2,000 RAW Images ... Next Steps?

[KarmaLou]

Operating System

1. macOS 14 Sonoma

I recently purchased a full-frame camera and brought it with me on an Alaska vacation. I generated over 2,000 RAW images and have uploaded and keyworded everything in Lightroom Classic v 14.31.. I am an avid hobbyist who has limited experience working with RAW images, and am wondering whether I should be applying some type of preset to each of these images, or should I do this individually based on the "keepers." However, my follow-up thought to that is how do I know whether something is a keeper unless I apply some sort of processing to see the potential of the image?

As an aside, this is my first full-frame camera and while I knew the 33 megapixel image files would be larger than what I was used to with a crop-sensor, I didn't fully appreciate the additional disk space that would be needed to store these (locally and as backups). Being a new camera, I took a lot of extra shots as practice with a "try this and see" attitude. And even though I read a recent post on this forum that recommends not to delete anything - ever - I wonder about whether this should include 'practice' images such as the 200 RAW photos I have of one birdhouse when I was initially trying out my new camera and lenses.

Very much appreciate the thoughts and guidance of folks who are more experienced than I am with Lightroom Classic and workflow with RAW images.

 

[Paul_DS256]

I am an avid hobbyist who has limited experience working with RAW images, and am wondering whether I should be applying some type of preset to each of these images, or should I do this individually based on the "keepers."

I consider myself a hobbyist as well who, so far, has not seen any need to use presets. Presets to me are a combination of control settings that you can also make manually. I've often thought of exploring some available presets but there seem to be a lot. I'm also happy with the outcome of my manual workflow. In other words, there is no requirement for using presets. The outcome of my workflow are my keepers.

Out of curiosity what sort of presets were you thinking of?

 

[KarmaLou]

I consider myself a hobbyist as well who, so far, has not seen any need to use presets. Presets to me are a combination of control settings that you can also make manually. I've often thought of exploring some available presets but there seem to be a lot. I'm also happy with the outcome of my manual workflow. In other words, there is no requirement for using presets. The outcome of my workflow are my keepers.

Out of curiosity what sort of presets were you thinking of?

Thank you for your response. I'm not necessarily looking at presets, but more am wondering whether I should apply any adjustments globally to a large batch of images or apply manual adjustments on an image-by-image basis. I mentioned presets as I thought that might be a quick and easy way as a first step to tackle 2,000 images.

 

[clee01l]

Most cameras are tuned in Adobe to use a pretty good profile for a starting point in develop. The Same in camera profile that were available in camera for shooting JPGs have been reverse engineered and carry similar names. In addition, Adobe have developed their own camera profiles with names like Adobe Vivid or Adobe Landscape. In shooting RAW, you are no longer stuck with the profile you chose in the camera for your JPEGs or "baked in" color space. You can set the color space in the camera to sRGB to avoind the file names starting with an underscore "_". RAW files have no colorspace since they are no RGB images but photo site values. The color space is assigned when the RAW file is demosaiced and an RGB image is produced. Lightroom and ACR use a version of ProPhotoRGB as the working color space. This colorspace has a larger envelope than sRGB or AdobeRGB.

With the introduction of v14, I now use the Adaptive Color profile as a starting point. I find this so intelligent that I am going back and reprocessing many of my older images with Adaptive Color and seeing great improvements.

 

[Paul_DS256]

wondering whether I should apply any adjustments globally to a large batch of images

I think that comes from experience. The only standard control I apply on import is 'Lens Correction'.

My workflow normally starts with AUTO tonal control. I do this manually because I like to see what it's doing. That is one I could add to the import.

With the introduction of v14, I now use the Adaptive Color profile as a starting point. I find this so intelligent that I am going back and reprocessing many of my older images with Adaptive Color and seeing great improvements

I'm still playing with Adaptive Color. I'm not sold on it yet. One of my peeves with it is that it doesn't show any of the controls it may be setting, as AUTO does, so you have a reference to what it's changed. Likely as it improves I'll use it more.

However as to Cletus's point of reprocessing old images, this is something I do as well with new LrC and something you may find you do as well in the future.

 

[Conrad Chavez]

…how do I know whether something is a keeper unless I apply some sort of processing to see the potential of the image?

I’m one of those who are finding that Adaptive Color can sort of fill that function, because it does a reasonably intelligent first pass of corrections that lets me better see the potential of an image. However, one thing about Adaptive Color that might be a hassle for a beginner is if you apply Adaptive Color as a default in bulk, you’ll probably have to update AI settings for images before you see the effect. This is unlike the older non-adaptive profiles which are uniform across all images and calculated/applied immediately. Fortunately, Adobe added the Photo > Develop Settings > Update AI Settings command, and I’ve gotten into the habit of using its keyboard shortcut. For example, if I want to evaluate a folder of 50 images from a shoot and Adaptive Color was the default import profile, I know I should Select All and press Option+Command+U. After the Adaptive profile AI analysis is done for the images, they’re ready to look at.

