# What are most people using for processing RAW



## lastcoyote (Sep 21, 2012)

For my 40D raw files I've been using Elements 8 for some time.
Now I'm about to get a 5D MK III, I'll not be able to use Elements 8 as it's version of ACR isn't compatible with this camera. I can't afford a copy of Photoshop CS6 so whats my best option? What do most people use? I guess the answer is Lightroom 4.1.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 21, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> For my 40D raw files I've been using Elements 8 for some time.
> Now I'm about to get a 5D MK III, I'll not be able to use Elements 8 as it's version of ACR isn't compatible with this camera. I can't afford a copy of Photoshop CS6 so whats my best option? What do most people use? I guess the answer is Lightroom 4.1.



Yes LR 4.1 is Great.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 21, 2012)

Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom. Of course, there are many users who use other software, they are all pretty good, but I believe that more raw photographers use the two above.
Photoshop can do it too, but its overkill for most processing.
Nothing wrong with using Elements, just upgrade if you like it, or convert images to DNG and keep using Elements 8.


----------



## lastcoyote (Sep 21, 2012)

thanks guys.
pretty sure i'll pick up LR4 then.
isn't it around this time of year that adobe release an update to elements? maybe only a short wait until then to upgrade my v8 to v11.


----------



## RLPhoto (Sep 22, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> thanks guys.
> pretty sure i'll pick up LR4 then.
> isn't it around this time of year that adobe release an update to elements? maybe only a short wait until then to upgrade my v8 to v11.



Good choice. Before and Afters are always surprising.


----------



## serendipidy (Sep 22, 2012)

Does anyone use Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) that comes free with the EOS camera? Is it any good compared to LR or PS Elements? I haven't tried LR or PSE and just started shooting RAW and processed my photos with DPP. I hope to soon learn PP using LR and/or PSE. Thanks for your thoughts.


----------



## JoeDavid (Sep 22, 2012)

Photoshop for the more serious stuff. Capture One for quick and dirty...


----------



## DanThePhotoMan (Sep 22, 2012)

ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) on CS5 is what I've been using for quite a while, and I tell you, the before and afters are incredible. I just bought a 5Dmk3 the other week, so just to let you know you'll need to download ACR 6.7, as all the earlier versions aren't compatible (really freaked me out at first when it didn't work). I've heard a lot of people say you can't edit 5Dmk3 RAW files unless you upgrade to CS6, but that is quite false.


----------



## pwp (Sep 22, 2012)

Lightroom V 4.1 is my RAW converter of choice and LR has been number one for me since the first version was in public beta. After test driving just about every RAW converter on the planet, for me it always kept coming back to LR not just for the great conversions but its whole workflow setup, particularly when working with very big shoots. 

Most other RAW converters are extremely good, and deliver perfect conversions but it was a business decision as much as anything else to stay with LR. I know it backwards and inside out now and can work through a big batch of files very quickly in a way that only comes with the deep understanding and experience that you get working with the same program every day. One of the very cool features is History in the develop panel.

-PW


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Sep 22, 2012)

Photoshop, the newest ACR really has various exposure control sliders that work super well, finally they work much closer to how you had always hoped such sliders from some program would work. It also has auto CA removal now and the NR work better and better with each version and so on. It's a little prone to color moire during de-Bayer, but that seems to be the only negative mixed in among lots of positives.


----------



## wsmith96 (Sep 22, 2012)

I use Corel's aftershot pro. I'm not an expert with it, but for $40 it works for me. I understand they are coming out with a new version soon as well.


----------



## rpt (Sep 22, 2012)

I was using DPP but recently am using LR. I really like LR. I have not tried any other products for raw.


----------



## SDsc0rch (Sep 22, 2012)

serendipidy said:


> Does anyone use Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) that comes free with the EOS camera? Is it any good compared to LR or PS Elements? I haven't tried LR or PSE and just started shooting RAW and processed my photos with DPP. I hope to soon learn PP using LR and/or PSE. Thanks for your thoughts.



i actually prefer the quality (less noise) of DPP - you really should do a side-by-side comparison of DPP to LR41 - i have - and i'm convinced

problem is.. the workflow in DPP is atrocious 

i'm seriously considering just "brute forcing" it - batch process all my RAW through DPP to TIFFs, then import into LR41, including 1:1 previews - and just eat up HD space..
*shrug*

this for the "quality" work

only


----------



## Sony (Sep 22, 2012)

Ive been ugrading from CS2 to CS5 and now CS6. I can tell ACR of each CS is different, the latter the better and more effective. I tried LR4 and DDP before CS6 but didnt like it.


