Reading mode: Light Dark

What's my best software choice for pp of raw files?

Go to last post
C

Cane

Veteran Member
Messages
6,900
Solutions
1
Reaction score
4,379
I currently have Photoshop CS4, as I get a great deal on it, but I never hear it talked about. Is this just not the right tool? Is there something cheaper that gives better results ,and isn't so daunting?
 
A question that comes up regularly, and very very subjective. It comes down to a matter of personal preferences. For instance, I love Silkypix DS Pro ease of use and output, but most hate it for some reason. All the RAW converters out there offer a free trial versions, best for you just to try them all, and figure out for yourself which best suits your style and needs. There will be a hole bunch of folks telling you mine is better than your type answers etc., and none will be right as there is no right answer to that question, there is no best. Each have their stengts and weaknesses.

Roger
 
If you like Adobe or can get good deals on their products, then you should consider Adobe Lightroom 4. It's a much better tool for photographers than big brother Photoshop CS.., which is still nice to do some very specific editing in exceptional cases. Lightroom has facilities to organize your images, do extensive post processing while keeping your originals intact (RAW processing and easily synching settings over large collections of images) and some very nice output possibilities.

It's not free of course, but it costs less than a good lens and you'll use it for all your pictures.

Wim

--
Belgium, GMT+1

 
I never see Photoshop as a good RAW workflow solution. Its a great paste up / graphic App, but if its RAW workflow to development, then even Lightroom is better. Right now though I use Linux and Darktable ( together with digikam as library management ) is the choice. On my Mac I am using Lightroom, Silkypix PRO.

--
  • Franka -
 
I mostly use Lightroom 3 now. For PEFs, I generally preferred Capture One due to workflow and precision in color balance (especially so for skin tones). However C1 refuses to support the Pentax version of DNG, and has not done much to enhance the program over the past several years - especially when it comes to noise reduction.

I understand your hesitancy about the Adobe product, but CS4 used the 2003 processing engine which was rather poor (same as LR 1 and 2); the 2010 processing engine in CS5 and LR3 is very good; and the 2012 processing engine in CS6 and LR4 appears to be somewhat refined and more intuitive. At $149, LR4 is a very good value. If you are considering moving up to CS6, then LR4 is reduced to $99 as a package.

By the way, CS upgrade pricing at $199 for CS3 and CS4 is good only until the end of the year (but might be extended).

--
JNR
http://www.jamesrobins.com
 
Before getting the K7, I was using JPGs with iPhoto on OS/X.

As soon as I started using large JPGs and then RAWs from the K7 in 2010, iPhoto became awfully slow and very painful. It was very frustrating.

As recommended by photographers friends, I tried LR3 and it was really efficient, practical, and, intuitive enough.
The design team of LR really listened to photographers!
(Maybe some are photographers!)
It's really fluid.

There is much too learn, but, you can quickly become productive if you just learn the basics of it.
LR is less intimidating than PS for someone who is not a graphic artist.
Disclosure: I have not tried Apple Aperture, nor DXO, nor Capture One.

I did try Silkypix... and I was lost. Even though I had used GIMP and iPhoto before.

As others have said, LR4 is even better than LR3.

LR4 automatically recovers more highlight and shadows than LR3, and, you can adjust the settings manually to recover even more.
It's kind of amazing what you can do with the RAWs from the K5 !!!

At $149, LR4 is a very good deal for software.

The license allows you to install it on a desktop and a laptop (for the same user).
(I have not re-read the license recently).
It runs on OS/X and Win7.
--
-JF
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jftouchette/
 
I used CS5 quite often, but after having LOT of difficulties to adjust skintones porperly, I do now use the Pentax DCU. I HATE the performance and NOISE reduction in this program, but skin tones are the best IMHO.

Best regards!
Kevin
Cane said:
I currently have Photoshop CS4, as I get a great deal on it, but I never hear it talked about. Is this just not the right tool? Is there something cheaper that gives better results ,and isn't so daunting?
Click to expand...
 
As you see, we all have our favourites.

What I found out though, after trialling all the 30 day trials I could was the following.

Raw conversion quality varies quite a lot between the products. The ability to recover detail and texture is a key element of any raw converter worth it's salt.

LR 4 has improved over LR 3, which can let you down if fine detail is important.

The best S/W for detail recovery at the moment is the free Raw Therapee but it's noise reduction is not yet up to the best standard. But once yoiu have run a few images through it, you'll get a good idea of what decent raw conversion is about and ity can help you to set a standard for yourself.

For great raw noise reduction, especially Chroma noise, I rate LR 4 the best and its Luminance NR is also very good.

For great lens specific sharpening and CA reduction, you can't beat DxO v7 but the detail recovery of its raw conversion engine is no match for Raw Therapee.

Silky Pix raw conversion doesn't stack up against LR or RT but it has great colour adjustrments.

So at the end of the day, you need to find what suits you. I think LR4 is fairly well placed at the top of the list for being qucik and easy to use with excellent results but if you want to tweak your images to improve lens quality, DxO is fantastic for being an automated product.

--
jamesza
 
james laubscher said:
As you see, we all have our favourites.

What I found out though, after trialling all the 30 day trials I could was the following.

Raw conversion quality varies quite a lot between the products. The ability to recover detail and texture is a key element of any raw converter worth it's salt.

LR 4 has improved over LR 3, which can let you down if fine detail is important.

The best S/W for detail recovery at the moment is the free Raw Therapee but it's noise reduction is not yet up to the best standard. But once yoiu have run a few images through it, you'll get a good idea of what decent raw conversion is about and ity can help you to set a standard for yourself.

