parent...select both and right click and Send to Trash. You can steamroll right down a long list, and not make mistakes! Much easier than having two windows open, side by side, and going back and forth comparing tiny little numbers...but then, that is a Macintosh system advantage I have used for many years...

If I have read your workflow correctly, you are culling images off of the memory card, using the USB 2 interface??? Again, that sounds like a waste of time...I think a high-quality,modern Lexar USB 2.0 card reader will allow you to import 100 CR2 files to the hard disk in around four minutes, along with the JPEG Large image files...

Something seems weird that it takes 20-30 minutes to import CR2 files and 30 seconds to open each RAW in Lightroom....is your computer's hard disk defragmented and in good order??? Those time seems awfully,awfully slow, even with a modest computer. again, fast card reader, and hard disk defragging??

One comment: one pro tip from Rob Galbraith is to set in-camera sharpening to HIGH when shooting RAW + JPEG so that the degree of focus can be easily evaluated in ANY image viewer application. ANd BTW, Photo Mechanic for example, can open and handle and tag and edit/sort images faster than probably ANY software app. it is what most large newspapers use to ingest and tag image files...it is MUCH better at that task than LR or Aperture or PS, or any other app, for that matter....that is its MAIN goal!!


----------



## Skaperen (May 5, 2012)

USB 2 can go to at least 46 MB/sec because I had a USB hard drive once that achieved these speeds.  Clearly my computer's USB controller and that drive's USB controller both achieved the speed.  A solid continuous data transfer in USB would be 60 MB/sec, but that is not achievable due to all the overhead from addressing, protocol turnarounds, negotiations, waits, etc.

I have yet to see a USB memory stick that can get above 22 MB/sec, even though they claim more.  And I did continuous sequential tests which should be the fastest.

As for a camera card controller attached via USB (most common), this makes for even more delays.  Ironically, my fastest SDHC is on a netbook which has it wired up as its own device instead of via USB.

On to RAW files ...

I have turned them on in my 7D, and have been archiving everything.  I have processed none of them, yet.  I save them in case I later decide to do so.  I use Linux and have dcraw installed.  I experimented with it a couple times, but did not figure out all the options.  I will get back to it at some time.

My general intentions are to do most non-stitching post-process with my own programs I write.  But I may make use of some graphical interactive programs in the future, too.  I would convert camera RAW files to pixel linear RAW files first.  My program would then read the PLRAW (96 bits per pixel, 3 numbers representing linear light levels in RGB, after the Bayer interpolation done in dcraw).  But I may also try to get a PLRAW equivalent of a NON-interpolated image (e.g. I'd just get the single pixel value and know which color channel it is) and attempt to see if I can improve on the interpolation (not likely, but linear math problems like this I find to be fun).


----------



## Kolander (May 5, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> ...I know there are batch processing methods (which I have not used yet) and maybe I should be processing all of them?...


I worked as an assistant for a photo studio in Spain many years ago, making outdoor fashion reports for a week.

In one of the locations, the photographer took more than 3.000 pictures. When I saw the catalogue there were just 2 shots from that place -not a mistake, two shots. Of course they just processed a handful, rest to the trash after checking with Bridge.


----------



## Skaperen (May 5, 2012)

Kolander said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > ...I know there are batch processing methods (which I have not used yet) and maybe I should be processing all of them?...
> ...


Digital makes this cheaper.  Had it been film, they would probably have made only 600 to 1000 shots.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 5, 2012)

I'm switching from RAW to RAW+JPEG. I decided to give my JPEGs to those who wants my half decent photos (I'm not a pro) quickly while I play with the RAW happily by myself.


----------



## Kolander (May 5, 2012)

Skaperen said:


> Digital makes this cheaper.  Had it been film, they would probably have made only 600 to 1000 shots.


I meant with film  It was so usual to see dozens of contact sheets with the same posing, the same headshot.


----------



## table1349 (May 5, 2012)

KmH said:


> The ACR batch processing only works for those images shot in the same lighting.