----------



## dr croubie (Sep 22, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom. Of course, there are many users who use other software, they are all pretty good, but I believe that more raw photographers use the two above.



And Linux users use DPP running under WINE.
or at least I do because I am, I don't think there's too many of us around though...


----------



## Legio (Sep 22, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom. Of course, there are many users who use other software, they are all pretty good, but I believe that more raw photographers use the two above.



Well Mac users can use Aperture but what I understand many use Lightroom that seams to have the upperhand in tests. I myself is an OS X user and I really like Lightroom.

Haven't used aperture but what Ive heard its good and have a nice price but I find Lightroom outstanding if the price is right.

I think photoshop lacks Lightrooms great workflow.

Tried Gimp a couple of years ago and while functioning not at all on the same level as Lightroom working with raw files.

Canon DPP isn't bad but I abandon it when Lightroom 3 arrived before LR3 I though DPP had better noise handling but Lightroom is rather good nowdays at removing noise.

Then there are some others that Ive heard have better control over certain aspects of an image but never used them or read any test since I'm quite happy with Lightroom


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 22, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom.



I think Lightroom dominates the marketplace across both platforms.


----------



## mb66energy (Sep 22, 2012)

I use DPP but - as others stated - batch processing is awful.

Why DPP?
- simple and clean user interface
- good functionality
- fast on my 6 year old PC (with 40D, not with 600D)

What's missing ...
- IPCC/XMP editing/data management
- keeping resulting JPEGs in a mirror directory hierarchy in different sizes
- updating the above described JPEG mirror directories after adding and editing
- somefunctions which can be used to write own cmd files to handle
batch jobs ...

Tried DxO Optics Pro which gave a little bit cleaner results at the 100% level (if you have just 10 Megapixels each pixel is of value) but software ergonomics are - for me - not as good as DPP.


----------



## Peter C Photography (Sep 22, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom.
> ...



I'm a Mac user and I use LR4 and I think a fairly substantial number of Mac users use LR4 over Aperture. I was surprised about earlier posts about Canon's DPP being better than both, has anyone else had the same experience or done test regarding DPP vs. any Adobe products?


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 22, 2012)

Peter C Photography said:


> dirtcastle said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



DPP comes free with Canon bodies and it covers the basics. I can understand why a lot of people are enthusiastic about it. But if people had to pay for it, I doubt it would even exist. Lightroom can be a bit confusing to learn, but it's the best photo workflow program on the market. And it is, after all, Adobe software.


----------



## panicboy (Sep 22, 2012)

dr croubie said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Mac users use Aperture, pc users use Lightroom. Of course, there are many users who use other software, they are all pretty good, but I believe that more raw photographers use the two above.
> ...



+1


----------



## Jotho (Sep 22, 2012)

LR4 and I am very happy with it. Very easy to learn, tons of good articles to check out and learn from. Intuitive workflow, great preset profiles for lenses etc etc. I love the sliders although many might consider them being for amateurs. I find this sw to be very stabile and powerful The export function is just as easy as it gets. Happy to recommend it.


----------



## charlesa (Sep 22, 2012)

What about Adobe Bridge?


----------



## lastcoyote (Sep 22, 2012)

wow...loads of replies. very helpful thanks.

thing is as i'm so familiar with ACR and then doing further editing work in elements 8, if money was no object i'd just buy photoshop CS6...and LR4 as well probably 

moving to LR scares me a little  or will i find the transition from ACR fairly seamless?


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 22, 2012)

lightroom


----------



## Gothmoth (Sep 22, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> moving to LR scares me a little  or will i find the transition from ACR fairly seamless?



it´s the same.

LR has just a bit different GUI for the ACR engine. 

ps: look at the adobe cloud offer.... a friend stopped smoking now he has adobe master collection.


