Rookie Question Regarding Post Processing (Page 6): First you need a well thought out plan on organizing your files. It should allow you to quickly find any subject or date you took a...

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Rookie Question Regarding Post Processing

Page <<first <prev 6 of 25 next> last>>

Jul 25, 2022 09:03:24 #

thegrover Loc: Yorba Linda, CA

First you need a well thought out plan on organizing your files. It should allow you to quickly find any subject or date you took a photo. Give this careful thought then use it religiously. Hint it is not your desktop.
For example when I download from the memory card I use an organizer the allows me to assign the date as a prefix to the file name and creates folders as needed then put the file where it should go.
All photos are in a folder named "My works of art."
next level are sub folders by year (2020.2021, 2022....
Then dated sub folders with subject..2022-01-26 Africa
Next in that sub folder are the actual photo files in with the date as a prefix.
So XYZ-5698.nef becomes 2022-01-26-XYZ-5698.nef.
Note this is far simpler than it sounds, it is easy to automate, your never have to worry about duplicate file numbers and you can easily find ones you want share and you avoid duplicating files.
This is not the only way to organize your work, decide what works for you and be consistent.

Jul 25, 2022 09:14:31 #

HRPufnstuf

Wow.
I read UHH posts once a day, usually first thing in the morning. A summary of everything the day before.
Today I opened up 5 pages on this thread.
Wrong. No, you are wrong. Wrong! NO, You are wrong. YOU are wrong! YOU are WRONG! No, YOU! WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Sheesh.
A lot of help to the original post, yeah?

Jul 25, 2022 09:15:09 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Ysarex wrote:

Just in case you're tempted. Here's a JPEG from my Canon camera. I took the photo with daylight window and mixed overhead LEDs. I set the camera's WB to it's fluorescent setting and the colors are off. You think it's easy to adjust so the colors are accurate? Go ahead. In setting WB for the raw file only 1 mouse click is required.

Not only could I "fix" it with one click, I could adjust it any way I liked with one click in ACDSee's jpg editor using the WB tool. I could tailor it to my liking using the sliders provided as well.

I could also adjust the color balance, exposure, brightness, contrast and a million other parameters with ease using the tools available. I could also load it in various external tools like NIK filters and adjust it to my hearts content. RAW absolutely not needed, not in the least.

I suggest you quit fooling with your white balance and use auto white balance like most people, your camera will do a much better job so you don't need to spend a few seconds "fixing" it in your editor.

Jul 25, 2022 09:21:30 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

BigDaddy wrote:

So you think jpg is not the "appropriate file... (show quote)

This is false. It is not the exact same tool and does not function to produce the same result. You're spewing misinformation. Back it up and show us: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-746438-4.html#13309373

BigDaddy wrote:

I have no clue if current PS has a white balance tool built in, but I know you could load a jpg image into the raw editor and use the tool there if you wanted.

Jul 25, 2022 09:22:57 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

imagemeister wrote:

I shoot JPEG only - as does Ken Rockwell. Especial... (show quote)

That about sums it up perfectly.

Jul 25, 2022 09:23:26 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

BigDaddy wrote:

Not only could I "fix" it with one click, I could adjust it any way I liked with one click in ACDSee's jpg editor using the WB tool.

That's BS and no you can't -- show us.

BigDaddy wrote:

I could tailor it to my liking using the sliders p... (show quote)

Jul 25, 2022 09:33:41 #

therwol Loc: USA

imagemeister wrote:

I shoot JPEG only - as does Ken Rockwell. Especial... (show quote)

I'm with you. If I shot everything RAW, I'd never get around to post processing it all. Even though I'm retired, I'm busy with many things other than photography. I'm already overwhelmed with having to go through thousands of scans and photographs of slides and negatives to tweak the fading and color shifts and clean up some spots. I photographed a lot of color negatives RAW because the reversal software I use requires it. For my day to day photography, I shoot JPEGS. I used to enjoy darkroom work when I was young and had time for it. I'd spend many whole days developing and printing pictures. I don't have time for that sort of thing any longer, and today that means post processing a lot of RAW files. I understand the advantages of RAW, but I just don't have the time for it.

