Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

AfterShot Pro by Corel
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:07 pm    Post subject: AfterShot Pro by Corel Reply with quote
I just got this only a yesterday but I've found that's about the same as a few weeks for the less app-aggressive users out there. :p
Man, have you guys used this yet? Drop the poorly-written slow-as-molasses LightRoom and put aside CaptureOne for awhile and give this a try!
It's available for Windows, Mac, and Linux so you're afforded a bit of platform freedom with it. There's a trial version available on the home site here.

The Corel site starts off the introductory blurb with "Corel® AfterShot™ Pro is a fast..." and as these kinds of blurbs typically go they're drastically
understating the case. Running AfterShot Pro on my ancient 2006 MacPro1,1 (w/32GB RAM, and 8-cores of x5355 Xeon at 2.67GHz & GTX570) acts much
faster than LR on my liquid-cooled 16-core 4+ GHz Boxx 8980 XTREME with dual Tesla cards and 32GB RAM!

All the usual raw processing tools plus some unexpected goodies are presented in a pretty slick highly customizable, gooey (GUI):

Screen Shot

It's of course all non-destructive. The last 4 or 5 revision releases have offered OpenCL support as you can see from the image above. Totally sweet!
It has layer masks for selective editing and processing. Layer brushing can be as accurate as 2 pixels and selection areas are sub-pixel accurate. It has
options for independent layers which allow opacity and unique selection spline sets and/or brush strokes per layer. The selection splines can be edited
at any time during editing or after saving the files out. I guess the spline data is saved in either of it's two kinds of XMP sidecar files. It sports a plug-in
architecture but I haven't looked yet to see what APIs it's using nor if the plugs are compatible with those from/for other apps. Mine came with a souped
up version of NoiseNinja and B&W processor with selective color capabilities.

Image OutPut Example with two selective colors applied (Red & Tan)

It supports catalogs which I personally dislike, and also OS hierarchal folder structures of your own devise - which is what I prefer. It uses just two
user definable folders for all of its cache, work, proofs, previews, and profiles so it won't make a mess of things either. The review-and-select tools
are similar to all other good PP apps I've tried so finding, sorting, and tagging stuff is done in the usual ways. Basically if you already know LR, CP1,
or Aperture, there's no learning curve to deal with - just a HUGE speed increase and who doesn't want that? Very Happy It has some nice output features
but nothing others don't have IIRC. PDF files, Proof (Contact) Sheets, and so on. It also has a slide-show feature but it's fairly simplistic with just
interval, border offsets, and so on as available options. No fancy wipes or anything but this is a RAW processor so I'm not sure how fitting something
like wipes or etceteras, would be. It's got Versioning, Stacking, Keywording, Tagging, and Star Rating to help with progressive edit revisions and so
forth. And the various tool pallets can be docked and floated for us multi-monitor users. Wink

My little old MP1,1 with GTX570 can select, apply many many adjustments, and display GH2 RAW files in 0.27s or 3 FPS depending how you look at it.
Processing, converting, and saving one raw-to-jpeg image at a time occurs in about 0.8 seconds with every slider and adjustment set to something
other than the as-shot defaults. Batch processing 100 such 16mpx GH2 raw files took considerably less time with an average 0.63 seconds for each.
That's fast in the extreme - given the machine spec!

So give this a try. DL the trial version, walk through all the preferences to optimize it for your particular system, then try out all the features, and
come back here and tell us what you thought - good or bad. I have a feeling some here will be typing CASP or ASP in their posts more often than LR
from now on. Me, I'm uninstalling LR all together - that's for sure! Wink They've put together quite a system with hordes of free plug-ins and a fairly
energetic community.

Right now Amazon has it for sale for $14.99 as a download. But you can only take advantage of the deal if you're either in the USA or are using something
like a Tor network which makes you location independent. Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 7:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Using it since it's B5 days.

I have to say, I'm pretty satisfied, too, and it IS a speed daemon. (7d RAWs to TIF in <1 second on a Phenom x4).
Be sure to check out http://aftershotpro.com/plugins/ too. Lots of (mostly free) plugins that add cool functionality.

The biggest downside on ASP right now is, that Corel is so f#!*!! slow with adding camera support. Before its acquisition by Corel bibblelabs used to be much much quicker (sometimes even first to market).

Still, the current version seems to be rock solid for me.

