# tips on getting started shooting in raw?



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 2, 2012)

I've always shot in JPEG. I've considered shooting in raw many times but based on things I've read like it will slow down continuous shooting mode and the hassle of of needing special software to edit/view and stuff made me avoid it.

But since I spend so much time editing anyways and reading all the pros about RAW is making me reconsider it.

Does it really slow down continuous shooting?

I haven't installed DPP yet but will processing raw images be better in DPP or Photoshop Elements 7.0?

any tips/resources on getting started in shooting in raw?


----------



## traveller (Jan 2, 2012)

If you spend that much time editing your photos, then you may as well shoot RAW. Assuming that you are shooting your jpegs quite neutral with the aim of maximising your options in post, shooting RAW will add only one more short step to your current work flow. The benefits are an increase in the amount of information available in your camera's files, which gives you more options for post-processing; this is especially true with exposure and white balance latitude. 

The disadvantage (from what your needs appear to be) is that the cameras buffer will fill up far quicker shooting RAW images. If this is a big problem then you might want to shoot high speed action in jpeg, or invest in a 7D... 

As to which RAW converter to use, this is probably a matter of personal preference rather than a clear winner. I'm sure that the likes of Neuroanatomist will be able to expand upon this further...! 

In the meantime, try starting here: 
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm


----------



## handsomerob (Jan 2, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> Does it really slow down continuous shooting?



No, continuous shooting speed will remain the same, until your buffer gets full. 

But of course, the buffer will be full much quicker with RAW than shooting JPEG only because RAW files are around 3 times bigger in size. So you'll get a lot less shots before the continuous shooting speed actually slows down.

Depends on what you are shooting (for action/sports shooters this is a nightmare) but normally you should get enough shots in one burst shooting RAW. Make sure you use a fast card to clear out the buffer asap to make room for new images.

Don't forget that your SD/CF card will hold a lot less RAW files than JPEGs so it's a good idea to invest in high capacity cards (which got a lot cheaper lately). Oh, and your hard drive fill up much quicker as well ;D 

That said, I would recommend *always *shooting RAW, if you are spending time editing your photos anyway. RAW offers lot more possibilities and flexibility. You'll notice a great deal of difference once you're done with the editing.

DPP is good, a lot of people use it. Alternatively you can use ACR (Lightroom/Photoshop), Aperture (for MAC), DxO Optics, etc. Everyone has a favorite so I recommend you try them (almost all offer fully functional trial versions) for yourself and choose the one that suits your workflow best.


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 2, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> Does it really slow down continuous shooting?



Why not try it on your camera? Seriously, it would take like 10 seconds to try both ways. Then you would know what it does to your camera with your memory card.

And shoot RAW+jpg, Use the RAW when you want to get into heavy precessing and the use the jpg when you are happy with that. Also, when you are new to RAW processing, the jpg can be a good mark of your skills. In other words, you want your final image to look better than the camera's jpg, so if you shoot RAW+jpg, you have the jpg to compare.


----------



## JerryBruck (Jan 3, 2012)

If you've found yourself fussing with color, including tone and saturation; if you've wanted to sharpen or (say, for a portrait) soften the surfaces; if you've wanted to rescue a spontaneous photo which you've badly exposed, even by a couple of stops in either direction -- if you've wanted any of these and a whole list of such things to be available to you organically, without leaving traces that something was wrong to start with, then I predict you will be astonished at the power of RAW, and wonder why you didn't take advantage from the start. The files will be much fatter; house-keeping will be required; I can't think of any other downside, if you're already an editor. DPP conversions seem pretty fast, and pre-conversion you'll see these photos RAW in DPP and ZoomBrowser almost as if they were .jpg; DPP requires 10 or 20 seconds to reach "hi-quality preview," I think they call it. The corrective power of film negative over slide/reversal is another way to describe it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> ...shoot RAW+jpg, Use the RAW when you want to get into heavy precessing and the use the jpg when you are happy with that.