For great raw noise reduction, especially Chroma noise, I rate LR 4 the best and its Luminance NR is also very good.

For great lens specific sharpening and CA reduction, you can't beat DxO v7 but the detail recovery of its raw conversion engine is no match for Raw Therapee.

Silky Pix raw conversion doesn't stack up against LR or RT but it has great colour adjustrments.

So at the end of the day, you need to find what suits you. I think LR4 is fairly well placed at the top of the list for being qucik and easy to use with excellent results but if you want to tweak your images to improve lens quality, DxO is fantastic for being an automated product.

--
jamesza
Click to expand...
I use Sagelight, I also have Raw Therapee and the RAW conversion of Sagelight is pretty good, althouth RT has aexcellent highlight recovery options. You can also use PS plug-ins in Sagelight, I have Topaz DeNoise which is better than the RT or Sagelight Noise reduction.
--
Everything changes
 
Cane said:
I currently have Photoshop CS4, as I get a great deal on it, but I never hear it talked about.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify, CS4 per se is not a raw converter. It's a conventional bitmap editor.

CS4 comes with Adobe Camera Raw which will do the raw conversion.
Cane said:
Is this just not the right tool? Is there something cheaper
that gives better results ,and isn't so daunting?
Click to expand...
Depends. If you want to do bitmappy stuff like layers, masks, filter and so on, Photoshop is tops, although (a) it's difficult to master, (b) the version of ACR which comes bundled with CS4 is not the up to date and may not support your raw files (unless you shoot DNG or use a separate DNG converter) and (c) you don't the benefits of a modern non-destructive editor like unlimited undo.

Otherwise, if you want to do relatively simple global edits to tone and colour balance, you're better off with a combined RAW converter/non-destructive editor - examples are Lightroom, and Picasa (the latter being free).
--
Mike
http://flickr.com/rc-soar
 
james laubscher said:
As you see, we all have our favourites.

What I found out though, after trialling all the 30 day trials I could was the following.

Raw conversion quality varies quite a lot between the products. The ability to recover detail and texture is a key element of any raw converter worth it's salt.

LR 4 has improved over LR 3, which can let you down if fine detail is important.

The best S/W for detail recovery at the moment is the free Raw Therapee but it's noise reduction is not yet up to the best standard. But once yoiu have run a few images through it, you'll get a good idea of what decent raw conversion is about and ity can help you to set a standard for yourself.

For great raw noise reduction, especially Chroma noise, I rate LR 4 the best and its Luminance NR is also very good.

For great lens specific sharpening and CA reduction, you can't beat DxO v7 but the detail recovery of its raw conversion engine is no match for Raw Therapee.

Silky Pix raw conversion doesn't stack up against LR or RT but it has great colour adjustrments.

So at the end of the day, you need to find what suits you. I think LR4 is fairly well placed at the top of the list for being qucik and easy to use with excellent results but if you want to tweak your images to improve lens quality, DxO is fantastic for being an automated product.
Click to expand...
Surely that's a very informative and helpful post for many here.

Separately, anyone have experience with Apple's Aperture?
 
I really like the RPP (RAW Photo Processor).

It is a pain to use it on a Windows machine but i find it worth it. The user interface is something different than the other products for RAW development but you can get used to it.

It has built-in film profiles but even without them the output is very film like and the colors look very good. It has a way of working with saturated colors and highlights/shadows without clipping.
 
Cane said:
I currently have Photoshop CS4, as I get a great deal on it, but I never hear it talked about. Is this just not the right tool? Is there something cheaper that gives better results ,and isn't so daunting?
Click to expand...
Since you already have CS4, You will find Lightroom fit's pretty well. FWIW, you can do almost all of the same cataloging in Camera RAW as you can do in Lightroom, though Lightroom does make it easier.

My workflow is import via Lightroom and do basic color management, and then send the files to Photoshop for editing. Lightroom fans will go on about how Lightroom gives "non destructive" processing of raw files, which is rather gibberish, since no program alters the raw files.

What Lightroom does is show you what will happen to your file IF you apply the edits, while other programs apply the edits as you go.

I don't really see much advantage to this one way or the other, but I don't do image editing in Lightroom either.
Of course, you may not care about any of this, since I'm a Canadian.
 
This forum (and others) is heavily populated by Lightroom/ACR users. That must mean that the program satisfies the needs of a great many people. But that is not necessarily because it is the best raw convertor, but rather because it is a good raw convertor with many useful features, which is important. LR/ACR has recently been updated, and anyone getting into the game owes it to himself/herself to give it a try. Personally, I prefer Capture One, which is also due for a major update in the not too distant future.

One final note: I still believe that Photoshop is more powerful and flexible than any integrated raw conversion program. If you are really serious about your images, you will have to reckon with that program sooner or later. The initial learning curve is steep, but you don't have to attain a comprehensive knowledge in order to achieve your artistic goals.

Rob
 
+1 for Raw Therapee: free, intuitive, great recovery of highlights. Doesn't consume that many resources, very efficient.
 
Model Mike said:
Wheatfield said:
I don't really see much advantage to this one way or the other, but I don't do image editing in Lightroom either.
Click to expand...
I guess that makes you uniquely qualified to talk about LR... lol ;-)
Click to expand...
I suppose your post makes you uniquely qualified for some verbal abuse......
but I'll be nice instead.

Could you point out to me where I've said I haven't used Lightroom as an image editor?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top