Also, something that lots of newcomers miss (greatly speeding up workflow imho):

Double click on the "slidy" part of a slider (i.e. the part that actually moves) to reset it to its default value.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was using bibble, I think it was version 4, then later 5, for a long long time. It was very nice and super fast even on old hardware. Then I switched to the open source RawTherapee sometime around the time of the Corel takeove because I got better image quality with RT. But I miss the speed. And the plugins. All in all I think AfterShot is one of the top 2 raw developers out there, I recommend it to anyone who doesn't have the patience for rawtherapee. Lightroom on the other hand I was never able to come to terms with. All that nonsense with catalogs and importing and exporting and the slow and unresponsive user interface. Not something I agree with.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
All that nonsense with catalogs and importing and exporting


It makes perfect sense to me, Lightroom catalogues are a fantastic way to manage my archive.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 1:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AfterShot Pro supports both methods so you'll both be happy. Smile


I'm also the anti-catalog type tho. I find it pretty limiting! Like trying to play soccer in a NASA space-suit. Very Happy


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
AfterShot Pro supports both methods so you'll both be happy. Smile


I had Bibble 4 and 5 and I took the sidegrade offer when CASP was launched, so I have it too.

Tesselator wrote:
I'm also the anti-catalog type tho. I find it pretty limiting! Like trying to play soccer in a NASA space-suit. Very Happy


I would be lost without the catalogues. When I import the images in, I tag them with the name of lens, location, other relevant details.
Then, I can search and select all images of a lens, all photos taken in a given place, all photos with model X, all still life photos, etc.
It would take an afternoon to make one of such searches without the LIghtroom catalogues. My digital archive dates back to 2003 (year of my first DSLR, the 300D).
I actually dream to be able to do that with all my slides and negatives too.


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah, I hear what you're saying. And the catalog model is presented to us as being extra good at that. But (there's always a but - heh) my experience shows it's actually less capable than folders, smart folders, aliases, filenames, comments, and labels with just a little practice using/learning the OS - either via it's GUI or even better if you're not afraid the CLI/Shell. Searches are instant and the results can be piped into any workflow or application you like - instead of being locked away is some proprietary database structure.

Additionally applications like AfterShot offer all the same search and process options without having to "import" anything or create catalogs. There's really nothing special about catalogs except that they eliminate our ability to access the files via folder structure or by any of the other tools offered in the OS you're using. And there are thousands of cool tools. Some really elaborate and expedient workflows can be created which make all editors (by themselves) look completely impotent. :p

What us legacy lens adaptor guys could really use is a good EXIF/IPTC editor that works with RAW files! I hear there are some for windows but haven't found anything worthy in OS X just yet. If anyone reading this knows of one please give a shout! While not critical an EXIF/IPTC editor would really help a lot by allowing us to batch edit what lenses were used, location, event info, subject matter, and so on. We can still do all that without such an editor but using the EXIF/IPTC as it was intended seems more elegant. And of course the OS can use any of those fields or combinations of those fields as search criteria for creating as many smart folders as we like (think virtual catalog).

So with non-catelog apps being able to do exactly the same things, and catalogs themselves removing so much functionality from the user, not to mention keeping the user in the dark about a lot things concerning their precious files, I'm pretty anti-catalog. Smile

Of course please don't think that I'm saying everyone has to follow me or that there even exists a "right and wrong" way of doing this kind of stuff. But for control-freaks like myself catalogs kinda stand in our way a lot.

Last edited by Tesselator on Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:20 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Sep 11, 2013 6:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I would be lost without the catalogues. When I import the images in, I tag them with the name of lens, location, other relevant details.
Then, I can search and select all images of a lens, all photos taken in a given place, all photos with model X, all still life photos, etc.
It would take an afternoon to make one of such searches without the LIghtroom catalogues. My digital archive dates back to 2003 (year of my first DSLR, the 300D).
I actually dream to be able to do that with all my slides and negatives too.

I understand perfectly and appreciate how useful this is but realistically there's no way that's going to work for me. My archive starts with 2004, if I was to start tagging now, I would still have 9 years worth of untagged photos so if I wanted to make a search I'd always at least in part have to do it the oldfashioned way anyway. And to even think about tagging all those old photos now is crazy. And besides, even if I was tagging, I'm way too disorganized and inconsistent, sooner or later it would all fall apart. To each his own. My archive is a mess and always will be. I'm sure many people are able to put the catalog function to good use though, just not me. Wink


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It looks like highlight recovery doesn't work right.
That's kind of a big issue for those shooting landscapes or really anything with highlight which need adjusting. :p

Bummer! I hope they fix this soon!


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:

Additionally applications like AfterShot offer all the same search and process options without having to "import" anything or create catalogs.


