# Which Software to convert Raw files?



## daniela (May 27, 2014)

Hi!

Some software advice needed, please:
Which is an very good software to convert the 6D files to jpeg?
I heared of the DXO Optics program, with optical modules for lens-cam combinations.
Should I buy it (now just 99€ in Germany), or continue using the Canon DPP?
Are there such modules existing for lightroom too?

Thanks
Daniela


----------



## mackguyver (May 27, 2014)

daniela said:


> Hi!
> 
> Some software advice needed, please:
> Which is an very good software to convert the 6D files to jpeg?
> ...


Daniela, I would recommend Lightroom or DxO - both are much easier to use and much better programs than DPP. I'm not fond of Lightroom, personally, as I don't need or like the library/asset management piece of it, but it has the same Adobe Camera RAW processor as Photoshop, which I can say is by far the easiest tool to use to get great results from your RAW file. I have used it since it was in beta (in Photoshop) and love it, but I think DxO gives you slightly better results once mastered. Also, it seems that 95% of photographers love Lightroom, so I'm in the minority. I believe there's a free trial for it (and DxO), so I'd give them both a try.

DxO is what I use and it's not quite as easy to use, but it gives great "auto" results and has a very powerful set of tools that once learned, allow you to tweak the photos a lot. It also has a new PRIME feature that is very useful if you do much high ISO (1600+) or long exposure (30s+) work. You need a powerful PC and a lot of patience to use PRIME, but the results are amazing. The body/lens profiles work extremely well, too, and are easier to use than Lightroom in that way.

Like I said, I'd download the free trials for both and see which one you like. Each one takes time to learn, but both are excellent tools. There are some other options including Photoshop, CaptureOne Pro, and Photo Ninja that you might want to look at and maybe try as well, but LR and DxO are the ones I would recommend.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 27, 2014)

Be careful, it depends on which camera you are using. The higher end cameras need the Pro version of DXO. They do catch a lot of buyers with the low price, who then must upgrade.

You also need a very good computer, it takes a lot of computer power to run, and can be very slow for some things.
Fortunately, there is a free trial. I recommend that you take advantage of it.
DXO is good at processing files that do not need advanced help, and it now works with Lightroom, but only thru the use of DNG. Why?? Because Lightroom has a lot of functions that are not handled by DXO. Managing your images, and lots of other features. Rather than buy Lightroom and then paying $200 for the pro version of DXO, I signed up for the $10 a month subscription to Lightroom + Photoshop.

Also be aware that you received a very powerful RAW editor with your camera, and its free. DPP. There are others as well.

All the Raw editors are pretty good, so its a matter of features you want. Try the free trials to compare them, what is fine for me many not work for you. 
Another gotcha is the ability to quickly get a update when you get a new camera model. Some RAW editors literally take months to update, so if you go out and buy the latest new model, you may be frustrated. But ... DPP is supplied with the new camera, and it works to convert files to Tiff which can be used with most RAW editors.


----------



## AlanF (May 27, 2014)

I use DxO as my primary software for RAW. The PRIME noise reduction is incredible, virtually eliminating noise without loss of resolution. Further processing and sharpening are done in Photoshop as it has some nice tweaks and its "layers" is very useful.


----------



## zim (May 28, 2014)

AlanF said:


> I use DxO as my primary software for RAW. The PRIME noise reduction is incredible, virtually eliminating noise without loss of resolution. Further processing and sharpening are done in Photoshop as it has some nice tweaks and its "layers" is very useful.



+1
Have recently moved from DPP to DxO, I try to do as much as possible within DxO but for some tweeks and cleaning PS or equivalent is indispensable.

To add a footnote to mt. S comments on possibly requiring the pro version, the cut off is actually determined by the size of the image in megapixels not megabytes this is a very important distinction as if like me you do stitching and panos you my require the pro version no matter what camera you have. DxO do not make this clear at all.


----------



## drjlo (May 28, 2014)

zim said:


> +1
> Have recently moved from DPP to DxO, I try to do as much as possible within DxO but for some tweeks and cleaning PS or equivalent is indispensable.



DPP is a great RAW converter, and the fact it's free is just a bonus IMO. It also has Canon-specific functions that Adobe Camera RAW does not offer, such as the excellent Canon DLO (Digital Lens Optimizer). 

I do end up using Adobe camera RAW more often, mostly because I use many different Adobe Photoshop plug-in's from Nik, Topaz, etc, but I would use DPP->Photoshop instead of ACR->Photoshop if it didn't take longer time for DPP to "transfer to photoshop."


----------



## jaell (May 28, 2014)

Before I got my 6D, I used ACR. It's very easy to use, especially for my most common task: white balance correction. The exposure sliders are very easy, too.

But my 6D RAW files aren't compatible with my version of PS/ACR, so I started to use DPP instead. DPP has a lot of very powerful tools, so it's no slouch (and, it's free). But its white balance tools are not as easy to use (particularly color temperature) as ACR, and the most it allows you to move exposure is +/- 2 EV.

That said, DPP is fine. The biggest gripe (and honestly, probably the only thing that would prompt me to switch to a different RAW converter) is that DPP is *slow* to convert files. ACR converts files 3x-4x faster. So, if I have 200 files I want to do a quick conversion to jpg for previewing, it takes an hour or so, whereas ACR would churn out 200 jpgs from RAW in 15-20 minutes. Oh, the other plus to ACR (which you wouldn't get with anything but ACR) is that it integrates seamlessly with Bridge & PS. So you browse your RAW files in Bridge, double-click to pull up ACR, and then when you're done editing in ACR, the image is transferred easily & quickly to PS. With DPP you use its (limited) browser--which doesn't do big thumbnail/previews like Bridge does--and then convert to (lossless) TIFF so you can then open the file in PS. Using any non-Adobe converter will make the process clunkier, but is shelling out $100 worth a few clicks?


----------



## Jim Saunders (May 28, 2014)

I get good results from LR5, good integration with PS too. Get the trials, see what feels right for you - making a choice is a job but it's nice having options. 

Jim


----------

