Neodp: The only reason, is the Gimp. If you want an all-in-one program, then "digikam". Both Gimp, and digikam work on any platform. Optionally: The new Debian 7 (STABLE) OS is out now. It's the best foundation, and not just for servers.
Why not? Do all, and then decide. Beware of the myths. Be open. Make wise choices; because this is freedom. Don't miss it. Don't misuse your freedom.
If anyone is extremely nontechnical (and that's OK), you only need a technical friend to help you, on your (easy; but needs wise selections) install, and not for the actual, daily usage. So along with your fluid, dynamic, never outdated, stable, total software system base+, upgraded (comprehensive like none other), and to everything your Debian 7 can do, you also get no future costs, as well. Stop the ongoing flow of your cash, to closed software. Debian can do all, of what you need, and even better. You only need the will, to keep try a different app. Don't forget, you always have 24/7 online forums, to help.
Ah yes DigiKam the only decent free raw converter, of the 5 or 6 I've tried, but then I couldn't delete the tiff files from my Windows computer.
So DikiKam still needs some work.
sambomax: why class leading high noise performance to the D5200 and not the D7100?
To be honest I don't pay attention to class boundaries.
Greg Henry: Corel is actually responding fairly quickly to this now. Here's their new ad to offer discounts to CS users...
Just a Photographer:
Corel's raw extraction program, Aftershot ne Bibble, runs on Mac, Linux too.
Macintosh Sauce: Question for the more experienced users here with RAW images. I am looking at buying a Nikon D7100 soon, and I was wondering about software to be able to load those RAW images and convert to JPG.
Right now, I have an Adobe CC academic subscription @ $20/month for everything. I am debating whether to continue with it once the year is up. I am finding myself using Pixelmator 2.2 more than Photoshop CS6 lately.
I'm just wondering about software for RAW images, since I am somewhat disturbed by what Adobe is doing now with the Creative Suite. Nikon has software on their Web site for this camera - is it any good?
Yep, I missed that.
Leon V: I am an amateur photographer. I have Photoshop CS6. I do not have Lightroom. I want to continue using PS CS6 in the future and not subscribe to Photoshop CC. Therefore, Camera Raw in my PS CS6 will not be updated for future Nikon cameras (which I am sure I will be buying).
Question. If future versions of Lightroom continues to be available on disc, and future Lightroom versions recognize future Nikon camera NEF raw files, would I be able to develop the raw files in lightroom, save them as PSDs, then open these PSDs in PS CS6?
If this is the case, and that is a BIG IF, then this scenario (buying future Lightroom versions and using PS CS6 for edits, composites, masking, etc.) is my solution to not buying into the CC.
Indeed I've learnt that I was wrong about Nikon's ViewNX2. Yes it is good at extracting Nikon raws. Though right, "not brilliant".
jpgs? really? why shoot raw and then convert to a not great format? covert to tiff, edit, then if you need to email the file convert to jpg.
If one cares about image quality one converts to tiff. I have no problem browsing through hundreds of tiffs. Though I can see why jpgs would add necessary speed for some older computers.
There are edits that aren't possible to raw, and are better done to a tiff file. Once all that is complete by all means if space or upload time are issues convert that final edit to a jpeg. This is one reason a camera like the Nikon D4 can shoot to tiff.
What is this "go back to raw"? There is no way to go back to raw file starting with simply the jpeg data.
Besides seeing the CPU working overtime, PhotoNinja is really incredibly slow to process raws.
That's not funny at all.
Now: Part of the problem may, that's "may", be that PhotoNinja has to build a library from whatever folder the raws are in before it processes any raw from that folder, but if that folder has say 200 raws, PhotoNinja may get distracted.
Anyhow, Photoshop CS6 and Bridge CS6 are much faster, even when working together.
PhotoNinja does a good job, but it not going to be taken seriously if it remains this slow and resource hogging.
So Adobe has proven itself not worthy of trust, that's a good reason Lightroom is being ignored, PSE too. Also the combination of PhotoShop and Bridge has a much better reputation than Lightroom alone.
If I were going to buy or use a new raw capable camera in say May 2014, I'd very much budget for having to purchase CaptureOne. And I've learnt that yes Nikon's freeware ViewNX2 does good raw extraction for Nikons.
(As it stands now PhotoNinja is too slow and hogs too much of the system; this all may change in the next 12 months.)
Nmphoto: As an Australian I can not see what the fuss is all about. We have been getting screwed for years with "Price Fixing". This subscription idea actually sounds pretty good to me. I will be saving hundreds of dollars a year. Check out this thread on Digital Photography School. I totally agree. http://digital-photography-school.com/say-goodbye-to-adobe-creative-suite-adobe-moves-to-the-cloud.
The complaints aren't simply about the pricing, it's that the software stops working if you don't continuing paying, that's a huge difference in this new idiocy from Adobe.
By the way all serious 3D Computer Aided Design (CAD) software costs a lot more than Photoshop and often more than the entire "Creative Suite".
Timmbits: The adobe execs attended a seminar that was sponsored by the server farm industry, convincing them that this is the future. Autodesk is headed this way, with $5000 software packages... but there is a huge difference between that, and something mainstream like adobe products. This move is quite naïve, and quite frankly, stupid. I predict that some of Adobe's upper management won't be around anymore next year... and if they still are, it'll only if they own the company, but nevertheless less rich as a result of their move.
What AutoDesk doesn't get is that there are serious design alternatives to their software. So if someone there insists that subscriptions are the only way, makers of better, still expensive, software will celebrate. All better than AutoCAD and much else offered by AutoDesk, in no particular order: Solidworks, Rhino, Vectorworks, Ashlar. And I'm sure there are more.