You don't have to physically import photos. You can simply import file location, as I do.
The photos will stay where you originally put them, the catalogue being simply a database. And a very flexible one at that.
You can, for instance, select all photos of churches taken with a 20mm lens, or all photos of flowers taken at f/2 aperture, or all photos
of models where flash did fire.
And these selections are immediately available inside the editor, differently from any kind of search that you would do for windows.
Not just that - you can save those selections into a catalogue, or into a subsection, and have it always at hand without repeating the search.
And you can have the same photo in more than one catalogue, ex. in the catalogue of models and in the catalogue of Pancolar 1.8/80,
without duplicating the actual file - cataloguing is simply indexing the location of the files.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Tesselator wrote:

Additionally applications like AfterShot offer all the same search and process options without having to "import" anything or create catalogs.


You don't have to physically import photos. You can simply import file location, as I do.
The photos will stay where you originally put them, the catalogue being simply a database. And a very flexible one at that.
You can, for instance, select all photos of churches taken with a 20mm lens, or all photos of flowers taken at f/2 aperture, or all photos
of models where flash did fire.
And these selections are immediately available inside the editor, differently from any kind of search that you would do for windows.

Oops, no. All that is available from either windows, mac OS X, or something like AfterShot without using it's catalog features.


Quote:
Not just that - you can save those selections into a catalogue, or into a subsection, and have it always at hand without repeating the search.
And you can have the same photo in more than one catalogue, ex. in the catalogue of models and in the catalogue of Pancolar 1.8/80,
without duplicating the actual file - cataloguing is simply indexing the location of the files.

Yup, same thing again. All available to Windows (I think) and Mac OS X (for sure!) as well as something like AfterShot (without catalogs).



The difference being that with catalogs I have this massive file which increases disk activity, decreases disk storage capacity (important to someone like me with terabytes of images) and is susceptible not only to corruption but also versioning differences in the mother app as you upgrade or try to downgrade it. For example:

"In Lr I'm having real problems with catalog "irregularity" and can't get any answers from anywhere as to why it loses pix that are visible sitting in their proper file structure. Files that it use to know where they were. "
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1240054/1#11802139

And the time it takes LR to create these catalogs, gosh! Well, the last time I tried to create one I believe I just stopped waiting and went to bed after a few hours. It was big tho.

It's good to know that you can have the files stay where you put them while also creating the catalog version of them tho - thanks for that.

Again tho, as sort of a disclaimer. I like to share informations, opinions, teach, and learn, but I'm not trying to say that others should or shouldn't use a catalog based organizer slash editor.

Last edited by Tesselator on Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:27 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:


Last edited by Tesselator on Sat Sep 14, 2013 1:26 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:

Oops, no. All that is available from either windows, mac OS X, or something like AfterShot without using it's catalog features.


I have not said that it's not available in windows.
What I said is that with Lightroom your searches are available within the user interface of the program, and you can organize them into the resident database.
If you make a windows search, you get a listing of files, but in order to open them all into a picture editor, you need to do that one by one, losing a lot of time - and
you don't get previews of Raw files in windows - you need to open them blind.
With Lightroom, your database and searches are all previewable, editable, taggable, and openable, within the user interface of the program.

Quote:
The difference being that with catalogs I have this massive file which increases disk activity, decreases disk storage capacity


What? My whole Lightroom catalogue, that includes images from 11 years (2003 to 2013), is sized 1,20 Gb.
In one average photographic afternoon I take home 4 or more Gbs of images - I say this to make the proportions clear.
Lightroom catalogue is an *index*. It only contains files coordinates and previews.
You can choose to import the image instead of the file coordinates - in that case, your catalogue will become huge. But that
is not something that Lightroom forces you to do, it's your free choice to do that for any reason you might have to do so.

Quote:
and is susceptible not only to corruption


You obviously don't know that the lightroom catalogue is automatically saved every week and that a number of backup saves
is available for as long as you like to keep them - or you can delete them any time you want.

Quote:
but also versioning differences in the mother app as you upgrade or try to downgrade it. For example:
"In Lr I'm having real problems with catalog "irregularity" and can't get any answers from anywhere as to why it loses pix that are visible sitting in their proper file structure. Files that it use to know where they were. "
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1240054/1#11802139


I use Lightroom since it was first released and never had such a problem. Inept users can be found everywhere and for every
application. To quote them as evidence is not correct.

Quote:
And the time it takes LR to create these catalogs, gosh!
Well, the last time I tried to create one I believe I just stopped waiting and went to bed after a few hours.


You don't create a catalogue all at once. A catalogue is created when you first import files and then
you can decide to add to it when importing other files, or you can decide to create a different catalogue.
Obviously, if you try to import various terabytes of photographs all at once, it will take a lot of time. But that is to be expected
and is a choice that does not make any sense.