----------



## skinkfoot (Sep 22, 2012)

I fully agree with you, DPP constantly produces cleaner images that are more color accurate, with better tones, it has nothing to do with being free, I have LR and CS4, and if an image is "really" good I will spend the time with it in DPP than convert to jpg and tiff, then bring it in to Lightroom for organizing. Everytinh goes through Lightroom though(to be tagged, sorted) And if I want deep adjustments, I will do it in CS4

And it works with all current Canons.


----------



## Schruminator (Sep 22, 2012)

I use CS5 and the associated software (AdobeBridge, etc). It's a bit overkill, but I paired it up with a large graphics tablet which makes editing a breeze.


----------



## Camerajah (Sep 22, 2012)

Aperture is the one for me


----------



## brianleighty (Sep 22, 2012)

Sony said:


> Ive been ugrading from CS2 to CS5 and now CS6. I can tell ACR of each CS is different, the latter the better and more effective. I tried LR4 and DDP before CS6 but didnt like it.


Yeah, I'm still on DPP but I may switch over to LR at some point in the future. The main thing that always held me back was raw didn't look anything like the out of camera jpg or what it looked like in DPP. In LR it was super contrasty and had a greenish tint to it almost all the time. The new process I believe 2011 or 2012 fixed a lot of that stuff. It's probably still not exactly the same but it's a heck of a lot closer. I was close to switching but I've gotten a little bit comfortable with DPP. Not to mention it's free so at this point I'm putting my money towards other things but at some point I might circle back around.


----------



## M.ST (Sep 22, 2012)

I use Photoshop CS6 Extended with ACR.


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 22, 2012)

skinkfoot said:


> I fully agree with you, DPP constantly produces cleaner images that are more color accurate, with better tones, it has nothing to do with being free,



Is this based on your own experience/opinion, or is this a broad consensus backed up by testing?

I'm not trolling, I just find it hard to believe that LR/ACR/Aperture aren't as clean/accurate as DPP.


----------



## carl (Sep 22, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> skinkfoot said:
> 
> 
> > I fully agree with you, DPP constantly produces cleaner images that are more color accurate, with better tones, it has nothing to do with being free,
> ...


I use CR from CS5 and also DPP. Mostly always CR, but at the price of slowing down my process time, sometimes I use DPP and I find it better for sharpening and it gives a better 3-d real modeling of shapes, perhaps because there is more tone variation on the shadows. It feels closer to the real place. But I am one that usually likes the"before" better than the "after" in many people's photos.


----------



## canon816 (Sep 23, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> For my 40D raw files I've been using Elements 8 for some time.
> Now I'm about to get a 5D MK III, I'll not be able to use Elements 8 as it's version of ACR isn't compatible with this camera. I can't afford a copy of Photoshop CS6 so whats my best option? What do most people use? I guess the answer is Lightroom 4.1.



If you like PS you could just get a subscription to it. I own LR4 and have a month to month subscription of PS6. It's only $20/ month and lets you upgrade to the newer version when its time. 

If adobe continues top pump out new versions of PS every couple years then this is much cheaper then paying for an upgrade every time not to mention buying it outright the first time!


----------



## RS2021 (Sep 23, 2012)

Lightroom 4.1.


----------



## Helevitia (Sep 23, 2012)

Ray2021 said:


> Lightroom 4.1.



+1


----------



## IslanderMV (Sep 23, 2012)

Lightroom works for me 95 % of the time. ( occasional trips out to Photoshop and back.)


----------



## Jan van Holten (Sep 23, 2012)

I use Aperture for a seven years now. The workflow is really easy to work with, but I hope with the next version, they have been taking a good look at Lightroom. That graduent filter is a great instrument. In Aperture noise reduction and remove sensor-dust sucks. I use Elements 4 for that, it works much easier!!!!!
Also the instrument ''dodge and burn'' could be much more sofisticated. Now the treatened part always becomes brown, even when that colour is not in the subject. 
And, write a user guide with less nonsense talk, just come to the point. A lot is not explained.
When you copie your images to an external harddisk, every new pack of images that you have imported to the library is stored like that. Why not maintain a simple structure like maps and submaps with you see when working with the library. Just the way you build up the library.
I'am not very happy with it, but I don't like to learn the pretty different workflow of Lightroom. There is a lot to improve in Aperture.
Sorry for my English.

