I open Jpg. files in Raw

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

On Jul 4, 8:05 am, Joel <J....RemoveThis@NoSpam.com> wrote:
> "fries...@zoocrewphoto.com" <fries....RemoveThis@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > So put all those photos in a folder and batch process it.
> > > Simple.
>
> > That would require copying the whole batch of 600+ files and saving
> > two sets - one original set and one set to do the batch operations.
> > Why would I want to do that?
>
> It seems like you need to use your skill more often and less excuse.
>
> - Moving files from one_folder to other on same_drive may take few seconds
> to move hundreds or even thousand file. And you DO NOT want to COPY
>
> - Renaming the folder won't take more than few seconds, and files won't need
> to be moved.



I am sorry that you don't understand my system.It works very well for
me, and I can do it easily with the RAW files, which is what I usually
do now. I do NOT want to move some files to another folder. I want to
keep a full set of the original files, so they need to stay together.
That means I need to either make a copy of the set and then delete the
ones I am not renaming, or I need to do them one at a time like I
currently do.

I know what I am doing, and I do it the best way that I can for the
system that I use. And really, I don't shoot in jpg much anymore,
except for dog agility and horse shows. IT was just one of those
things where a new version pf photoshop was so much better that I
would never want to go back. And until I can get cs3, I will have to
go back when I shoot in jog mode.
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

On Jul 5, 2:19 am, Joel <J....TakeThisOut@NoSpam.com> wrote:

> > I am sorry that you don't understand my system.It works very well for
> > me, and I can do it easily with the RAW files, which is what I usually
> > do now. I do NOT want to move some files to another folder. I want to
> > keep a full set of the original files, so they need to stay together.
> > That means I need to either make a copy of the set and then delete the
> > ones I am not renaming, or I need to do them one at a time like I
> > currently do.


> - You complain that COPYing 600 photos takes long time, I give you several
> different options which wouldn't take more than 3-5 seconds then you say
> none pleases you.
>

I'm just really bad at describing what I do. Copying doesn't take much
time at all, though more than 5 seconds. It takes me a good 20 minutes
to upload a full card to my older laptop. I just don't want to copy
the whole collection and have it two locations with one complete and
one messed up. That tends to get me confused in the future when I need
to go back and look at originals. So, if I did copy and do that, I
would have to go back and delete the new set before I got them messed
up.

But really, the issue is that CS2 does EXACTLY what I want with RAW
files. It just doesn't let me do it the same way when I work with
other files.


I really prefer to open a group of photos and go through them and
either close it or rename/save it. I like doing it that way. Choosing
what to save and what not to save while I look at them. I really don't
want to do a batch and then go through and delete (leaving gaps in the
numbers).

My system works very well for me, and I love it. It is the main reason
I never shoot jpg any more, even if I don't nee any other features of
RAW files. A couple years ago, I went to an event to photograph dog
agility. And my larger memory card failed early on. So, I was stuck
with a lot less memory than I had planned. Eventually, I had to switch
to jpg files to conserve space. I found a huge difference in dealing
with the photos later.


> But it's sad that you don't seem to know what you are doing <bg>

Your opinion.

I'm sure if I could show you in person what I do, then it would make
more sense why I like use the RAW system, and why it works better for
me. I agree that the copy and batch operation doesn't take a lot of
time. Less than half an hour for a weekend of photos. BUT! I do the
other way as I work on the photos, and that time is already spent
anyway. I will always go through them one at a time while choosing, so
it just makes sense for me to do it this way. When I am at a cat show,
I go through them very fast so that I can show only the photos I want
the customers to see. I never show them the original files. I always
check the color, crop if needed, and save to a new folder. Then, when
they come back, I show them the new folder.

If I can do it within photoshop in fewer steps (my way taks two clicks
of the mouse), then why would I want to go into another program, copy
files into various folders, and then back to photoshop to run batch
operations? I already have an easy way to do it with one type of file.
It sounds wonderful that CS3 now allows that to be done with all types
of file. I am not asking for advice or even complaining. This
discussion asked why anybody would want to use the RAW converter for a
non-RAW file, and I asked if CS2 would do this, because it doesn't.
And CS3 does. So, I see a good benefit of this addition.
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

I am not complaining. CS2 has worked awesome for me. I was just trying
to give a reason as to why somebody would want to open psd or jpg
files as a RAW file.

That is ALL! I am NOT asking for advice or complaining. CS3 sounds
great!

And as soon as I start shooting jpgs again, I will upgrade, and then
it will do exactly what I want. At this time, I am not shooting jpg
files, so I am not having any problem. I was ONLY bringing up an issue
that the CS3 upgrade will help, because I see it as a valid reason to
upgrade for this feature.

I asked if there was a way in CS2 to do it the SAME way that I do it
with RAW files, and the answer was NO. That was all I asked. I wanted
to confirm that this is indeed an upgrade in CS3.

Sure, there are ways to get the same end results. But I was asking if
it could be done the SAME way. I don't see why you see it is
complaining. I LOVE the way it works in RAW. It is the REASON I shoot
in RAW all the time, rather than just when I need RAW. It works for me
very well, and I am happy.


Is there something wrong with using the RAW converter? I saw that
several people seemed to scoff at the idea of using it for NON-RAW
files.
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

On Jul 12, 10:10 am, "fries...@zoocrewphoto.com"
<fries....DeleteThis@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
[snip]
> Is there something wrong with using the RAW converter? I saw that
> several people seemed to scoff at the idea of using it for NON-RAW
> files.

It is now best not to think of ACR as just a raw converter (despite
its name). It is quite a powerful photograph processor for raw, JPEG,
and TIFF. (Like other products such as Lightroom, and presumably
Aperture, etc).

I nearly always shoot raw, but I've had to shoot JPEG under strict
time constraints, and my timing suggests that ACR 4.x under CS3 is a
fast way to do simple changes, (such as cropping, or apply a common
preset), to 100s of JPEG before exporting them for use. I was able to
do 115 JPEGs in 19 minutes, from loading Bridge, (I didn't use
Photoshop at all), through rapid (individual) crops, to applying a
common preset, then exporting them. About 10 seconds or so per JPEG.

(Now I would probably use Lightroom to do that, although I haven't
timed it, but for someone without Lightroom ACR 4.x can be very
effective in some cases).

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw 

I'm coming in late here, but why don't you go through and make
individual corrections as you are, then do Save As to a folder called
"corrected" or something similar, with no individual file name change.
Maybe have a "corrected" folder for each animal. The corrected images
that you want would be the only things in there, and your originals
would remain unchanged (which is the way we were taught in school...)

Then you can automate the name changes in the corrected folder to "Sunny
01" etc. in just a few seconds.

Rhonda



friesian.RemoveThis@zoocrewphoto.com wrote:
> But really, the issue is that CS2 does EXACTLY what I want with RAW
> files. It just doesn't let me do it the same way when I work with
> other files.
>
> I really prefer to open a group of photos and go through them and
> either close it or rename/save it. I like doing it that way. Choosing
> what to save and what not to save while I look at them. I really don't
> want to do a batch and then go through and delete (leaving gaps in the
> numbers).
 >> Stay informed about: I open Jpg. files in Raw