advertisement
Forums

The Forum is sponsored by 
 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the Tips and Deals forum
new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: robfilms
Date: May 31, 2017 07:58AM
i am using a m43 panasonic g7 to shoot some corporate stills.

i am using raw+jpeg so via preview i can easily view the jpegs.

i have NEVER worked in raw.

i have an old copy of lightroom5 installed on my mac pro 3,1.

i'm in the process of watching youtube vids on lightroom5.

i'm looking at minor tweaks of exposure and color.

is lightroom5 good enough?

is there a better raw converter/editor for panasonic raw files?

(i usually shoot motion but lately there has been some stills work that could be steady but i'm not really interested in the adobe cc photog package just yet, especially if lightroom5 can get me 90% of the way)

i have a week to deliver a dozen good stills and the jpegs already look pretty good-in focus and skin tones are spot on. i just want to tweak some so that the client will be wow!)

any and all thoughts are appreciated.

be well.

rob
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: datbeme
Date: May 31, 2017 08:32AM
No experience with Panasonic RAW files, but I would not hesitate to use LR 5 with them. Before tweaking individual RAW files, you may want to experiment with the various camera calibration profiles (Camera Calibration tab in the Develop module) to better approximate the look you have come to expect from the JPGs. While you may not want to commit to a certain profile all the time, it's not a bad starting point, and you can always revert, change or undo it.

While I can't vouch for these two articles, these should give you the general idea:

[petapixel.com]

[fstoppers.com]

TONS of great LR resources online...free and paid.

Edited to add that I am happily using LR 5 and do not find it limiting in any way. If you already have it and it supports your camera's RAW files, there is no reason to upgrade until you want to or need to.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 08:38AM by datbeme.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: clay
Date: May 31, 2017 08:38AM
haven't used LR much, but if it can handle your RAW files, go for it. With similar software, sometimes support for newer RAW files is only added with new versions of the software. But, you should be just fine with v5 if it already handles your files. Then, just do some general research on RAW processing in LR via youtube tutorials, lynda.com, etc, and you should be good to go.

have fun!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: DP
Date: May 31, 2017 08:39AM
Should work. You may have to update to the latest version of Camera Raw from Adobe but that's free. Adobe is always releasing updates to CR to handle newer cameras so if your camera is newer than your LR that may be necessary.
You can also download DNG Converter from Adobe (also free) that converts older RAW files to .dng files that is not dependent on age.
Bottom line, tho, if your JPEGs look good, just use those!





Disclaimer: This post is checked for correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Any attempts at humor are solely the responsibility of the author and bear no claim that any and all readers will approve or appreciate said attempt at humor.
My name is DP, and I approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: robfilms
Date: May 31, 2017 09:09AM
fyi: i'm using Lr 5.7.1

dp-i thought adobe camera raw was not a part of Lr?

when i did try to import raw images from another shoot where i used the g7, there was an error message in Lr that there was no raw support.

i imagine the reason was Lr5 came out 2 years before the g7 was released.

i did end up downloading adobe's dng convertor and then converted the g7 raw files to dng and then loaded those dng files into Lr.

do any of these convertors leave fingerprints or change the actual raw files?

again, thanks in advance to those who have more experience than i.

be well.

rob



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 09:10AM by robfilms.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: DP
Date: May 31, 2017 09:38AM
DNG incorporates the .xmp files into the image file to make one file and is not dependent on Camera Raw updates. Adobe has been pushing it to camera manufacturers and some Pentax's, I believe, are able to shoot RAW in .dng format.
I never studied in depth and I don't know why (someone else will know) Adobe has to release an updated Camera Raw when a new camera is released. After all, and CR2 is a CR2, right? An NEF is an NEF. A
standardized RAW format only makes sense and DNG fits that bill.
But again, if it looks good, why not just use your JPEGs? The JPEG format has improved over the years; e.g., the compression algorithms have reduced artifacting quite a bit.





Disclaimer: This post is checked for correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Any attempts at humor are solely the responsibility of the author and bear no claim that any and all readers will approve or appreciate said attempt at humor.
My name is DP, and I approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: DP
Date: May 31, 2017 09:53AM
Also, the development module in LR is the same as using the Camera Raw palette in PS so you can process JPEGs in Camera Raw in PS. Opening JPEGs in LR uses the same controls-no need to even open PS. Shadows, Highlights, Noise Reduction, etc., are all there in LR.

do any of these convertors leave fingerprints or change the actual raw files?

No. RAW formats such as CR2, NEF, ARW, have a separate file added to it called an .xmp, or, in PS parlance, is called a Sidecar file, which carries the info of how you develop them in Camera Raw. But a RAW file is shot with no processing to it and only a little compressing. A JPEG has some sharpening done to it, some color correction, and a higher rate of compressing before being saved. But, as I said earlier, it's been vastly improved over the years and if your JPEG images are "in focus and skin tone is spot on", don't knock yourself out with RAWs. If you want to shoot art down the road, the use RAW and we can help you more then.