Jan van Holten


----------



## RS2021 (Sep 23, 2012)

Jan van Holten said:


> I use Aperture for a seven years now...I'am not very happy with it, but I don't like to learn the pretty different workflow of Lightroom. There is a lot to improve in Aperture.



Aperture, though was miles ahead at its inception, is now an abandoned redheaded stepchild for Apple. They see the writing on the wall with Lightroom and its marketshare and I am not sure how much resources will be committed from the 'mothership' to compete.


----------



## PaulTopol (Sep 23, 2012)

Capture 1 now that they have fixed it for 1dx. 
Tried LR but too confusing workflow. 
Cap1 has great workflow and produces output in every format I need:jpg(anysize), tiff, dng into separate directories. I have used it for,at least, the last 5 years.

Just tried out DPP, while C1 were dragging their feet, and found it pretty good. It has to be, considering it is designed by the original makers of the CR2 format. If they don't know their own format then we are in big trouble.

Now gonna learn LR4. Might as well learn how to use all the tools available, especially since so many of you use it.

Just upsets me how much Adobe charge for new versions and upgrades for the CS series. Encourages piracy, in my opinion.

Have a great day, Paul


----------



## dirtcastle (Sep 23, 2012)

PaulTopol said:


> Just upsets me how much Adobe charge for new versions and upgrades for the CS series. Encourages piracy, in my opinion.


Adobe's new "Creative Cloud" plan dramatically drops the price for anyone who uses more than one Adobe program and updates annually. There is also a 50% discount for students and teachers.

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativecloud/buying-guide.html

I'm not necessarily against piracy. And I agree that the price of a single program (outside of the "Creative Cloud") is steep for non-professionals. But as a pro, I feel an obligation to support a product... that supports me.


----------



## joshmurrah (Sep 27, 2012)

Photoshop CS6' ACR here. 

Depending on fixes needed, a lot of the time I won't even continue into Photoshop, I'll save right out of ACR and close Photoshop down after the panel closes.

My understanding is that this software is the same as what's in LR4, so that's a cheaper route if you need it.


----------



## lastcoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

Right, got my 5D MK III now  Awesome..naturally.
I went for LR4 in the end. From most replies here I think that was the right choice. Haven't yet installed and set it up yet. My question is after I've processed my photos in LR, I may want to do further editing in Photoshop Elements. As I said in my opening post I have Elements 8. Am I right in thinking that since my raw files are 5D MK III that I won't be able to pass them over to Elements 8 editor, and that I'll need to get either Elements 10 or 11 which support the 5D MK III? Or will LR be able to convert to PSD and open them as such in Elements 8 without issue?

Also while I'm posting...any opinions on the new version 11 of Elements?


----------



## lastcoyote (Oct 3, 2012)

been looking on elementsvillage forum regarding this myself and it appears i should be fine in doing the raw processing in LR4 and then when i want to make further changes i just select to 'Edit In' photoshop elements 8 which then creates a duplicate file (psd or tiff depending on preferences) and then this should be fine to work on and save in PSE8 which then is displayed alongside original raw file in LR. I guess i was confused in thinking i couldn't use my PSE8 at all due to the ACR version in it not supporting 5D MK III. But as I'd just be using it for editing then this isn't a problem.
or am I still wrong?


----------



## well_dunno (Oct 3, 2012)

panicboy said:


> dr croubie said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



For Linux folks, there is also a couple of other GPL options, like raw therapee (which is btw available also on windows) and darktable (no windows version). 

Cheers!


----------



## etg9 (Oct 3, 2012)

I don't believe anyone said it but I don't like the workflow in LR and Photoshop CS6 is great for the big edits but I have been using DxO Optics Pro 7 for batch processing and I've been liking it a lot. It isn't technically better than LR but the work flow feels better for what I do.


----------



## AmbientLight (Oct 3, 2012)

Mmmh, I am using LR since LR 3 and I am using it primarily, because of workflow efficiency. Another must have for me is the crop tool from LR. Perhaps I am just used to LR, so I have nothing much to complain about. My primary comparison is with Canon's DPP, which I also use sometimes. I particularly like the spot removal tool in DPP.

