What are most people using for processing RAW

[chasn]

in terms of Nik I am somewhat of a rookie but liking it so far - it fits into LR the same as PS - there are sharpening, noise reduction, BW conversion, a general exposure saturation editor and a filter/effect component - I doubt there is much you can't do with LR/ACR/PS themselves but you can make some nice changes to an image very fast - their website gives plenty of details and tutorials

[rh81photo]

I'm using ACDSee Pro 3 at the moment. Serves me well as an Organizer/Raw-developer, but for any more than that I use Photoshop. Basically I'm missing some features on ACDSee Pro 3 (CA-correction, better sharpening tools, better denoiser)...maybe an upgrade to ACDSee Pro 6 will do the trick, will download the trial soon and see. everybody is suggesting that Lightroom is sooo much better, but everytime I used it somehow it didn't feel fluid in what I wanted to do. But its VERY possible that this is just me being lazy to adapt to LR.

[TrumpetPower!]

It's worth noting that this is $130; that there's a non-functional demo version (save, etc. is disabled) available for free download; and that there're both Windows and Mac versions but that the Mac version requires 10.5.8 or later.

Cheers,

b&

[Joam]

Whats in real world the difference to others, like Adobe, Canon or C1?

[dilbert]

Lightroom

[pj1974]

I use DxO Optics since version 1, been quite happy with the results (one of the best RAW engine as far as I know, better than LR2 but I hear it's been much improved with LR3 and LR4). I tried LR since it is the standard (for once Adobe sells an affordable software), but I am not very happy with the ergonomic. When you get used to something.....
Plus DxO has excellent lens correction modules, as well as a practical geometry correction module to straighten architecture.
Can be tried free for 30 days.
Has anyone else tried it or does the fact it is related to DxO mark make it the evil software ?

+1

Though I don't do all my photography in RAW - I do use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversions too. Since I first downloaded the first demo (a long time ago) - I loved it... for the various lens tools, corrections, tweaking, etc - that it has available.  Particularly the last version is getting better interface, functionality, etc. 

For my purposes, most of my photos I actually shoot in JPEG (not RAW).... but DxO conversions work great on both RAW & JPEG. As Neuro has stated in various posts, the DxO engine is good for low noise.

While I take the DxO overall sensor score with a grain of salt (if that) - I do like their software very much 

Cheers

Paul

[verysimplejason]

I'm using DPP most of the time and ACR for serious stuffs.  I'd like to try DXO Optics though.  Maybe one of these days...

[cayenne]

I use DxO Optics since version 1, been quite happy with the results (one of the best RAW engine as far as I know, better than LR2 but I hear it's been much improved with LR3 and LR4). I tried LR since it is the standard (for once Adobe sells an affordable software), but I am not very happy with the ergonomic. When you get used to something.....
Plus DxO has excellent lens correction modules, as well as a practical geometry correction module to straighten architecture.
Can be tried free for 30 days.
Has anyone else tried it or does the fact it is related to DxO mark make it the evil software ?

+1

Though I don't do all my photography in RAW - I do use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversions too. Since I first downloaded the first demo (a long time ago) - I loved it... for the various lens tools, corrections, tweaking, etc - that it has available.  Particularly the last version is getting better interface, functionality, etc. 

For my purposes, most of my photos I actually shoot in JPEG (not RAW).... but DxO conversions work great on both RAW & JPEG. As Neuro has stated in various posts, the DxO engine is good for low noise.

While I take the DxO overall sensor score with a grain of salt (if that) - I do like their software very much 

Cheers

Paul

Just curious....given that you have the option of shooting RAW....why do you shoot with jpeg?
I'm not really understanding why anyone would shoot less than RAW these days...memory is pretty cheap these days....and if shooting jpeg, well, you've automatically lost potential things you can do in post....

I can maybe understand if you're taking 1000's of shots for a time lapse thing...but for just normal stills pics....why would you shoot anything but RAW if you have the capability?

Just curious,

C

[nightowl]

I use different raw converters Lightroom ,Camera raw and Phase one.
I also use qpcard  www.qpcard.com  to generate my own profiles depending of  the  shootinglight.
I get rid of  the  oversaturated reds and magenta cast in my 5dmk3 mk2.

[Roadtrip]

I use Aperture... before that I used Canon DPP. While I DO have Adobe Photoshop Elements 8 (primarily for my scanner), I tend to avoid Adobe products. While they produce very good products, my personal opinion is that (for the most part) the cost of their products outweighs the quality. I did trial Lightroom 2 vs Aperture 2 and found Aperture to be more intuitive for this Apple user. But now (thank you Apple) I'm limited to Aperture 3.2.4 since I don't plan to move up to Lion or Mountain Lion anytime soon. However, this version does everything I need with the equipment I have so I'm not too concerned.

[Steb]

+1 for Aftershot Pro

The library concept of LR is a no-go for me. Tried it and considered the workflow horrible. 

