Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I shoot RAW+jpg.     RAW converted to DNG on download.   DNG+jpg saved in a working file kept for 2 months and then deleted.

 

DNG saved to 2 separate hard drives.

 

PP for Alamy:

 

If the jpegs are good enough, I use them after keywording them in PS2.    Otherwise I process the DNG in LR5, export it to CS2 as a 16-bit TIFF.   In CS2 I tweak anything cannot do in LR, add keywords and convert to jpg for export.

 

So I have two separate copies archived in DNG.  For 2 months I also have camera jpeg.  I do not save TIFFs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I shoot RAW+jpg.     RAW converted to DNG on download.   DNG+jpg saved in a working file kept for 2 months and then deleted.

 

DNG saved to 2 separate hard drives.

 

PP for Alamy:

 

If the jpegs are good enough, I use them after keywording them in PS2.    Otherwise I process the DNG in LR5, export it to CS2 as a 16-bit TIFF.   In CS2 I tweak anything cannot do in LR, add keywords and convert to jpg for export.

 

So I have two separate copies archived in DNG.  For 2 months I also have camera jpeg.  I do not save TIFFs.

 

Be careful converting M43 raw files to DNG, Peter.

 

M43 raws include data that isn't included in other raw formats (such as lens correction data) and the DNG demosaicing is different.

 

Whilst the DNGs are readable by Adobe software, should you need to shift to a different suite of apps, your M43 DNGs may not be readable.

 

There are ways around this but it's something to be aware of.

Edited by Russell Watkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I shoot RAW+jpg.     RAW converted to DNG on download.   DNG+jpg saved in a working file kept for 2 months and then deleted.

 

DNG saved to 2 separate hard drives.

 

PP for Alamy:

 

If the jpegs are good enough, I use them after keywording them in PS2.    Otherwise I process the DNG in LR5, export it to CS2 as a 16-bit TIFF.   In CS2 I tweak anything cannot do in LR, add keywords and convert to jpg for export.

 

So I have two separate copies archived in DNG.  For 2 months I also have camera jpeg.  I do not save TIFFs.

 

Be careful converting M43 raw files to DNG, Peter.

 

M43 raws include data that isn't included in other raw formats (such as lens correction data) and the DNG demosaicing is different.

 

Whilst the DNGs are readable by Adobe software, should you need to shift to a different suite of apps, your M43 DNGs may not be readable.

 

There are ways around this but it's something to be aware of.

 

 

Yes, I thought a lot about this, but eventually decided to go with DNG.   That way I have everything in one format which sets out to be universal.  The Olympus .ORF files used to be different for every camera they brought out.   I used to be able to work on them in ACR with my venerable PS CS2, but this came to an abrupt end with the introduction of micro 4/3 which does have lens corrections embedded.  This was when I switched to LR3, I am glad I did because LR5 is a good solution for me. 

 

The files seem to work OK in DNG, but if not I can apply corrections in a PTLens plug-in to CS2.   I could have embedded the ORF files in the DNG but chose not to do so because of the huge size of the resulting files.

 

With about 45000 images archived only in DNG I am committed now!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've committed heresy and now shoot mainly in JPEG mode (except for low-light shots, in which case I use RAW+JPEG), trying to get things right in-camera before pushing the shutter. I then convert to 16-bit TIFFs for tweaking and then 8-bit TIFFs for archiving. A bit awkward and old fashioned, I suppose, but so far so good. I find the in-camera processing abilities of today's cameras to be much better than mine most of the time.

 

Like John and no doubt others, I have started shooting JPEGs because I find them superior in some respects to raw files. It's something I wouldn't have considered doing with previous gear. I save TIFF files along the way. The last thing that happens is saving as a JPEG for uploading. I think the important rule of thumb is to avoid resaving JPEGs. If an image needs to be changed in any way, including metadata, I go back to the corresponding TIFF file to make the change and resave as TIFF and then as JPEG. JPEGs are useful and convenient but lossy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite puzzled why most any stock shooter that isn't doing heavy image manipulation would want anything to do with a TIFF file. At least in the context of Alamy, where we can only upload JPGs. Of course if you are making serious creative changes that require layers that's a bit more logical. But if you are ticking the "image not digitally altered" box a TIFF makes little sense in your workflow.

