Reading mode: Light Dark

Okay, okay, I'll shoot RAW...Questions :)

Go to last post
E

ErikH

Senior Member
Messages
1,125
Reaction score
23
Location
Northern, VA, US
Hi—I have never felt the need to shoot RAW but have decided to take the overwhelming advice and give it a try. I’m asking for some recommendations based on my situation. I’m not looking for advice on the best converter; I’ve read some threads already and everyone has their preferences. I plan to download and try a few once I narrow it down a little.

I’m an enthusiast and I don’t make $$ off any of what I shoot. I have Canon DPP4 but I didn’t really like usability of it (however, I really don’t know it well). I’ve watched some LR videos and it looks much easier. However, sometimes I may go months without photographing (anything significant) so a monthly fee seems “overkill”. Similarly, C1 at $300 (ish) is quite expensive for my use. However, I really don’t have an issue with the money (of either) if the software would do the job well and not be too difficult to use. (I’ve use to be fairly good at PS but didn’t upgrade years ago so have not used it recently).

I’m also considering Elements 13 with ACR. I really don’t know how it (ACR) compares to some of the other tools. I’ve also read about some Open Source options but some open source software can be more difficult to learn.

I’d appreciate any recommendations. Thanks so much!
 
ErikH said:
Hi—I have never felt the need to shoot RAW but have decided to take the overwhelming advice and give it a try. I’m asking for some recommendations based on my situation. I’m not looking for advice on the best converter; I’ve read some threads already and everyone has their preferences. I plan to download and try a few once I narrow it down a little.

I’m an enthusiast and I don’t make $$ off any of what I shoot. I have Canon DPP4 but I didn’t really like usability of it (however, I really don’t know it well). I’ve watched some LR videos and it looks much easier. However, sometimes I may go months without photographing (anything significant) so a monthly fee seems “overkill”. Similarly, C1 at $300 (ish) is quite expensive for my use. However, I really don’t have an issue with the money (of either) if the software would do the job well and not be too difficult to use. (I’ve use to be fairly good at PS but didn’t upgrade years ago so have not used it recently).

I’m also considering Elements 13 with ACR. I really don’t know how it (ACR) compares to some of the other tools. I’ve also read about some Open Source options but some open source software can be more difficult to learn.

I’d appreciate any recommendations. Thanks so much!

--
ErikH
Click to expand...
Avoid Elements as the version of ACR included is crippled and will ultimately frustrate your efforts.

You will however need software on occasion to follow up after processing through the raw converter. You mentioned an older version of Photoshop -- that could serve if you still have that.

The degree to which you will or will not need to do follow up processing is very dependent on what you use as a raw converter. Raw converters vary substantially in their feature set. A major difference is whether the raw converter provides local adjustments, e.g. can you use a gradient to darken the sky or apply a mask to locally lift some but not all shadows etc. You're more likely to need some follow up processing if the conversion software does not provide local adjustments. LightRoom and Capture One are the two most functional converters in that regard and provide sufficient local adjustment tools such that no follow up processing is needed in most cases.

Best recommendation: LightRoom. You can still purchase LightRoom as a standalone app without going on the subscription plan. Adobe likes the subscription plan and can make purchasing the standalone version frustrating, but it is available.

The next concern is whether the raw converter includes DAM features for managing a photo collection -- this may or may not be an issue for you. LightRoom does and it's DAM features are favored by most photographers.

The next concern is camera/lens support. The issue here involves converter profile support for your camera and lenses. For example does the converter recognize your lens and provide distortion adjustment to correct known faults in your lens. You mentioned DPP so you have a Canon camera. One advantage to using DPP is Canon's DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer) which does an amazing job of correcting for lens faults (they're Canon lenses after all) and squeezing the very best out of the lens.

Other commercial converters:

Lots to choose from but all of the other competitors provide substantially less local adjustment control and so push you more to follow up processing. Notable products are DX0, PhotoNinja, Irridient (MAC only), SilkyPix, ACDSee.

