Question about RAW conversion programs

Ron AKA said:

Les Lammers said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

That is what drives me nuts.

Click to expand...

Me too. I do semi submit to the will of the Organizer though and use it to import images from my memory card. But, I really do not like working with the pseudo file structure it presents you with.

Click to expand...

How can it be a "pseudo file structure" if it is the same as in Explorer or Finder?

Ron AKA said:

Windows Explorer is more direct and powerful in moving images around, creating new folders, and stacking folders, deleting folders, etc.

Click to expand...

How is it more direct and powerful than the LR Library screenshot below?

You say you want something "powerful" to manage your photos and yet every time you speak of LR's Library (Not "Organizer!") you complain that it is unnecessarily complicated?

Ron AKA said:

I use an application to extract the JPEG embedded in my RAW files and put them in a subfolder under the original RAW's. Then there are my scanned images, and other image file additions and deleted files done outside of the Organizer...

Stuff like that seems to drive the Organizer nuts, which in turn drives me nuts too.

Click to expand...

It "seems?" Don't you know?

I have in my Lightroom Library RAWs, jpgs, and tifs from my film scanner, being read from different drives and cards and I have *never* had any issues. LR simply reflects the folders and files in those drives. If you have issues in Elements's Organizer then that has nothing to do with LR.

Glen Barrington said:

to ACDSee Pro.

But there's no rule that your viewer/organizer and your raw developer HAVE to come in the same software box or downloader file. I happen like the freedom that ACDSee's browser/organizer gives me, and I also like the raw results its raw developer gives me.

But if I wanted to use a different raw developer, I would probably move to regular ole ACDSee 17 for the front end and something else for the raw developer.

Click to expand...

Glen Barrington said:

I think the Workflow tool concept has created a box for our post processing thinking that does many of us a dis-service. It is possible that many of us could create a far superior workflow (and more satisfying results) by taking a more modular approach to our post processing needs.

Click to expand...

How? The only way I can see that being the case is if you want something more complicated and more time consuming.

Glen Barrington said:

--
I still like soup. . .
http://www.flickr.com/photos/7267302@N03/

Click to expand...

Les Lammers said:

O.K. I just don't care for LR and will be using another RAW converter.

Click to expand...

That's fine, but you were also presenting reasons, reasons that are easy to challenge and dispute.

Les Lammers said:

There is no one size fits all answer.

Click to expand...

Clearly, but the reasons should make sense and be factual one way or the other.

Les Lammers said:

Frankly, if I could use the NIK plugins w/o an Adobe program...I would.

Click to expand...

What's wrong with Adobe? Clearly they make the best, overall, image editing apps on the market.

Les Lammers said:

Basalite said:

doctorxring said:

.

Thanks for spelling this out Ron. That's why I asked this question in my OP. I have been iMac since 2006. But I despise iPhoto because of similar issues. I want a clear shot going both ways from my HDD folders. I import my files directly off my SD card just like it was a drive. I edit the files in PSE and then rename and save the edited file to my HDD folders. I do not use the Organizer in PSE12. I browse my saved edits with an image browser. I am not a big volume shooter. I have been shooting JPG, but want to get involved with RAW processing.

I need to think this over and right now I'm having second thoughts about LR. I was hoping it was set up like PSE12 where I could ignore the Organizer.

Click to expand...

All that you are required to do in LR is for you to import your images. Even if you were to decide to manage your photos files through LR there's no logical reason to see it as any more burdensome and complicated than managing them through Window's Explorer or the Mac's Finder. In the long run it will actually save you a lot of time and keep your images better organized. Ron's view is greatly distorted by the slightly longer time it takes to initially import your images. He refuses to see and consider the bigger picture. The bigger picture is a much more efficient way to handle your photos.

Click to expand...

I just find it to be a confusing PIA and the problem may be me. ;-)

Click to expand...

I think you are simply looking at the process from a very narrow and short range range of view. You have to consider the bigger picture when it comes to managing your photos. Apps like LR and Aperture make it very easy to do that.

Les Lammers said:

Trial LR and make a decision. I bought LR and thanks to this thread realize I do not need it. I'll use Elements 12 w/Nik plugins and Capture One for RAW.

Click to expand...