The progression begins. Many people start out shooting JPG, then learn about the benefits of RAW (such as changing white balance with no IQ penalty, better noise reduction, etc.). So, they switch to RAW+JPG, keeping the JPG if it's good enough, processing the RAW if the image needs work. Eventually, most switch to shooting RAW only. 

So, maybe just jump into RAW with both feet? Converting to JPG with the default settings in DPP will be nearly the same as shooting JPG. Or take the RAW+JPG intermediate step. But...one suggestion if you do. Save *all* your RAW files, not just the ones you work on. One day in the future, you'll want to go back to one of those images where you liked the JPG well enough, and use your well-honed RAW processing skills to improve it.


----------



## DanoPhoto (Jan 3, 2012)

What are recommended PP softwares that the group recommends? I am using the DPP and Photoshop
Essentials (on PC) right now, but I know it is very limited capabilities.


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> any tips/resources on getting started in shooting in raw?



Yes, just start shooting RAW in confidence! I started shooting RAW myself only a little over a year ago and man does it make a difference. A easy setup that worked for me was to use Adobe Lightroom instead of DPP. I find it has more options, better noise reduction and better picture library capability.

I actually spend less time working on my RAW image than before using only JPG. I use custom presets in Lightroom such that every I import pictures I apply a certain sets of action to my pictures. After that I only need to apply minor correction as I review them, but it is so much better!

Just to get the correct white balance alone it is worth shooting in RAW...anyway. For me Lightroom worked, but I did start with DPP to get into it. Try it out, and try downloading a few software in trial version to see which you prefer. Good luck.


----------



## mitchell3417 (Jan 3, 2012)

Shooting RAW is the best. Why give away a ton of data every shot? It makes white balance corrections so simple. It's also great for bring info out of highlights and shadows. I never shoot jpgs. NEVER.

Adobe Lightroom makes shooting RAW a joy and should be considered by any serious PPer.


----------



## pwp (Jan 3, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> I've always shot in JPEG. Any tips/resources on getting started in shooting in raw?



On the occasions I need to go back to my archive images and see that the files pre-date my switch to shooting 100% RAW (approx 2002) I get that sinking feeling of having to deal with a JPEG. The factors that delayed my switch to RAW were an ignorance of the facts, laziness and a very poor choice of software to do the RAW conversions. Like a lot of photographers I got on board the RAW workflow with Capture One Pro. Right now I convert in Lightroom.

Every single digital camera from the cheapest point & shoot makes a RAW file that is converted in-camera to make your JPEG file. At it's most basic level it's a simple algorithm that takes a broad based guess at what's best. Consumer DSLR's have "Picture Styles" or other menu settings that with deliver a different look JPEG. In perfect conditions they can be quite adequate.

The benefits of shooting RAW over JPEG are thoroughly documented. If in-camera JPEG's delivered perfect files, professional photographers would shoot JPEG. But a straw poll would reveal that an extremely high percentage of professionals and advanced amateurs will shoot 100% RAW. Why do you suppose this is? It's more work but once mastered the results are comprehensively improved.

Yes, your buffer depth is reduced when shooting RAW compared to JPEG, and this can be overcome on a camera like the 1D4 which can shoot highly useable commercial quality files on the medium RAW setting. It's a reduced file size which extends the buffer depth a lot. I sometimes switch when shooting swimming or track & field events. 

Just jump in the deep end. You'll quickly see it's easy going and find your photography a great deal more satisfying. DPP's GUI looks cute but is very clunky if processing a large number of RAW files. Canon don't make great software. If you have Photoshop there's the very well sorted ACR, or Lightroom is an inexpensive, highly flexible program. A few years ago I test drove every RAW converter on the planet and with hindsight it was a monumental waste of time. Each program has its strengths and weaknesses. Some people will be dogmatic that their choice of RAW converter is the best. Yawn... 

My experience has shown that Lightroom is fast and flexible and delivers files I'm happy to send out to clients. Others will have their equally valid favourite. If your volume is low and there are financial constraints, DPP will deliver beautiful conversions. Just do it.