No............ ACR batch processing works on ALL the images.  It just screws (not the word I wanted to use) up all the images not shot in the same lighting.   :mrgreen: :lmao:


----------



## KmH (May 5, 2012)

gryphonslair99 said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > The ACR batch processing only works for those images shot in the same lighting.
> ...


  :thumbup:

Edit: The ACR batch processing is essentially only useful for those images shot in the same lighting.


----------



## TCampbell (May 5, 2012)

I just thought I'd chime in with a quick comment.  One of the advantages of digital asset management / raw-workflow products such as Adobe Lightroom or Apple Aperture is that you can actually process en-masse.  Since you don't open & save individual files, you can apply image adjustments to collections of files at the same time.  

I don't have Lightroom -- I use Aperture.  But essentially the workflow allows me to take one image out of a set of shots taken in similar conditions.  I can process the full-image adjustments (e.g. adjustments that you don't localize to a specific area of the shot -- things like "white balance" or "exposure" or "levels / curves" types of adjustments.)  When I'm happy with it, I can tell it to apply those same adjustments to the other images.  

The localized adjustments (e.g. if I just wanted to sharpen the eyes a bit or apply some skin smoothing, etc.) would need to be done one at a time.

Being able to process images in a good RAW workflow / DAM tool is VERY nice.  I noticed that I hardly open images in Photoshop anymore unless they need some TLC.


----------



## usayit (May 5, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> This may seem like a silly question, but I'm wondering what you all do with your RAW files. Do you process some of them or all of them?



Nope.... given similar conditions I will apply basic adjustments in Lightroom to all/most of the RAW files (its quick/easy.. cut and paste develop settings) then just process the ones I like.  I later split the files into two groups.  One for DNG for archive.  Another for JPG archive.


----------



## shortpants (May 5, 2012)

No, I don't bother. I don't delete any RAW files though unless they are very obviously garbage/mistake shots wasting space.


----------



## one90guy (May 6, 2012)

There is a good possible my eyesight is not that good. I tryed Raw-Jpeg, enlarged to 8x11. I could not see any difference between the two. I use Photoshop Elements 8 only so I can not compare to other software. Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (May 7, 2012)

one90guy said:


> There is a good possible my eyesight is not that good. I tryed Raw-Jpeg, enlarged to 8x11. I could not see any difference between the two. I use Photoshop Elements 8 only so I can not compare to other software. Just my 2 cents worth.



There's no difference until you manipulate your photos much. Like me, I often underexpose to get the highlights back (I don't have problem with noise after increasing brightness in PP because my camera has very low read noise) to extract as much info from my camera as possible.


----------



## DiskoJoe (May 7, 2012)

Rotanimod said:


> This may seem like a silly question, but I'm wondering what you all do with your RAW files. Do you process some of them or all of them?
> 
> I have thousands of CR2's. I find that I only process the photos which I plan on using in some capacity.
> 
> ...



You dont have to process all of them. Just select the ones you want to work with and you can open all of those at one time. When you go to select the file just hold down control and you can select multiple files. Doing it one at a time would take days just to open and close all of them. Batch processing does not mean that you have lay the same adjustment on each file, but you could if needed. Try it. You'll like it!


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 7, 2012)

i seem to process around 10% of what i get from a shoot.  the rest i dont bother with. I got thru each photo pick and rate the ones i like a 3. then i'll go thru the 3s and rate the best ones a 4 and then go thru those sometimes to rate a 5 so by the time im done ill edit the 5's and its in that 10% range


----------



## EDL (May 7, 2012)

Mechanical hard drives are also a big bottleneck.  Sustained write speeds are usually around 15-26MBps.  Although the high RPM Raptor drives will do a bit better none fo the mechanical drives come close to what a Solid State Drive (SSD) can do.

For dealing with large amounts of large files like this I would recommend any computer upgrade you do to contain at least a SATA II connection and a decent solid state drive.  Even the more economical versions of the SSD's are immensely faster than mechanical drives.

