Processing Raw

[Bill Pierce]

Adobe’s early disability with Fuji files made me look at digital imaging programs outside of Lightroom and Photoshop, the two programs which had become my digital darkroom. I still think Lightroom provides one of the best ways to sort and store digital images and fine tune the final image before it goes to a jpg for a screen image or a tif for a printed image. And, while Photoshop has become more of an illustrator’s tool, it still provides some image manipulations that are useful and unavailable in Lightroom. But, at the same time as Adobe was having problems with the Fuji files, they were also moving towards a system which was paid for and provided updates through monthly payments and hinted that there would come a time when the older programs that you purchased in a conventional manner wouldn’t be updated. Those two issues were enough to make me look at other processing programs for the first time in a long, long while.

It’s a big world out there. There are a lot of good programs out there. Here are the programs I spent some time with, processing both the unique Fuji files and the Bayer array that is on the majority of other digital consumer cameras. Many of these programs simply prepare a raw file for local adjustment, printing, e.t.c. in another program. For filing, fine tuning and printing, I still depend on Lightroom.

AccuRaw - top flight DNG conversions
Affinity Photo - economical Photoshop replacement
Capture One - do a .3 or .5 pre sharpening; then sharpen and fine tune the tif in Lightroom
DxO - still does not handle Fuji files
Iridient Developer - probably the best overall program for producing tifs from Fuji files
PhotoNinja - lets you quickly preview a number of interpretations of the raw file and then fine tune
Raw Photo Processor - interesting film simulations
Raw Therapee - the ultimate geek program with every digital adjustment known to man and maybe a few others

I would love to hear your opinions, the advantages and disadvantages of any of these programs that you have used (and, of course, programs that aren’t on this list).

P.S. The local power company is doing repairs and shutting off power in our neighborhood on Thursday, Friday and Tuesday; so, there are times when my forum communications will be even worse than usual.

 

[fireblade]

I tried Capture One and Raw Therapee, but always go back to PS, it's just what you get used to. I just started using Lightroom and am still working my way around it, reason being that Leica give it for free.
PS for me, has the best actions and plug ins.

 

[dasuess]

I am a recent convert to LR (6 months), having abandoned Aperture when it was clear that it was being killed. I am not a Fuji user so cannot comment on how it handles Fuji raw files, but LR handles my Nikon Df raw files just fine. It also works well for the scanned TIFFs of my BW and color negatives. Now that I've used it for six months I like it much better than Aperture.

I am on the Adobe Photography CC program for $9.99/month. This gets me LR and PS and I even use Bridge and ACR once in awhile. I don't mind paying the monthly ransom since it will hopefully help keep LR around and not have it jerked out from under me like Apple did with Aperture.

 

[Bill Pierce]

I am a recent convert to LR (6 months), having abandoned Aperture when it was clear that it was being killed. I am not a Fuji user so cannot comment on how it handles Fuji raw files, but LR handles my Nikon Df raw files just fine. It also works well for the scanned TIFFs of my BW and color negatives. Now that I've used it for six months I like it much better than Aperture.

I think the most recent LR shows a significant improvement over the initial processing of the Fuji files and is an excellent all purpose digital image processor. If you are going to stick with a single image processor, it is probably the logical choice. But what I found out in my look at other programs was much like exploring different developers in the wet darkroom. There wasn't a huge difference in the final print, but there was enough of a difference that different folks were going to like different developers. And it was great good fun to play with all those developers.

 

[Doug]

I started with Capture One since it came bundled with the Leica M8. I found it easy to learn and it worked well, but the developers seem to be unusually concerned about unauthorized copying, as each upgrade was a difficult process of owner verification, etc. Still, I bought the full version and several upgrades.

But then they never made it compatible with Leica S2 files. Presumably they viewed this camera as direct competition to their own gear and opted not to support its files.

With the M9, Adobe Lightroom became the bundled software. I looked it over and thought the interface was opaque, and set it aside. With the S2 I became motivated to figure it out, but it took determination and closely studying Evening's LR book for it to become clear. I may be dense, but it was a steep learning curve. Now it seems easy and logical, and I enjoy using it. I am reluctant to subscribe to CC, as this is the only Adobe software I currently use other than Reader.

I'll be interested to hear commentary about the others that I've not experienced.

