Your question is very general, but maybe I can make a few comments.
As an example is cropping generally done before lighting characteristics?
I would suggest cropping early in the process, as some adjustments can be made on the whole image and the settings won’t be biased by stuff that will be trashed.
And would it be wise to first convert to a tif before doing anything.
It is certainly wise to make intermediate saves in a non-lossy format [TIFF or PSD]. If you are just making a few changes, it is only a matter of loading the image into Editor [it then has no "format"], making th echanges, and then saving.
I assume saving to jpg would be the last step.
Why ever save to JPEG? I would suggest that saving a copy to JPEG can be useful if you need that format [Web, email, external printing].
Why ever save to JPEG? I would suggest that saving a copy to JPEG
Gee, Colin, don’t you think you’re splitting hairs? 🙂
There is no way to "save" a file from PSD/TIFF to JPG and trash the PSD/TIFF all in one step. Several people have suggested saving to JPEG as the "last step", and I think everyone understands they need to do a Save As… and thus they are working on a copy .
Lou,
Maybe I’ve missed something in the translation but saving a copy as a last step allows you to keep maximal amounts of data in the image file until that last step.
If you think about it, saving a jpeg over and over means rapid deterioration of the image file. If you keep it as a tiff or psd and edit, it will retain it look.
My apologies if I’ve missed the gist of the conversation.
Cheers
Hi, Jim.
Yeah, I think we’re on the same page. Neil specifically mentioned doing the JPEG conversion as the "last step" (e.g. for email). Neil didn’t specifically say "copy", though, and it seemed like Colin was trying to drill into Neil’s head that he needed to save a copy. My only point was that there is no way to do a Save and convert a PSD or TIFF into a JPEG and delete the "master" PSD/TIFF file all in one step–so when most people say "convert to JPEG as a last step", I think it’s implied that the JPEG is a copy.
But I suppose you never know… 🙂
Hello all
Thanks for all the comments. When I do my last save it is as a copy. I always retain my original jpg file as shot by the camera.
I suppose my "workflow" question was a bit general. Often I find my pics look okay and don’t need much teaking (read non-critical eye)so I find myself using the controls like shadows/highlights, levels and unsharp mask (latter is good on flower closeups)on a copy of the jpg. So I keep asking myself which of the lighting controls do you use first, or maybe it dosen’t matter.On more troublesome shots I do convert to psd and retain as both a psd and jpg, but again keeping the original as shot jpg.
I have a G6 so I am starting to shoot ( and learn) in RAW, so again I’m scrounging for info on workflow when shooting in RAW
thanks for any further advice
Neil
I always retain my original jpg file as shot by the camera
The key thing is to keep the intermediate PSD/TIFF with all your corrections. That retains layer information and quality.
Well, I am going to list the specific workflow I am currently using, and welcome instructive feedback.
I have my JPEG originals (Canon, S1) in a specific location on my computer and backed up on disks as well.
I make a copy of the photo(s) I wish to edit into a "photos to edit" folder.
Open the JPEG from the "photos to edit" folder and immediately save as PSD. I do the following (as needed – often I do not need to do any of them) pretty much in this order. These first things are, in my opinion, more objective operations than subjective.
Noise reduction (Noise Ninja)
Purple fringe removal
Distortion correction (PTLens)
Perspective (parallax) correction
Rotational (horizon) correction
Clean up (red eye, unwanted spots, etc. including maybe some cropping)
I save this as a TIFF in a folder especially for edited photos, and designated it as a master (M1 appended to the file name). This is a permanent file. The several PSDs that I saved along the way will be discarded.
Then I do all the more subjective operations, that is tones, colors, contrasts, maybe some type of sharpening, in no particular order. I save this also as a TIFF, and designate it as another master (M2 appended to the file name), also moved to the edited photos folder. Again, I discard the several PSDs I generated along the way.
Now, I can go to the M2 TIFF to generate a JPEG for email, web or whatever, resizing as necessary; and I can go to the M2 to crop (and perhaps resize) for specific size prints.
The theory here is if I decide I am not happy with the M2, I can go to the M1 and redo it to generate a new M2 – I don’t expect to have to start with the original JPEG.
LOL
But I suppose you never know… 🙂
Noise reduction (Noise Ninja) Purple fringe removal Distortion correction (PTLens) Perspective (parallax) correction Rotational (horizon) correction
Bryan, do you find these reduce your sharpness much? It seems that a huge deal is made about sharpness both in online forums and at my local camera club/judges. And huge deals are made here about lossly JPEG compression. But no one ever talks about a reduction in sharpness due to Photoshop tools. It would seem that everything you list there would, at least potentially, result in a slightly less sharp image. What’s your experience?
I would agree Lou. My big beef is with rotation, which can really trash an image, but all these other corrections have potential. Any "pixel pushing" must have some detrimental effects.
Personally, if I found that every image needed a bunch of [similar/identical] corrections, I’d start worrying about my image source.
Bryan
Thanks for the workflow ideas. I like your organized approach. Is there not a feature in pse comparable to Noise Ninja?
Neil
Lou:
Noise reduction (Noise Ninja)
Purple fringe removal
Distortion correction (PTLens)
Perspective (parallax) correction
Rotational (horizon) correction
Bryan, do you find these reduce your sharpness much?
Yes indeed these things do reduce sharpness, especially (in my opinion) the noise reduction, so I do all of these only if really necessary. The noise reduction, for instance, only when the noise is worse than the softening (like ISO 400 shots); and then sometimes only on selected portions of the image.
Often with a well balance image, I find nothing need be done at all.
But the point is, that is the workflow I use, and I am looking for any suggestions to improve it.
Neil: I like Noise Ninja mainly because I have my camera profile for it, and it looks for the ISO and shutter speed and designs a filter.
Bryan