Jul 25, 2022 09:37:45 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

HRPufnstuf wrote:

Well you sure added a lot for the original poster!
Thanks for all your time and effort!

Jul 25, 2022 09:38:27 #

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. The RAW photographer is more ease at the keyboard and has a natural awareness of the potential of the resulting image.

Jul 25, 2022 09:47:12 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

thegrover wrote:

First you need a well thought out plan on organizi... (show quote)

You do know that all your picture files have a slew of dates contained in the file and any decent photo organizer will use whatever dates you wish to list them. Also, most (all?) cameras assign a unique, numeric file name in chronological order. This name is ideal for keeping track of your files and avoiding duplicates. All you need is a good photo organizer, and then assign all the appropriate keywords to each picture for easy look-up.

Jul 25, 2022 09:47:45 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

BigDaddy wrote:

So you think jpg is not the "appropriate file type." Digital camera's get the white balance correct most of the time

This is false. No digital cameras don't get WB correct most of the time. Auto WB algorithms get close often but also often fail badly. They're rarely correct but when they're close they work well enough for people with low standards (like you). Below is an example of typical auto WB performance.

BigDaddy wrote:

so white balance is a non-issue, and when it's not perfect, jpg editors allow adjustment w/o a problem.

This is false. When the camera's auto WB fails it's much more difficult to correct the error by processing the JPEG that is already screwed up (unless of course you have very low standards or maybe colorblind). Most people can't do it as you previously proved.

Jul 25, 2022 09:47:50 #

therwol Loc: USA

CHG_CANON wrote:

Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. The RAW photographer is more ease at the keyboard and has a natural awareness of the potential of the resulting image.

Sometimes you say things that are very true, and this is true, but as I said in my post before yours, it requires a time commitment that I don't have to give. Most of the jpegs that come out of my cameras are good enough for printing and sharing or require minor tweaking.

Jul 25, 2022 09:55:43 #

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Above is the exact full quote the Hog provided from your message. You out did yourself this time, NOTHING of your post was quoted by the Hog. Perhaps the Hog editor is smarter than we think.

Anyway, I did edit your silly picture, and I did everything I said I did. Showing you is a waste of time, I've done it in the past and you are incapable of accepting the truth. In other words, I'm not wasting my time "showing" you.

OH, btw, I think you used some high compression on the jpg side of the last image you provided. Besides the color being "off" the resolution is also much different. This is NOT normal unless you intentionally use large compression levels or fuss with the resolution in other ways. I was able to adjust the white balance on it to come close, but not what I'd call perfect. I think you not only deliberately screwed with the white balance, you screwed with other things as well. Just my opinion.

Jul 25, 2022 10:02:58 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

BigDaddy wrote:

In other words, I'm not wasting my time on "showing you" anymore.

That's because you failed the last time you tried and you'll fail again this time and you know it. You're a no-show spewing BS and as soon as you're challenged for your BS it's tail between your legs and run.

Jul 25, 2022 10:11:49 #

ncribble Loc: Albuquerque, NM

Gene, Just to sure that I was not repeating what might have been previously stated, I read all 6 pages of the various responses. 15 years ago I was asking the same question. So I shot Raw and then let Lighroom do its magic by hitting "Auto". For me it gave me something equal to or maybe even better than a .jpg, and I had the raw file available if at some point I was proficient enough to return and add my acquired expertise.

On 5 or 10% of those early shots I've probably returned and. re-edited. "When is good enough good enough". Today I enjoy the processing of Raw originals and do it rather quickly. But my start was with 'Auto'.

Keep shooting and enjoy.

Page <<first <prev 6 of 25 next> last>>

If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.

Main Photography Discussion

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum