Beginner basic edits to Raw file?

ian-83

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,541
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Been a while since I have taken any raw files and I think the last time I edited any I used Google's picassa presets. Now got a copy of Photoshop elements and would like some tips of a few things people would advise to do to edit raw files. What areas are worth tweaking of the image?
 
I suppose it depends on the image as captured and personal taste.

I normally apply some defaults I have saved including all of the slider settings in CS5's sharpening and noise reduction sections and also brightness, contrast, vibrancy and saturation. After that I may tweak the exposure and anything else to taste.

The biggest help to me was getting the sharpness and noise reduction sliders in CS5 set. I tried reading up on what they did and trial and error and eventually I set them as recommended by a well known blogger and took it from there.

Mostly I just apply my saved defaults and if necessary set the white balance and then tweak as required, including straightening as quite a number of my shots need straightening. I tend to do pretty much everything in the raw processor and then clone stuff out in the JPEG processer as I find the tools easier to use, stuff such bottle tops and other rubbish and slightly out of focus birds and bugs that fly in to shot.

Most of my pictures take me seconds to process. If I spend a minute or longer on a picture it's a rarity.
 
Last edited:
What Alan says, although I'd clarify my own views slightly further:

You want to aim to be spending as little time in post production as possible. For two reasons: it frees you up to be doing more worthwhile things(!) and everybody's aim should be to get things as close as possible to perfect in camera, first. Some things such as getting someone's hair right in a portrait takes seconds (depending on the hair!) of adjustment by hand "in real life" but could take half an hour of cloning in post. Have a critical eye and look throughout your frame before pressing the shutter.

Then, when it comes to post, you're touching up a few things here and there. Maybe a spot or two of dust removal but as Alan says, pretty much everything else depends on the image.

I would encourage the use of a range of presets (e.g. setting noise reduction to 10, 20, 30 etc. and separately settings for different sharpening levels and thresholds). These can definitely save time. But, what is essential in these presets (let's not call anything "defaults" here) is that you have a variety to choose from, depending on what the image needs.

I learnt Lightroom by watching a range of videos from the likes of Serge Ramelli etc. Whilst I learnt a few things, I also learnt a lot of what I don't like to do or see: "on every image, you'll see I move Highlights to -100 and Shadows to +100..." this kind of default action is fine if you are either ultra consistent in the types and exact exposure range of every photo you take (almost impossible) OR if you want all of your landscapes, say, to have the same "Serge Ramelli" look. Now that might be fine for him because he clearly makes tons of money from what he does and people buy it... but if he posted his images on here I'd expect them to receive quite a bit of "nice original image but that's overprocessed" comments ;)

Instead, you might have a "recover lost shadow detail" preset which sets Shadows to -75 (I'm using LR examples here rather than Elements but the principle is similar) but you'd also have "recover some shadow detail" which is -50 and "boost shadows a bit" of -25 say. Now, for just changing a single slider, it's almost not worth it except for things you'll be doing a huge amount - I'd still probably rather drag the slider myself than click a preset for shadows or highlights - and certainly contrast. I'll be honest and say I absolutely use the "Auto" button a lot - but simply to see what it sets Exposure to. I then hit Ctrl-Z (undo) and make the changes I want individually - depending on what I think the image needs.

Before I do anything, I ensure I've imported the image using the embedded camera profile (rather than the Adobe standard) as I prefer the warmth my camera RAW file has by default. It ends up being a touch redundant if I've then shot a grey card or manually pick the white balance, but it's in my workflow.

The key things I think about: white balance (shoot a grey card shot if you want it bang on!), exposure, shadows & highlights, contrast, white & black point (I sometimes use Alt when dragging the white point but even that I'm doing less and less now), saturation & vibrancy (more often than not to reduce the former and I don't often touch the latter), clarity (may be a LR only adjustment but it's a helpful one if not overdone), tone curve (if I want to get a particular look but small changes have a massive impact), sharpening & noise reduction. Many of these settings I will decide "I don't want anything here" and in a number of low ISO cases, I'll apply no sharpening or NR.

Finally - and I do this last because it slows down Lightroom - I apply lens correction (distortion correction, vignette removal and aberration correction). It's a great feature of LR which ACR may well have as well but I apply it last because otherwise it makes certain parts of LR5 go slow (cloning and spot healing for example).

Most images, except portraits (which I'll often take into Photoshop for touchup) I probably spend less than a minute on. Occasionally macro shots might take a bit longer if I want to bring out selective detail.

Right - I'm off to take a sunrise photo so I'd better get going otherwise I'll miss it!
 
Cheers guys. Just need to get out and get picture taking first. Only managed a few snapshots so far.
 
A big mistake I made when I started PP was to over do it. Recently I calibrated my screen and only then did I realise how over sharpened/saturated etc my photos were. I would highly recomeend screen calibration before you start. I used a spyder4express, about£70.
 
A big mistake I made when I started PP was to over do it. Recently I calibrated my screen and only then did I realise how over sharpened/saturated etc my photos were. I would highly recomeend screen calibration before you start. I used a spyder4express, about£70.