 

I usually shoot RAW + JPG with my Sony cameras, or just RAW with my Canon. All images are imported into Lightroom. Sony's JPGs from their mirrorless cameras automatically correct for all sorts of things including lens distortion and CA's so they are usually good straight out of camera. For the images from my Canon I do some basic color corrections, burning and dodging, add or subtract a little of this or that. On top of all that all the images get keyworded, titled, sometimes geolocation is added from GPS etc.

 

Lightroom (much like some of the competitors mentioned in this thread) makes non-destructive changes to images. I suppose you could make non-destructive changes to tiffs by leaving the base layer alone and adding corrections on various layers but that would be lots of extra work. Using Lightroom (or similar non-destructive programs) is nice because we can always go back to the original and change the crop, remove excessive corrections etc. The original files remain untouched and all the corrections are stored in a catalog that applies them. 

 

I do use an older (CS3) version of Photoshop to check for dust. There I add a retouch curve as a layer (setup as an action) and check the skies for schmutz. Recently my last step before submitting to Alamy involves opening all the files in Bridge too and stripping out my contact info. I read we aren't supposed to include such info in our files, but since Alamy is only one outlet I still need my contact info for everywhere else. 

 

Guess the short answer is no need for TIFFs or PSDs unless you are a heavy image manipulator that composites multiple images etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I do use an older (CS3) version of Photoshop to check for dust." -- Michael Halberstadt

 

I do that too in CS5 . . . but at that point what type of file are you looking at? Not a tiff? Invariably, I not only check for dust/spots/crap, I do some spotting, and so I have to save those changes. 

 

Edo

 

(Very mysterious things are happening with my typing.)

Edited by Ed Rooney
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guess the short answer is no need for TIFFs or PSDs unless you are a heavy image manipulator that composites multiple images etc. 

 

This is simply not true. For some images, I prefer to perform selective contrast changes (such as darkening skies and lightening foregrounds) using curves adjustment layers in Photoshop. This is pretty similar to what I do more frequently nowadays with the graduated filter or the adjustment brush tool in Lightroom but the Photoshop selection tools give far better control over selection of image areas. Adjustment layers are of course non-destructive. These images are no more digitally altered than images that use the above-mentioned tools in Lightroom or even what I might have done in a darkroom (less accurately and with far greater difficulty).

 

Spotting the background layer is usually last. Again I prefer the spotting tools in Photoshop to those in Lightroom and versions of Photoshop from CS6 on have a greatly improved graphics engine which makes for much faster working when examining images for spots. I save the images as layered PSDs because I do sometimes want to go back and make modifications and I don’t want to start again from scratch. Storage is so cheap now that throwing away the PSDs to save space would not be sensible. 

 

Importantly there is no heavy image manipulation and I don’t ever do compositing. I simply prefer Photoshop for certain images. 

 

Finally, you may save yourself time by using the export facility in Lightroom which allows you to strip some or all of the metadata. You can, for example, just export the copyright info and remove everything else. And you can save this part of a preset.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to echo the above point by MDM, as a newcomer to Alamy (and stock photography in general) I have been a bit puzzled by so much reference to TIFFs on the forum as I rarely use them but had started to think I had to change this approach for Alamy. I tend to shoot only Raw and import as DNG into Lightroom. Then either process in LR and export as JPEG for Alamy or go from LR into Photoshop to process and save back into LR as a PSD and then export as JPEG.

 

I presume this approach is okay for Alamy as so far my images are being accepted. But is there a reason for the focus on TIFFs, i.e am I missing something?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few issues here

 

Just to echo the above point by MDM, as a newcomer to Alamy (and stock photography in general) I have been a bit puzzled by so much reference to TIFFs on the forum as I rarely use them but had started to think I had to change this approach for Alamy. I tend to shoot only Raw and import as DNG into Lightroom. Then either process in LR and export as JPEG for Alamy or go from LR into Photoshop to process and save back into LR as a PSD and then export as JPEG.