I've lost track of what camera you have. I believe the OP has a RX100. One of the things you have to watch with that camera is the software distortion correction. It is part of the lens design and is essential. PSE, PS, Lr has it. So does ACDsee, and Sony IDC. Some other products such as Photo Ninja will open the files but do not correct for distortion. Before you select a RAW converter for the RX100 you need to check that it does the proper distortion correction.

Les Lammers said:

Basalite said:

doctorxring said:

.

Thanks for spelling this out Ron. That's why I asked this question in my OP. I have been iMac since 2006. But I despise iPhoto because of similar issues. I want a clear shot going both ways from my HDD folders. I import my files directly off my SD card just like it was a drive. I edit the files in PSE and then rename and save the edited file to my HDD folders. I do not use the Organizer in PSE12. I browse my saved edits with an image browser. I am not a big volume shooter. I have been shooting JPG, but want to get involved with RAW processing.

I need to think this over and right now I'm having second thoughts about LR. I was hoping it was set up like PSE12 where I could ignore the Organizer.

Click to expand...

All that you are required to do in LR is for you to import your images. Even if you were to decide to manage your photos files through LR there's no logical reason to see it as any more burdensome and complicated than managing them through Window's Explorer or the Mac's Finder. In the long run it will actually save you a lot of time and keep your images better organized. Ron's view is greatly distorted by the slightly longer time it takes to initially import your images. He refuses to see and consider the bigger picture. The bigger picture is a much more efficient way to handle your photos.

Click to expand...

I just find it to be a confusing PIA and the problem may be me. ;-)

I did view the Elements organizer videos and it seems more intuitive.

Click to expand...

To each their own, of course. I felt just the opposite, I hated the PSE organizer. LR took some getting used to, but after I understood why it has to import the files, and the benefits that provides, it has become second nature.

I often download jpegs from forums like this to play with (with the owners permission). I download them to a directory on my desktop. Since I have both LR/CC, I have the option of using either tool to open the file and work on it. Sometimes I do use CC to open the file, but more often I import it into LR and work on it there, then ship it over to CC and back, if necessary. Then I just remove the picture from my catalog when I'm done. It's not that big of a deal for me.

But like I said, to each their own. It's just a tool. If it is not for you, don't use it.

Fuji cameras. I think I'm going to go with Elements and a trial of the MetaRaw plug in.

http://www.thepluginsite.com/products/metaraw/index.htm

I may have LR set up in a way that makes it a PIA. I may remove and re-install it.

Les Lammers said:

doctorxring said:

.

I have been spending the last week or so investigating RAW conversion programs as I want to get involved in this area. I have a question or two that I would like to ask to clear up some specific issues so that I can go ahead and buy the software.

I am drawn to two programs. Adobe Lightroom primarily and DxO9 (only because of a weakness I perceive in LR for my camera/lens choice). The cameras that I will be taking my RAW files with are the RX100II and the Sony A65 with the 1650 f2.8, the 70300G, and the DT35 f1.8. Are there camera/lens profiles for my cameras and lenses for LR ? I cannot find reference to them. I can find them listed for DxO9. If yes on LR, then I'm pretty sure this program will work for me in respect to RAW processing.

My current method, which I would like to retain at least right now, is to bring my files into my editing program (PSE12), work them over, and then save them to my folder tree that I have created on my hard drive. Can I continue to do this using Lightroom or DxO9 ? I do not want to get involved with any "organizer" at this time.

Any comments you may have are greatly appreciated.

thanks kindly, Chris

.

Click to expand...

Trial LR and make a decision. I bought LR and thanks to this thread realize I do not need it. I'll use Elements 12 w/Nik plugins and Capture One for RAW.

Click to expand...

The main problem I'd have with that is elements is mostly 8 bit, and many of the adjustments I'd want to do in Nik I'd like to do in 16 bit. I could see this as a pain to do with Elements.

Maybe you can work around it, or maybe you can't tell the difference. In which case, sure, sounds like a plan.
--
- Bill

Les Lammers said:

I may have LR set up in a way that makes it a PIA. I may remove and re-install it.

Click to expand...

Back up what you want to save and completely uninstall LR.


When you reinstall just simply import a few files, or a folder, and see exactly what Lightroom is doing In the Library view. In the future you could easily upload your card files through LR to the same folder or simply choose to upload outside of LR and sync to that folder. It's very simple.

I got used to using ACR years ago and like the process just fine. I open Bridge, proceed to ACR, process and save the ones I want to where I want, and manage my digital files my way.