Quote:
It's good to know that you can have the files stay where you put them while also creating the catalog version of them tho - thanks for that.


It's not a "version". It's simply the address of the file that you import into the catalogue. It's a bit of code that says: "open this picture from that location".
it's obvious that you don't know the program. So why do you pretend to sentence about it? You make disclaimers that this is your
opinion etc. etc. but you should better form a knowledgeable opinion before jumping to conclusions into a forum where
thousands of people will read and be potentially misguided by someone who talks about a program he does not really know.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ah, OK. Now I see. you're just using the indexing without actually cataloging (copying) the files. K, I get you now.

So the whole bottom part of your post is just because we have different definitions for a catalog - as is user definable within LR. This part is worth continuing with tho (at least I think so).:

Orio wrote:
Tesselator wrote:

Oops, no. All that is available from either windows, mac OS X, or something like AfterShot without using it's catalog features.


I have not said that it's not available in windows.
What I said is that with Lightroom your searches are available within the user interface of the program, and you can organize them into the resident database.
If you make a windows search, you get a listing of files, but in order to open them all into a picture editor, you need to do that one by one, losing a lot of time - and
you don't get previews of Raw files in windows - you need to open them blind.
With Lightroom, your database and searches are all previewable, editable, taggable, and openable, within the user interface of the program.


Windows since XP I think it was has had RAW previews available. With OS X I can't remember what version it started with but there's an Apple distributed Camera RAW definitions file I get prompted to download every couple of months which allows RAW previews for the included cameras. I think they actually get the definitions from Adobe or something cuz the same camera models are added about the same time adobe adds them to their camera RAW rig. Different raw files are different but in the case of my camera I think the previews are generated from the actual raw and not from an embedded jpeg in one of the tiff layers. I primarily think this because I can zoom up to 1:1 in OS X if I like and the previews the camera uses to display RAWs in camera are (I think) 1/8th size. (which actually sucks BTW... frigging Panasonic. :p) I think Linux has these abilities as well but you have to add something or compile something - or something. Smile

Linux, Windows (from XP) and OS X all to my knowledge, have the ability to search and sort files by any of the EXIF or IPTC fields. In Windows for some of this functionality I think you have to modify the XML folder default definitions but it's no big deal, just cut and paste mostly. You may have to modify something in Linux too but if so I can't remember what it was. After performing such a search (which can be system wide including intranet, limited to a specific drive, or within a specific subfolder) you are presented with just the search results. From there those can (all in one step if you know how) be linked to a virtual folder. In OS X this is called a Smart Folder for example.

Additionally you can just save a search criteria as a file in any of these OS's and use that each time (by clicking on it) - without having to create a virtual folder at all. Actually I'm just outlining one way to do this - I bet there are dozens - I know several more ways using a CLI Shell - but you're talking about GUI stuff so let's stick to that.

From either the search results window (which should have the RAW previews displayed) or the virtual folder (which also will), you can select any or all of the files and RMB click to "Open With" any specific application or just LMB double-click to open them with the default app you specified in the MIME types for the OS.

And wala, you have searched (via a GUI) and sent any or all of the resulting files (shown with raw previews) to any application you might have installed. Here is me creating a smart folder from a system wide search (about 8TB of data) with the following criteria:

File name components:
Sigma,
28-80,
.rw2

EXIF fields:
Flash (yes)
Color Space [begins with] (RGB)

IPTC Fields:
Keywords [matches] (blank)
Rating [is greater than] (blank)
Rating [is less than] (blank)

- of course I can add as many more criteria as I like or not use so many - either way.


And this will save what looks like a folder on my Desktop called "My New Smart Folder LOL" which can be opened at any time to reveal the 9 results from the millions of files it searched. The search and creation took me about 5 or 6 seconds (of typing, the results were instant - as I typed) - Totally about the same amount of time as selecting the various fields in a cataloging organizer like LR.



.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 5:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really am not a fan of automatic cataloguing and as I've only ever dabbled with Lightroom and other (non-raw) programs I dont suppose I ought to comment but I will anyway.

I have problems like this. In my experience cataloguing includes thousands of images I don't want like jpgs and gifs from program files, temp folders and other images I wouldnt want 'cataloging, like my paid work and my hobby work getting all mixed up. So much crap hides the real stuff. On occasion I backup my sd cards to the desktop before sorting through them. the program automatically catalogs them taking up time when I just want to use the damn thing. If I move my photos to my archive disk the program has a dicky fit because It cant find the cataloged pics. I prefer to archive my photos in the old fashioned way, folders dated and with the subject matter.