Disclaimer: This post is checked for correct spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Any attempts at humor are solely the responsibility of the author and bear no claim that any and all readers will approve or appreciate said attempt at humor.
My name is DP, and I approve this message.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: Billybob
Date: May 31, 2017 10:33AM
Quote
DP
Also, the development module in LR is the same as using the Camera Raw palette in PS so you can process JPEGs in Camera Raw in PS. Opening JPEGs in LR uses the same controls-no need to even open PS. Shadows, Highlights, Noise Reduction, etc., are all there in LR.

do any of these convertors leave fingerprints or change the actual raw files?

No. RAW formats such as CR2, NEF, ARW, have a separate file added to it called an .xmp, or, in PS parlance, is called a Sidecar file, which carries the info of how you develop them in Camera Raw. But a RAW file is shot with no processing to it and only a little compressing. A JPEG has some sharpening done to it, some color correction, and a higher rate of compressing before being saved. But, as I said earlier, it's been vastly improved over the years and if your JPEG images are "in focus and skin tone is spot on", don't knock yourself out with RAWs. If you want to shoot art down the road, the use RAW and we can help you more then.

I agree that working with RAW files is non-destructive. However, all RAW converters--the name for software that works with RAW files, which produce jpg, tiffs, or other picture formats based on data in RAW files--do not produce "sidecar" files. LR, for better or worst, stores processing information in a single database that can grow rather large quickly. Niikon's RAW format allows manipulations to be stored in Nikon NEF (RAW) files, and its RAW converter (which has been abandoned for some barebones substitute that is no substitute) was rather adept at retaining different versions in the NEF file. However, the program always retained the original NEF and allowed for easy retrieval of the unaltered original data.

There are plus and minuses to all these approaches, but the important takeaway is that you always have your original, untouched photo data as long as you retain the RAW file.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 10:34AM by Billybob.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: jdc
Date: May 31, 2017 10:36AM
Quote
DP
But again, if it looks good, why not just use your JPEGs? The JPEG format has improved over the years; e.g., the compression algorithms have reduced artifacting quite a bit.

This.



----


Edited 999 time(s). Last edit at 12:08PM by jdc.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: Article Accelerator
Date: May 31, 2017 10:42AM
Quote
robfilms
i am using a m43 panasonic g7

Both Photos and Aperture support RAW for your camera:

[support.apple.com]
[support.apple.com]
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: Uncle Wig
Date: May 31, 2017 11:51AM
Yes, Lr 5 will do a good job on those files. I was running that on my recently retired 3,1 and it won't be all that fast, but it's useable.

As for the catalog file size: I have over 20,000 photos in Lr, and the catalog is only about 365 mb. However, Lr does optionally create and save backups so my Lr folder adds up to about 82 gigs. I don't really need to keep all those backups, but I have the space.



Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: Billybob
Date: May 31, 2017 12:31PM
Quote
Uncle Wig
Yes, Lr 5 will do a good job on those files. I was running that on my recently retired 3,1 and it won't be all that fast, but it's useable.

As for the catalog file size: I have over 20,000 photos in Lr, and the catalog is only about 365 mb. However, Lr does optionally create and save backups so my Lr folder adds up to about 82 gigs. I don't really need to keep all those backups, but I have the space.

I think that my LR "catalog" exceeds 7GB. However, I have over 130K photos, and I do a lot of experimenting with my images



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2017 12:31PM by Billybob.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: Billybob
Date: May 31, 2017 05:28PM
Quote
Billybob
Quote
Uncle Wig
Yes, Lr 5 will do a good job on those files. I was running that on my recently retired 3,1 and it won't be all that fast, but it's useable.

As for the catalog file size: I have over 20,000 photos in Lr, and the catalog is only about 365 mb. However, Lr does optionally create and save backups so my Lr folder adds up to about 82 gigs. I don't really need to keep all those backups, but I have the space.

I think that my LR "catalog" exceeds 7GB. However, I have over 130K photos, and I do a lot of experimenting with my images

Okay, 7GB is "slightly" exaggerated. Now that I'm home, the catalog size is a rather compact 1.9GB.

surrender
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: datbeme
Date: May 31, 2017 09:35PM
A side note:

While temporary, depending on how you have LR configured, previews can tan take up a ton of space in your LR folder. My catalog is just under 1GB, but it's not unusual for me to have tens of GBs of previews.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: new to RAW files-lightroom5 good enough?
Posted by: Uncle Wig
Date: June 02, 2017 08:06PM
Quote
datbeme
A side note:

While temporary, depending on how you have LR configured, previews can tan take up a ton of space in your LR folder. My catalog is just under 1GB, but it's not unusual for me to have tens of GBs of previews.

That is true! My Previews.lrdata file is almost 79 gigs! smiley-shocked003 But that's why I bought a 4 TB drive. tongue smiley



Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 206
Record Number of Users: 186 on February 20, 2020
Record Number of Guests: 5122 on October 03, 2020