Converting Raw to jpg with good gamma retained

Joel wrote:
> "dvus" <doug.TakeThisOut@dvenator.com.invalid> wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>> > jwm2 <jwmphotog.TakeThisOut@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> I'm a pro shooter that has just always shot in jpg. Due to
>> >> workflow and memory, etc. I have done the test between raw and
>> >> jpg. and YES there is an amazing difference in the amount of
>> >> color values. I am using a wireless transfer attached to my
>> >> canon and the file travels through a PS droplet as it goes into
>> >> the computer (after transfering) I currently have the droplet
>> >> set to Open/save/close. This has been to commit the auto-rotate
>> >> of the vertical files.
>> >> I've been wanting to shoot raw, but I would like to set up a
>> >> droplet that simply converts the file (in a default kind of way)
>> >> to jpg. and saves that instead of the raw file. Well, perhaps
>> >> the raw file is retained automaticlly, but I want to just get
>> >> rid of the raw after the session is over.
>> >>
>> >> 1) will the jpg retain most of the expanded color range of the
>> >> raw?
>> >>
>> >> 2) when printed on photographic paper, will we even see the
>> >> expanded color range used in this method?
>> >>
>> >> 3) Has anyone ever created a droplet that does this simple
>> >> conversion? In other words, I still want to shoot precisely.
>> >> I just want the added benifit of the expanded gamma and that is
>> >> it. I'm not interested in tweeking the daylights out of each
>> >> image. Just a genereal setting that says, OK here is a better
>> >> color space just save it as a jpg and retain as much of that
>> >> space as possible.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks to anyone who may know about this and advise.
>> >
>> > It seems like you get the wrong impression.
>>
>> I think that you don't understand what he needs. He apparently
>> works at a necessarily fast pace resulting in a large amount of
>> image files that are wirelessly transmitted to a computer and
>> processed there. I suppose he has learned to keep the lighting and
>> other shooting variables as constant as possible so that once he
>> has a good image it will remain that way for the rest of the
>> shoot. Previously the .jpg images were sent through a droplet for
>> automatic processing before storage and he is wondering if .raw
>> images could be processed the same way to allow him to take
>> advantage of the increased color range. He has said he doesn't
>> have the time luxury of individual image manipulation.
>>
>> From what's been said here I'm guessing the .raw images can't be
>> processed that way and he'll either have to come up with a
>> different work flow to use .raw or stick to .jpg if he wants to
>> keep up the processing pace he apparently needs.
>
> I don't know exactly what he needs, but what he descibes is almost
> totally wrong.
>
> 1. Why his JPG looks worse than RAW is something ain't right as
> they should be almost identical. The only difference he can see is
> the result of RAW converter auto-adjusting.

I don't know, I'm no expert, but my son sent me two nearly identical images,
one a .jpg right out of the camera and one a RAW image processed to a .jpg.
The obvious superiority of the RAW originated image was remarkable, even to
my untrained eyes. How much of the improvement could be retained by some
automatic process is one of the things he seemed to me the OP wanted to find
out.

> 2. If he can get a better result from RAW converter than Photoshop
> which happens to be much more powerful than any current RAW
> converter, then it seems like he need to spend more time mastering
> the Photoshop skill.

The real question is can he use an automatic process and if so, will it
retain any of RAW's superiority.

> 3. Most if not all RAW converters have batch converting option.
> And like I said, there is no good reason to shoot RAW then use
> batch converting.

Unless you get better images, of course...

> Yes, I have been reading some RAW worshippers express their share
> about their RAW experience with something like "RAW is faster, you
> just adjust click the CONVERT option then go to bed .. and the hard
> drive will be filled with hundreds or thousands of converted images..."

<shrug...>, if it works for them, more power to 'em.

> Yup! that's how some describe how easy, powerful, quickly etc. RAW
> converter really is, and I just can't find anything hard enough to
> hit my head withit to be able to say "I agree" <bg>

I'm beginning to see that...

--
dvus