I would rather just work with a program that doesnt need cataloging.

To me what lens I use is not important and editing exif data is just using up my time.

I understand there are those, like yourselves above who like catalogs and need to know exactly what lens aperture etc are used and are prepared to spend time editing exifs and watermarking your photos etc. but not for me thanks.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 7:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is it possible to be "old school" with image editing software, I wonder . . . If so, I guess I'm more like philslizzy. I've been using a product since about 1997 that was eventually bought by Corel -- Paint Shop Pro. I'm using a Corel version of it now, version "X2 Ultimate" which is actually v12, I guess they really got hung up on the whole "X" thing. I really like X2 -- I prefer it over Photoshop CS5, a copy of which I also have. But it's getting a bit long in the tooth now -- the current version is X6.

I hated X3. This was Corel's first bid at trying to turn a decent photo editing program into a Lightroom clone. And I just really didn't like it at all. Maybe that's at least partly because I just don't entirely get Lightroom. I know loads of folks love it, but I just don't see the need for it. Anyway, X4 was somewhat better than X3 and X5 had returned enough of the usefulness of X2 back to the program, all the while hanging in with their sorta LR theme, but at least I figured out how to navigate around in it. One thing I do like about X5 is Corel obviously took some time to improve some stuff under the hood. X2 is a bit of a resource pig, but this problem has been noticeably cleaned up in X5. It's faster now and requires less overhead to work. As for X6, so far I don't see any real difference between it and X5. I just d/l'd a copy of X6 yesterday along with a copy of this new AfterShot Pro LR clone thing. Just like LR, I just don't really get ASP. People are always talking about "workflow" with LR -- it's the new buzzword of the trendy photo pro set, and LR is apparently all about "workflow." Well, I tell ya what, my "workflow" just doesn't work that way. I guess that's where the old-school part of me lies.

I use Canon's Digital Photo Professional software to sort through the raw images. I can, within DPP, perform a variety of improvements to the raw images before conversion. And this is where I usually do most of the critical improvements because it's the easiest, most effective place to do them. Then I export the images I have selected as .tif files to a variety of folders on my computer, depending on subject content. Each of these folders will have a Post Processed subfolder where I will save PP'd tif files. And then from that folder I'll have another subfolder I usually just title "jpegs" that will contain, well, jpgs obviously, but it will also usually contain them in sizes suitable for posting on the 'net. So, yes, I do end up with quite a few folders on my computer, but they are all organized, and fortunately in X2 and later, I can specify exactly the folders (and their subfolders) that I want to be visible from the program's Organizer. I may end up with more physical files located on my computer than folks who use LR (and its clones) do, but not by many, I'll wager. Because each new iteration has been changed in some significant way from the one before it. Plus I have a defacto history of the changes, so I can backtrace to see what I've done, if I feel the need. Nope, my workflow just don't work that way, but you know what, more power to those of you who do work this way. Everybody's got their own way of doing things, and I'm not here to tell you who's right and who's not. All that matters is the end product, isn't it.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Is it possible to be "old school" with image editing software, I wonder . . . If so, I guess I'm more like philslizzy. I've been using a product since about 1997 that was eventually bought by Corel -- Paint Shop Pro. I'm using a Corel version of it now, version "X2 Ultimate" which is actually v12, I guess they really got hung up on the whole "X" thing. I really like X2 -- I prefer it over Photoshop CS5, a copy of which I also have. But it's getting a bit long in the tooth now -- the current version is X6.


I get Mr. Philslizzy. For what he's doing he's got the workflow and organization that works for him. But you will have to define "old school" before anyone knows what you're talking about here. OS as in editing images pixel by pixel with a joystick? OS as in Deluxe Paint II or PSP v2 type GUIs? OS as in no cataloging but with an image processor type GUI? Of the latter two there's a whole bunch of good options.

EDIT: I see you hinted at it's definition in your last paragraph. K. Smile


Quote:
I hated X3. This was Corel's first bid at trying to turn a decent photo editing program into a Lightroom clone. And I just really didn't like it at all. Maybe that's at least partly because I just don't entirely get Lightroom. I know loads of folks love it, but I just don't see the need for it.


People who are really into trying to get the ultimate image IQ from their cameras shoot RAW (hardware format image recordings) - like pros doing it for money or serious hobbyists playing with the technology. You can think of AfterShot, LightRoom, CaptureOne, and other RAW processors like them, as specialized software who's aim it is to demosaic the RAW images (change the hardware format to a computer editable/displayable format like GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD, or etc.) to the very best result scientifically and mathematically possible.