Recently, when subscribing to PS CC, I got LR5 for free. I have to admit that it's a prettier program than ACR but it isn't any better, just nicer looking.

The DAM function, however, does bother me. Yes, I can superimpose my system to keep things the way I want them, but it goes and creates files I don't want and have to go to the trouble of quickly deleting them before my automatic backup programs back them up, thus adding an extra and unnecessary step to my post processing.

I have a cloud based backup, Carbonite, and a hard drive based automatic back up program. This is a pain because the hard drive fills up with files I don't want and the cloud-based one backs up the catalogs, etc instead of the files I really want backed up.

Would I use LR instead of ACR if it didn't have a DAM system? Maybe, but I've got my ACR system so down pat and I have the added convenience of being able to access ACR from within PS CC that I sincerely doubt that LR will ever be anything more than a pretty icon on my desktop.

I have to agree with you and I actually find ACR prettier than Lr. But, I like powerful simplicity over a disorganized box of bells and whistles. As a Photoshop Elements user I envy the full featured ACR in PS, but I do not envy the cluttered interface in Lr. I wish Adobe would sell the full ACR as a separate plug-in and I would have no trouble justifying the cost of paying extra for it.

.

I'm going with DxO Optics Pro 9. I've watched their tutorials and it will do anything LR5 will do for me and much LESS in respect to playing unwanted Librarian. They've got profiles for my A65 and all my lenses for it, my RX100II, and my SX50. $173 for the elite version that will play FF for when I get my RX1. Deal !

.

doctorxring said:

.

I'm going with DxO Optics Pro 9. I've watched their tutorials and it will do anything LR5 will do for me and much LESS in respect to playing unwanted Librarian. They've got profiles for my A65 and all my lenses for it, my RX100II, and my SX50. $173 for the elite version that will play FF for when I get my RX1. Deal

Click to expand...

I don't think DxO does pixel editing (layers etc), so don't throw away your PSE12. You will probably be looking for the features it has to do the more advanced editing.

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

miketuthill said:

Ron AKA said:

Be sure to do a free trial of Lr first to see if you are going to be able to live with the forced Organizer use. Despite what some may tell you, it is essentially the same as being forced to use the Organizer in PSE. As you know with PSE you can just go direct to the Editor, bypass the Organizer, and open files directly from their real file structure on the hard drive. No such option in Lr.

Click to expand...

You keep repeating that LR forces one to use the "Organizer". This is false. You must import the locations of the photos you wish to process however one is free to delete those locations from the database as soon as one is done processing and exporting the results. You clearly do not understand the Lightroom catalog so you should probably either do some more research or stop giving incorrect advice.

Click to expand...

So, please stop giving out incorrect advice about the Organizer/Catalog system being optional in Lr. It is the very basis of Lr and you ARE forced to use it.

Click to expand...

Once you show it where your photos are you have complete control of which, if any, photos you wish to import to work on.

Click to expand...

Not required in PSE. Nothing to set up. You just select the file from the existing file structure.

Click to expand...

And you select it from the existing filesystem in LR. And if you have several shots taken in the same lighting etc. you can import them and apply all the same base settings to them at once and save them all at once and then delete them from the library all at once. It's not rocket science and certainly no reason to be resistant to using LR.

Click to expand...

This article is a reasonably honest evaluation of the catalog system used by Lr. The issues with it are the very same as the Organizer in PSE. The difference is that in PSE you don't have to open the Organizer. In Lr you are forced to create a catalog just to open Lr. And if you are not careful in your setup, all your edit data is stored in the Lr catalog file instead of in the XMP files. Sorry, but the care and feeding of the Lr Catalog is a significant issue. For some, all the extra hassle is worth it. For others the existing HDD file structure is just fine. I'm in the latter camp. There are some nice features in Lr such as automatic chromatic aberration removal, but for me the hassle of the Catalog keeps me from being tempted. Each user needs to make up their own mind, which I why I suggested doing the free trial download to see. I did, and didn't like it.

And to be clear, it is not that I don't understand it. I do understand exactly what it is doing, and that is why I don't like it.

Click to expand...

