Converting Raw to jpg with good gamma retained

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?

2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

As a fellowapher- My workflow is
1- Shoot Raw
2- Keep the raw file
3- Convert to Tiff Using Canon Software
4 Tweak in Photoshop or Lightroom
Save the Tiff
Convert to jpeg at quality 12

This give me a jpeg of bette quality than originated by the camera

And I never give out a jpeg or Tiff- I just make a pdf from lightroom and send a contact sheet along

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:31:40 -0500, jwm2
wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:31:40 -0500, jwm2

Right, I understand your point on that. That is a given. I shoot high school seniors, one right after another. I'm looking for a quick, automatic, seamless version of RAW to jpg conversion. I understand that certain photographers have assignments that allow them the luxury of sitting down and tweaking for a period of time each file or selected files. I don't have that luxury. When my schedule is booked tight there is no breathing room. Really, even to take a card out and download. That is why I have the WTF in the first place. Fortunatly, it has the ability to drive the file through a droplet on the way into the server. That droplet can be anything we want. I've been doing it this way for a few years now. But just now wishing that perhaps I could run a droplet that incorporates a raw conversion.

Jim Mitchell wrote in
news::

As a fellowapher- My workflow is
1- Shoot Raw
2- Keep the raw file
3- Convert to Tiff Using Canon Software
4 Tweak in Photoshop or Lightroom
Save the Tiff
Convert to jpeg at quality 12

This give me a jpeg of bette quality than originated by the camera
And I never give out a jpeg or Tiff- I just make a pdf from lightroom and send a contact sheet along

I will update to Photoshop CS4 when it becomes available. Right now I do have Photoshop CS. Do I have to buy version CS2 and CS3 First ?. Kurt Knoll

"jwm2" wrote in message

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.

A fully automatic conversion of RAW to JPEG is just what your camera is doing if you shoot in JPEG, so the answer is no to questions 1 and 2.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

If you have a jpeg workflow that works for you with in-camera jpeg generation then you might want to stick with that routine. If your camera will allow you to save both a jpeg and a raw then, if you have the time or inclination, you can later work the raw data into whatever form you want.
As you are aware there is no comparison between what an in-camera jpeg generates compared to even moderate manual processing of raw images. If you are shooting under studio conditions where exposure is controlled then using bridge or lightroom you can do batch processing of your raw images, applying the same tweaks to any number of images simultaneously. This should achieve results that are superior to any in-camera jpeg processing.
You can not use the droplet process but it is possible to set up an action that will accomplish the same thing in Photoshop. There are actually many free sources for these action presets that will load into the Adobe raw converter.

"saycheez" wrote in message

If you have a jpeg workflow that works for you with in-camera jpeg generation then you might want to stick with that routine. If your camera will allow you to save both a jpeg and a raw then, if you have the time or inclination, you can later work the raw data into whatever form you want.
As you are aware there is no comparison between what an in-camera jpeg generates compared to even moderate manual processing of raw images. If you are shooting under studio conditions where exposure is controlled then using bridge or lightroom you can do batch processing of your raw images, applying the same tweaks to any number of images simultaneously. This should achieve results that are superior to any in-camera jpeg processing.
You can not use the droplet process but it is possible to set up an action that will accomplish the same thing in Photoshop. There are actually many free sources for these action presets that will load into the Adobe raw converter.

well you can work the jpg in ACR too
so
has anyone here tried to work a JPG and a RAW of the same image in the ACR dialog??
is there really that much difference?? I understand liking the ACR controls over opening and adjusting in PS and would expect difference there.

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

It seems like you get the wrong impression.

1. If you want to shoot RAW then you should learn to adjust the image using all available tools, just like you do with Photoshop which seems like you are lacking of.

2. No, you don't just want to waste the time and space just CONVERTING. But you need to learn to ADJUST to your liking.

The image may look good on RAW converter because it does few auto-adjusting. Or the original RAW format should be very ugly

3. Most RAW converters do have option to Batch Converting, but why waste the time to lets the program does everything for you. IOW, most people want to shoot RAW to have more control of what they may want to adjust, or many people want to shoot RAW so they can recover the bad photos.

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.

A fully automatic conversion of RAW to JPEG is just what your camera is doing if you shoot in JPEG, so the answer is no to questions 1 and 2.

That's one of the things I forgot to mention in my previous message.

KatWoman wrote:

well you can work the jpg in ACR too so
has anyone here tried to work a JPG and a RAW of the same image in the ACR dialog?? is there really that much difference??