I presume this approach is okay for Alamy as so far my images are being accepted. But is there a reason for the focus on TIFFs, i.e am I missing something?

A few issues here. JPEG use lossy compression and there has always been the debate about whether it is ok to work in JPEG alone (either direct from the camera or for post-processing). I disagree strongly with the idea that it is fine to shoot only in JPEG but that is not really the debate in this thread. This is more about post-processing.

 

For those who don't want to post-process in JPEG, then TIFF is often the file type of choice rather than PSD. In the older Alamy guidance (it may still be extant) it recommended using TIFFs which may be part of the reason it comes up here. The other reason I guess is that TIFFs are generic whereas PSDs are Adobe specific so a lot of people who don't want to save in a lossy format save as TIFF rather than PSD. 

 

I prefer to save as PSD because Photoshop handles layered PSDs much better than layered TIFFs. Also TIFFs appear to be more prone to file corruption than other file types (something that was discussed here some time ago). The disadvantage of PSD is the fact that they are specific to Adobe but I have been using Photoshop for 17 years now and don't intend to quit using  anything soon. But each to his own. Your approach is fine I would say. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guess the short answer is no need for TIFFs or PSDs unless you are a heavy image manipulator that composites multiple images etc. 

 

This is simply not true. For some images, I prefer to perform selective contrast changes (such as darkening skies and lightening foregrounds) using curves adjustment layers in Photoshop. This is pretty similar to what I do more frequently nowadays with the graduated filter or the adjustment brush tool in Lightroom but the Photoshop selection tools give far better control over selection of image areas. Adjustment layers are of course non-destructive. These images are no more digitally altered than images that use the above-mentioned tools in Lightroom or even what I might have done in a darkroom (less accurately and with far greater difficulty).

 

Spotting the background layer is usually last. Again I prefer the spotting tools in Photoshop to those in Lightroom and versions of Photoshop from CS6 on have a greatly improved graphics engine which makes for much faster working when examining images for spots. I save the images as layered PSDs because I do sometimes want to go back and make modifications and I don’t want to start again from scratch. Storage is so cheap now that throwing away the PSDs to save space would not be sensible. 

 

Importantly there is no heavy image manipulation and I don’t ever do compositing. I simply prefer Photoshop for certain images. 

 

Finally, you may save yourself time by using the export facility in Lightroom which allows you to strip some or all of the metadata. You can, for example, just export the copyright info and remove everything else. And you can save this part of a preset.

 

 

Totally agree, Lightroom has some very limiting tools, even for simple spotting......

 

TIFFS or psds are also useful storage files for layers which can be used in the future. I would hardly call using layers as 'heavy manipulation' in any sense......

Link to post
Share on other sites

I save both RAW and TIFF in the same folder. The TIFF is ready for re-use or reworking a copy for other submits if necessary. JPEGS deleted once uploaded to library/agency etc. The RAW is absolute proof of copywrite if needed.

 

 

 

Spotting the background layer is usually last. Again I prefer the spotting tools in Photoshop to those in Lightroom and versions of Photoshop from CS6 on have a greatly improved graphics engine which makes for much faster working when examining images for spots. 

 

 

Totally agree, Lightroom has some very limiting tools, even for simple spotting......

 

TIFFS or psds are also useful storage files for layers which can be used in the future. I would hardly call using layers as 'heavy manipulation' in any sense......

 

 

Sorry Geoff I have to disagree with you about LR tool for spotting. I find it to be excellent. Must admit not to have used CS6 et el.

 

Spotting of RAW images in LR is easy when using the "Visualise" tool within the healing brush.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I save both RAW and TIFF in the same folder. The TIFF is ready for re-use or reworking a copy for other submits if necessary. JPEGS deleted once uploaded to library/agency etc. The RAW is absolute proof of copywrite if needed.