Personally, I think LR's catalog system has a number of benefits. first, if you set it up adequately, importing merely creates link to the files location and a preview. My raw files and film scans reside on an external hard drive. Being able to view my pictures on my portable computer when I'm out of my home without having to carry this hard drive is a big plus.

it also allows me to have more than one file structure. I store my files by date on the hard drive. That structure is replicated in Lightroom. Then, using collections, I can emulate an alternative structure, by locations, for instance. That makes retrieving one particular shot much easier.

finally, the key wording of LR adds another organizational scheme. For instance, I add the film and developer name to all my scans, allowing me to search for a specific combination when I want to verify how it looks.

My impression is that LR adds several levels of sophistication to the basic file structure, with very little overheads. At least, that's how it works for me.

Ron AKA said:

doctorxring said:

.

I'm going with DxO Optics Pro 9. I've watched their tutorials and it will do anything LR5 will do for me and much LESS in respect to playing unwanted Librarian. They've got profiles for my A65 and all my lenses for it, my RX100II, and my SX50. $173 for the elite version that will play FF for when I get my RX1. Deal

Click to expand...

I don't think DxO does pixel editing (layers etc), so don't throw away your PSE12. You will probably be looking for the features it has to do the more advanced editing.

Click to expand...

Right. Just export a TIFF to PSE (or other editor) for per-pixel editing. I don't do a lot of that, but sometimes it's very helpful.

Kate Street said:

I got used to using ACR years ago and like the process just fine. I open Bridge, proceed to ACR, process and save the ones I want to where I want, and manage my digital files my way.

Recently, when subscribing to PS CC, I got LR5 for free. I have to admit that it's a prettier program than ACR but it isn't any better, just nicer looking.

Click to expand...

While the core functionality of the tools of ACR are the same in PS CC as they are in LR, what makes LR "better" for the use of those tools is the interface. It is an interface that is designed to be easier and faster to use than ACR. If it were not then there would be no point in LR existing as a sister product to the Photoshop.

ACR is not designed for one to stay in that environment and as a result you don't have things that make editing easier, like a history panel, for example.

There is also one feature in LR that is curiously missing from PS CC, and that is the real time preview of the Spot Removal tool.

Kate Street said:

The DAM function, however, does bother me. Yes, I can superimpose my system to keep things the way I want them, but it goes and creates files I don't want and have to go to the trouble of quickly deleting them before my automatic backup programs back them up, thus adding an extra and unnecessary step to my post processing.

I have a cloud based backup, Carbonite, and a hard drive based automatic back up program. This is a pain because the hard drive fills up with files I don't want and the cloud-based one backs up the catalogs, etc instead of the files I really want backed up.

Click to expand...

LR doesn't create any files you don't tell it to.

Kate Street said:

Would I use LR instead of ACR if it didn't have a DAM system? Maybe, but I've got my ACR system so down pat and I have the added convenience of being able to access ACR from within PS CC that I sincerely doubt that LR will ever be anything more than a pretty icon on my desktop.

Click to expand...

What does being able to "access ACR from within PS CC" have to do with LR being the easier and faster way to editing your RAWs?

LR compliments Photoshop. I would reconsider your "system" if you care about ease and speed.

Kate Street said:

--
Kate

Click to expand...

Ron AKA said:

I have to agree with you and I actually find ACR prettier than Lr. But, I like powerful

Click to expand...

Yet LR is much more "powerful" than ACR in Elements.

Ron AKA said:

simplicity

Click to expand...

You mean as simple as this?

Ron AKA said:

over a disorganized box

Click to expand...

You mean like having tools located in different areas of the screen and in multiple tabs you have to select? You mean this..



as opposed to this?

Ron AKA said:

of bells and whistles.

Click to expand...

Bell and whistles? You mean like lens corrections, the adjustment brush, the spot removal tool, the graduated filter, the radial filter, the HSL tool, a history panel?

Ron AKA said:

As a Photoshop Elements user I envy the full featured ACR in PS, but I do not envy the cluttered interface in Lr.

Click to expand...

How is this...



"cluttered" compared to this?

Ron AKA said:

I wish Adobe would sell the full ACR as a separate plug-in and I would have no trouble justifying the cost of paying extra for it.

Click to expand...

Didn't you just dismiss all the extra features in LR, most of which are in the "full ACR," as simply "bells and whistles?" Now you're willing to pay for them?

.

No, OP9 does not do pixel editing. And I don't want it to. But it does have a feature to export the corrected file directly over to PSE12's image editor. Just like what I've been doing with the ACR-Lite RAW converter in PSE.

.