Yes, there really is a lot of difference. RAW is 12 or 14 bits, JPEG is only 8 bits. In case you think that 12 bits is 50% more than 8 bits, think again. 8 bits is 256 shades of color, 12 bits is 4096 shades of color. The best example of the difference is blown highlights. In RAW, you can often recover blown highlights, in JPEG you cannot.

--
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

jwm2 wrote:

Jim Mitchell wrote

As a fellowapher- My workflow is
1- Shoot Raw
2- Keep the raw file
3- Convert to Tiff Using Canon Software
4 Tweak in Photoshop or Lightroom
Save the Tiff
Convert to jpeg at quality 12

This give me a jpeg of bette quality than originated by the camera
And I never give out a jpeg or Tiff- I just make a pdf from lightroom and send a contact sheet along

Right, I understand your point on that. That is a given. I shoot high school seniors, one right after another. I'm looking for a quick, automatic, seamless version of RAW to jpg conversion. I understand that certain photographers have assignments that allow them the luxury of sitting down and tweaking for a period of time each file or selected files. I don't have that luxury. When my schedule is booked tight there is no breathing room. Really, even to take a card out and download. That is why I have the WTF in the first place. Fortunatly, it has the ability to drive the file through a droplet on the way into the server. That droplet can be anything we want. I've been doing it this way for a few years now. But just now wishing that perhaps I could run a droplet that incorporates a raw conversion.

What the [heck] is WTF? :-)
ah... must be Wireless Transfer ...something...

Your software may be able to throw a raw file at a droplet & work but how're you going to apply raw adjustments? Setting the defaults would work, I guess. I'm more familiar with actions than droplets but perhaps this helps: http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/raw-batch

Normally you apply custom adjustments to a set of raw files by selecting & right-clicking, apply settings... then you can run batch actions on them. Do you really need each jpeg to print immediately?

Another approach is to adjust the contrast, saturation & sharpening and set a custom white balance in the camera... that'll transfer faster on the wireless and is good enough since you are using the camera to do a custom raw conversion. Raw is not significantly better than in-camera unless you are making big adjustments after the fact.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Joel wrote:

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to
Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.
Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

It seems like you get the wrong impression.

I think that you don't understand what he needs. He apparently works at a necessarily fast pace resulting in a large amount of image files that are wirelessly transmitted to a computer and processed there. I suppose he has learned to keep the lighting and other shooting variables as constant as possible so that once he has a good image it will remain that way for the rest of the shoot. Previously the .jpg images were sent through a droplet for automatic processing before storage and he is wondering if .raw images could be processed the same way to allow him to take advantage of the increased color range. He has said he doesn't have the time luxury of individual image manipulation.

From what's been said here I'm guessing the .raw images can't be processed that way and he'll either have to come up with a different work flow to use ..raw or stick to .jpg if he wants to keep up the processing pace he apparently needs.

--
dvus

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values.

Is that observation based on a finer gradation of values showing in the eyedropper? I'm not so sure it is noticeable to the human eye. The advantage is if you are going to make significant adjustments. Perhaps you are thinking of a different color space? AdobeRGB should be an option for jpegs on the camera and can give a little better rendition of intensely saturated scenes but some say it actually makes other colors more drab. From raw you can convert to ProPhotoRGB which has an even larger gamut but again, the main advantage here is avaoiding posterization when making heavy tweaks.

I am using a wireless
transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Paul Furman wrote:

jwm2 wrote:

Jim Mitchell wrote

As a fellowapher- My workflow is
1- Shoot Raw
2- Keep the raw file
3- Convert to Tiff Using Canon Software
4 Tweak in Photoshop or Lightroom
Save the Tiff
Convert to jpeg at quality 12

This give me a jpeg of bette quality than originated by the camera
And I never give out a jpeg or Tiff- I just make a pdf from lightroom and send a contact sheet along

Right, I understand your point on that. That is a given. I shoot high school seniors, one right after another. I'm looking for a quick, automatic, seamless version of RAW to jpg conversion. I understand that certain photographers have assignments that allow them the luxury of sitting down and tweaking for a period of time each file or selected files. I don't have that luxury. When my schedule is booked tight there is no breathing room. Really, even to take a card out and download. That is why I have the WTF in the first place. Fortunatly, it has the ability to drive the file through a droplet on the way into the server. That droplet can be anything we want. I've been doing it this way for a few years now. But just now wishing that perhaps I could run a droplet that incorporates a raw conversion.

What the [heck] is WTF? :-)
ah... must be Wireless Transfer ...something...