I am not a big fan of post-processing I have to admit. I rather concern myself with what goes into LR, trying to avoid having to fix things afterwards, but when I have to post-process shots, I prefer to do it in LR.

Nevertheless I would like to learn what is easier in other software. Perhaps somebody can shed some light on this.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 3, 2012)

Anyone else just use Apeture 3?
Seems to work great as far as I can tell with RAW from the 5D3....

cayenne


----------



## chasn (Oct 3, 2012)

If anyone likes Nik Software ( I do ) - it is very much cheaper for LR than PS


----------



## SPL (Oct 3, 2012)

right now, I use Aperture 3 with Nik and onOne plug ins...Nik IS GREAT!


----------



## Lee Jay (Oct 3, 2012)

SDsc0rch said:


> i actually prefer the quality (less noise) of DPP - you really should do a side-by-side comparison of DPP to LR41 - i have - and i'm convinced



The default noise reduction in DPP is "lots", while in Lightroom, it's "off". If you compare like that, then you'll get the results you posted.

Try LR with sharpening at 40/1/25/40, and L-NR at 40/90 and see what you think. DPP stinks severely by comparison.


----------



## cayenne (Oct 3, 2012)

SPL said:


> right now, I use Aperture 3 with Nik and onOne plug ins...Nik IS GREAT!



From what I can tell...Apeture 3 handles Canon RAW just fine...what are the Nik and onOne plugins for?

TIA,

cayenne


----------



## sb (Oct 3, 2012)

lastcoyote said:


> What do most people use? I guess the answer is Lightroom 4.1.



I don't know of any other alternatives


----------



## Bruce Photography (Oct 3, 2012)

charlesa said:


> What about Adobe Bridge?



When I shoot, I come back with a large number of images (several hundred per day) and I've been shooting for some time. I've tried lightroom and while it is very good (it uses the same raw processor as CS6), it wants to put all your images into one large catalog. It then makes several backups of that catalog so you don't lost it when your machine crashes. It also keeps the thumbnails even when the hard drive that was attached to your system is gone. Really very nice. I have a total of ten external hard drives that go from 500MB to 3TB is size and from USB2 to now USB3. 

However my choice for my work volume is CS6 and using bridge as my viewer. I do wish it was faster but the hardware boys will help me out there as machines get faster (like USB 3). I've decided to specialize in Photoshop for whatever years I have left. I don't think I will ever know all of it - but I like that. I am always finding new jewels in photoshop. Lightroom is actually knowable because it only does so much. Lightroom only does what Camera raw in Photoshop can do and that is it as far as processing a Raw file. But with Photoshop you are only started once you initially process the file. The Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe (sp?) book on Camera raw is an absolute must if you really want to understand Raw processing. It has changed how I work. Bridge is great for batch file edits and great for one at a time. Photoshop is universal - but I do have a question - For Canon 5d3 and Nikon D800 does anyone know of good RAW processors that run on Android 4.0 tablets?


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Oct 3, 2012)

ACR 99% of the time. I really, really, really wish Adobe would make this standalone, or alternatively, let me use LR4 without its wonky (to me) workflow. I script alot of my workflow, and I don't want to get forced into somebody's library concept.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 3, 2012)

I started with Lightroom, so far....so good.


----------



## bbasiaga (Oct 3, 2012)

I really like DPP actually. For most of the normal stuff, it does the job fast and fine. Occasionally I like to do some really 'artsy' stuff, in which case I use ACR (Photoshop) because it has a wider range of adjustments more easily at hand.

-Brian


----------



## Gothmoth (Oct 3, 2012)

http://www.picturecode.com/index.php


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 3, 2012)

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 ?


----------



## jwilbern (Oct 3, 2012)

I like using DXO Optics along with their FilmPack software. You can choose from 26 Black and White "looks" and fine tune from there. FilmPack also works as a standalone program.


----------



## chasn (Oct 3, 2012)

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 (Oct 3, 2012)

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! (Oct 4, 2012)

*Re: NEW RAW Converter - Photoninja*

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 (Oct 4, 2012)

*Re: NEW RAW Converter - Photoninja*

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


----------



## pj1974 (Oct 4, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> 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. 8)

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 (Oct 4, 2012)

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 (Oct 4, 2012)

pj1974 said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > 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.....
> ...