For example, I currently have a Crucial brand M4 model, 256GB SSD in my work laptop (which only has a SATA II connection on the motherboard) and the performance increase in read/write speeds are phenomenal.  My laptop is a Dell E4300, P9600 Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz CPU, 4 GB memory running Windows 7 Pro 32-bit.  Being a sys admin, I also run a VM on it with Win XP, and I do MS Exchange as well, so I run the EMC and power shell windows, and various other tools.  Typical boot times on the old Western Digital caviar black drive were in the 6-8 minute range to get booted, logged to desktop and start up my base set of tools, Outlook, etc.

I imaged the old mechanical drive to the SSD (did not load the system on the SSD from scratch) I can now boot, log in and have all my tools up and running in less than a minute.  Since Windows is so memory intensive (and thus likes a large swap file) pretty much everything runs faster.  It would be even faster still if my PC had a SATA III connection!

Reviews of this drive running in RAID 0 configurations are hitting speeds of 800-850MBps read (mega bytes per second, not mega bits per second!) and write speeds of 500-550 MBps.

Single M4 drives on a SATA III connection are easily hitting 500-525 MBps read and 220-250 MBps write speeds.

Of course, archiving gigs of photos wouldn't be ideal for the expense of an SSD, but for running the system, importing and processing it'd be the way to go.

Or, if you are so inclined and have the stacks of $$$, there are even PCI based SSD solutions.  One PCI SSD card (OCZ RevoDrive 3 X2) which consists of basically 4 SSD drives on the card with a built in RAID controller is hitting 1.5 GBps read speeds and 1.2 GBps write speeds!  It's not a bootable drive though being PCI based.  It's pricey at around $3,150 for the 960GB version, down to about $550 for a 240GB capacity version.


----------



## Kolia (May 9, 2012)

one90guy said:
			
		

> There is a good possible my eyesight is not that good. I tryed Raw-Jpeg, enlarged to 8x11. I could not see any difference between the two. I use Photoshop Elements 8 only so I can not compare to other software. Just my 2 cents worth.



You won't see any difference because PSE 8 only work with JPEG files. Once you go through the Adobe Camera RAW (not sure of the name) what you see in PSE is 8 bit JPEG. 

I no longer use PSE 8 and only process and file with Lightroom. There the difference between RAW and JPEG is clearly apparent. 

Back to the OP question, I only process the best images. I try to get rid of the not so good images but it is very difficult. Especially when family members are the subjects. 

My library is almost 30,000 files, dating back to 2004


----------



## one90guy (May 9, 2012)

You won't see any difference because PSE 8 only work with JPEG files. Once you go through the Adobe Camera RAW (not sure of the name) what you see in PSE is 8 bit JPEG. 

I no longer use PSE 8 and only process and file with Lightroom. There the difference between RAW and JPEG is clearly apparent. 


I used Picasso to convert from raw to jpeg. Also still learning the digital, for 44 years I used film only. If not for the "revert" I would have a lot less images


----------



## one90guy (May 9, 2012)

Also poor computer skills, have not learned how to reply with a quote either


----------



## Alex_B (May 9, 2012)

I roughly sort into three categories

1 - technically flawed or composition disaster with no documentary value 
     or accidental doublet or triplett image or anything but the best of a series with different settings
  -> erase RAW file

2 - no current use, not outstanding, but might be useful for later projects
  -> keep RAW, no processing

3 - outstanding or useful for current projects
  -> keep RAW, process


----------



## Buckster (May 9, 2012)

Alex_B said:


> I roughly sort into three categories
> 
> 1 - technically flawed or composition disaster with no documentary value
> or accidental doublet or triplett image or anything but the best of a series with different settings
> ...


That describes my way of doing it as well.


----------



## 12sndsgood (May 9, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Alex_B said:
> 
> 
> > I roughly sort into three categories
> ...




I need to start doing it this way because I know I have allot of 1's taking up space that I should really ditch. lol.