For casual shots, especially smartphone snapshots, Adaptive Color is often good enough that I accept it as is. Of course, for shots that are shot more intentionally to create “art” or for more challenging images, I’ll start by adjusting the Amount slider for Adaptive Color and then applying my own adjustments and masks on top of that until I get what I want.

I'm still playing with Adaptive Color. I'm not sold on it yet. One of my peeves with it is that it doesn't show any of the controls it may be setting, as AUTO does, so you have a reference to what it's changed. Likely as it improves I'll use it more.

The fact that the Adaptive profiles don't list what they did doesn’t bother me, because that’s no different than applying one of the older “static” profiles such as Adobe Landscape or Camera Neutral. Those profiles have never listed exactly what they did, because profiles don’t do that; that’s something done by presets, not profiles. Choosing a profile is a lot like the traditional decision of choosing a different film, where there is no detailed public “recipe” for exactly how Kodak Gold is different than Kodak Portra, you just judge them by the look, and take it or leave it for another film. So I treat Adaptive Color the same way: I’m not concerned about the numbers it did, I am only concerned about whether I like how it looks. If I think Adaptive Color is taking the image in the wrong direction, even after adjusting its Amount slider, then it’s appropriate to switch to a profile that I think is a better starting point for the look I want. But I have to say, choosing a profile other than Adaptive Color is happening less often now.

I mentioned this in another post some time ago, but the major advantage of profiles not altering the sliders is that you get an editing baseline that still gives you the full range of the sliders. If you apply a preset and it achieves its look by setting Highlights to -60, you have only 40 points of negative highlight compensation left to use. But if you apply a profile that achieves the same highlight reduction, Highlights starts at 0, so you still have the full range of -100 to +100 to work with. This is a side effect of the fact that profiles are able to make changes that exceed the slider ranges; it’s another aspect of them shifting the baseline/zero point of both edits/Develop slider positions. And it’s why presets can’t replace profiles, they are complementary and achieve different goals. Presets and static profiles can’t do the content-aware, internally masked adjustments that adaptive profiles can, and that’s a lot of what allows Adaptive profiles to (usually) produce better results than what the Auto Settings command produces.

Originally I didn’t really “get” adaptive profiles and was skeptical, but now…I’m a convert, they’re a major advance and a big selling point for Lightroom/Camera Raw.

 

[Jimmsp]

but the major advantage of profiles not altering the sliders is that you get an editing baseline that still gives you the full range of the sliders. If you apply a preset and it achieves its look by setting Highlights to -60, you have only 40 points of negative highlight compensation left to use. But if you apply a profile that achieves the same highlight reduction, Highlights starts at 0, so you still have the full range of -100 to +100 to work with.

Exactly - that is the one major advantage that I consistently find helpful. I am using Adaptive Profiles on almost every RAW I shoot, including my Pixel 9 Pro phone.
And by the way, your next step will be, imo, rating them. After you apply Adaptive Profile to a RAW, you will find yourself "pretty close" to what you may want. I would go through them one at a time, and rate them X-0-1-2.
Toss the x's , and then filter out everything but the 2s, and finish the processing on them, upgrading to a 3,4,5 .
Then move to your 1s. I tend to leave the 0s as is.
It will go quickly. I just shot ~2000 a month or so ago at a local airshow. I am fairly ruthless with my Xs often with a goal when I shoot a lot of bursts to get down to less than 1/3 right away.
ANd BTW, toss your practice images unless there is something there that catches your eye.

 

[Paul_DS256]

The fact that the Adaptive profiles don't list what they did doesn’t bother me, because that’s no different than applying one of the older “static” profiles such as Adobe Landscape or Camera Neutral.

I may misunderstand the new Adaptive profile but my understanding is that applies changes other than colour. They also make tonal adjustments. So in that light, they are like custom presets unique to each photo. This leads to confusion since they are under Color Profiles.

Choosing a profile is a lot like the traditional decision of choosing a different film, where there is no detailed public “recipe” for exactly how Kodak Gold is different than Kodak Portra, you just judge them by the look, and take it or leave it for another film.

Agreed on just Color Profiles but not on Adaptive unless I'm wrong about the extent of controls it touches other than color. It's this extension over just color changes that is my concern.

 

[Paul_DS256]

Sorry for the repetition here. I tried to edit my previous response but timed out and now the edit option is missing

The fact that the Adaptive profiles don't list what they did doesn’t bother me, because that’s no different than applying one of the older “static” profiles such as Adobe Landscape or Camera Neutral.

