Raw Editing Software Preferences

Hello gang.

OK, I finally started to shoot in RAW format with my D200. I
installed Photoshop CS and upgraded to the Raw Adobe 3.6 plugin. I
opened the file in Photoshop fine but I also have a copy of Bibble and
after installing this it takes over in photoshop now.

Now when I open the file the Bibble Plugin for Photoshop opens, which
one is better in your opinion, Adobes or Bibbles ? Was thinking of
leaving the plug in out of Adobe that way, I can open files in
Photoshop with its Raw but still use Bibble if I want. Neither of
these (Adobe or Bibble) can save in NEF, only Capture from Nikon
appears to be able to do that. So now three choices, Adobe, Bibble
and Nikon Capture. What do most of you prefer to use ? Did I miss
any that I should look at ?

Thanks

LuvLatins wrote:
Hello gang.

OK, I finally started to shoot in RAW format with my D200. I
installed Photoshop CS and upgraded to the Raw Adobe 3.6 plugin. I
opened the file in Photoshop fine but I also have a copy of Bibble and
after installing this it takes over in photoshop now.

Now when I open the file the Bibble Plugin for Photoshop opens, which
one is better in your opinion, Adobes or Bibbles ? Was thinking of
leaving the plug in out of Adobe that way, I can open files in
Photoshop with its Raw but still use Bibble if I want. Neither of
these (Adobe or Bibble) can save in NEF, only Capture from Nikon
appears to be able to do that. So now three choices, Adobe, Bibble
and Nikon Capture. What do most of you prefer to use ? Did I miss
any that I should look at ?

I have never used Bibble, but ACR works great for me. As for writing to the
NEF, only metadata information like whitebalance, and exposure selections will
change anyway, not the raw data itself. In short, you really don't want to be
writing to your RAW files. If you can't easily manage the XMP sidecar files
created when you make metadata changes [during RAW conversion], then consider
converting to DNG format first, as your metadata changes will be stored in the
DNG file.

Also note that the D200 uses encrypted white balance metadata, so Adobe ACR
won't be able to read it. I simply saved WhiteBalance Auto as my defaults in
ACR and then modify it from there.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

LuvLatins wrote:
Hello gang.

OK, I finally started to shoot in RAW format with my D200. I
installed Photoshop CS and upgraded to the Raw Adobe 3.6 plugin. I
opened the file in Photoshop fine but I also have a copy of Bibble and
after installing this it takes over in photoshop now.

Now when I open the file the Bibble Plugin for Photoshop opens, which
one is better in your opinion, Adobes or Bibbles ? Was thinking of
leaving the plug in out of Adobe that way, I can open files in
Photoshop with its Raw but still use Bibble if I want. Neither of
these (Adobe or Bibble) can save in NEF, only Capture from Nikon
appears to be able to do that. So now three choices, Adobe, Bibble
and Nikon Capture. What do most of you prefer to use ? Did I miss
any that I should look at ?

Now that Aperture 1.5 has addressed all of the issues I had with that
program, I use it almost exclusively for editing, including processing
..NEF files.

and ARC = Camera Raw 3.6

So you guys open the natice file in Adobe, edit it and then save it to
what format JPG, TIFF ?? Or is the Native Raw file the think I should
also print from ?

Thanks for the help


On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 17:24:31 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

LuvLatins wrote:
Hello gang.

OK, I finally started to shoot in RAW format with my D200. I
installed Photoshop CS and upgraded to the Raw Adobe 3.6 plugin. I
opened the file in Photoshop fine but I also have a copy of Bibble and
after installing this it takes over in photoshop now.

Now when I open the file the Bibble Plugin for Photoshop opens, which
one is better in your opinion, Adobes or Bibbles ? Was thinking of
leaving the plug in out of Adobe that way, I can open files in
Photoshop with its Raw but still use Bibble if I want. Neither of
these (Adobe or Bibble) can save in NEF, only Capture from Nikon
appears to be able to do that. So now three choices, Adobe, Bibble
and Nikon Capture. What do most of you prefer to use ? Did I miss
any that I should look at ?

I have never used Bibble, but ACR works great for me. As for writing to the
NEF, only metadata information like whitebalance, and exposure selections will
change anyway, not the raw data itself. In short, you really don't want to be
writing to your RAW files. If you can't easily manage the XMP sidecar files
created when you make metadata changes [during RAW conversion], then consider
converting to DNG format first, as your metadata changes will be stored in the
DNG file.

Also note that the D200 uses encrypted white balance metadata, so Adobe ACR
won't be able to read it. I simply saved WhiteBalance Auto as my defaults in
ACR and then modify it from there.

