Raw

[sara505]

Switching over to RAW - there must be some great turorials out there? Advice, comments?

[Art Scott]

Switching over to RAW - there must be some great turorials out there? Advice, comments?



What are you post processing with? If it is lightroom, then I recommend Scott Kelby's book " Lightroom for Photogs".

If it is ACR with Photoshop CS or CS2 then I recommend one of the REal World Raw books by Bruce Fraizer......

See 'em all the time at the local Barnes and Noble and also Borders ......if you need to order due to lack of good bookstores in your town.....then I highly recommend www.bookpool.com ....... great discounted prices

[Strav]

The Bruce Fraser books are very good - waiting for the CS3 guide to come out in Aug.

[sara505]

What are you post processing with? If it is lightroom, then I recommend Scott Kelby's book " Lightroom for Photogs".

If it is ACR with Photoshop CS or CS2 then I recommend one of the REal World Raw books by Bruce Fraizer......

See 'em all the time at the local Barnes and Noble and also Borders ......if you need to order due to lack of good bookstores in your town.....then I highly recommend www.bookpool.com (http://www.bookpool.com) ....... great discounted prices

Thanks, Art. Using an antiquated version of ps, combined with Canon Digital Photo Professional.

I'm the "leap, then look" type. I never read instructions until after I've put the thing together. I have a friend who has given me the basics - he has been goading me to do this, and now I'm ready. Will check out those books, and poke around here. Thanks so much. I'm excited about the possibilities, nervous about the learning curve, extra time at computer. Here's a sample of a family shoot from last evening here on the Vineyard - perfect late afteroon/hazy light. minimal processing - needs to be lightened up a bit, imo. I think it may be simply a matter of "doing it," and perusing books, discussions. Seems I can simply "save as jpg," and retain original RAW file - how to do this in the most time efficient manner would be one question - also wondering if I will be doing preliminary processing in DPP, other stuff in PS after converting?
http://sara505.smugmug.com/photos/171559371-M.jpg

[sara505]

Here's the same image, tweaked (levels and a little sharpening) in ps, as I already know how to do, quickly and well. Do I have to do this every time - RAW utility, then PS? Or?
http://sara505.smugmug.com/photos/171562302-M.jpg

[claudermilk]

IMHO Bruce Frasier's Real World Camera RAW book is a good read, even if you aren't using ACR. Yes, it is heavily ACR-centric, but the concepts translate across all RAW converters & he gets into the why, which to me is more important than just "twiddle the dial to here" recipes.

Thanks for the bookpool link, Art. I'm always on the lookout for other good book sources (I tend to look at allbookstores.com). I refuse to use Amazon. :humungus

[sara505]

IMHO Bruce Frasier's Real World Camera RAW book is a good read, even if you aren't using ACR. Yes, it is heavily ACR-centric, but the concepts translate across all RAW converters & he gets into the why, which to me is more important than just "twiddle the dial to here" recipes.

Thanks for the bookpool link, Art. I'm always on the lookout for other good book sources (I tend to look at allbookstores.com). I refuse to use Amazon. :humungus

What's ACR?

[jfriend]

What's ACR?

ACR = Adobe Camera RAW - the RAW processor that comes with Adobe Photoshop and built into Adobe Lightroom.

[sara505]

ACR = Adobe Camera RAW - the RAW processor that comes with Adobe Photoshop and built into Adobe Lightroom.
Perhaps I should upgrade my antiquated PS version and use ACR/Lightroom, bypass the Canon utility altogether?

[claudermilk]

If you're happy with DPP (Digital Photo Professional--we tend to shorten these long converter names), then stick with it. There are a number of people who prefer its output to any third party converters; I happen to hate the UI enough to go looking elsewhere. Updating PS and looking at other tools can get expensive quickly. ...someone did warn you DSLRs are expensive, didn't they? :wink

[mrcoons]

Sara, you can pick up some good tips on Canon's DPP site (http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=386&fromTips=1). DPP is a little limited compared to the other converters but it can still be useful.