Paul Wright


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 3, 2012)

When I shoot a pro sporting event, I will take between 1-4 thousand images. I shoot RAW+jpg because I need the jpg to send to publishers. RAW because when I settle down to sort the 5-10 best images of the day, I want the best image I can get. Do I keep all 4K RAW images... No. The shots of the Ref's back will never improve.

The reason I am the photographer of my local pro soccer team is because the last guy did not show up. When a reporter approached me on the sidelines at 7:45PM, he wanted one image to email to his publisher by the 8PM deadline. He did not have DPP or any other RAW image processor on his powerbook, but the jpg was fine for the newspaper. So by all means shoot RAW only if that works for you, but consider that jpg and RAW are just tools, ignoring one (or wearing I shoot RAW t-shirts, and beating your chest) does not make the other better.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 3, 2012)

If you are editing the color, contrast, sharpness, etc in jpeg, you are making thw IQ of your images deteriorate. With raw, they can get better.

I use lightroom. I adjust a typical image as to color, contrast, NR, sharpening, and set lightroom to always make those adjustments for that camera model at that ISO setting. That gives me a starting point, and its done as images are imported,so it takes no more work from me.

Since lightroom does not change the original file, I can always undo it and apply different adjustments now or 10 years in the future when some improved lightroom can do a better job. With jpeg from the camera, your images are cooked and it can't be undone. Any further adjustments merely tends to decrease the IQ of the image.

However, there are valid reasons to use jpeg too. If you need to send a image straight to a editor to post on the news where time is mooney, thats the best way. If you are taking a snapshot to post a item on craigslist or ebay, it will be 1000 times better than most, even if its jpeg.

I use the jpeg or raw mode based on what I intend to do with the image. Most of the time, I use raw.


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 3, 2012)

My best tip on shooting RAW is if you are going to shoot RAW, get Lightroom. When you load all of your RAW images into LR post processing is painless. You can get all the benefits of RAW for adjusting images and from there you can export your image(s) at anytime in JPG, TIFF, PSD, whatever you need to suite your needs. As mentioned previously, the best part is you can step back and undo changes at anytime or even go back to the original RAW image and start over, all without changing the original file. I used Photoshop alone for years and finally discovered LR and it has made my workflow 100% easier.


----------



## willrobb (Jan 3, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> If you are editing the color, contrast, sharpness, etc in jpeg, you are making thw IQ of your images deteriorate. With raw, they can get better.
> 
> I use lightroom. I adjust a typical image as to color, contrast, NR, sharpening, and set lightroom to always make those adjustments for that camera model at that ISO setting. That gives me a starting point, and its done as images are imported,so it takes no more work from me.
> 
> ...



+ 1, a big weighty 1. Some wise words of wisdom from Mt Spokane Photography here.

As has been said be several people above, if you have time to spend editing, shoot RAW. Once you take your RAW data and edit it up, you can create something really special. With jpeg, no matter what editing software you use you are just going to get loss in quality with each adjustment you do. 

If you are needing images asap to send to editors for print/online news outlets shoot jpeg as you can download and send them quicker.

Shooting RAW fills up your buffer more quickly than shooting JPEG. Depending on what you are shooting it could make a difference. With sports where you are following intense action and something could happen any second o et an hour or two JPEG would be a good option. If it's wildlife and you want to rattle of shots of an eagle leaving it's perch and starting it's flight RAW would do the job.


----------



## smirkypants (Jan 3, 2012)

I don't necessarily agree that it takes that much longer to process RAW files. I have about 100 presets in Adobe Camera Raw (same as Lightroom) but I have six each for my three main lenses that I call BASIC 70-200 1, BASIC 70-200 2, etc. These have common adjustments for lens, light, conditions, etc. If I need to be fast I can basically look at the image and see what it needs, then save it quickly in JPEG and it will almost always look better than straight from the camera. Seriously, takes seconds.