----------



## table1349 (May 9, 2012)

I keep all my shots.  I only process those that are needed for prints etc.  Storage space is cheap.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (May 9, 2012)

Since posting this thread I've learned that in Adobe bridge you can load multiple images into ACR and edit multiple images simultaneously. This is handy when you're shooting in steady lighting coniditions and all the photos will need similar edits anyway. 

I've started to rate my images upon first review with the star and label system (the ones I plan to work on). I haven't decided whether I like the star or rating system better, but I suppose they are both decent ways to organize. Do you guys use one or the other, or both, and why?


----------



## MTVision (May 9, 2012)

Rotanimod said:
			
		

> Since posting this thread I've learned that in Adobe bridge you can load multiple images into ACR and edit multiple images simultaneously. This is handy when you're shooting in steady lighting coniditions and all the photos will need similar edits anyway.
> 
> I've started to rate my images upon first review with the star and label system (the ones I plan to work on). I haven't decided whether I like the star or rating system better, but I suppose they are both decent ways to organize. Do you guys use one or the other, or both, and why?



I'm horrible at this but I usually don't rate the photos. I mark the garbage ones as rejects and then delete them. 

Another thing about bridge - say you have a bunch of pictures in the same lighting and whatnot. You edit one in ACR. Then in bridge you can apply all the develop settings to the rest of the photos without opening them all. You can also apply presets this way or camera raw defaults.


----------



## table1349 (May 9, 2012)

For me I organize digital the same way I did film.  Each shoot gets a separate folder with Shoot Name/Type and Date.  All the shots go in there.  Because of the advantages of digital storage instead of negatives in the folder I will highlight certain obvious shots that will be revisited with a key word or words.


----------



## DBA (Jul 23, 2012)

bratkinson said:


> I wasn't (and still am) not ready for the extended computer processing times with RAW files. Just to copy from my SDHC card to my hard drive (via USB 2 reader) 100 RAW pictures is perhaps 15-20 minutes. Did I mention I am still using a single-processor 3.2 ghz AMD Athlon processor on my main computer? So, it's S-L-O-W by todays standards. Importing 100 RAWS into Lightroom 3 is another 20-30 minutes, and simply bringing up the next RAW in Lightroom is 30+ seconds, each, to start processing them!


What class SD card are you using? My Class 10 Sandisk Extreme 45mb/s cards usually transfer at ~20 mb/s while my older cards were in the low single digits. It takes me less than 10 minutes to download and process ~500 RAW files.


----------



## enzodm (Jul 24, 2012)

Buckster said:


> Alex_B said:
> 
> 
> > I roughly sort into three categories
> ...




"me too". Initially I did not trash any file, but I wasted too much memory. Now I feel I'm more and more increasing such type 1 set to be erased (not because I do more mistakes, but I'm more picky), while type 3 remains maybe the same (10% or so). By the way, the first round of processing is typically screen-sized (1024x), aimed at showing results to my wife , and Flickr/Facebook. When in need of printing, I develop again full size (only some).


----------



## slackercruster (Jul 24, 2012)

OP, hell no. 

When I want to shoot in RAW, I shoot in RAW+ . I look through the JPEGs and save the ones with the RAW info that I like and trash the rest.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2012)

No. I process "the best". And I let slide what I term, "the rest".


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jul 24, 2012)

First thing I do is select The Good Ones and The Bad Ones in Lightroom. And I'll be left with only 25% of my shots. Once I've chosen the Good Ones, I start processing them. If I see any of them being not up to my standard, I'll send them to be the Bad Ones again. And I'll be left with only 20% of my shots. 

I don't delete any photos I shot. None. There's no reason to delete them. Memory space is so cheap nowadays, and I shoot at the rate of 10000 pictures per year. I just can't fill up my HDD! Maybe one day I'll delete all the rejects.