[Van Isle]

If you haven't already, set aside a good day or so to search "RAW" on this forum and read and take notes! There are more than a few "RAW for Dummies" threads here. It's all I've done, and I've got it down (the CONCEPT, anyway :rofl !) I'm still tidying up my workflow, of course, because there are more steps involved as opposed to JPEGs right out of the camera. But the control and flexibility is awesome. It's akin to having your own darkroom instead of just getting your 35mm done at the drug store.

VI

[sara505]

If you haven't already, set aside a good day or so to search "RAW" on this forum and read and take notes! There are more than a few "RAW for Dummies" threads here. It's all I've done, and I've got it down (the CONCEPT, anyway :rofl !) I'm still tidying up my workflow, of course, because there are more steps involved as opposed to JPEGs right out of the camera. But the control and flexibility is awesome. It's akin to having your own darkroom instead of just getting your 35mm done at the drug store.

VI

Thanks for the replies. I spent some time yesterday messing with DPP, and have some questions and concerns.

I am sure RAW is the way to go, have been putting it off for a while. But
if RAW is so great, and part of its value is in being able to convert to TIFF files for superior prints, what's the point if I can't upload tiff files to my smugmug site - this is a big part of my photo business - my customers love being able to see and share their photos, and it's a convenient way to market prints.
Will I now have to save as tiff and jpg?

DPP seems a little cumbersome, so far, especially when it comes to saving images - so far have only figured out how to save one image at a time - and it is very slow.

I was unable to access the tutorials at the DPP site.

I guess I'm about to embark on yet another learning curve!

Is RAW really worth it?

What about disk space?
An external hard drive will take care of this issue?

I am happy with the family shoot from the other evening, great images, but have not yet figured out what to do with the pictures - do I want to shoot a wedding coming up this weekend and trust I'll figure out how to deal with it all later? Oh my, I've opened Pandora's box!

Yes, will browse d-grin for RAW conversations, and I have a few books back in Brookline (I'm on the Vineyard right now).

Thanks, everyone, going swimming now.

[jfriend]

I am sure RAW is the way to go, have been putting it off for a while. But if RAW is so great, and part of its value is in being able to convert to TIFF files for superior prints, what's the point if I can't upload tiff files to my smugmug site - this is a big part of my photo business - my customers love being able to see and share their photos, and it's a convenient way to market prints.
Will I now have to save as tiff and jpg?


TIFF or PSD are useful as storage formats for images that you are in the middle of modifying (you can save layers in them too) and want a lossless way to save them. When printing or displaying a final result, however, a high quality JPEG (JPEG quality level 10) will give you just as good a results and there is no need to use TIFF.

[Van Isle]

Tiffs are really big files as they contain lots of data used in the making of the image and are lossless. When you save as JPEG a conversion takes place that eliminates lots of data which is virtually invisible to the eye, as well as info like "layers." A (high quality) JPEG is still really good to print. However, not only does the conversion lose data, but it does so EVERYTIME you open and save the file.

Workflow idea: do basic RAW conversion stuff. Convert to TIFF or PSD for PS work. Once you've got your product, convert to JPEG and upload to website, print, etc.

Disk space is a concern. But once you've made the JPEG and uploaded it, you can delete because you still have the RAW file (digital negative) from which you made the "print".

And is it worth it? YES! snap a few images of slightly yellow wedding dresses, and you'll agree that changing the white balance after the shoot is a very nice thing!

Remember, you don't have to shoot RAW all the time, nor do you have to fully process every single image you take. Try it, and if it has no value for you forget about it!

Happy shooting! :thumb

[Seefutlung]

I prefer DPP (version 3) for ISO 400 and under. I prefer RSP (no longer available) at ISO 400 and higher.

I prefer both to ACR and Lightroom.

Gary

[sara505]

TIFF or PSD are useful as storage formats for images that you are in the middle of modifying (you can save layers in them too) and want a lossless way to save them. When printing or displaying a final result, however, a high quality JPEG (JPEG quality level 10) will give you just as good a results and there is no need to use TIFF.

Okay, John. Thanks.