Also, this cannot be stressed enough... if you need to shoot fast, you need fast memory cards. I have half a dozen Lexar 600x 32gb cards. The difference between these and the whatever-is-cheapest cards is considerable: you can literally shoot two to three times faster.


----------



## te4o (Jan 3, 2012)

The important advice from the forum is to keep your best RAW files very well backed up - because some day as Neuro says you'll come back and re-edit the best shots before printing. The skills of editing come with time and reading. This has happened to me time and time again. And I find it amazing how you I go back and improve my most favourite shots from 3-4 years ago - Aperture and LR and all the rest keep the RAWs unaffected from your early clumsy attempts to postprocess them. I went over to NIK and some PS CS5 work. It is a time consuming business and satisfaction doesn't come overnight...
I shoot in the mean time only in RAW with neutral settings, no in-camera sharpening, no in camera colour management (like in Landscape mode), no Noise Reduction etc and my import preset in Aperture doesn't do any processing except some minor boost - all of these tasks are better performed in the NIK plugins (I find I have more control there than in the camera - I use still a 40D). It is quite impressive how dull the RAWs look initially in Aperture (or your RAW converter) and how you can turn them into pieces of art and expression later.
JPEG is for iPhones... for e-mailing out of cam 
But there are many other advisers here too - much more experienced


----------



## Old Shooter (Jan 3, 2012)

What are you seasoned RAW shooters using for white balance? ExpoDisc, Lally Cap, gray card, hoping there is something white you can click on?

I used to think the camera presets were adequate until I started using a WhiBal gray card to balance against... What a difference!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2012)

Old Shooter said:


> What are you seasoned RAW shooters using for white balance? ExpoDisc, Lally Cap, gray card, hoping there is something white you can click on?
> 
> I used to think the camera presets were adequate until I started using a WhiBal gray card to balance against... What a difference!



I use either a ColorChecker Passport or a SpyderCube. The latter is handy at Christmas time, for portraits in front of the tree, and candids while opening presents - I just hang it on the tree like an ornament, where it's unnoticed in the shot and serves as a nice exposure and WB calibrator during post. 







I also have a ColorRight that I use on occasion.


----------



## 5D Freak (Jan 3, 2012)

I think RAW is the way to go, even if you're a beginner. If you shoot jpeg and you are trusting the camera to do the processing for you. What if the jpeg is shot with a white balance you're not happy with? Jpeg is generally considered the finished product at it has far less latitdude for manipulation. Raw is the data direct from the sensor. HDDs and CF cards are pretty cheap these days. I think it's best to try. I'm pretty sure you will never stop shooting RAW once you see it's value.
I use DPP, which is easy to use. And you can manipulate and batch process many RAW files at the same time. Can take a little while to convert and save to 16bit tiff files (which I recommend for your good stuff) depending on your computer, but worth it.
The best way to learn is to have a go. You will quickly learn it's benefits and how to get the best out of your files. Make sure you keep and back up your raw files too.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Save *all* your RAW files, not just the ones you work on. One day in the future, you'll want to go back to one of those images where you liked the JPG well enough, and use your well-honed RAW processing skills to improve it.



You get a +1 John: 

This is exactly what I do... today I go back to RAW's I did last year and I can already bring to life shots I threw away before. Now with better PP skills and software... they have new life!

I use Lightroom /CS5/ Nik Software / Topaz etc. I like the LR NR but not it's sharpening tools. In my case I do jpg+RAW so that in Winexplorer, I can see thumbnails of the images to work on (for the post LR processing or CS5 only processing. Rest go through LR) 

After using RAW, there's no going back!


----------



## DanoPhoto (Jan 3, 2012)

Great advice...+1 for everyone...

Would think that you use external hard drive(s) for archiving and not burn to CD/DVD's, correct?

Recommendations to use multiple or single 250GB, 500GB or 1TB, for redundancy, or whatever is best price/deal?


----------



## akiskev (Jan 3, 2012)

TexPhoto said:


> cheeseheadsaint said:
> 
> 
> > Does it really slow down continuous shooting?
> ...