Free (open source) converters:

Not to be written off are DarkTable (no Windows version), Raw Therapee and LightZone. All three are excellent raw converters that offer image quality competitive with the best commercial products. User interface and ancillary support tending to be weaker but the price is right with no penalty to try them.
 
Thank you, Ysarex. That was very helpful information!

I'll take a look at some of those Open source converters.

If I did decide on LR, it doesn't seem that they update it too often so the stand-alone version seems reasonable and I'd not be missing the main benefit of CC?

Thanks!
--
ErikH
 
I have been giving some advice to a young photographer who tried Elements first. She could do some things, but when she moved to LR she was blown away by how capable and easy to use the product is. I think this is really the only one doing non-destructive editing, and I find the indexing, and development tools really good and now rarely use PS at all.

So my advice, definitely seriously consider LR
 
ErikH said:
Thank you, Ysarex. That was very helpful information!

I'll take a look at some of those Open source converters.

If I did decide on LR, it doesn't seem that they update it too often so the stand-alone version seems reasonable and I'd not be missing the main benefit of CC?

Thanks!
--
ErikH
Click to expand...
The main benefit of CC is a stable cash flow benefit to Adobe.
 
This is absolutely the main objective. I calculated that going to the "cheap" version of CC for photographers would still be about twice what I was paying to upgrade when new versions were released. I upgraded the LR6, although now that I've played with it, there is really no compelling feature that made it worth it (some versions have clearly been compelling). So this upgrade was worth about 8 months of CC cost, and there is nothing in PS that I'm missing.

But it's not just the cost, it's the fact that once I started using CC on any images, then I could never stop paying Adobe, or would lose all that work. The whole point is having non destructive edits that you can continue to change as your skills improve, etc. I see why Adobe likes it, but not why the customers do.
 
Thanks. So you think the stand alone version is best. I didn't quite understand your last statement. Why would one lose access to the photos on CC if you stop paying? Can't you save the images locally?

Humm? I was thinking that $99 deal might be good.
 
ErikH said:
Thanks. So you think the stand alone version is best. I didn't quite understand your last statement. Why would one lose access to the photos on CC if you stop paying? Can't you save the images locally?

Humm? I was thinking that $99 deal might be good.
Click to expand...
 
Dale Garman said:
This is absolutely the main objective. I calculated that going to the "cheap" version of CC for photographers would still be about twice what I was paying to upgrade when new versions were released. I upgraded the LR6, although now that I've played with it, there is really no compelling feature that made it worth it (some versions have clearly been compelling). So this upgrade was worth about 8 months of CC cost, and there is nothing in PS that I'm missing.

But it's not just the cost, it's the fact that once I started using CC on any images, then I could never stop paying Adobe, or would lose all that work. The whole point is having non destructive edits that you can continue to change as your skills improve, etc. I see why Adobe likes it, but not why the customers do.
Click to expand...
 
Ysarex said:
Ysarex said:
The main benefit of CC is a stable cash flow benefit to Adobe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
True; that's the main benefit for Adobe. But the main benefit for users of CC is that we don't just get LR; we also get Photoshop.

LR is very powerful and the latest version adds HDR and Panorama merges. I'd guess that for a majority of users of digital cameras, LR is all they'll need. But Photoshop is much more powerful, allowing us to do all kinds of other merges, such as combining photos, focus stacking and luminosity blending. ... to mention just a few things you can't do with LR.

I should also point out that Photoshop sold for well over $700 US (PS CS6 currently listed on Amazon.com at $1,649 US) and that many of us could never afford it except through a subscription model.

We are now well into the 4th decade of desktop computers and it should come as no surprise that most big software applications like operating systems, office suites, and Photoshop have become very mature and feature rich. Consequently it has become more and more difficult for the companies that make these packages to come up with new "must have" features. There is very little reason for anyone to get the next release of any of these packages, so to stay in business these companies are gradually moving over to a subscription model. If LR6 is not the last non-subscription version of LR, i'd guess LR7 will be.