[sara505]

Tiffs are really big files as they contain lots of data used in the making of the image and are lossless. When you save as JPEG a conversion takes place that eliminates lots of data which is virtually invisible to the eye, as well as info like "layers." A (high quality) JPEG is still really good to print. However, not only does the conversion lose data, but it does so EVERYTIME you open and save the file.

Workflow idea: do basic RAW conversion stuff. Convert to TIFF or PSD for PS work. Once you've got your product, convert to JPEG and upload to website, print, etc.

Disk space is a concern. But once you've made the JPEG and uploaded it, you can delete because you still have the RAW file (digital negative) from which you made the "print".

And is it worth it? YES! snap a few images of slightly yellow wedding dresses, and you'll agree that changing the white balance after the shoot is a very nice thing!

Remember, you don't have to shoot RAW all the time, nor do you have to fully process every single image you take. Try it, and if it has no value for you forget about it!

Happy shooting! :thumb



iow, I'm keeping the unchanged RAW file as my "source, " or negatives, then delete the jpg? after all that work adjusting? Don't I want to file it somewhere? And the RAW files themselves are huge - the family shoot fromthe other evening, slightly under 200 images is 1.56 GB. This could add up!

A jpg loses info every time you open it and save it?? Really? Even if you don't alter it?

Thanks for your help, I'm feeling a bit encouraged.

[sara505]

I prefer DPP (version 3) for ISO 400 and under. I prefer RSP (no longer available) at ISO 400 and higher.

I prefer both to ACR and Lightroom.

Gary

Good to know. Why do you prefer RSP for ISO 400 and higher?

[sara505]

Another question: I'm working on a batch from Fourth of July - shot in RAW - Maybe it's my imagination, but I notice most of the images are very good quality, they look great, actually, with very little adjustment needed, just a tweak on the WB (awesome!) Is this the nature of RAW, or am I just getting better?

[sara505]

Ok, I'm getting the hang of this. So, I'm doing basic RAW and RGB adjustments in DPP. Seems simple enough. I can see, in some ways, it's more straightforward - with vastly more latitude! - than working a jpg image in ps. But obviously, I would use ps for cropping, moving heads, layering, etc. The save mechanism even doesn't bother me as much, as once I hit "enter," I am able to quickly move to the next image, by the time I've figured out what I wnat to do, if anything, "save" is completed.

Question: in the "convert and save" window there's an option for dpi output - do I need to mess with this? It's set at 350dpi.

What's the difference between setting the brightness, sharpness, tone, etc. in RAW and RGB?

I'm quite impressed, so far.

[Seefutlung]

Once you get reasonably familar with DPP ... it is really fast. I've heard that anything more than 300 DPI is wasted ... but I still save at 350 just in case. The sharpening is the same in RAW and RGB, the other tools work a bit differently. Also you can grab the bars on all edges of the graphs, and by pulling them in or out will effect the image in both RAW and RGB. I like the curves better in DPP than CS2. And in RGB you can play with Liminance RGB or RGB R G B and individual colors. ... And I like the monochromatic conversion in DPP. If you're in LA, LAShooters has the occasional workshop for DPP.

Gary

[Seefutlung]

Good to know. Why do you prefer RSP for ISO 400 and higher?

RSP has better noise control and it is a bit muddy (less contrast) when compared to DPP. One of the trade offs of high ISO is that your images get more contrasty ... DPP seems to pile on more contrst on an already contrasty shot while RSP tones the image down a bit.

Gary

[sara505]

Once you get reasonably familar with DPP ... it is really fast. I've heard that anything more than 300 DPI is wasted ... but I still save at 350 just in case. The sharpening is the same in RAW and RGB, the other tools work a bit differently. Also you can grab the bars on all edges of the graphs, and by pulling them in or out will effect the image in both RAW and RGB. I like the curves better in DPP than CS2. And in RGB you can play with Liminance RGB or RGB R G B and individual colors. ... And I like the monochromatic conversion in DPP. If you're in LA, LAShooters has the occasional workshop for DPP.