I read the Photoshop book which says "WFT" is what most dumb people eat <bg>

And I usually ignore them when I see "WFT" still on their lips

(Johan W. Elzenga) wrote:

KatWoman wrote:

well you can work the jpg in ACR too so
has anyone here tried to work a JPG and a RAW of the same image in the ACR dialog?? is there really that much difference??

Yes, there really is a lot of difference. RAW is 12 or 14 bits, JPEG is only 8 bits. In case you think that 12 bits is 50% more than 8 bits, think again. 8 bits is 256 shades of color, 12 bits is 4096 shades of color. The best example of the difference is blown highlights. In RAW, you can often recover blown highlights, in JPEG you cannot.

You must be RAW and JPG expert to learn more <bg>

"dvus" wrote:

Joel wrote:

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to
Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?
2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.
Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
John

It seems like you get the wrong impression.

I think that you don't understand what he needs. He apparently works at a necessarily fast pace resulting in a large amount of image files that are wirelessly transmitted to a computer and processed there. I suppose he has learned to keep the lighting and other shooting variables as constant as possible so that once he has a good image it will remain that way for the rest of the shoot. Previously the .jpg images were sent through a droplet for automatic processing before storage and he is wondering if .raw images could be processed the same way to allow him to take advantage of the increased color range. He has said he doesn't have the time luxury of individual image manipulation.

From what's been said here I'm guessing the .raw images can't be processed that way and he'll either have to come up with a different work flow to use .raw or stick to .jpg if he wants to keep up the processing pace he apparently needs.

I don't know exactly what he needs, but what he descibes is almost totally wrong.

1. Why his JPG looks worse than RAW is something ain't right as they should be almost identical. The only difference he can see is the result of RAW converter auto-adjusting.

2. If he can get a better result from RAW converter than Photoshop which happens to be much more powerful than any current RAW converter, then it seems like he need to spend more time mastering the Photoshop skill.

3. Most if not all RAW converters have batch converting option. And like I said, there is no good reason to shoot RAW then use batch converting.

Yes, I have been reading some RAW worshippers express their share about their RAW experience with something like "RAW is faster, you just adjust click the CONVERT option then go to bed .. and the hard drive will be filled with hundreds or thousands of converted images..."

Yup! that's how some describe how easy, powerful, quickly etc. RAW converter really is, and I just can't find anything hard enough to hit my head withit to be able to say "I agree" <bg>

Joel wrote:

"dvus" wrote:

Joel wrote:

jwm2 wrote:

I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate of the vertical files.
I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way) to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get rid of the raw after the session is over.

1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the raw?

2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the expanded color range used in this method?

3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely. I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that space as possible.

Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.

It seems like you get the wrong impression.

I think that you don't understand what he needs. He apparently works at a necessarily fast pace resulting in a large amount of image files that are wirelessly transmitted to a computer and processed there. I suppose he has learned to keep the lighting and other shooting variables as constant as possible so that once he has a good image it will remain that way for the rest of the shoot. Previously the .jpg images were sent through a droplet for automatic processing before storage and he is wondering if .raw images could be processed the same way to allow him to take advantage of the increased color range. He has said he doesn't have the time luxury of individual image manipulation.

From what's been said here I'm guessing the .raw images can't be processed that way and he'll either have to come up with a different work flow to use .raw or stick to .jpg if he wants to keep up the processing pace he apparently needs.

I don't know exactly what he needs, but what he descibes is almost totally wrong.

1. Why his JPG looks worse than RAW is something ain't right as they should be almost identical. The only difference he can see is the result of RAW converter auto-adjusting.

I don't know, I'm no expert, but my son sent me two nearly identical images, one a .jpg right out of the camera and one a RAW image processed to a .jpg. The obvious superiority of the RAW originated image was remarkable, even to my untrained eyes. How much of the improvement could be retained by some automatic process is one of the things he seemed to me the OP wanted to find out.

2. If he can get a better result from RAW converter than Photoshop which happens to be much more powerful than any current RAW converter, then it seems like he need to spend more time mastering the Photoshop skill.

The real question is can he use an automatic process and if so, will it retain any of RAW's superiority.

3. Most if not all RAW converters have batch converting option. And like I said, there is no good reason to shoot RAW then use batch converting.

Unless you get better images, of course...

Yes, I have been reading some RAW worshippers express their share about their RAW experience with something like "RAW is faster, you just adjust click the CONVERT option then go to bed .. and the hard drive will be filled with hundreds or thousands of converted images..."

<shrug...>, if it works for them, more power to 'em.

Yup! that's how some describe how easy, powerful, quickly etc. RAW converter really is, and I just can't find anything hard enough to hit my head withit to be able to say "I agree" <bg>

I'm beginning to see that...