Ditto.

Previously working off a (poor) laptop screen - a proper monitor well set up makes a massive difference. Also went through the over-PPing and then rectifying en-masse. Painful!
 
Excellent advice I would just add that its worth keeping the raws from your best shots
I found that as I learned I went back later and re edited some of my earlier shots mainly because I used to over sharpen them:)
 
Is the general census a laptop screen is poor and it'd be better to get a stand alone monitor to use for editing work? And then get it calibrated?
 
Is the general census a laptop screen is poor and it'd be better to get a stand alone monitor to use for editing work? And then get it calibrated?

Simplest answer is probably "yes", but as always it depends on budget, space etc. If you already have a laptop (or are intending to get one) with one of the best IPS screens then it might well be good enough. I bought a relatively cheap Dell Ultrasharp IPS panel and it was night and day. I've since ditched the laptop entirely since it was also quite slow.

So, the longer answer is a laptop might make do (or even be "fine"), but it is unlikely to be as accomplished as a desktop for a similar price (or even a substantial amount less). But buying two computers is usually more expensive than buying one, so you have to make a decision :)
 
I have a Dell laptop which is a few years old now, almost 3 i think. It's a little slow sometimes when it comes to processing, I was going to update the RAM in it but might just hold out now. Don't really have space at home for a PC which is a bit annoying so might just be best to get a screen for now. Maybe get a PC if i can make room for it.
 
I set them as recommended by a well known blogger and took it from there.

Alan could you direct us by link to this blogger . Would be interested to see the settings too.
Cathy
 
I always keep my raws and when I retitle my tiff edit I leave the raw file number as part of the tiff title. This way I know exactly which raw it came from if I decide to start again in the future
 
I set them as recommended by a well known blogger and took it from there.

Alan could you direct us by link to this blogger . Would be interested to see the settings too.
Cathy

Hi.

I can't remember if I read it on Thom Hogan's site or Ken Rockwell's. Please don't laugh at me reading Ken Rockwell's advice as I actually think that his less rabid help articles are actually rather good.

Thom says...
http://www.dslrbodies.com/technique/technique-articles/post-processing/sharpening.html

Ken says...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/photoshop/sharpening.htm


Anyway, these are my starting point in CS5...

 
Last edited:
Hi.

I can't remember if I read it on Thom Hogan's site or Ken Rockwell's. Please don't laugh at me reading Ken Rockwell's advice as I actually think that his less rabid help articles are actually rather good.

Thom says...
http://www.dslrbodies.com/technique/technique-articles/post-processing/sharpening.html

Ken says...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/photoshop/sharpening.htm


Anyway, these are my starting point in CS5...

I'm gonna give those settings a whirl. I never know how much to sharpen in RAW and as once it's in PSE its too late to go back. The Noise reduction in ACR is soooo much better the Elements.
 
Sorry to hijack the thread but would a laptop connected to a decent tv via hdmi work better than just a laptop? I'm in a similar position to Ian and wondering if would do me better then just the laptop
 
I'm gonna give those settings a whirl. I never know how much to sharpen in RAW and as once it's in PSE its too late to go back. The Noise reduction in ACR is soooo much better the Elements.

I suppose it'll probably vary with your camera.

With my cameras, Sony A7, Panasonic GX7 and G1, these setting seem to be ok and look good even at 100% and indeed I can even run the JPEG's through Smart Sharpen afterwards with Amount 100 and Radious 1.
 
Sorry to hijack the thread but would a laptop connected to a decent tv via hdmi work better than just a laptop? I'm in a similar position to Ian and wondering if would do me better then just the laptop
Depends on which TV and which laptop.

But as a general rule for editing, laptop screens are crap, telly's are worse.

TV's are designed with a specific job in mind, and the qualities required for that aren't conducive to photo editing.
 
Ah well that's one more thing I now know. Thank you. And for the record it would be on a good recent Samsung model
 
I suppose it'll probably vary with your camera.

With my cameras, Sony A7, Panasonic GX7 and G1, these setting seem to be ok and look good even at 100% and indeed I can even run the JPEG's through Smart Sharpen afterwards with Amount 100 and Radious 1.
Yeh unfortunatly this doesnt seem to work for mine :( but it was worth a try (y)
 
Ah well that's one more thing I now know. Thank you. And for the record it would be on a good recent Samsung model
TV's are made with:
Fast response times (great for watching sports and for gaming)
Vivid colours (unrealistic)
Over sharpened (to give that unrealistic dramatic 'pop')
Bright output (to compete with sunlit rooms)

None of those things is useful for photography, where we just want an accurate representation of the image. Which requires a wider colour gamut.

I used to show DVD slide shows during meetings with prospective customers, but I got fed up of apologising for all the colour and geometry issues. Because people are happy to watch TV that looks nothing like real life. If I'd showed images with any 'arty' processing they'd have been totally unrecognisable.
 
Yeah makes sense. Be a new pc for me I guess soon then haha
 
Back
Top