Gary

Thanks, Gary - That's what I'm seeing- faster than PS with adjustment layers, etc. I think I'm pretty much sold on this so far. I'm in New England - Boston and the Vineyard, the best of two worlds - but my daughter is in LA. Don't know why I can't access the DPP tutorials - it starts to open, then the little turning gizmo "breaks." Something to do with installing the active-x, I think.

[sara505]

RSP has better noise control and it is a bit muddy (less contrast) when compared to DPP. One of the trade offs of high ISO is that your images get more contrasty ... DPP seems to pile on more contrst on an already contrasty shot while RSP tones the image down a bit.

Gary

But RSP is no longer available? Is there an equivalent?

[pyrtek]

But RSP is no longer available? Is there an equivalent?


Adobe Lightroom 1.1 can be considered RPS's replacement.

[ziggy53]

But RSP is no longer available? Is there an equivalent?

Raw Shooter Essentials 2006 is still available (for free) and works pretty well. It allows a degree of semi-automation, in that you can copy settings to use against other, similarly exposed images, and then process those images as a batch.

It allows saving as 16 bit or 8 bit TIF as well as 8 bit JPG and different colorspace options. It's also pretty fast.

In really contrasty light, I often use the output of RSE and the output from i2e, combining them in PS. I found that the resulting images look better printed than either of the two applications alone (yes it's a lot of work.)

Both mentioned applications require Windows 2000 or above (XP Pro or XP MCE highly recommended.)

RSE 2006 free download:
http://www.photo-freeware.net/raw-shooter-essentials.php

i2e Image Editor discussion and discount thread:
http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=51034

[claudermilk]

Adobe Lightroom 1.1 can be considered RPS's replacement.

I wouldn't. But then I don't care for either (RSP's awful color rendition--a shame as the rest was very nice, LR's jack-of-all-trades compromises--bleh). RSP is an orphan app with no support--I'd personally prefer to stick with a current, supported app that will see improvements and will support newer cameras (sooner or later you will update & RSP will no longer be an option).

Anyway, my method is convert to 16-bit TIFF (65k levels vs 256), do final tweaking in PS and save to JPEG. The TIFF gets erased & the JPEG stays. I only convert the RAWs that I want to spend the time on, so they get rated & at a minimum threshold I start converting.

It sounds like you're well on your way climbing the learning curve. Once it all strats making sense things go faster & the edits get better.

[sara505]

I wouldn't. But then I don't care for either (RSP's awful color rendition--a shame as the rest was very nice, LR's jack-of-all-trades compromises--bleh). RSP is an orphan app with no support--I'd personally prefer to stick with a current, supported app that will see improvements and will support newer cameras (sooner or later you will update & RSP will no longer be an option).

Anyway, my method is convert to 16-bit TIFF (65k levels vs 256), do final tweaking in PS and save to JPEG. The TIFF gets erased & the JPEG stays. I only convert the RAWs that I want to spend the time on, so they get rated & at a minimum threshold I start converting.

It sounds like you're well on your way climbing the learning curve. Once it all strats making sense things go faster & the edits get better.

But you save the RAW negatives?

IOW, DPP is an okay utility with which to do the basic RAW adjustments?

I'm still wondering - maybe it's psychological, but it seems my original RAW image is better, in general, than shooting in jpg?

This is all very helpful info - thank you! I'm very excited about having entered the new world of RAW, with all its possibilities.

[claudermilk]

Yes, I save all the RAW files. Well, except the complete loser images (OOF, awful composition, etc.) which find their way to the round file.

Yes, DPP is a perfectly good converter. There are many photographers who prefer it and are willing to put up with the clunky interface for the end result. I'm not one of those, I went looking at what else was out there; I cut my teeth on Adobe Camera Raw as it did a decent enough job of conversion, opended the files right into PS and I could get my head around the interface quickly. I then tried demos of every converter I could find and settled on Bibble Pro as my converter of choice; I'm going to add LightZone as a second option soon.