 

[Rob-F]

When I switched from PC to Mac, I bought Aperture. I loved it, and have stuck with it. Later I added LR4, and have had great trouble learning it. Aperture is just so intuitive! So I bought a book from Amazon, but have read little, as I am put off by the size of the book! With Aperture, there is little need to read anything. It is all obvious.

I'm absolutely horrified that Apple is discontinuing Aperture! I'm using Snow Leopard 10.6.8. I believe I can upgrade by two updates before Aperture won't run anymore. I'd like to do that, so that RAW conversion will be available within Aperture for my X10/X20 cameras, and my D-Lux 6. Then I think I need to buy a couple extra Macs, so in case my iMac and Macbook both fail, I will still be able to use Aperture. But I guess I will have to find another copy of Aperture, since they have it gimmicked to only be able to put it on two computers--and I've had my two.

Apple has let us loyal customers down.

 

[peterm1]

You did not mention Corel Paintshop Pro. I discovered it by accident some years back and have stuck with it ever since. It is updated regularly by Corel although you must of course pay for upgrades (my version is version 12 but its now well beyond that if one cares to get the latest version). For me it is pretty well perfect in that it has many of the features of Photoshop and has in addition some specific tools for photographers lacking in Photoshop (which is better optimized for graphic artists). From my perspective what makes it great is its support for many Photoshop plugins (like Nik) and it it also has tools like selections and layers which I find useful. It comes with its own RAW converter which I find works fine on anything I have thrown at it. The software automatically opens any RAW image in its RAW converter and the image can either be processed somewhat in that or opened immediately for editing in its main editing window. That latter gives you access to a full suite of Photoshop like tools.

 

[dasuess]

With the M9, Adobe Lightroom became the bundled software. I looked it over and thought the interface was opaque, and set it aside. With the S2 I became motivated to figure it out, but it took determination and closely studying Evening's LR book for it to become clear. I may be dense, but it was a steep learning curve. Now it seems easy and logical, and I enjoy using it. I am reluctant to subscribe to CC, as this is the only Adobe software I currently use other than Reader.

I confess that the LR interface was a bit daunting after using Aperture for several years. When I decided to make the switch it was at a time when many Aperture users were looking for a place to go. I found a couple of articles that did a "mapping" of Aperture features/concepts to LR - that made it easier. I have not looked back, even now that Apple seems to be improving the Photos app.

 

[Godfrey]

I started using LR in 2006 when it was in the last stages of being a Public Beta. Its workflow was pretty much what I'd created for myself in PS with much more automation and far less potential to screw up (never mind the other benefits), and a better UI.

While I've looked at most of the other major raw converters as they've come along, nothing's replaced LR as my primary tool. Some have a particular advantage or two, or a nice feature or two, but nothing compelling enough to replace my workflow.

The Fuji cameras pose a problem as their sensor has such a different set of processing needs. So far, I've not found the cameras compelling enough to warrant changing tools or workflow to accommodate them. I pretty much have everything I need in cameras and lenses between Leica RF, Olympus mFT, and Nikon SLR anyway, so I decided to pass on Fuji entirely.

G

 

[Dektol Dan]

Add the Nik Collection

Add the Nik Collection

Offered by Google, a must if you do B&W.

 

[pluton]

It's all what you're used to. I became habituated to Lightroom, so when I finally got an Intel Mac, and tried Aperture, I found it extremely annoying.
Aperture was fast...much faster than Lightroom with big 36MP files.
Photo Ninja does produce better tiny details from Fuji X files than Lightroom, but in my experience, those details are not visible in small prints, and only borderline visible on moderately large prints.

 

[Addy101]

I once decided to get serious and bought Lightroom (3) and I considered it a waste of money. It completely took over control of my pictures and just placed them "somewhere" - at first I couldn't find them outside LR, I did find them and the place was logical, but why not tell me where my pictures are? The colours where mwah, it probably could be made better, but I don't have the skills to do that. Then I got another camera, and Lightroom refused to read those files, it even refused to show the embedded thumbnail (it just read the camera in the RAW-file and refused to do anything) forcing me to get the new version for a lot of money. I decided it wasn't for me and went back to RawTherapee - it just works and it gives the results I want.

I use RawTherapee for RAW conversions and Paint Shop Pro to finish the picture. It is a laborious process, but it gives results I like. Being burnt by Lightroom, I'm hesitant to buy another RAW coneverter

Almost forgot: RawTherapee is sloooooow on my 2009 desktop (Intel Core2Duo processor, 8mb internal, Windows Vista)

 

[Ronald M]

I refuse any program that has no local manipulations like burn & dodge, sharpen in steps, and one that uses a library.