 

 

 

Spotting the background layer is usually last. Again I prefer the spotting tools in Photoshop to those in Lightroom and versions of Photoshop from CS6 on have a greatly improved graphics engine which makes for much faster working when examining images for spots. 

 

 

Totally agree, Lightroom has some very limiting tools, even for simple spotting......

 

TIFFS or psds are also useful storage files for layers which can be used in the future. I would hardly call using layers as 'heavy manipulation' in any sense......

 

 

Sorry Geoff I have to disagree with you about LR tool for spotting. I find it to be excellent. Must admit not to have used CS6 et el.

 

Spotting of RAW images in LR is easy when using the "Visualise" tool within the healing brush.

 

Allan

 

LR is limited by having no patch tool and certainly from having no layers which can cause problems when doing detailed retouching across two distinct areas.

 

I've just had to remove the ipad i-button thing from a render. The image has a tonal gradation across the button area so the heal or spotting wouldn't work properly. It was however simple enough to dupe an amount of the face of the ipad case and use a layer with levels grad to cover it. Pretty quick thing to do but not something that would work well in LR - healing tools tend to leave poor immediate surrounds on many fairly flat textures.

 

If the spots are in quite open areas then LR does a good job but in other circumstances, it's limited.... no different from claiming that that in CC that healing brush or spotting tool will do everything, they won't...at least not very well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Finally, you may save yourself time by using the export facility in Lightroom which allows you to strip some or all of the metadata. You can, for example, just export the copyright info and remove everything else. And you can save this part of a preset.

 

Good advice, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I do use an older (CS3) version of Photoshop to check for dust." -- Michael Halberstadt

 

I do that too in CS5 . . . but at that point what type of file are you looking at? Not a tiff? Invariably, I not only check for dust/spots/crap, I do some spotting, and so I have to save those changes. 

 

Edo

 

(Very mysterious things are happening with my typing.)

That's just the last stop before I submit JPGs I've exported from LR to Alamy. I have a shortcut to make a retouch curve on a layer that makes dust stand out. If needed I can then spot out the dust I didn't see in LR. This seems to work pretty well. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I leave all my contact and other metadata in the jpgs I send to Alamy with no problems. I always have done and I have never had an issue. Alamy seems to use what it wants and discards the rest.

 

Alamy has never contacted me directly or anything, but I read this recently:

 

 
contributors • legal • tips

We’ve got an ongoing process of sweeping our collection for any pseudonyms or images that contain contributors contact details (this could be a website, email address or telephone number). We’ll remove all the contact details we find. This is an automated process and we can’t promise the rest of your metadata will stay as you originally entered.

We know some of you have your camera set to automatically contain your contact details in the IPTC. Remember to remove these from your captions, keywords, descriptions etc before uploading images to Alamy in the future.

Our customers find it confusing and sometimes don’t know who they should be dealing with resulting in a poor experience, which none of us want! It’s also in the Contributor Contract (it’s clause 4.12 in case you want to check it out) so, if you have your contact details on your Alamy images please make sure you remove them ASAP.

 

(from http://www.alamy.com/blog/2014/06/contact-details-in-your-metadata)

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

<snip>

 

Importantly there is no heavy image manipulation and I don’t ever do compositing. I simply prefer Photoshop for certain images. 

 

 

I think for most folks trying to do what you and I do, LR usually makes the most sense. Photoshop works for you, and you might do a better job than most folks. More power to you. Of course for the kind of photos I'm trying to license on Alamy, the subtle advantages you mention using PS would seldom be worth the extra time/hd space etc. And on those rare occasions, I do edit in PS. 

 

On rare occasion, I shoot large format film. And I get those looks and comments like "you know you can do that in Photoshop, right?", "I have a filter on my phone that has that effect", "I have a tilt/shift app" sort of comments. Maybe that's what I've done to you....if so sorry. For some things what seem like subtle differences to others are worth the extra effort.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.