The RAW vs JPEG thing is a personal choice. I do both depending on the situation. When I'm doing family snaps-type shooting, I'll shoot JPEG and ake sure the camera is set to get exposure nailed--that allows me to quickly process the images & get them up on my private family galleries. For personal artistic work and paying jobs, I shoot RAW so I can get every bit of quality out of the hero shots that I can. I guess this is why I'm finding the RAW vs JPEG online debates so tiresome these days (fair warning, I'm not real nice on those threads. :grim:gun2)

[Van Isle]

And as far as saving RAW files go, in most editors when you save the RAW file you also save the file that contains all your adjustments. So when you delete the JPEG to save space after it's been uploaded to a website or printed, you can easily go back to the RAW file and make another JPEG, same size, quality, or different. The scope is infinite!

VI

PS it also sounds like your getting the hang of making the shot in-camera. Although you can PP the heck out of pictures, there is nothing better than a great shot made on site. PP is good for little tweaks if you need it; much more becomes noticeable and detracts from final quality.

[sara505]

And as far as saving RAW files go, in most editors when you save the RAW file you also save the file that contains all your adjustments. So when you delete the JPEG to save space after it's been uploaded to a website or printed, you can easily go back to the RAW file and make another JPEG, same size, quality, or different. The scope is infinite!

VI

PS it also sounds like your getting the hang of making the shot in-camera. Although you can PP the heck out of pictures, there is nothing better than a great shot made on site. PP is good for little tweaks if you need it; much more becomes noticeable and detracts from final quality.

So, when it asks, "crw256 has been modified, do you want to save the changes?" if I say yes, it is actually saving two files - the one I've adjusted and the original? or have I permanently modified the original?

[Van Isle]

So, when it asks, "crw256 has been modified, do you want to save the changes?" if I say yes, it is actually saving two files - the one I've adjusted and the original? or have I permanently modified the original?

It is doing neither. It is not saving two copies, nor is it saving a permanently mod'd original.

It is NOT changing the original RAW file, it is saving that file alongside the set of adjustments that are applied when you open it in that editor. So you can always make changes to your adjustments without losing data in the original RAW file. Hence yet another benefit of non-destructive RAW editing. Cool, eh?
In fact I think in certain editors you can save different versions of an edit with NO changes or loss to data of the original RAW file and without duplicating the original file, just adding a different set of adjustments.

[claudermilk]

The waters have gotten a bit muddied in the last few posts.

In all the converters I have used, the original RAW file is not touched, the only thing that is being saved is a set of conversion instructions. Depending on the converter, this can be a sidecar file (e.g., Bibble) or in a central database (e.g., Adobe's products). Either way all that is being saved is your conversion steps. If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).

[Van Isle]

If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).

Une petite correction, SVP:

No siree. Nikon NX is non-destructive editor for Nikon RAW (NEF). I use it all the time! It may be destructive for JPEG or other RAW, but I don't know. :dunno

VI

[claudermilk]

Une petite correction, SVP:

No siree. Nikon NX is non-destructive editor for Nikon RAW (NEF). I use it all the time! It may be destructive for JPEG or other RAW, but I don't know. :dunno

VI

OK. I have read from some NX users that it wrote to the RAW file & caused them issues. I would prefer to be misinformed there.

[sara505]

The waters have gotten a bit muddied in the last few posts.

In all the converters I have used, the original RAW file is not touched, the only thing that is being saved is a set of conversion instructions. Depending on the converter, this can be a sidecar file (e.g., Bibble) or in a central database (e.g., Adobe's products). Either way all that is being saved is your conversion steps. If I were to find a converter that changes the original file, I would not use it (FYI, AFAIK Nikon NX does this--and trashes the files because of it).

So, just messing around, I 1. adjusted the image; 2. converted and saved as jpg; 3. saved changes to original RAW file. I now see in my folder the three thumbnails: The RAW, with noted change; a tiff file of same image; and the jpg. The RAW image looks great and shows the changes I made, the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right? Should I continue in this vein? What am I actually doing to the file if I'm not ending up with the changes I made?

