# Post Processing help please.



## Valvebounce (Jul 5, 2014)

Hi Folks. 
Some of you with whom I have conversed will know I have thousands of raw images, 7D 40D and a few from 20D and 300D and still only use JPEGs straight out of camera. 
I plan to change that, and on that note I set out with DPP and processed a couple of pictures, then converted to JPEG, first question what is the best way to reduce the size of the JPEG? Ideally I'd like to have them about the same size as the out of camera JPEGs, 6 Mb (ish) preferably without reducing the pixel count. I was stunned at finding 20 Mb JPEGs! 
I went to post the before and after JPEGs for advice on how badly I'd done when I discovered the size because it wouldn't let me upload to Flickr! 
I found save as recipe, is that recipe able to be used to batch process. Is there a setup of the sharpness unsharp mask that will work reliably on most pictures to improve them, leaving me to attend to the few that won't go with a batch process?
As I have my own import and storage regimen I don't need or want software that wants to change my system and have no interest in monthly subscription for software. 
That said I see DXO has an offer until mid July and I have downloaded the trial version, how much better is it than DPP for a beginner? Should I just go straight to learning DXO and skip DPP if I can get SWMBO to sanction the expenditure? Just stick to DPP, the older version by the way. 
I will confess to currently having no inclination to remove branches from pics, or do much more than crop slightly and straighten horizons after releasing the detail that seems to be locked up in the raw files. 
If my current direction is blasphemous to you my apologies, perhaps in the future I can learn to progress to your level, but for now I have accepted I have a PP problem the first step to recovery! ;D
Apologies for the length of post.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 5, 2014)

Are you Mac or PC? One quick and easy way to reduce pixel counts is with Paint which comes with windows (I'll use to reduce a jpeg to post on CR). You can use something more complex (but with more options) like Elements. Or go full guns with PS. There are lots of other ways to do it as well. FWIW, DPP is fine but I find LR much quicker and easier to use for post.

DxO has some virtues and one of the things you can do is to set it up the way you like it and let it run through a folder full of RAW images while you are doing something else, almost like an automated processor with the ability to come back later and tweak things you might want to change.


----------



## Jim Saunders (Jul 5, 2014)

Lightroom. LR5 is still around, it is a phenomenal bargain for what it does.

Jim


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 5, 2014)

Hi folks. 
Sorry I should have mentioned Windows 7 Pro. 
Thanks for your replies. 

Hi JPAZ. I'm ok with slow, I have no pressures on processing, if I have to leave the PC a week to process a months shooting I'm ok with that!  I have resized JPEGs for posting with the gimp, I also use a batch process software that will do folders, but they reduce pixel count, the out of cameras JPEGs are shown as the same pixel size as the raw, but only 6mb ish, is that because they are at low quality? Does reducing pixel count matter, am I barking up the wrong tree trying to preserve pixel count, or just resize to post? I really am a noob at PP!

Hi Jim. I was trying to go with learning something which at present has an upgrade path, I realise I can't predict that DXO won't go subscription or new DPP won't expand to cover older cameras but at least at present the upgrade path is there!
I think I have narrowed my choice to DXO or DPP, just need help to point me at settings.

Cheers Graham.


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 5, 2014)

Hi Graham,

I have DxO (v8) and used to use it a lot. Again, the ability to batch process a whole group of photos is nice. You can set it up to output into a variety of formats. And, the lens corrections are well done.

But (in all fairness), I've never taken the time to truly master using DxO. Some on these forums use it and use it well. I've found LR more intuitive and quicker (for me) and hence I think I get better output. I think it is a matter of personal choice. 

No matter what you choose, work with it and you will be fine. 

Technically speaking, the quality of the JPEG compression affects the final pixel count as does the final desired size of the picture. This really does not matter so much for reducing a count to let a photo fit onto a web site like CR but cn affect the look of the final product should you want a big reproduction for yourself. There were some pretty startling examples of this in a blog talking about compression (google "why facebook photos look so bad" to see some of this and other examples). And the amount of information stored is somewhat fluid as well. If, for example, you do a lot of editing especially with layers in PS, the final file is often larger than the original. So what you see on FB or Smugmug is not always 100% the same as what I have on my HDD or on a quality print.