----------



## JakePhoto (Jul 24, 2012)

When shooting something serious, I shoot RAW+JPEG. If the shot is good, I work in JPEG. If I messed up a little with the exposure, or some serious retouching, I'll open up the RAW.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 24, 2012)

I took Scott Kelby's advice and use the rating system inside Lightroom. Upon import, I go through everything and rate from 1-5, tossing everything that is 1,2 or 3. I'll keep the 4's until the next time I look at them and I immediately process the 5's.

If it's a wedding, I put all the SOOC images in a private gallery for my client to select their favorites for the album, then I edit those. 

I used to edit everything, but I was a dumb rookie then.


----------



## bratkinson (Jul 25, 2012)

DBA said:


> bratkinson said:
> 
> 
> > I wasn't (and still am) not ready for the extended computer processing times with RAW files. Just to copy from my SDHC card to my hard drive (via USB 2 reader) 100 RAW pictures is perhaps 15-20 minutes. Did I mention I am still using a single-processor 3.2 ghz AMD Athlon processor on my main computer? So, it's S-L-O-W by todays standards. Importing 100 RAWS into Lightroom 3 is another 20-30 minutes, and simply bringing up the next RAW in Lightroom is 30+ seconds, each, to start processing them!
> ...



I'm not sure whether it was my old slow single-processor that was simply being 'overrun' or what.  I just put the finishing touches on my 'screamer box' (quad processor AMD w/2 SSDs, etc).  Between the USB3 and quad processor, it should fly through downloading lengthy shoots.  So far, I've only downloaded a small 40 picture shoot.  Even that was far faster than the old computer.


----------



## DBA (Jul 25, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> I took Scott Kelby's advice and use the rating system inside Lightroom. Upon import, I go through everything and rate from 1-5, tossing everything that is 1,2 or 3. I'll keep the 4's until the next time I look at them and I immediately process the 5's.


I could never understand a 5 star picture rating system. What's the difference between a 1-2-3? How about a 3-4-5? Is a 4 just a tad better than a 3, but not as good as a 5? IMO that's way to confusing.

I personally use the LR "flag" rating system which gives you three options:
1 = junk, completely out of focus, random accidental ground shots. (delete at some point)
2 = tag and keep for possible future use (I do motocross events)
3 = process/edit

At a typical event I'll take 500-800 images and only ~5% get flagged (3).


----------



## Kolia (Jul 25, 2012)

5% ?

Wow I got my rear end chewed up in a different thread for claiming that a ratio of 1:100 very good picture was a good ratio for an amateur...

Lol


----------



## Kolia (Jul 25, 2012)

Oups! forgot the rest of my comment...

I use the star system for quality and color for theme in LR. The flags I use also to clear out the really bad ones and those worth looking at again.


----------



## DBA (Jul 25, 2012)

Kolia said:


> 5% ?
> 
> Wow I got my rear end chewed up in a different thread for claiming that a ratio of 1:100 very good picture was a good ratio for an amateur...
> 
> Lol


Link?

Define "very good picture", vast majority of the shots are decent to pretty good. lol However there's no need to process/edit 50 corner shots that are all pretty much the same, with the exception of being different riders. Unless a rider, magazine, newspaper, etc asks for one of a specific rider that is.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 25, 2012)

"Very good" is one stop above "good" !


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jul 26, 2012)

DBA said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > I took Scott Kelby's advice and use the rating system inside Lightroom. Upon import, I go through everything and rate from 1-5, tossing everything that is 1,2 or 3. I'll keep the 4's until the next time I look at them and I immediately process the 5's.
> ...



Read the book and you'll understand.


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jul 26, 2012)

DBA said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> > I took Scott Kelby's advice and use the rating system inside Lightroom. Upon import, I go through everything and rate from 1-5, tossing everything that is 1,2 or 3. I'll keep the 4's until the next time I look at them and I immediately process the 5's.
> ...




I rate with a 3-4-5 rating. basically i will quickly go thru the entire set and mark anything a 3 I want to actually look at. Then i'll just look thru the 3's and see wich ones are good enough to edit and wittle them down to a 4. Then I will look for the small stuff that I may have missed. something that will make me decide on wether to process it or not.  