[sara505]

So, just messing around, I 1. adjusted the image; 2. converted and saved as jpg; 3. saved changes to original RAW file. I now see in my folder the three thumbnails: The RAW, with noted change; a tiff file of same image; and the jpg. The RAW image looks great and shows the changes I made, the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right? Should I continue in this vein? What am I actually doing to the file if I'm not ending up with the changes I made?

But when I open up the image in ps it looks good, and it looks good on the web site.

It's all a little confusing - but I'll just keep cracking away at it.

[pyrtek]

I wouldn't.

You wouldn't what?


But then I don't care for either (RSP's awful color rendition--a shame as the rest was very nice, LR's jack-of-all-trades compromises--bleh).

Well, that's nice, but the question was about a replacement for RSP now
that it's dead. Since Lightroom 1.1 is a continuation of RSP (Adobe bought
RSP and a couple of the people who worked on it), and it is based on its
engine, I think it is a perfectly valid answer, no matter what your opinion on
the software itself.


RSP is an orphan app with no support

Ummm, yeeees, that is why a replacement was asked for, nay? :scratch

[pyrtek]

the tiff and the jpg don't look so good. Does this sound right?

That depends on what you mean by "don't look so good". Do the colors look
bland compared to what you see in Photoshop? If so, it's probably your color
profile. Try converting it to sRGB before saving the image as a JPG.

[sara505]

That depends on what you mean by "don't look so good". Do the colors look
bland compared to what you see in Photoshop? If so, it's probably your color
profile. Try converting it to sRGB before saving the image as a JPG.

My profile in DPP is set to sRGB.
The RAW file looks crisp and bright and reflects the changes I made. The converted jpg, as viewed beside it in DPP, looks dull, as if I had not adjusted it. But when I open the jpg in ps, it looks fine, seems to relect the changes I made to the original.
It must be the difference in the interfaces - if that's the correct language?

Next, I will learn how to batch process. I have figured out how to get the desired files into the batch folder, now - how to assign the changes to the batch?

[pyrtek]

The converted jpg, as viewed beside it in DPP, looks dull, as if I had not adjusted it. But when I open the jpg in ps, it looks fine, seems to relect the changes I made to the original.

This sounds exactly like a color profile problem. Try this, open the JPG in
Photoshop, go to Edit->Convert to Profile and tell us what is in the "Source
Space" field.

[sara505]

This sounds exactly like a color profile problem. Try this, open the JPG in
Photoshop, go to Edit->Convert to Profile and tell us what is in the "Source
Space" field.

I don't have that option. I'm too embarrassed to say what version ps I'm using.

[wolfejm]

I just mentioned this in another thread, and it seemed to be more or less on target for this discussion too. I have a Rebel XTi and too recently considered how to sort all this raw processing out. I purchased DxO Optics Pro and use it for all of my raw processing. I really like the output, the interface isn't bad, and the options are pretty cool. The only thing it doesn't do is any kind of auto color fixing. There are a lot of (too many?) options for controlling color and white balance. Just not a one-click fix my color button.

Thought you might be interested, because this helped me a lot. It has given me a pretty reasonble workflow for a very reasonble price. Incidentally, many of the fixes (especially the gemotric ones) are calibrated to an enourmous collection of dSLR's and lenses.

http://www.dxo.com/intl/photo

[Art Scott]

I don't have that option. I'm too embarrassed to say what version ps I'm using.

PS is just a tool.....I have tools (cameras ) that are over 30 yrs old and I can still use them....and when I do I am not embarrased to do so....as far as PS goes I still have PS7 along with CS installed on my PC.....I have been keeping 7 due to the fact that when I get my digital imaging down pat (as comfortable with digital as I was with film) that I have $1000's of plug ins to play with and I have found many of them have never been upgraded past PS7....oh yeah I still have ps 5 & 6 lying arouund here somewhere....had to uninstall them for some reason when I installed CS but 7 was able to stay.......

Also by letting those trying to help what your using it may help them to help you more easily.