This!


----------



## eeek (Jan 3, 2012)

When I stepped into digital photography, I shot jpeg. Even though RAW was there, I shot jpeg. I mentally listed all the reasons I wouldn’t- too slow, would need more space, more cards and so on. So I blocked it without even trying it. I see you’ve done this as well. For me the big change came when I decided I had enough of keeping every single picture. I shoot a lot of sports, concerts and events and I was in the habit of keeping every out of focus ball, over cropped lead singer and tack sharp microphone. I jumped in and haven’t looked back. Not only do you have a huge amount of room to work, but you have a photo that as products like RAW conversion software improves, you’ll be able to go back and play with. I also look more at my photos and ask myself- do I need this shot? All the things you’ve laid out are true- it is slow, bigger and more work, but the result is at the end of the day you have a negative to work with versus a printed photo.


----------



## skitron (Jan 3, 2012)

If you want to give RAW a whirl, one thing to note is that you can get access to the latest version of Adobe Camera Raw via Photo Shop Elements 8 and newer. Also, these versions support third party plugins (I just plugged in Knoll Light Factory and Magic Bullet Photo Looks). The workflow is pretty lame but given you can get valid copies of PSE8 on eBay for $30 or cheaper, a good way to try a high quality solution. If you like the results and want better workflow, you could go for Adobe Light Room and still have a decent pixel editor in PSE. 

If you shoot a 18MP or less Canon (LOL, or a medium format Phase One), the Capture One RAW processor has superb workflow and color management. I've posted in another thread how this product's color NR and sharpening don't work worth a darn for 21MP files from a 5D2 for some odd reason, so cannot recommend if using with that camera. But fantastic with 60D/50D/XTi files.


----------



## skitron (Jan 3, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Note that Windows does not permit you to view RAW thumbnails in its default configuration (assuming you have a Windows system). There is a workaround for this, but it is a hack.



Microsoft has a published fix for this. So no hack needed.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 3, 2012)

scrappydog said:


> Note that Windows does not permit you to view RAW thumbnails in its default configuration (assuming you have a Windows system). There is a workaround for this, but it is a hack.



The viewer is available and is not a hack


----------



## Jay (Jan 3, 2012)

My 2cn:

Shoot RAW only. Import images into Lightroom, and after developing, export all pictures into small JPGs and backup RAWs. If you do other editing, just take export jpgs at the end. 

This way:
- you'll always have a nice, fast-to-browse preview collection of all your *final* images. 
- you'll have *0* pointless image (semi-good jpgs: too big for any purpose, bad cropping, wrong white balance)
- whenever you need images for certain pixel sizes, print or maybe you want to go back and change something, there's the original, backuped RAW - with previous "development settings" remembered in Lightroom

If you have expensive setup and go around carrying a tripod, it's just smart to shoot RAW. Storage space is quite cheap and no photographer is so awesome they never make mistakes that could be fixed with RAW. There's so much you can do with RAW. If keep changing between JPG and RAW, one day you realize you accidentally shot small JPGs afterwards. Speaking from experience, that will piss you off.

While normally shooting raw, it's cool to shoot jpg only as a "I really must get it right" exercise. "No need for any editing" beats "little editing for every picture" hands down.


----------



## brando72 (Jan 3, 2012)

I use either a ColorChecker Passport or a SpyderCube. The latter is handy at Christmas time, for portraits in front of the tree, and candids while opening presents - I just hang it on the tree like an ornament, where it's unnoticed in the shot and serves as a nice exposure and WB calibrator during post. 







I also have a ColorRight that I use on occasion.
[/quote]

Neuro,

What is an inexpensive way to get white balance correct while you are out shooting instead of relying on finding grey in a raw shot after imported into LR?