I subscribe to CC and use PS and Bridge. Bridge can do the same edits to an entire folder just like LR. I do this all the time.

Adobe has relented the monthly fee and takes the full $120 at one time. They also update my CS6+ACR regularly. LR is not installed . Hate it.

I could not afford to be without something that that does not do a preliminary adjustment automatically.

 

[willie_901]

...It completely took over control of my pictures and just placed them "somewhere" - at first I couldn't find them outside LR, I did find them and the place was logical, but why not tell me where my pictures are?

Different rendering platforms have different advantages and disadvantages. LR is the same as all the others in this regard.

However, LR does tell you exactly where your photos are located.

 

[willie_901]

Offered by Google, a must if you do B&W.

I find NIK plug-ins to be extremely useful. Silver Efex Pro 2 is a wonderful B&W tool.

If you need to blend exposures to cope with scenes having extreme dynamic range, HDR Efex Pro 2 handles multiple exposures without creating the surrealistic to-e mapping associated with HDR manipulations. Of course it is possible to produce highly tone mapped renderings as well. It's just that it's easy to achieve results viewers that practically all viewers would assume to be from a single exposure.

I have used sone of the other NIK plug-ins for difficult film scans and sharpening images used for large prints.

 

[willie_901]

I refuse any program that has no local manipulations like burn & dodge, sharpen in steps, and one that uses a library.

...

I could not afford to be without something that that does not do a preliminary adjustment automatically.

Except LR does have local, selective "burn & dodge, sharpen" tools. Also LR will automatically apply " preliminary adjustment(s)" upon import.

Obviously many people prefer other workflows than LR. But at least hate it for inherent faults that can not be overcome (such as the Library).

 

[richard_l]

Lightroom tries to take control of all your images, or so it seems. It is a PITA to configure in order to moderate its aggressive behavior.

I discovered AfterShot Pro 2 when I upgraded to PaintShop Pro X8 and got a "free" copy of AfterShot 2. (The pro version has a few more features.) It is intuitive to use, extremely fast, considerably less expensive than Lightroom , and does a great job overall.

 

[Duane Pandorf]

I think the question that should be asked is not which software to use to process camera company's proprietary file formats but why don't these companies work with the third party software companies to enable optimum post processing. It's one of the reasons I enjoy shooting with a digital Leica M. Lightroom is included and the camera raw files come out of the camera as a DNG. Plus the two companies work together on creating lens profiles.

 

[Godfrey]

... But at least hate it for inherent faults that can not be overcome (such as the Library).

Why is the Library an "inherent fault"? For me, that's one of the main advantages over Bridge and other apps that have a similar workflow.

The Lightroom catalog file records all your adjustments without directly manipulating the original files and can keep records on files that are on off-line volumes. File browsers like Bridge can only operate on files that are on accessible volumes and must change/manipulate the files directly rather than recording the changes you make.

G

 

[Dwig]

Why is the Library an "inherent fault"? For me, that's one of the main advantages over Bridge and other apps that have a similar workflow.
...

I agree, it is not a fault at all.

Personally, I have no issues with how Lr manages it's Library. I have no difficulty controlling how Lr imports images and never have difficulty knowing where the image really lives. All of those things are very controllable if you take a little time to learn Lr's control UI.

That said, while Lr is my primary DAM for may personal work at home, I generally find Bridge preferable for many chores at my day job (primary image tech for an art photographer and his gallery). At work, Lr is my primary RAW converter and manages the library of RAW and JPEG files from the photographer's camera. Our production files, though, are left "unmanaged" in human readable folder structures. Lr can't handle many of our production files (e.g. 3-4gb PSB files, ...) so it is not practical to use it for any. It is used for some special projects, though.

Bridge is a rather nice tool for handling many functions. Its lack of a managed library makes it excellent for browsing our production files. I has become my preferred front end for all batch operations in Ps, something at which Bridge excels.

Back to the core topic:
Lr is quite powerful as a RAW converter and I find it quite effective for the mix of camera files that I work with (Pany G-1, Nikon D800, & several older premium Nikon CoolPix models). For many, though, its DAM side is not desirable and they may find that using Ps (same RAW engine) along with Bridge a more comfortable combination.