I may misunderstand the new Adaptive profile but my understanding is that applies changes other than colour. They also make tonal adjustments. So in that light, they are like custom presets unique to each photo. This leads to confusion since they are under Color Profiles.

Choosing a profile is a lot like the traditional decision of choosing a different film, where there is no detailed public “recipe” for exactly how Kodak Gold is different than Kodak Portra, you just judge them by the look, and take it or leave it for another film.

Agreed on just Color Profiles but not on Adaptive unless I'm wrong about the extent of controls it touches other than color. It's this extension over just color changes that is my concern.

I mentioned this in another post some time ago, but the major advantage of profiles not altering the sliders is that you get an editing baseline that still gives you the full range of the sliders. If you apply a preset and it achieves its look by setting Highlights to -60, you have only 40 points of negative highlight compensation left to use. But if you apply a profile that achieves the same highlight reduction, Highlights starts at 0, so you still have the full range of -100 to +100 to work with

Now that's an interesting potential benefit but then wonder why Adobe just doesn't increase the control range. I'd like to suggest that the 'points' on the controls are many times effectively 'stops'. My point is you can't see what controls Adaptive has played around with.

But you raise an interesting perspective. Due we have two schools of thought; one who grew up on film and look at photo adjustments in relation to analogies to darkroom processing; another that only have grown up on digital.

And it’s why presets can’t replace profiles, they are complementary and achieve different goals

And I think this is were we differ in our perspective. Adaptive Color Profile is a mix of color profile and controls that would be in a preset. I get the feeling Adobe put Adaptive in Color due part of it does deal with Color Profile but it likely should have been it's own feature.

 

[clee01l]

Originally I didn’t really “get” adaptive profiles and was skeptical, but now…I’m a convert, they’re a major advance and a big selling point for Lightroom/Camera Raw.

Though not called AI, I think Adaptive Color Profile is using AI intelligence to create an appropriate color rendition

 

[Zenon]

I stopped using presets long ago. These days I'm using the Adaptive Color profile as a start point. A few things you can try.

Look at your files with the default Adobe Color profile and see if you like them. Next try out both your camera and Adobe Color profiles and see if any appeal more to you. For example Adobe has both you cameras and their own version of Landscape.

Try adding Auto to whatever profiles you like and see if it works for you. NOTE: Do not use Auto for the Adaptive Color profile. Not recommended and you should get a warning if you try to use Auto.

Before adopting Adobe Color I used Adobe Neutral followed by Auto. Good idea to use Auto with this profile because it's pretty dull on its own so it's a good starting point. I think it has a nice natural look.

Don't drive yourself to too crazy with this as I did. Eventually I gave up on looking for that perfect thing. When I decided to go with just pleasing colour it made my hobby much more enjoyable. Pleasing to me. I don't care about anyone else

 

[Replytoken]

And even though I read a recent post on this forum that recommends not to delete anything - ever - I wonder about whether this should include 'practice' images such as the 200 RAW photos I have of one birdhouse when I was initially trying out my new camera and lenses.

There are a lot of thoughts about how much one should cull, but most would agree that absolute clunkers should be culled. I do not save test photos after I have viewed them and learned what I needed from them. My advice is to get rid of stuff that you think you will never use and focus your time on images that have promise. The stuff in the middle you can revisit later.

--Ken

 

[Zenon]

Good point about culling. I shoot with Canon so I use their proprietary software called DPP to pre-cull before importing into Lightroom. Many don't get past that stage. After two months in Portugal this year I only came home with just over 1000 files. If I can get 10-30 what I call exceptional shots for me and 30-100 I really like I call that a good trip. However we go there every year. If I went to Alaska somewhere new with that type of scenery then it would be a different story.

I don't shoot for money anymore. I did that on the side for a few years for a new gear (toy) fund. I did do a charity shoot a few years ago and didn't invest much time into. It imported the files with my mass edit preset which includes Adobe Color, Auto and Adaptive ISO preset. I just levelled, cropped and tweaked the exposures. I edited near 500 RAW files in about 1 ½ hours.

After I croak no one will be looking at my hobby images on a regular basis anyway. I doubt I'll achieve Vivian Maier status in the future.

 

[PhilBurton]

You can set the color space in the camera to sRGB to avoind the file names starting with an underscore "_"

On my newly acquired Nikon Z8, folder names do not have a leading "_" because each folder can accommodate 10,000 images,

 

[Replytoken]

On my newly acquired Nikon Z8, folder names do not have a leading "_" because each folder can accommodate 10,000 images,

My understanding from prior Nikon bodies is that the file names for images set to Adobe RGB had the leading "_", not the folders.

