# Let's talk about RAW software



## akiskev (Dec 5, 2011)

I use DxO and find its results satisfying but can't tell if it's the best. What do you think?


----------



## JR (Dec 5, 2011)

I have been very happy with the Adobe Camera RAW engine which I find in my Lightroom and PS software. I find it better then DPP for sure. Not familiar with all the other ones, but this one exceed my need for now so I am good with it.

I would love to find a RAW engine that is even better at noise reduction then the Adobe Camera RAW though (which is already way better then DPP)...


----------



## tron (Dec 5, 2011)

I believe that someone has to use many products in order to have an opinion and subsequently vote unbiased. 
However, even people who have only used one or two products will have something interesting to say so I will read this thread with great interest. 
I for example have used Camera Raw but I do not consider myself an expert. I correct contrast, white balance, sometimes I level the horizon, I rarely crop and sharpen a little. What I like most is being able to produce a small file with changes and leave the original image file intact. That being said, I wouldn't think of voting as I cannot compare it to other products... 

Being interested to see opinions about this and other products too...


----------



## thepancakeman (Dec 5, 2011)

tron said:


> I believe that someone has to use many products in order to have an opinion and subsequently vote unbiased.
> However, even people who have only used one or two products will have something interesting to say so I will read this thread with great interest.
> I for example have used Camera Raw but I do not consider myself an expert. I correct contrast, white balance, sometimes I level the horizon, I rarely crop and sharpen a little. What I like most is being able to produce a small file with changes and leave the original image file intact. That being said, I wouldn't think of voting as I cannot compare it to other products...
> 
> Being interested to see opinions about this and other products too...



At only the third posting in this thread, and I'm already going to (sorta) hijack it--but I'm at least faithful to the title. Sorry! :-[

I have only used Adobe Camera RAW and so can't compare it to others, but I do have a question. I have noticed that sometimes when I open a RAW image in Lightroom that it briefly (maybe a half second) appears one way and then...ummm...hard to describe, but changes and often seems to darken. Is this ACR applying some sort of logic? Is there a way to see it without those "changes"? Often the .5 second glimpse looks better to me than the "final" image (with what little I can see in a half second.) But whatever the case, I feel like I am not truly seeing the RAW image. Thoughts/recommendations?


----------



## JR (Dec 6, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I believe that someone has to use many products in order to have an opinion and subsequently vote unbiased.
> ...



Did you check if in Lightroom you are using a preset when importing your photo such that every photo you import are "processed" a certain way (like reduce exposure by 1/3 stops?

The other thing I can think of is the settings for the preview of the pictures. Check in your File/Edit/Catalog Settings/File Handling menu and check the quality of your image preview, this could also explane the sudden change. I use 1440 pixels for my preview and medium quality settings...

I have not experienced what you describe though... Do you think the final image you are seeing when you open it is too dark? OPen the same image in DPP to see the difference maybe ...


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 6, 2011)

I just use ACR, it works I installed canon DPP after a few people said it was good but it wont preview images from the 5D2 WTF? so i gave up


----------



## RC (Dec 6, 2011)

thepancakeman said:


> At only the third posting in this thread, and I'm already going to (sorta) hijack it--but I'm at least faithful to the title. Sorry! :-[
> 
> ... I have noticed that sometimes when I open a RAW image in Lightroom that it briefly (maybe a half second) appears one way and then...ummm...hard to describe, but changes and often seems to darken. Is this ACR applying some sort of logic? Is there a way to see it without those "changes"? Often the .5 second glimpse looks better to me than the "final" image (with what little I can see in a half second.) But whatever the case, I feel like I am not truly seeing the RAW image. Thoughts/recommendations?



Sorry don't mean to add to the "hijack" maybe its time for new thread. I too see this same condition in LR as described by thepancakeman above. 



> Response from JR: Did you check if in Lightroom you are using a preset when importing your photo such that every photo you import are "processed" a certain way (like reduce exposure by 1/3 stops?
> 
> The other thing I can think of is the settings for the preview of the pictures. Check in your File/Edit/Catalog Settings/File Handling menu and check the quality of your image preview, this could also explane the sudden change. I use 1440 pixels for my preview and medium quality settings...



I still consider myself a rookie with LR but I'm not aware of any preset or others settings that I have created that might cause this. There was a minor update that I applied the other day and it seems like this began after that--can't be sure though. (I'm out of town at the moment so I can't check what version I'm running--it's 3 something).

Hopefully someone can verify this strange behavior.


Regarding the actual subject of this thread, I have only used the RAW editors in DPP and LR. Both have their pros and cons. I mostly use DPP only to check IQ at the AF point position(s)--I love that feature.


----------



## bananahead (Dec 6, 2011)

RC said:


> thepancakeman said:
> 
> 
> > At only the third posting in this thread, and I'm already going to (sorta) hijack it--but I'm at least faithful to the title. Sorry! :-[
> ...



I think that what is happening is that lightroom is displaying the in-raw preview jpeg while it applys its default settings. Bibble Pro does this as well.

Most people will simply vote for the converter that they use. Very few people will have tried more than one or two anyway.


----------



## usinglight (Dec 6, 2011)

I was a heavy user of DPP and liked it very much. I switched to Lightroom and find it even better. I cannot see a difference in quality. It is a differen t workflow somehow and my pictures look different (because I do all the postprocessing in lightroom). ;D

I also experienced the changing in the preview. I have the theory that lightroom shows the standard settings of the raw file. I use a 60D with profiles and use a "cinema-style" profile. When shooting in RAW+JPEG, lightroom cuts away the in-camera processing and shows the RAW-data.