--
dvus

"dvus" wrote:

<snip>

I don't know exactly what he needs, but what he descibes is almost totally wrong.

1. Why his JPG looks worse than RAW is something ain't right as they should be almost identical. The only difference he can see is the result of RAW converter auto-adjusting.

I don't know, I'm no expert, but my son sent me two nearly identical images, one a .jpg right out of the camera and one a RAW image processed to a .jpg. The obvious superiority of the RAW originated image was remarkable, even to my untrained eyes. How much of the improvement could be retained by some automatic process is one of the things he seemed to me the OP wanted to find out.

I don't have them 2 images to be able to see what you see, but even if you have both *original* (unmodified) image with normal capture then they should look pretty similar to each other. But *if* you son messed up the JPG then it could be another story.

RAW converter has few advantage over JPG that the program is much simpler to use, pretty limited of commands, and they have all the general require commands available on few menus. And most of them have default auto-adjusting so it may look a little better.

2. If he can get a better result from RAW converter than Photoshop which happens to be much more powerful than any current RAW converter, then it seems like he need to spend more time mastering the Photoshop skill.

The real question is can he use an automatic process and if so, will it retain any of RAW's superiority.

The real answer is telling the RAW Converter (can you read the name of program RAW *CONVERTER?) which designed specific to convert RAW to other format like JPG, TIF etc..

3. Most if not all RAW converters have batch converting option. And like I said, there is no good reason to shoot RAW then use batch converting.

Unless you get better images, of course...

Yes, I have been reading some RAW worshippers express their share about their RAW experience with something like "RAW is faster, you just adjust click the CONVERT option then go to bed .. and the hard drive will be filled with hundreds or thousands of converted images..."

<shrug...>, if it works for them, more power to 'em.

Yup! that's how some describe how easy, powerful, quickly etc. RAW converter really is, and I just can't find anything hard enough to hit my head withit to be able to say "I agree" <bg>

I'm beginning to see that...

Finally, someone who took the time to totally understand my question. Someone mentioned that it couldn't be done in a droplet but it could in an action. Well, a droplet simply turns on an action without the need of opening in PS. So if I had a RAW conversion action I could make it into a droplet. I've just been too busy to do RAW. But I have tested it and for sure, it is amazingly better. But I haven't tested "in camera jpg" vs. "RAW converted jpg". I was wondering if it loses it's wider color range upon conversion to jpg. Yes, I do volume shooting and am ready to take it to a higher level of color rendition. It is still fairly good photography if I may, www .gotomarions. com is my website.

I think that you don't understand what he needs. He apparently works at a necessarily fast pace resulting in a large amount of image files that are wirelessly transmitted to a computer and processed there. I suppose he has learned to keep the lighting and other shooting variables as constant as possible so that once he has a good image it will remain that way for the rest of the shoot. Previously the .jpg images were sent through a droplet for automatic processing before storage and he is wondering if .raw images could be processed the same way to allow him to take advantage of the increased color range. He has said he doesn't have the time luxury of individual image manipulation.

From what's been said here I'm guessing the .raw images can't be processed that way and he'll either have to come up with a different work flow to use .raw or stick to .jpg if he wants to keep up the processing pace he apparently needs.

"jwm2" wrote in message

Finally, someone who took the time to totally understand my question. Someone mentioned that it couldn't be done in a droplet but it could in an action. Well, a droplet simply turns on an action without the need of opening in PS. So if I had a RAW conversion action I could make it into a droplet. I've just been too busy to do RAW. But I have tested it and for sure, it is amazingly better. But I haven't tested "in camera jpg" vs. "RAW
converted jpg". I was wondering if it loses it's wider color range upon conversion to jpg. Yes, I do volume shooting and am ready to take it to a higher level of color rendition. It is still fairly good photography if I may, www .gotomarions. com is my website.

Nice work and studio and website

let us know if you figure out the droplet successfully and if it saves time

I think that you don't understand what he needs. He apparently works at a necessarily fast pace resulting in a large amount of image files that are wirelessly transmitted to a computer and processed there. I suppose he has learned to keep the lighting and other shooting variables as constant as possible so that once he has a good image it will remain that way for the rest of the shoot. Previously the .jpg images were sent through a droplet for automatic processing before storage and he is wondering if .raw images could be processed the same way to allow him to take advantage of the increased color range. He has said he doesn't have the time luxury of individual image manipulation.

From what's been said here I'm guessing the .raw images can't be processed that way and he'll either have to come up with a different work flow to use .raw or stick to .jpg if he wants to keep up the processing pace he apparently needs.