If we want development of LR and Photoshop to continue, if only incrementally, we want Adobe to have a stable cash flow. This seems like a win-win situation to me. I expect someone will now disagree vehemently.
 
Last edited:
You would not be able to make any further adjustments on those images unless you started over in another software program. So you would "lose" your work. Yes you could create Tiff or jpg, but the non destructive edits of your original are lost to further work.
 
ppage said:
Ysarex said:
ppage said:
The main benefit of CC is a stable cash flow benefit to Adobe.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
True; that's the main benefit for Adobe. But the main benefit for users of CC is that we don't just get LR; we also get Photoshop.

LR is very powerful and the latest version adds HDR and Panorama merges. I'd guess that for a majority of users of digital cameras, LR is all they'll need. But Photoshop is much more powerful, allowing us to do all kinds of other merges, not just combining photos, but also focus stacking and luminosity blending. ... to mention just a few things you can't do with LR.

I should also point out that Photoshop sold for well over $700 US (PS CS6 currently listed on Amazon.com at $1,649 US) and that many of us could never afford it except through a subscription model.

We are now well into the 4th decade of desktop computers and it should come as no surprise that most big software applications like operating systems, office suites, and Photoshop have become very mature and feature rich. Consequently it has become more and more difficult for the companies that make these packages to come up with new "must have" features. There is very little reason for anyone to get the next release of any of these packages, so to stay in business these companies are gradually moving over to a subscription model. If LR6 is not the last non-subscription version of LR, i'd guess LR7 will be.

If we want development of LR and Photoshop to continue, if only incrementally, we want Adobe to have a stable cash flow. This seems like a win-win situation to me. I expect someone will now disagree vehemently.
Click to expand...
Very good point and you'll get no disagreement from me. The problem for software vendors is very real and clearly life-threatening. Every time my shoes wear out I have to go buy a new pair. Software doesn't wear out. If I could I'd still be using my old version of CS4. It did everything I'll ever want photo processing software to do.

I'm sympathetic and understand Adobe's predicament. Not sure I have a good answer.
 
Ysarex said:
Ysarex said:
Very good point and you'll get no disagreement from me. The problem for software vendors is very real and clearly life-threatening. Every time my shoes wear out I have to go buy a new pair. Software doesn't wear out.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes that's a good analogy; but it's even worse than that. Suppose that the shoes never wore out AND that you never even had to buy that first pair because someone up the street bought a pair of shoes and then gave away perfect copies to anyone who asked.

I Googled LR6 the day it was released to see what was being said about it and came across a number of sites already offering cracked copies.

My daughter is a musician whose band is successful enough that they are travelling all over North America and Europe and yet my wife and I have to help her with her rent, in large part because for every CD the band sells, dozens if not hundreds of copies are illegally downloaded from the net.

So far only intellectual property rights have been really strained by the digital revolution, but I wonder what will happen to everyone in the manufacturing industries over the next few years as digital printing comes into its own. Anyone who thinks that technology doesn't represent a real threat to those industries should remember that none of us could have foreseen graphical user interfaces or the Internet when we were buying our Apple IIe's and TRS 80s less than 35 years ago. What's that old Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times"?

Cheers,
Peter
 
Last edited:
One very good program that Ysarex left out is ACDSee Pro. It can do most things that LR does but in slightly different ways. It is on sale right now for $64.95 US. You can download and try it out for 30 days free. I suggest you download and study the video tutorials before downloading the free 30 day trial.

ACDSee Pro 8 - Manage, Edit, Present & Share Photos

Like Ysarex, my choice is LR but it isn't the best program for the causal user. It takes a different mindset to understand that you must use the database portion just to make the images available for editing. The database functions are very powerful but take substantial learning if you want to take advantage of them.