[Jackson_Bill]

I have both Lightroom 3.1 and DPP. There's no doubt that Lightroom has a better work flow and file management system. However, I often use DPP on my laptop to generate jpgs of a few photos, especially when I'm away from home, because its easy to use. One really nice thing in DPP, IMO, is the ability to set the number of pixels I want on a side of a crop. Both Lightroom and DPP allow you to set the aspect ratio but Lightroom doesn't let you type in the number of pixels like DPP.

[willis]

LR 4.1 and Photoshop CS6, but 70% off editing on LR 4.1 after that if it needs some photoshopping I export the image to Photoshop to add final touch.

[gilmorephoto]

I use Aperture 3 (started with 2) and have stayed with it despite trying Lightroom and even though I have Photoshop.

Pros

• Very quick workflow--I can't tell how many times friends/clients tell me "Wow great pictures, I can't believe you got them to me that fast."  If I can't be done with editing pictures within a week of shooting them, they just don't get done.
• Excellent media management--It just works. Easy to tag, sort, and easy switching between multiple libraries makes handling large volume of pics very easy.
• Great integration with Picassa, Facebook, Email, etc. for sharing or delivering to clients--this also speeds up the processing time so I can spend more time shooting and less time in front of the computer (err "in the lab").
• Colors--I compared Aperture to ACR (the same processing for Lightroom and Photoshop) and I prefer Aperture.  Not saying it's more accurate (I don't know either way), but it's more what I want so less time futzing with colors.
• Easy to use--my wife (who does not have as much editing experience) can use it effectively and a happy wife is a very important factor when you share a computer.

"Cons"

• No built-in lens correction--for this I export to Photoshop (very easy to roundtrip) and this is only for wide to ultra wide shots where the distortion is visible.  This is not a large percentage of shoots for me so I don't sweat it too much.
• Noise reduction isn't great--NR is sufficient for mild clean up but not High ISO shots (800 up on T1i or 10000/ up on 5D3), I export to NIK for this but again this isn't a large number of shots for me.  Only for those where I couldn't get any other shot and had to really crank up the ISO.

[pj1974]

I use DxO Optics since version 1, been quite happy with the results (one of the best RAW engine as far as I know, better than LR2 but I hear it's been much improved with LR3 and LR4). I tried LR since it is the standard (for once Adobe sells an affordable software), but I am not very happy with the ergonomic. When you get used to something.....
Plus DxO has excellent lens correction modules, as well as a practical geometry correction module to straighten architecture.
Can be tried free for 30 days.
Has anyone else tried it or does the fact it is related to DxO mark make it the evil software ?

+1

Though I don't do all my photography in RAW - I do use DxO Optics Pro for RAW conversions too. Since I first downloaded the first demo (a long time ago) - I loved it... for the various lens tools, corrections, tweaking, etc - that it has available.  Particularly the last version is getting better interface, functionality, etc. 

For my purposes, most of my photos I actually shoot in JPEG (not RAW).... but DxO conversions work great on both RAW & JPEG. As Neuro has stated in various posts, the DxO engine is good for low noise.

While I take the DxO overall sensor score with a grain of salt (if that) - I do like their software very much 

Cheers

Paul

Just curious....given that you have the option of shooting RAW....why do you shoot with jpeg?
I'm not really understanding why anyone would shoot less than RAW these days...memory is pretty cheap these days....and if shooting jpeg, well, you've automatically lost potential things you can do in post....

I can maybe understand if you're taking 1000's of shots for a time lapse thing...but for just normal stills pics....why would you shoot anything but RAW if you have the capability?

Just curious,

C

Hi Cayenne

Sure.... I understand your question and appreciate your curiousity! 

Most of my photos (as in... more than 50% of the photos I take with my 7D and 350D cameras) are either for events (like children camps, church events, sporting or outdoor occasions, and some family holidays).

Thus my priority for these type of photos is to have these ready as soon as possible to share with others (or give to, and occasionally sell to others)...  So JPEG is quicker (in terms of my computer mainly - viewing and post processing).

Generally the IQ difference between shooting RAW and JPEG for THOSE type of photos is not so critical as time.

I think if I get (or if they will invent) much faster computers, I would use RAW a bit more often than JPEG, because many times I need to process several hundred if not thousands of photos after an event, and have the photos ready ASAP.  I have read that even Olympic photographers shoot in RAW AND JPEG, with many of the JPEG images being used in time critical applications (eg images directly uploaded to news websites, blogs, etc).

However, when I do my "own" photography; and where time is not critical - eg landscape, macro, wildlife and 'special product / nature photography' (particularly in tricky lighting / white balance, or where maximum dynamic range or sharpness is required) - then I will use RAW more often.  And I find it has benefits, especially in some compositions.

I hope this satisfies your curiousity.   

Wishing you a good weekend. It's nearing Friday evening here in Australia!  Yay!!

Paul