The advantages of doing this is that you get more data to manipulate. And like any digital media, the more data you have to manipulate the more variations you can achieve. With a 2-word text file you can only format it in a very limited number of ways but with a 1000-word document you can format the text into the shape of a Christmas tree if you want. Smile Kinda the same thing for photographs but photos are interested in Highlight and Shadow Recovery, CA removal, Dynamic Range, Micro-contrast and stuff like that.

So to achieve these ultimate results we incorporate these specialized RAW converters into our workflow. And "workflow" is the topic some RAW converters are trying to address via the use of catalogs and search & sort tools. A typical pro workflow might look like:

Wake up, eat breakfast, drive to the shoot
-> Take pictures
-> copy to HDD, delete unwanted or bad images
-> backup all remaining images
-> process the images to be used (sold or whatever)
-> process for output (print, web page, etc.)
-> backup all processed image and project files.
-> drive home, eat dinner, please the wife, go to sleep.

Some months or years of doing that every day let's say you decide to work for Chase Jarvis and you want to build a portfolio to show him your work (or really anything where you want to build a subset collection of all your images). This is where the search and sort come into play with editors that allow you to label, keyword, and rate your images (usually done in step 3 or 5 above). A good photo organizer (either via the OS, or a specialized organizer/browser, or a RAW processor which has organizer/browser capabilities) will help you build that subset collection quickly and easily. Such will also allow you find images for customer requested reprints and so on too. Like a database. Smile

Here's a great tutorial overview of one professional's "workflow" if you're interested to see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-6EQo6it7Y It's a fun little watch. Smile


Quote:
Just like LR, I just don't really get ASP. People are always talking about "workflow" with LR -- it's the new buzzword of the trendy photo pro set, and LR is apparently all about "workflow." Well, I tell ya what, my "workflow" just doesn't work that way. I guess that's where the old-school part of me lies.


The difference between ASP and LR is: 1) in the quality of the RAW conversion, and 2) in the number/versatility/quality of the tools they offer - from sort & search tools to more image editing centric ones.


Quote:
I use Canon's Digital Photo Professional software to sort through the raw images. I can, within DPP, perform a variety of improvements to the raw images before conversion. And this is where I usually do most of the critical improvements because it's the easiest, most effective place to do them. Then I export the images I have selected as .tif files to a variety of folders on my computer, depending on subject content. Each of these folders will have a Post Processed subfolder where I will save PP'd tif files. And then from that folder I'll have another subfolder I usually just title "jpegs" that will contain, well, jpgs obviously, but it will also usually contain them in sizes suitable for posting on the 'net. So, yes, I do end up with quite a few folders on my computer, but they are all organized, and fortunately in X2 and later, I can specify exactly the folders (and their subfolders) that I want to be visible from the program's Organizer. I may end up with more physical files located on my computer than folks who use LR (and its clones) do, but not by many, I'll wager. Because each new iteration has been changed in some significant way from the one before it. Plus I have a defacto history of the changes, so I can backtrace to see what I've done, if I feel the need. Nope, my workflow just don't work that way, but you know what, more power to those of you who do work this way. Everybody's got their own way of doing things, and I'm not here to tell you who's right and who's not. All that matters is the end product, isn't it.


Actually you will end up with less files doing it your way. And this is where ASP comes in. It allows you to do it the way you're describing and also have the tools and features available in "LR Clones" as you call them. Like you say everyone has their own way of doing things and if a RAW converter, editor, organizer, or browser helps you and fits your budget then go for it - if not then shine it on (of course). But the end product is not really all that matters, no. The time it takes you to produce that end product (whether portfolio, printed flip-book, website, or printed image) is or at least can be, very critical. And that's what apps like LR and ASP are attempting to address by adding organizer and browser centric tool sets to their RAW converter products.

Are these kinds of apps needed or beneficial for you? Only you know that of course. Smile


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
philslizzy wrote:
I really am not a fan of automatic cataloguing and as I've only ever dabbled with Lightroom and other (non-raw) programs I dont suppose I ought to comment but I will anyway.
I have problems like this. In my experience cataloguing includes thousands of images I don't want like jpgs and gifs from program files, temp folders and other images I wouldnt want 'cataloging, like my paid work and my hobby work getting all mixed up. So much crap hides the real stuff.