How many you process has so many factors. Like you said, if your set on a corner you may wind up with 20 keepers out of a bunch but you only need to edit up 1 of those images. so you could have 100 photos and have 50 of them keepers but you only edit one. so what's your percentage, 50% or 1%  doesn't really matter.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jul 26, 2012)

1 Star = Useable
2 Star = (I forgot)
3 Star = (I forgot)
4 Star = Portfolio Level
5 Star = Reserved for future use


----------



## DBA (Jul 26, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> DBA said:
> 
> 
> > jamesbjenkins said:
> ...


If you junk 1-3 what's the point of using a 5 star system?


12sndsgood said:


> How many you process has so many factors. Like you said, if your set on a corner you may wind up with 20 keepers out of a bunch but you only need to edit up 1 of those images. so you could have 100 photos and have 50 of them keepers but you only edit one. so what's your percentage, 50% or 1%  doesn't really matter.


Exactly.


----------



## Kolia (Jul 26, 2012)

If you have only a 2 stars rating, it means your best picture can only be a 2 stars. 

Which is well below my best pictures since mine have 5 stars...

It's common sense !

Aha !


----------



## 12sndsgood (Jul 26, 2012)

lol


----------



## gsgary (Jul 26, 2012)

Yes because its either on a roll of 36 or 12


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 26, 2012)

DBA said:
			
		

> I could never understand a 5 star picture rating system. What's the difference between a 1-2-3? How about a 3-4-5? Is a 4 just a tad better than a 3, but not as good as a 5? IMO that's way to confusing.
> 
> I personally use the LR "flag" rating system which gives you three options:
> 1 = junk, completely out of focus, random accidental ground shots. (delete at some point)
> ...



Here's my rating paradigm:

1- accidental snaps, floor, crotch, etc.
2- bad focus, setting off, blinkers
3- technically ok, just bad composition or completely bland, uninspiring
4- technically perfect, well composed, interesting and artistic elements
5- what I call "framers", the cream of the crop from a set, usually 3-5 images

Using this system has a lot of benefits, not the least of which is it makes it painfully obvious how many of your shots are keepers. It has helped me be much more focused and thoughtful before taking a picture. No sense in wasting time, energy and equipment life on images you won't even process...

Now, probably about 60-70% of my images are either a 4 or a 5.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jul 27, 2012)

jamesbjenkins said:


> DBA said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you have the time, I'm suggesting that you should change the 1st star as rejects, and move to a 4 star system, reserving the 5th star. And, you can also use the Flag for photos your client want. For the color system, use it to tag HDR shots, Pano shots, HDR Pano shots etc.


----------



## TonysTouch (Jul 27, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> I'm switching from RAW to RAW+JPEG. I decided to give my JPEGs to those who wants my half decent photos (I'm not a pro) quickly while I play with the RAW happily by myself.



If you are shooting RAW then why waste the space on the JPGS. If you need JPGS for people and have Photoshop, then move the photos you want to convert and batch convert them into JPGS. I started doing this a few months ago and it has really saved me time and HD space.


----------



## EchoingWhisper (Jul 27, 2012)

TonysTouch said:


> EchoingWhisper said:
> 
> 
> > I'm switching from RAW to RAW+JPEG. I decided to give my JPEGs to those who wants my half decent photos (I'm not a pro) quickly while I play with the RAW happily by myself.
> ...



Batch converting is kinda' slow for me though. Even if my computer is fast, I'm still shooting RAW+JPEGs for events. Most of the time I don't have any time to edit/convert. I have to pass the photos that day in some occasions.


----------



## jamesbjenkins (Jul 27, 2012)

EchoingWhisper said:


> For the color system, use it to tag HDR shots, Pano shots, HDR Pano shots etc.



That's actually exactly what I use the color tag system for. Not just HDR, pano, etc. but for labeling different kinds of specialty shots.


----------