OneGuy: I'd love to see all photo people free of Adobe. I don't do raw processing and the most I do is use standard camera filters.
But I do computer graphics in Europe. One time I tried doing a large format print via FedEx "office" in the US they told me I could submit in .pdf format only. I hated the colors (esp. green) so much I settled for a smaller size because I had to deliver then and there. So my desire to get rid of Adobe should now include making the .pdf format non-exclusive with firms the likes of FedEx.
Also, a recent "security" update to my MS PowerPoint decreased the resolution for the .tiff and .jpeg files while increasing the resolution for the .pdf files. (Again, this is for my computer graphics work.) Yes, baby, there is a conspiracy going on and it is putting a squeeze on you from many directions.
Not that you'd know this necessarily, but FedEx Office is what used to be called Kinko's Copy, not a great place to get subtle printing done ever. It was fine for say b+w copies, or even color photo copies if you were onsite, but that's about all.
And since is was chain store, there were branches that cared and branches that didn't.
(The big one around the corner from me, I'd only use if I were running off a few copies myself--I'd never trust them with a printing job, or even a big photo coping job.)
Why bring up MS Office?
G1Houston: Most camera manufacturers include a RAW editor and/or converter with their cameras. Some of these bundled and FREE software, such as the Olympus View, is quite comprehensive. It seems that in the best interest of the consumers, it is more important to evaluate whether these free converters can do a very good job on the RAW files generated by the cameras with which they intend to work. It seems a big waste of money not to use these free softwares and spend hundreds of dollars buying these other programs that may not work well with one or more RAW formats.
I'm plenty familiar with the disaster that is Silkypix, you see I own a Panasonic LX5 and Samsung NX100, both of which shipped with that horrible software, and I've tried V5 as trialware; it's not better. So I tend to discount exhortations to try it. I have it's awful and Panasonic has probably hurt its sales by including that software. Samsung has learnt better.
Since I probably posted the explanation of why ViewNX2 would not extract my Nikon raws while you were writing, I direct your attention to the explanation above--in short my files were too recent for my version of ViewNX2.
It wasn't so much the "how" as it wouldn't work with the D4 and V1 files I tried. Then I tried some D3s raws, but they weren't on the C drive.
I'm not wedded to ACR, I think CaptureOne is plenty good and I own Bibble/Aftershot, with NoiseNinja too.
Don't have a Mac, else I'd try that Macware.
Figured it out, ViewNX2 does indeed extract Nikon raws; the raws that I’d been trying were from cameras too recent for my version of ViewNX2.
So great a good free raw converter with Nikon cameras.
It’s not up to the subtly and noise control of ACR though, nor CaptureOne. But yes it is good free raw extraction software, happy enough that I was wrong about it being view only.
not looking for an internet tutorial on how to extract raws to jpegs with ViewNX2. looking for files that will extract.
No, going to DNG first with Adobe DNG converter is not equal to extracting raws with good raw extraction software.
My version of Nikon's ViewNX2 (v2.04) will not allow extraction to tiffs, jpegs, etc. (I'm happy enough to get the latest version and try that too, and good if it works.)
News to me that one can simply extract raws on a Mac without buying Aperture, even if the raw profiles are part of the Mac OS.
I keep seeing the asserting that Canon's raw extraction software equals ACR, and the stuff for my G2 and G6, was fine, but as best as I know I can't test the Canon stuff without owning a Canon DSLR, and Canon definitely doesn't open Nikon raws.
sandy b+Rage Joe:
Sorry but my copy of ViewNX2 does not allow that conversion. Yes, sandy b, I found the output tab and selected a destination, for the Nikon raw to output as a tiff. And got the dialog box saying "not permitted". Later today or tomorrow, I'll download the latest ViewNX2 (I have 2.04) and try again. I'll be glad if it works, but until such time as it works for me only my Windows 7 computer, ViewNX2 remains a viewer only.
Robertach: Great article and about time someone finally promoted these full featured alternatives to paying big $$$ for Photoshop to do most of, if not all the editing we need to do. Paint Shop Pro and ACSee Pro as well as Paint.net have been able to do everything I need to do. Well done!
Quote: "In fact LR does almost everything the vast majority of photographers need to do to their images."
Really now, that reads like the person claim jpegs are 99 percent as good as raw files.
shakyone: I really enjoyed the article. I'm a long time GIMP user, and it does what I need, when I need to get my hands dirty.
Not meant to argue with the author, but it is worth knowing, GIMP v2.10 will have 16/32 Bit color support. It is working in the development version(http://www.gimpusers.com/news/00422-16-bit-goat-invasion-ready)
You can get GIMP for OSX at: http://gimp.lisanet.de/Website/Download.html
I'm glad to see DPReview finally acknowledge GIMP as a usable alternative. It much more capable than most realize.
It has a steep learning curve, but so does Photoshop. If you are starting from ground zero, there are plenty of tutorials on the main website and on the web to get you going. There is also a great book by Akkana Peck about how to use it. It is a fantastic reference for novice advanced photo editors.
I like many of the other proposed options.
One more suggstion: A free RAW editor to consider is RawTherapee.
Ah so 2.10 is really 2 ten or 3.0.
GIMP's fine freeware, it's just not raw extraction software.
This is news to me, I just tried my copy of ViewNX2 and it most certainly does not allow on to extract raws to tiffs.
I'm certainly willing to download the latest variation and try it as extraction software. But given that my copy doesn't then I'll have to test it myself.