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 (Oct 4, 2012)

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 (Oct 4, 2012)

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 (Oct 4, 2012)

+1 for Aftershot Pro

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


----------



## willis (Oct 4, 2012)

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 (Oct 4, 2012)

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 (Oct 5, 2012)

cayenne said:


> pj1974 said:
> 
> 
> > symmar22 said:
> ...



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. 8)

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

Paul


----------



## Menace (Oct 5, 2012)

Lightroom 4.1 and PS CS5


----------



## mrsfotografie (Oct 5, 2012)

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 (Oct 5, 2012)

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 (Oct 5, 2012)

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 (Oct 5, 2012)

*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 (Oct 5, 2012)

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 (Oct 6, 2012)

Jackson_Bill said:


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



With LR4 you can do it


----------



## RC Photos (Oct 6, 2012)

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


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 6, 2012)

scrappydog said:


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



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 (Oct 6, 2012)

Sitting Elf said:


> 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 (Oct 6, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > . 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 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 (Oct 7, 2012)

> 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 (Oct 7, 2012)

Canon-F1 said:


> > 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....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## canon816 (Oct 7, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> 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 think that like any software Lightroom can take some getting used to. One of the reasons I like lightroom so much is the database aspect of it. I can easily find an image within seconds and the general editing features streamline my workflow. 

If I need to do more polishing then lightroom can allow I finish it off in PS CS5.

Also, if you would like to look at one image on a memory card you can easily select only the image or images you want to import. When you open the import window just click the "uncheck all" all button and then check the boxes on the images you want. 

Lightroom does have its limitations but once you get used to the interface you find that it works for most editing. I do wish that it had better selection tools and some simple layer masking for selective sharpening etc...


----------



## symmar22 (Oct 7, 2012)

Thanks 816 for the tip, I'll keep learning the software, I admit the possibilities seem endless, it's just that coming from the old film world, I find digital is sometimes distracting from photography itself, lots of time spent on learning software, even though I am introduced to digital since I bought my Coolscan 4000, 15 years ago. I'd like to keep it more simple, but it's the way it is, one must follow the progress....


----------



## canon816 (Oct 7, 2012)

symmar22 said:


> Thanks 816 for the tip, I'll keep learning the software, I admit the possibilities seem endless, it's just that coming from the old film world, I find digital is sometimes distracting from photography itself, lots of time spent on learning software, even though I am introduced to digital since I bought my Coolscan 4000, 15 years ago. I'd like to keep it more simple, but it's the way it is, one must follow the progress....



No problem. The art of Photography has definitely begun to put more and more emphasis on post processing and the software has really allowed us to create images that we never could have made with film.

That said, I enjoy the "taking the photos" more then the "editing the photos" so I embrace software that streamlines my workflow and gets the job done to my satisfaction in a quick and efficient manner.

Good luck with the software and happy shooting.


----------



## friedmud (Oct 7, 2012)

Still on Lightroom 3 on Mac OSx Lion here. Will have to get 4 once I get my D600 (apparently they are not upgrading 3 with D600 support). Might move up to Mountain Lion at the same time...

I try to do very little to my photos, preferring to do more of the work in the field (with filters, etc). Usually just saturation, contrast, sharpening, NR.


----------



## Steb (Oct 8, 2012)

Freelancer said:


> symmar22 said:
> 
> 
> > . The import / librairies system with LR is just a useless nightmare to me
> ...



His statement was it is a useless nightmare *for him*. Maybe you have no clue yourself if you think only your requirements are valid. A library does not give additional features. Everything is possible without, it just takes more time. I don't do keywording myself but it is possible. Of course a database is faster when searching 100000 pictures but that is *your* requirement, not that of everyone else. I have other use cases that just don't work with a library. Not uneducated or naive, just different.


----------



## chasn (Oct 9, 2012)

Big thanks to the poster who mentioned Photo Ninja on this thread - I have been playing with it for the last two days on 'difficult' images and I am hugely impressed......


----------