[sara505]

PS is just a tool.....I have tools (cameras ) that are over 30 yrs old and I can still use them....and when I do I am not embarrased to do so....as far as PS goes I still have PS7 along with CS installed on my PC.....I have been keeping 7 due to the fact that when I get my digital imaging down pat (as comfortable with digital as I was with film) that I have $1000's of plug ins to play with and I have found many of them have never been upgraded past PS7....oh yeah I still have ps 5 & 6 lying arouund here somewhere....had to uninstall them for some reason when I installed CS but 7 was able to stay.......

Also by letting those trying to help what your using it may help them to help you more easily.

I am still using the edition of ps I purchased many years ago when I was working for a newspaper, at the time that we made the HUGE switch over to scanning negatives and e-mailing our images - seems like ancient history now. Of course it was a big improvement over shooting, developing, printing, and hand-delivering the prints, but just the beginning of the revolution, the tip of the iceberg. Must have been '99 or so. Anyway, it's ps 5. Every year I tell myself, when I master this version I'll upgrade, and of course I haven't mastered it yet. Well, who ever does?
I also have hung onto two 10-D's, that I love and use for everything - weddings, family shoots, etc. 1. I can't afford the latest models; 2. I am comfortable with the 10-D and, again, wanted to learn it thoroughly before upgrading; 3. It takes perfectly fine pictures - without the seemingly overwhelmingly large files of the newer cameras.
I would be happy to upgrade everything - I am more than ready - but can't afford to right now. I am a poor struggling student, and photography, while it is a huge love - has been for thirty-five years - is only a part time gig for me.
But I very much feel out of the loop when I read conversations about cs2, cs3, and the later model cameras.
Meanwhile, I plug away with what I've got.

This has been a helpful conversation about RAW - Thank you! - I am hooked now. I figured out how to save, copy and paste recipes, making my workflow go very smoothly - especially when shooting a large number of images unde the same lighting conditions; much faster than ps, like being able to click "auto adjust" on every image.

Still don't understand "save," though. I was able to save some RAW files and DPP seemed to save parallel files - jpg and the original RAW - but I tried it again, saving the changes to the original RAW file, and it applied the changes, therefore changing the negatives.

Meanwhile, I plug away, poke around, and keep at it.

[Art Scott]

I still have a copy of MASTERING PS5 :wink.....and a few other "outdated books" I use from time to time...but I will need to start a downsizing real soon :D....you are very correct about not mastering one version before getting into another......they have been coming so fast that I doubt that Scott Kelby has time to actually MASTER any version of PS :D ..............

EDIT?
: AS A student you could probably pick up PS elements5 for way cheap thru Academic Superstore and I believe it processes raw files but the gimp and bibble could be a way to go for free (gimp is not sure about bibble)......

[sara505]

I still have a copy of MASTERING PS5 :wink.....and a few other "outdated books" I use from time to time...but I will need to start a downsizing real soon :D....you are very correct about not mastering one version before getting into another......they have been coming so fast that I doubt that Scott Kelby has time to actually MASTER any version of PS :D ..............

EDIT?
: AS A student you could probably pick up PS elements5 for way cheap thru Academic Superstore and I believe it processes raw files but the gimp and bibble could be a way to go for free (gimp is not sure about bibble)......

Do I want elements or CS?

[jfriend]

Do I want elements or CS?

As one who started with Elements, used it for a couple years and learned how to get a lot out of it, I generally recommend that people start out with Elements and later upgrade to CSx if they ever get to the point where they feel like they have mastered the power in Elements and are outgrowing it.

For folks who never grew up with Elements and own CSx, this will seem like heresy and I'm sure they would recommend CSx, but the deal is that Elements is amazingly powerful and it's way more than most people ever master. Also, Adobe tends to offer upgrade deals to Elements users so you can probably eventually upgrade to CSx for less than buying it to start with if you end up wanting it after awhile.

The one exception to my Elements recommendation is if you intend to do a lot of event shooting where you have to routinely process hundreds of photos at a time. If that's the case, then you need something that's really geared for the workflow of managing and processing lots of photos. From Adobe, that would mean either Lightroom or CSx, not Elements. But, for pure photo editing Elements is very powerful, is easier to get started with and can usually be upgraded to CSx later in a cost effective manner if needed.