----------



## jamam (Dec 6, 2011)

Hi all,

I've used DPP a lot. It gives very nice results when a picture does not need too many special treatments (noise reduction, filters, spot removal, ...).

Now I use Lightroom which accelerated my workflow and helps me with high ISO pictures and other bad pictures which can be recovered (partially of course). I find that I can reach the same quality level than DPP for already good shots but is more convenient to use.

Much more to say but they are details for me. I've given my vote to Adobe but guess that DPP deserves one as well.


----------



## pwp (Dec 6, 2011)

The poll asks what is best for Canon RAW. The answer to that may vary from what best suits your personal workflow.

When I get back from a shoot and have possibly hundreds of files to convert and deliver to a client with a short deadline, I'll sort in Photomechanic, convert the selects to DNG, import those into Lightroom which is fast and powerful, and importantly for me has smooth integration with Photoshop.

Occasionally I'll have a uniquely difficult file which hits a roadblock in LR. Sometimes I'll have complete success running it through CaptureOne or DPP. DPP in particular can come to the rescue with odd skintones. 

A few years ago I test drove every RAW converter on the planet. They all have individual qualities for sure. But the whole exercise was ultimately a time wasting folly for me.

The differences in final files is subtle. I believe that Content is King, and a powerful enough image will make whatever RAW converter was used to convert the file just about irrelevant. So I took the path of speed, simplicity, familiarity and a feature set that worked best for me....Lightroom.

Paul Wright


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> I installed canon DPP after a few people said it was good but it wont preview images from the 5D2 WTF? so i gave up



You installed an older version of DPP. Like every other RAW converter out there, if the camera that creates the .CR2 file is newer than the software, the software won't read the file. When a brand new camera comes out, only DPP can read the RAW files. Others are updated in days/weeks/months as the software vendor incorporates the new code. In some cases for paid software (Adobe, DxO), if an upgrade version of the software comes out (e.g. CS4 to CS5), you must buy the upgrade to open RAW files from cameras released after the upgrade came out. In other cases, e.g. Aperture, Apple releases updates that support new cameras, for free.

From what I've seen, Adobe and Apple are first out with support for new .CR2 files, DxO lags (because of the more extensive testing they do for the lens correction modules). For example, when I got my S100, only DPP could read the RAW files. Adobe and Apple released updates which included the S100 in early November (although Adobe's is an RC, i.e. late beta). DxO's module for the S100 is due out in January, 2012.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2011)

RC said:


> I mostly use DPP only to check IQ at the AF point position(s)--I love that feature.



Aperture does that, as well.


----------



## torger (Dec 6, 2011)

For my fine art work I use bleeding edge RawTherapee built from source . I'm experienced in software development so I like having access to the source and getting to know the details of all algorithms used, gives me a slight edge on artistic integrity that can't be had with the commercial alternatives. Algorithm development is also very open, one can discuss directly with the developers and they do take user feedback.

For bulk processing of say event photography or sports I often use Bibble because it fast.


----------



## bainsybike (Dec 6, 2011)

RC said:


> I mostly use DPP only to check IQ at the AF point position(s)--I love that feature.



It would be great if it really did that. Unfortunately, it simply displays the AF points centred in the frame, with the active one(s) in red. So if you lock focus, recompose and shoot, the AF points are in the wrong position.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 6, 2011)

bainsybike said:


> So if you lock focus, recompose and shoot, the AF points are in the wrong position.



...and if you're shooting with a fast lens wide open, the plane of critical focus will be in the wrong position, too. See Why Focus-Recompose Sucks for more details. Some Hasselblad cameras have gyro sensors that allow them (supposedly) detect and correct the error resulting from focus-recompose.


----------



## skitron (Dec 6, 2011)

Capture One Pro here. Excellent workflow and even better IQ. I've said many times here the difference in IQ between CO and DPP is larger than kit lens to L. Amazing results in very little time. One of the acid tests for me is rendering 24K gold properly and CO nails it immediately, DPP makes it look like brass no matter how many hours I spend messing with it and color profiles. 

Full disclosure: My thought when doing evals was the software from the company that has a medium format camera and lens lineup was probably the place to start. So I did and was impressed enough to buy and never bothered testing others (other than DPP). I don't have much time to fiddle with my hobby so I wanted a software aimed at the time=$ crowd and recognized it immediately in CO.

That said, I am also an Adobe Premier Pro (video) user and swear by it even though I'm not a fan of the quirky UI and workflow. Adobe would have been next on the eval list, but after trying CO my thoughts were Adobe might equal CO in IQ but not surpass it and no way the workflow would be as good based on my experiences with Premier Pro, so no reason to go there.

No opinion on the others since I have no experience with them (except that DPP is horrendous). But given their respective successes in the market it's probably safe to say they are all good products. So hopefully the value of this thread is for those either shooting JPG or using DPP and looking for ideas how to raise the bar. I doubt seriously there is compelling reason to change from one "good" RAW processor to another.

[edit] If you don't have color calibration for your monitors, I'd say there is much more value dealing with that first and then moving into improved RAW processing. As much as CO improved my setup, it would be a virtual waste without first getting the monitors calibrated.


----------



## RC (Dec 6, 2011)

bainsybike said:


> RC said:
> 
> 
> > I mostly use DPP only to check IQ at the AF point position(s)--I love that feature.
> ...



Excellent point, I'll have to keep that in mind so I don't mislead myself


----------

