What are most people using for processing RAW

[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

[Menace]

Lightroom 4.1 and PS CS5

 

[mrsfotografie]

Raw processing: DPP for me. I like the 'nativeness' of its controls and lens aberration correction. I take it Canon should know all the tweaks for their hardware better than any other.

For viewing and selecting raws I use different software because DPP is not a good 'viewer' program. I don't mind using 2 programs because it also allows viewing side by side and I always have the right tool for the job (rather than one do-it-all swiss pocketknife type thing).

[RuneL]

Capture One Pro 6
Lightroom 4.2

I've only used DPP for a very short time. I find it extremely bad. Capture One has some pretty neat correction stuff too and they do actually bring in lenses and cameras for proper calibration of the software.

[zim]

DPP to do the basic RAW (and aberation corrections if required) then Photoshop for everything else.
I too believe that nobody will know better that Canon how to process RAW's. Having said that Canon didn't exactly cover themselves in glory with the 5D3 release and DPP but I'm never going to be an early adopter.

[Canon-F1]

Photo Ninja looks like a real winner.

for plain and simple demosaicing i have not seen any better raw converter.
it squezzes more details out of the RAW files then any other raw converter.

the color rendering is way ahead of lightroom.
to get the same natural colors you have to manually tweak images in lightroom.

the highlight recovery (done right, read the tutorials) is often better then lightrooms.

i guess it will be a perfect match for landscape photographer when it is available as photoshop plugin.

no RAW converter can beat photoshop when it comes to local adjustments, and no raw converter i know can beat photo ninja when it comes to detail rendering.
it´s a perfect match.

[Sitting Elf]

For Mac folks. A very reliable source (who I won't out) has told me that Aperture 4 is getting very close to being done.

I would expect it by the new year.  He didn't say what's new, but DID say it is a MAJOR upgrade, and the price should remain the same in the App Store ($79.00)

[sandymandy]

Lightroom doesn't let you type in the number of pixels like DPP.

With LR4 you can do it

[RC Photos]

Lightroom 4.x its a great program and I personally find it a lot more user friendly than Photoshop

[symmar22]

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

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.  I only use Lightroom for the lens correction, which is poorly integrated in Photoshop CS5.

It feels good to know I am not the only one to have problems with the LR workflow. Not that I did not try it, I got a cheap LR2 licence updated into LR4.2. I want to understand why it's the n°1 software, but I admit I still don't get it with the workflow. With DxO, I open the folder I want to use, drop my files in the software and work on them. The import / librairies system with LR is just a useless nightmare to me, maybe is it because I am a poor Windows user, too used to organize my own folders ?

[Roadtrip]

For Mac folks. A very reliable source (who I won't out) has told me that Aperture 4 is getting very close to being done.

I would expect it by the new year.  He didn't say what's new, but DID say it is a MAJOR upgrade, and the price should remain the same in the App Store ($79.00)

I'll be left in the cold (again). This version will probably only work with Mountain Lion... for Aperture 3.4 update you had to have OS to 10.7 (Lion). I had too many wi-fi problems with it and moved back to 10.6.8 (Snow Leopard). Oh well....

[symmar22]

. The import / librairies system with LR is just a useless nightmare to me, maybe is it because I am a poor Windows user, too used to organize my own folders ?

i guess you do no keywording?
anyway.... it is obvious that you have NO CLUE AT ALL what a library is usefull for. 

sorting you images into folders will help you nothing if you have thousands of photos and need to search for a motive.... and this is only one example when a database approach comes in handy.

try to find all images with a "ball" on a "beach" and a "sunset" in a 100000 picture collection.
 
takes me 5 seconds to search all my images for these keywords.

maybe you only have 1000 images than your might be happy with your folders... still your comment is just naive and thoughtless....

I am very sorry to be just naïve and thoughtless just because I don't use the same software as you. Strange how people tend to release their anger as soon as someone doesn't share their opinion on the equipment they use....

[Canon-F1]

I am very sorry to be just naïve and thoughtless just because I don't use the same software as you. Strange how people tend to release their anger as soon as someone doesn't share their opinion on the equipment they use....

if you read closely you will see he did not say a word about specific software.
so your polemic is wasted.

he wrote about the usefulness of a database!
a database you can quickly search and filter, something that is not possible with folders.

and in my opinion he is 100% right.
a library is very usefull when you do more with your images then to store them away.

[symmar22]

I am very sorry to be just naïve and thoughtless just because I don't use the same software as you. Strange how people tend to release their anger as soon as someone doesn't share their opinion on the equipment they use....

if you read closely you will see he did not say a word about specific software.
so your polemic is wasted.

he wrote about the usefulness of a database!
a database you can quickly search and filter, something that is not possible with folders.

and in my opinion he is 100% right.
a library is very usefull when you do more with your images then to store them away.

OK, I guess I was somehow misunderstood, I never denied the usefulness of a database, nor the possibilities offered by the database system in LR, I was just saying that for me the ergonomics of the software are a bit stiff (or at least a logic I am not used to), in the sense that sometimes I just want to drag a file from let's say a flash card, or an open folder to work quickly in it, and LR forces me to import the whole card or folder to deal with one picture. I am still trying it, at least no one can reproach me not to try spend time on a software I do not find very attractive by default. Since the last post I've spent hours working on LR, and I start to understand its logic... I am still very green with LR, and I admit I prefer to spend more time doing an actual picture than to stay for hours on my computer, playing with software.

I might even start thinking to migrate on it eventually; nevertheless, I still find the ergonomics a bit unfriendly, as often seen on software that claim to do all in one. I found DxO much simpler, user friendly, though it doesn't of course have the same possibilities.

I was not trying to start a polemic, my critic was pointing more at the very unfriendly (if not extremely rude) way  he answered my post. Having a good understanding in some matter does not allow to assume people are simple morons just because they do not have the same knowledge as you in a specific subject.

Some people are very good at sharing knowledge (that's called pedagogy), some other lack the most basic sense of expressing their passion.

Sorry if I did not explain myself properly, and if I've hurt your feelings concerning databases.