Anyway, that's my understanding of this which may not be totally accurate but works in my head. Maybe some others can add to this.

JP


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 6, 2014)

Hi JP. 
Thanks for that, I wonder if someone knows the answer to 6mb JPEG from camera and 20mb from raw. 
SWMBO thinks the camera JPEGs are ok for what I do so doesn't really want to sanction expenditure on software so if I can get what I need from DPP so much the better! 
Anybody have advice on the best sharpen and unsharp values to use DXO or DPP or is that the old how long is a piece of string question! ;D Is the answer completely subjective, or dependant on too many variables to have most likely to work values? Do you use both on the same image or should only sharpen or unsharp be used on any one image?

Cheers Graham.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 6, 2014)

JPAZ said:


> Technically speaking, the quality of the JPEG compression affects the final pixel count as does the final desired size of the picture.



It isn't correct. Pixels are pixels, compression is completely separate.


The OOC jpeg has compression applied, that is all there is to it. In DPP use the "*Image quality*" slider to lower the file size, use the "*Resize setting*" to change pixel numbers to an appropriate number for that specific use, 700px for forum uploads, etc.

Lots of things impact file size, iso and noise are two major ones, as is detail in the image, for example a leafy landscape will make a much bigger file than a plain background still life.

Sharpening is not only image specific, but output specific too, a file for print can take more sharpening than a screen, there are no magic numbers just adjust sliders until you are happy at the size it will be output.

As for software, Lightroom is the best $100 pretty much any photographer can spend on their photography, you need a very good reason to avoid it, it does 95% of what DXO and way more additional things, it also does around 300% of what DPP can.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 6, 2014)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi JP.
> Thanks for that, I wonder if someone knows the answer to 6mb JPEG from camera and 20mb from raw.
> SWMBO thinks the camera JPEGs are ok for what I do so doesn't really want to sanction expenditure on software so if I can get what I need from DPP so much the better!
> Anybody have advice on the best sharpen and unsharp values to use DXO or DPP or is that the old how long is a piece of string question! ;D Is the answer completely subjective, or dependant on too many variables to have most likely to work values? Do you use both on the same image or should only sharpen or unsharp be used on any one image?
> ...


There is no best value, it is pretty complex. This is where DXO seems to shine, it computes sharpening and lighting values that look pretty good on 90% of the images. The others might need manual adjustment.
With a FF body, you must have DXO Pro Elite, which is $200 (On sale for $150 right now). DPP should do everything you want, the lens correction feature blows up the size of the raw file by a large amount, I don't know what happens to a jpeg processed from it.
The main issue with DPP is the lack of resources explaining how to use it and get the most from it. Its almost trial and error.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jul 6, 2014)

Hi Mt Spokane.
Fortunately at present I am on all crop sensors so can go with DXO Standard, also has a significant reduction for a while yet.
I think I will install the trial version and see how well the auto does for me, I was frankly stunned at the difference even a first attempt could make to a picture, it probably looks all wrong to experienced users, but it is my first ever try! :-[ 
Yes what user guide?

Hi Privatebydesign.
Thanks for clearing up that issue. So I'll try DXO then, seems to do what I want from what I am reading.

Cheers Graham.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is no best value, it is pretty complex. This is where DXO seems to shine, it computes sharpening and lighting values that look pretty good on 90% of the images. The others might need manual adjustment.
> With a FF body, you must have DXO Pro Elite, which is $200 (On sale for $150 right now). DPP should do everything you want, the lens correction feature blows up the size of the raw file by a large amount, I don't know what happens to a jpeg processed from it.
> The main issue with DPP is the lack of resources explaining how to use it and get the most from it. Its almost trial and error.


----------