There is nothing wrong with Bibble. It is a matter of preference whether to
use Bibble or the Adobe Converter or anything else. There is no technical
superiority of one converter over the other for any practical purpose
regardless of what you may read. The biggest decsion to make is whether to
work in 16bit or 8bit color. There is alot of misinformation out there about
the superiority of 16 bit color so this too is a matter of preference.
Once a raw/nef file is opened it matters not whether you perform further
operations in the raw converter or in Photoshop itself. That is why most
people develop a workflow that works for them, which takes a bit of
experimentation, with regard to what operations to perform on an image using
what tools.
Some people prefer Lightroom but in reality its tools are quite limited and
are intended for exposures made under more or less optimal conditions and
for batch processing of images made under controlled or similar conditions.
Lightroom has a "vibrancy" control like Bibble, which the Adobe
converter/CS2 does not. BFD.
If you have not tried the free demo of Nikon NX I would recommend you do so.
It can be habit forming as a converter. The conrol point tools can be very
useful to do some things that might require masking in Photoshop.
The nef files should be saved just as you would film negatives. Unless you
need an image in a specific format, like tif or jpeg, you should save in PSD
after you have created your image using lossless and reversible layers. The
only thing psd does not keep track of, alas, is history. It would be a great
boon if this info could be recorded with the image.

LuvLatins wrote:
and ARC = Camera Raw 3.6


ACR actually. It means "Adobe Camera Raw".

So you guys open the natice file in Adobe, edit it and then save it to
what format JPG, TIFF ?? Or is the Native Raw file the think I should
also print from ?


I change all the settings I need in ACR to do as much work there as possible,
especially with white balance and exposure (I shoot as much to the right as I
can without blowing highlights as 1/2 of the data in the RAW file is in the
top stop of exposure). Then I open in Photoshop. If there is anything
extensive I need to do, I save the file as a PSD and work in layers. Often
curve layers, masks, whatever you need to do in photoshop [a skill I have a
long way to go with]. I do everything in Adobe RGB, but choose which
colorspace works for you. After I am finished, I create the final image. If
I am going to print at Costco, I convert to their color profile for the
printer and paper I am aiming for, convert to 8-bit and then save as a JPEG
(quality 10, 11 or 12). I keep the PSD for future work, should I need a new
image for a different reason [say printing to a Epson inkjet].

BTW ... I convert all my NEF files. I often modify camera raw settings before
I do that and then embed a large preview image in the DNG so that other tools
can easily and quickly pick them up (Adobe Bridge is really slow generating
previews of NEF files, but quick with DNG). The drawback is that saving
setting changes [metadata changes] in DNG requires a complete resave of the
DNG file; with NEF, it just saves the changes in an XMP sidecar file.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

bmoag wrote:
Once a raw/nef file is opened it matters not whether you perform further
operations in the raw converter or in Photoshop itself.

This is not true. It does make a difference due to the nature of RAW versus
what is used natively elsewhere. RAW is linear data, which means that 1/2 of
all the information is in the brightest stop of the image. Thus, it is
clearly better to shoot to the right in RAW and then pull the data to the left
during RAW conversion to get the most detail possible in the shadows.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:45:29 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

LuvLatins wrote:
and ARC = Camera Raw 3.6


ACR actually. It means "Adobe Camera Raw".

So you guys open the natice file in Adobe, edit it and then save it to
what format JPG, TIFF ?? Or is the Native Raw file the think I should
also print from ?


I change all the settings I need in ACR to do as much work there as possible,
especially with white balance and exposure (I shoot as much to the right as I
can without blowing highlights as 1/2 of the data in the RAW file is in the
top stop of exposure). Then I open in Photoshop. If there is anything
extensive I need to do, I save the file as a PSD and work in layers. Often
curve layers, masks, whatever you need to do in photoshop [a skill I have a
long way to go with]. I do everything in Adobe RGB, but choose which
colorspace works for you. After I am finished, I create the final image. If
I am going to print at Costco, I convert to their color profile for the
printer and paper I am aiming for, convert to 8-bit and then save as a JPEG
(quality 10, 11 or 12). I keep the PSD for future work, should I need a new
image for a different reason [say printing to a Epson inkjet].

BTW ... I convert all my NEF files. I often modify camera raw settings before
I do that and then embed a large preview image in the DNG so that other tools
can easily and quickly pick them up (Adobe Bridge is really slow generating
previews of NEF files, but quick with DNG). The drawback is that saving
setting changes [metadata changes] in DNG requires a complete resave of the
DNG file; with NEF, it just saves the changes in an XMP sidecar file.

Thanks appreciate your time in this reply. I also found a free
software package that extracks a full size JPG file from RAW files. No
more need to shoot taking up space in both inside the camera
Its called Preview Extractor
http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/

May only work on Nikon not sure but love it.

On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:48:48 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

Thus, it is
clearly better to shoot to the right in RAW

What does this mean ?

LuvLatins wrote:
On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 14:48:48 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

Thus, it is
clearly better to shoot to the right in RAW

What does this mean ?

It means, if you shoot RAW, you should shoot as brightly exposed as possible
without blowing the highlights. The point is to capture the most information,
not to get the best in camera image. Then, when you get into your RAW
conversion, you pull more data from the highlights into the intended level of
detail. The reason this works to your advantage is that 50% of all the data
captured is in the brightest stop of the captured image [due to the fact that
each stop is double the light of the previous stop]. RAW images store linear
data, but image processing tools and all final image formats do not use linear
data [they eye does not see linearly].

Here is a great book on Amazon that does a pretty good job.

http://tinyurl.com/ykfhq9

Also, consider a photography seminar or two on this subject. John Shaw offers
a pretty good one [$199 weekend]. You might be happy to know that he is also
a Nikon fan, so his presentation reflects this to some degree.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0