Of the three raw softwares I have, both Lightroom and Capture One Pro allow you to do selective import from any folder(s).
It means you choose what to import into catalogue and what not.
After Shot Pro, it seems to offer only import of whole folders without previews, but I am not an expert of the import part of ASP because
I don't use it, so maybe there is a way to do selective imports that I ignore.

philslizzy wrote:
I understand there are those, like yourselves above who like catalogs and need to know exactly what lens aperture etc are used and are prepared to spend time editing exifs and watermarking your photos etc. but not for me thanks.


It's not really a matter of "like" for me, but a need. With the job I used to do, I had to keep an archive of literally thousands of different plants and trees, and all different parts from them.
If I didn't make a catalogue, I would have been completely lost - and very quickly fired.
In the beginning, when there was no DSLR, I had to make contact sheets of all photos, number them by hand, and make a catalogue in Access,
which was of course completely disconnected from the images themselves, and from Photoshop. It was a nightmare.
I simply could not have survived later with Breezebrowser first, and Lightroom then.
And even if I don't do that job anymore, I still need cataloguing through my vaste archive, if for nothing else, to be just able to find what I need.
Looking through hundreds of folders full of thousands of files all called something like "IMG_579287254.CR2" to find a photo of my cat or
of that old house I photographed then, would be something that would drive me completely insane.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 14, 2013 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tesselator wrote:
Actually you will end up with less files doing it your way. And this is where ASP comes in. It allows you to do it the way you're describing and also have the tools and features available in "LR Clones" as you call them. Like you say everyone has their own way of doing things and if a RAW converter, editor, organizer, or browser helps you and fits your budget then go for it - if not then shine it on (of course). But the end product is not really all that matters, no. The time it takes you to produce that end product (whether portfolio, printed flip-book, website, or printed image) is or at least can be, very critical. And that's what apps like LR and ASP are attempting to address by adding organizer and browser centric tool sets to their RAW converter products.

Are these kinds of apps needed or beneficial for you? Only you know that of course. Smile


OK, I'm finally getting it now. Cataloging is just another way of saying you're building a database of images. Sort of on the fly though, as each subject matter comes into play. I've kind of wondered why I should be rating my images with stars -- because after all, if they've made the final cut and are in my portfolio then they are all 5 star images, IMO. Rolling Eyes

So I guess the biggest difference then is I'm not using LR or ASP to edit my raw files, the Canon .cr2 files in my case. You know what? I've looked at the raw editor in PS CS5, and I think it's pretty cool. Better than PSP X2's. But I can't really comment on LR's capabilities or ASP's for that matter because I've never used them to process raw images. Same goes for PSP X5 or X6, which I'm sure do a better job at processing them than X2 does. But honestly I don't see the need right now, unless I find the process of cataloging to be so essential, so I would rather just continue using Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which is actually quite good at manipulating and processing raw images. I dont' know about PS CS5, but there are times, for example, when I run into problems with luminance noise that PSP X2 can't handle specifically, and I end up having to boot DPP and use its luminance noise filter to quieten it down. DPP also does an excellent job of adjusting exposure of the raw images, to a degree that is simply not possible in any image editing program I've used. Its contrast, sharpness, and saturation controls are adequate, and it has good abilities to adjust the white balance in a photo. Now, if LR or ASP is capable of delivering these same or better results to my raw images, then I'll definitely start paying attention.

But in a way I already have. I've already gone to the trouble of assembling most of my best work into a gallery at my website. And each image -- or at least most of them -- has tags associated with it. You can find it here:

http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/

The advantage to this gallery is it is searchable based on key words. The disadvantages are perhaps a lack of flexibility and also these are all images that I processed somewhere else. But at least it is searchable and it contains some of my best work.

Still, I'll give LR ans ASP a closer look, now that I know what their strengths are.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

OK, I'm finally getting it now. Cataloging is just another way of saying you're building a database of images. Sort of on the fly though, as each subject matter comes into play. I've kind of wondered why I should be rating my images with stars -- because after all, if they've made the final cut and are in my portfolio then they are all 5 star images, IMO. Rolling Eyes


I don't use stars. I use keywords, because keywords are useful for searches, stars aren't.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
cooltouch wrote:

OK, I'm finally getting it now. Cataloging is just another way of saying you're building a database of images. Sort of on the fly though, as each subject matter comes into play. I've kind of wondered why I should be rating my images with stars -- because after all, if they've made the final cut and are in my portfolio then they are all 5 star images, IMO. Rolling Eyes


I don't use stars. I use keywords, because keywords are useful for searches, stars aren't.


As have I in my gallery mentioned above. I was being facetious about the stars, cuz I really don't see a lot of point to them. Just dress-up stuff, I'm figuring. It would be prety tough trying to do a database search on number of stars when one is after specific content, seems to me.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

As have I in my gallery mentioned above. I was being facetious about the stars, cuz I really don't see a lot of point to them. Just dress-up stuff, I'm figuring. It would be prety tough trying to do a database search on number of stars when one is after specific content, seems to me.