Kind Regards.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2012)

The most inexpensive way is probably a simple gray card, such as this one (B&H link). Just shoot a picture of it under the lighting conditions you want to balance. If you are going to use it to set a custom WB in-camera, you need to nearly fill the frame, but if you're going to shoot RAW and adjust in post, you can cut the card into smaller pieces (perhaps putting one in each camera bag, if you have more than one).


----------



## brando72 (Jan 3, 2012)

Ok. Thanks. Once imported into LR, how would you then apply the WB to all the pictures from the shoot using the shot of the WB card?

Kind Regards.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2012)

Not being a user of Lightroom, I have no idea...sorry! I use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversions, and there I'd select all the relevant images, click on the WB eyedropper tool, click on the gray card in one of the images, and I'd be done. Hopefully someone who does this in LR will chime in, if not, Adobe has help forums and the answer can probably be found with a search there or on Google...


----------



## brando72 (Jan 3, 2012)

No worries. Thanks Neuro.


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

brando72 said:


> Ok. Thanks. Once imported into LR, how would you then apply the WB to all the pictures from the shoot using the shot of the WB card?
> 
> Kind Regards.



You have a few choices. Once you select the picture with the right white balance in LR, you can then at the bottom of the screen, press the shift key and select all the picture you want the change to be applied. Then on the lower right of the screen press the sync button. A pop-up screen will appear asking you which feature you want to apply to all your picture. Simply select the white balance and then clic synchronize again. 

This is the fastest way. You can also access this same sync menu from the Settings menu and then Copy settings, but this way is more useful for a few picture. For batch processing, use the Sync button.

Hope this helps.


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

JR said:


> brando72 said:
> 
> 
> > Ok. Thanks. Once imported into LR, how would you then apply the WB to all the pictures from the shoot using the shot of the WB card?
> ...



Sorry forgot to mention you need to be in the Develop mode in LR for this to work. Press Develoop from the top Right corner before the above procedure. Good luck. Let me know if this does not work. I am quite familiar with LR now. I have been using it for only 5 months but I love it!


----------



## pwp (Jan 3, 2012)

Here's a whole bunch of links to help get you started with Lightroom:

http://www.lightroomforums.net/forum.php
http://www.photoshopuser.com/lightroom3
http://www.photoshopsupport.com/lightroom/tutorials.html
http://layersmagazine.com/category/lightroom
http://lightroomkillertips.com/
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html
http://www.lightroomqueen.com/
http://mulita.com/blog/
http://www.pixiq.com/contributors/4399

Do a Google search for Lightroom Tutorials or Lightroom Tutorials Beginners and you'll find plenty more.

It's places like these that I learned Lightroom. I have these bookmarked but hardly ever need to refer to them now. 

The Lightroom Forums are good value. Register, take a look around and start asking questions.

Paul Wright


----------



## cheeseheadsaint (Jan 3, 2012)

Wow thank you for all your replies! =D But I don't think I am going to be buying new software at this point. Between Photoshop Elements 7.0 and DPP which is better for raw processing? haven't installed DPP yet..


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 3, 2012)

JR said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > ...select the picture with the right white balance in LR, you can then at the bottom of the screen, press the shift key and select all the picture you want the change to be applied. Then on the lower right of the screen press the sync button. A pop-up screen will appear asking you which feature you want to apply to all your picture. Simply select the white balance and then clic synchronize again.
> ...



Wow...is it just me, or does:



neuroanatomist said:


> select all the relevant images, click on the WB eyedropper tool, click on the gray card in one of the images, and done



...sound a whole lot easier? I really hope there's an easier way to do it in LR, else from a workflow standpoint alone I'm glad I use DxO!


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jan 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



Yeah - you literally copy and paste.
command/control C - select white balance
then paste it onto the relevant images with command/control V.

Doesn't get easier than that.


----------



## JR (Jan 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow...is it just me, or does:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



lol! Yeah, my post did read a bit complicated does it! ???

It is much easier to do then how I explained it. I guess I could have done it shorter - was feeding my 20 month old at the same time so brain was multitasking 

Good news is there is a simple way to do it...(I just wanted to make sure brando72 knew all the menu location in case he was not familiar with LR).