--Ken

 

[John Little]

On my newly acquired Nikon Z8, folder names do not have a leading "_" because each folder can accommodate 10,000 images,

I am assuming by "folder names" you're referring to image files. On my Z8, I use _0Z8xxxx.nef. The xxxx's can take values from 0000 to 9999, that is, 10,000 images. I suppose after 10000 images I could switch to _1Z8xxxx.nef to keep file names unique, but that will be a while yet.

 

[clee01l]

I am assuming by "folder names" you're referring to image files. On my Z8, I use _0Z8xxxx.nef. The xxxx's can take values from 0000 to 9999, that is, 10,000 images. I suppose after 10000 images I could switch to _1Z8xxxx.nef to keep file names unique, but that will be a while yet.

If you specify sRGB for the colorspace, then the File name becomes xxx_nnnn which can be which allow the first 3 characters to be edited. IMO No file name should begin with an underscore(_). RAW file have no color space since they are not even RGB. Colorspace is meaningless for RAW files and the naming standard was developed at a time when sRGB was more common than Adobe RGB for JPEG files. Nikon could allow the 4th character to be edited but they do not. Whan I shot with Pentax camera all 4 characters could be edited So I coul name my file K201nnnn when ever I shot more than 10,000 files. My first Nikons (D800) had file namee like 800_nnnn.

 

[brandlkate98]

I recently started shooting with a new full-frame camera too and ended up with tons of CR3 files. At first, I wasn’t sure how to handle them either, especially when trying to decide what’s worth keeping. Sometimes I convert CR3 to PNG just to get a better look at the image potential outside of Lightroom, especially when sharing or doing quick edits. It helps me decide which ones are truly keepers.

 

[brandlkate98]

I can recommend this site to convert cr3 to jpg, it helps me every time when I am dealing with image formatting.

 

[clee01l]

I can recommend this site to convert cr3 to jpg, it helps me every time when I am dealing with image formatting.

Instead of converting CR3s. I recommend Fast RAW Viewer . It will open any RAW format file and display the embedded JPEG image. No need to create secondary files. And it is very fast.

 

[Swingman]

Most cameras are tuned in Adobe to use a pretty good profile for a starting point in develop. The Same in camera profile that were available in camera for shooting JPGs have been reverse engineered and carry similar names. In addition, Adobe have developed their own camera profiles with names like Adobe Vivid or Adobe Landscape. In shooting RAW, you are no longer stuck with the profile you chose in the camera for your JPEGs or "baked in" color space. You can set the color space in the camera to sRGB to avoind the file names starting with an underscore "_". RAW files have no colorspace since they are no RGB images but photo site values. The color space is assigned when the RAW file is demosaiced and an RGB image is produced. Lightroom and ACR use a version of ProPhotoRGB as the working color space. This colorspace has a larger envelope than sRGB or AdobeRGB.

With the introduction of v14, I now use the Adaptive Color profile as a starting point. I find this so intelligent that I am going back and reprocessing many of my older images with Adaptive Color and seeing great improvements.

I was just browsing through this section of the forum, which I don’t normally frequent, I noticed that you were reprocessing your old photos using the Adaptive profile. Do you treat it as new Auto setting of the AI era? Does this also means that everytime a new version of the software released, the Adoptive also updated to newer AI algorithms and hence may require redoing all the photos again. Never ending task as we say in UK it’s like painting the Forth Bridge in Scotland. This is one of the longest steel bridge which take very long time to repaint. When you finish at one end time start all over again from the other end.

 

[clee01l]

I was just browsing through this section of the forum, which I don’t normally frequent, I noticed that you were reprocessing your old photos using the Adaptive profile. Do you treat it as new Auto setting of the AI era? Does this also means that everytime a new version of the software released, the Adoptive also updated to newer AI algorithms and hence may require redoing all the photos again. Never ending task as we say in UK it’s like painting the Forth Bridge in Scotland. This is one of the longest steel bridge which take very long time to repaint. When you finish at one end time start all over again from the other end.

I’m always looking to improve my old images which go back to Lr2. it is easy to see that Adobe has made great improvements since then. Adaptive Profile is new since v14. It does much in a smart way that Took a lot of individual steps and tweaks to make a good result before Adaptive Profile came into being. I begin reworking an old image by starting with “Reset”. This zeroes out the old work while still preserving it in History.

Sometimes the result is dramatic, sometimes marginal.

As for as Adaptive Profile being updated, I not that some images processed in V14.o get tagged as “Adaptive Profile v1”. With no option to revert to V1. I don’t know if the current version is v2 or if there will be a v3.

All I can say is it never hurts to revisit old images with new features.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Zenon]

I revisited a few if my favourite files to test out Adaptive Color but I won't do them all. Never thought of other versions. I just figured they would continue to train AI and slip in improvements without announcing it at times. They did that with Auto. Version upgrades are possible or they may call it something else at the next major evolution.