Actually, stars can be useful as a temporary way of selection. Say you have a large number of pictures to sort out, of various kind, all shot in the same day (ergo: same folder) and you still have to apply keywords.
By applying a different number of stars (or different colour tags) to different genres of pictures (example: 5 stars to pictures taken in city X, 4 stars to pictures of city Y, et c.),
you can then select all pictures of city X only and apply to them the relevant keyword in just one go using the Sync function of Lightroom.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
^^^ Yup. I use them for my exposure variants. I typically take 3 shots of a subject with only slight variations in angle or exposure. I put stars on the one that looks the best. Then later that's the one I spend the time to process to perfection.

cooltouch wrote:
Tesselator wrote:
Actually you will end up with less files doing it your way. And this is where ASP comes in. It allows you to do it the way you're describing and also have the tools and features available in "LR Clones" as you call them. Like you say everyone has their own way of doing things and if a RAW converter, editor, organizer, or browser helps you and fits your budget then go for it - if not then shine it on (of course). But the end product is not really all that matters, no. The time it takes you to produce that end product (whether portfolio, printed flip-book, website, or printed image) is or at least can be, very critical. And that's what apps like LR and ASP are attempting to address by adding organizer and browser centric tool sets to their RAW converter products.

Are these kinds of apps needed or beneficial for you? Only you know that of course. Smile


OK, I'm finally getting it now. Cataloging is just another way of saying you're building a database of images. Sort of on the fly though, as each subject matter comes into play. I've kind of wondered why I should be rating my images with stars -- because after all, if they've made the final cut and are in my portfolio then they are all 5 star images, IMO. Rolling Eyes

So I guess the biggest difference then is I'm not using LR or ASP to edit my raw files, the Canon .cr2 files in my case. You know what? I've looked at the raw editor in PS CS5, and I think it's pretty cool. Better than PSP X2's. But I can't really comment on LR's capabilities or ASP's for that matter because I've never used them to process raw images.


LR uses the same RAW demosaic engine as PS. LR is an actual kluge of code parts and pieces from Bridge, PS, and ACR (Adobe Camera RAW). The ACR bits in LR are identical and usually one version behind PS.

As they say on dragnet: Only the GUI was changed to protect the innocent. Smile


Quote:
Same goes for PSP X5 or X6, which I'm sure do a better job at processing them than X2 does. But honestly I don't see the need right now, unless I find the process of cataloging to be so essential, so I would rather just continue using Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which is actually quite good at manipulating and processing raw images. I dont' know about PS CS5, but there are times, for example, when I run into problems with luminance noise that PSP X2 can't handle specifically, and I end up having to boot DPP and use its luminance noise filter to quieten it down. DPP also does an excellent job of adjusting exposure of the raw images, to a degree that is simply not possible in any image editing program I've used. Its contrast, sharpness, and saturation controls are adequate, and it has good abilities to adjust the white balance in a photo. Now, if LR or ASP is capable of delivering these same or better results to my raw images, then I'll definitely start paying attention.


Same and slightly different yes. DPP has a very good reputation tho I haven't played with it that much because it's a Conon-centric tool and I have many cameras. I've tested and compared the output from 15 or 20 different apps although I think many share the same demosaicing code (engine) so maybe 8 or 10 different outputs totally. The two best IMO are CaptureOne taking a noticeably superior first place, and Adobe Camera RAW in second place a very slight cut above the rest of the pack. From what others say DPP is better than ACR but not as good as C1. The demosaicing engine in AfterShot is quite close to that of C1 (CaptureOne) and one of the reasons I started this thread. ASP is also much faster than DPP, ACR or C1.

Am I recommending that you change your workflow? No. If you're happy and you know it, keep your app. (Isn't that a song?) There's no reason to change unless and/or until you're dissatisfied with your current process - or the results therefrom.


Quote:
But in a way I already have. I've already gone to the trouble of assembling most of my best work into a gallery at my website. And each image -- or at least most of them -- has tags associated with it. You can find it here:

http://michaelmcbroom.com/gallery3/index.php/

The advantage to this gallery is it is searchable based on key words. The disadvantages are perhaps a lack of flexibility and also these are all images that I processed somewhere else. But at least it is searchable and it contains some of my best work.

Still, I'll give LR ans ASP a closer look, now that I know what their strengths are.


Kewl! have fun - that's the main thing! Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Digital Darkroom
Page 1 of 1