Cheers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

alipaulphotography said:


> Yeah - you literally copy and paste.



Thanks! Sorry, JR, but I was pretty sure there had to be a _much_ easier way...


----------



## bigblue1ca (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > ...select the picture with the right white balance in LR, you can then at the bottom of the screen, press the shift key and select all the picture you want the change to be applied. Then on the lower right of the screen press the sync button. A pop-up screen will appear asking you which feature you want to apply to all your picture. Simply select the white balance and then clic synchronize again.
> ...



Wow...is it just me, or does:



neuroanatomist said:


> select all the relevant images, click on the WB eyedropper tool, click on the gray card in one of the images, and done



...sound a whole lot easier? I really hope there's an easier way to do it in LR, else from a workflow standpoint alone I'm glad I use DxO!
[/quote]


Hmmm...sounds a little easier. Although from a practical point, in LR if you are working on images you should be in Develop mode (Vs. Library, Slideshow, Print) so that's really not a step. The only extra step really from what you describe is pressing sync and ensuring you are syncing WB only if that's all you want to do, as you can sync about 25-30 things (sorry I don't have LR on the PC I'm using to confirm the number). As far as the sync step goes, it takes a second or two and then the whole batch is done, like most tech things, it sounds difficult when you detail it step by step, but is easy in execution.


----------



## JR (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah - you literally copy and paste.
> ...



That's ok, I learn every day! Especially on this site!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

JR said:


> That's ok, I learn every day!



As we all should! For example, I've probably posted dozens of times that the "S" in EF-S stands for "short back focus" but tonight, I learned that I was wrong...


----------



## pwp (Jan 4, 2012)

cheeseheadsaint said:


> Wow thank you for all your replies! =D But I don't think I am going to be buying new software at this point. Between Photoshop Elements 7.0 and DPP which is better for raw processing? haven't installed DPP yet..



Just try them both. Install DPP and get to work. Run the same file through both PS E 7.0 and DPP and check the results. DPP is known to be good for skintones. Sometimes if I have a troublesome file in LR I'll pull it into DPP and get a good result. There's absolutely no doubt DPP does great conversions but while the GUI looks cool it is really pretty clunky to use on bigger projects. Do a Google search for Canon DPP Tutorial. 

I've never used PS E 7.0 but quite likely it's the same processing engine as ACR in Photoshop CS5 which is also the same processing engine as Lightroom. 

You have got a lot of brilliant information on this thread...now it's time to fire up and get to work. Let us know how you go.

Paul Wright


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

pwp said:


> There's absolutely no doubt DPP does great conversions but while the GUI looks cool it is really pretty clunky to use on bigger projects. Do a Google search for Canon DPP Tutorial.
> 
> I've never used PS E 7.0 but quite likely it's the same processing engine as ACR in Photoshop CS5 which is also the same processing engine as Lightroom.



I definitely agree that DPP is clunky. I think what i dislike the most is the modularity - a tool for cropping/rotation, a different tool for cloning/stamp - I want to work on one image then move on, not crop all my images, then adjust all my exposures, etc. 

IIRC, the version of ACR for PSE lacks some of the features and adjustments of the 'full' version run with CS or LR.


----------



## skitron (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> IIRC, the version of ACR for PSE lacks some of the features and adjustments of the 'full' version run with CS or LR.



Plus the version of ACR available in PSE7 is limited to several version back. PSE8 and above supports the latest ACR version which purportedly has better NR.


----------



## brando72 (Jan 4, 2012)

JR said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > alipaulphotography said:
> ...



Thank you so much for your help JR! very much appreciated.


----------



## D.Sim (Jan 12, 2012)

Not sure if its been mentioned, but spare memory cards AND constant reviewing of your images will help...
If you've got a shot thats out of focus, badly exposed (and theres nothing in it), delete it, free up your space...

Also, format the card before each shoot. I actually format after I transfer, and before I start shooting - just to be sure.


----------

