|
|
Post by michelb on Oct 8, 2018 9:43:00 GMT
What does 'parametric editing mean for your own work'?
In a nutshell, parametric editing means storing the editing recipe as well as the original (raw or not). That parameters storing may be in a database or in 'sidecar' text files. Lightroom is built from this concept as well as ACR in Photoshop or Elements and other softwares.
There are many pros and cons, for instance, you don't need to store final (rendered) copies or versions together with your originals. The software can always produce them from the recipe.
So, for you,
- is parametric editing important?
- Do you always also edit and store a rendered version together with the original?
Please be free to comment and give details on your personal choice.
For my own use I can summarize my common workflow: I do use Elements with ACR for raws as well as jpegs. I always save an edited full res jpeg version in a version set. I'll comment why later  .
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 8, 2018 10:36:58 GMT
Hi michelb,
I only shoot raw format. I then do the post processing in ACR and PSE. After I have the final edited image I save it in psd format and delete the raw files from my hdd.
When I take photos for someone else, at an event for example, I do the same as above but I give them full resolution jpegs at minimum compression (100% quality setting). After I have handed over the jpegs I keep a copy of them for my own records but delete the psd files.
I use the PSE Organiser for my catalogue. For my purposes and needs it is brilliant.
I do all imports/exports and deletions of image files via the Organiser.
|
|
|
|
Post by Major Major on Oct 8, 2018 16:25:39 GMT
Hi Michel -
I have been shooting exclusively in RAW now for a while. Since acquiring PhotoRaw 2018 I have been doing much of my image processing there. PR 2018 generates sidecar files called .on1 files which are transportable, so edits are easy to "travel" with a photo.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andy on Oct 8, 2018 22:49:18 GMT
I use Lightroom, so parametric editing is the majority of my work. I've thought about keeping rendered jpg's but haven't found a compelling reason for the slight extra effort and the significantly extra storage. I never delete the RAW files unless they are junk to begin with. If I go into PS or PSE or something else, then the psd will be saved in the stack with the raw file.
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Oct 9, 2018 14:51:37 GMT
We shoot "RAW & Large jpeg", reason being that in some instances it is convenient to be able to see the jpeg when there is no RAW viewer at hand.
I use separate sub-folders that store the original RAWs, Original jpegs, DxO converted jpegs with a DxO suffix, the PSD files, the finished edited enhanced jpegs, and various other folders depending on the need.
Once I get the DxO converted jpegs to my liking, I discard the original jpegs.
I start with the original RAW files in a temporary folder where DxO will deposit any "sidecar" files and such; after DxO has converted the RAW files to my liking, I move the RAW files to a permanent folder, leaving the sidecars and such in the temporary folder; I then discard/delete the temporary folder.
If, on the very rare occasion, I ever want to revisit the RAW file, I do not want a bunch of previous edits cluttering up what is going on; I want DxO or whatever RAW editor to see it as a virgin file.
I keep the original RAW files.
I keep the many-layered PSDs.
I keep the DxO jpeg conversions; although, this is a bit redundant, as the DxO jpeg is always the Background layer of the PSD; I can retrieve it any time at will.
When all is said and done, every picture has a finished jpeg, emphasis on "every"; these finished jpegs are all kept as individual jpegs; plus, the finished product is the very top merged-visible layer in the PSD --- although the PSD is NEVER cropped. (nor the RAW)
These finished jpegs are what we let others see, whether in full resolution, or downsized to suit.
|
|
.