If you do decide to try out Lightroom do the same as for ACDSee, download and study some video tutorials. The part of LR that takes the most getting used to is the database section, called the Library Module. If you don't set up and use a good on-disk storage scheme as well as a good LR Collections scheme you will have problems learning how to use the Library Module and wind up hating LR.

There are many free resources for learning LR but these will get you started. You can always ask for more.

B&H - Tim Grey - Getting Started With Lightroom 5

B&H - Tim Grey - Organizing Photos with Adobe Lightroom - YouTube

B&H - Tim Grey - Optimizing Photos in Lightroom - YouTube
 
ppage said:
Ysarex said:
ppage said:
Very good point and you'll get no disagreement from me. The problem for software vendors is very real and clearly life-threatening. Every time my shoes wear out I have to go buy a new pair. Software doesn't wear out.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes that's a good analogy; but it's even worse than that. Suppose that the shoes never wore out AND that you never even had to buy that first pair because someone up the street bought a pair of shoes and then gave away perfect copies to anyone who asked.

I Googled LR6 the day it was released to see what was being said about it and came across a number of sites already offering cracked copies.

My daughter is a musician whose band is successful enough that they are travelling all over North America and Europe and yet my wife and I have to help her with her rent, in large part because for every CD the band sells, dozens if not hundreds of copies are illegally downloaded from the net.

So far only intellectual property rights have been really strained by the digital revolution, but I wonder what will happen to everyone in the manufacturing industries over the next few years as digital printing comes into its own. Anyone who thinks that technology doesn't represent a real threat to those industries should remember that none of us could have foreseen graphical user interfaces or the Internet when we were buying our Apple IIe's and TRS 80s less than 35 years ago. What's that old Chinese curse? "May you live in interesting times"?

Cheers,
Peter
Click to expand...
Yep, that's drifting off-topic. Piracy is as old as human history and applies to all human economic activity. No one steals more or has stolen more than corporations and or nations -- the most outrageous acts of piracy being entirely legal. So just because Apple got one of their biggest breaks by stealing intellectual property from Xerox (you mentioned GUI), well......maybe we should still lock someone up.

Sorry for your daughter's circumstance; as an intellectual property creator I sympathize (I've written and sold software -- even got support calls from people asking how to steal it), but my reaction to that whole topic of theft would be to go after the biggest crooks first -- the ones who do their stealing by employing a first class law firm, a Congress, a Parliament or an army.

As for Adobe, as I said I understand the predicament and I'm not stealing from them, but I'm also not paying a monthly fee. I've been ready to leave Adobe behind now for some time. I stopped using them for raw conversion years ago. For me Capture One offers superior IQ hands down, and if I lost C1 I'd fall back on two or three other products before turning back to Adobe. I still use Photoshop for some minor follow up processing but that's easily replaceable now -- you don't need Photoshop to clone out a utility pole. There was a time when I considered Adobe's software essential and irreplaceable. That time has passed. That's a good thing and I have to wonder if that doesn't have something to do with Adobe's recent pricing changes.
 
Thanks. Yea, I'm really not interested in the database portion of LR but I guess that is not an option.

I'll check out ACDSEE, although I read one review that didn't like the Raw portion of the software. I use to use ACDSEE years ago for image viewing.
--
ErikH
 
I would recommend not just automatically bypassing the database aspects of LR. As you start getting a few files (I have over 100k) then this aspect becomes critical. I would find it very hard to manage without these features. Obviously your choice, but I would recommend an open mind on the subject and recommend good keywording when you first start as going back later is not an easy task.
 
ErikH said:
Thanks. Yea, I'm really not interested in the database portion of LR but I guess that is not an option.
Click to expand...
Yes it is optional. You can import an image from your camera or hard drive, process it in LR, export it to a PDF, and then delete it from the catalogue, thus leaving the database empty. Just make sure that LR is configured to write the develop settings for the image to an xmp sidecar file (what Photoshop always does because it has no catalogue).

Now whether or not you should do that is another topic all together.
 
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