what program for RAW?

[smeff_jeff]

just wondering what program people prefer to use for adjusting their RAW images?
I have Photoshop CS3 and DPP, just wondering what is better for someone (myself) for getting into RAW photograhpy.

[liza]

I like Capture One Four.

[Familiaphoto]

I like Lightroom, I rarely have a need to use anything else.

[nicksan]

I use Adobe Camera Raw that comes with CS3 for my raw conversion.
I have also used DPP with good success.

[nailer]

I use DPP - once you've got the hang of it, it leaves little else to do with PS (unless you want lots of fancy effects of course).

The more I use it the more I like it.

[Keith R]

RawShooter Essentials in the main (I can't do without an effective highlight recovery tool) but I'm becoming very impressed with Raw Therapee at the moment.

[vetkrazy]

I still love Raw Shooter Premium, but that is not an option for most people anymore. Next for me is ACR in CS3. The ACR in Lightroom is identical but I personally am not a big fan of Lightroom. The DPP that came with your camera is a very good option also. Lightroom has a 30 day trial, I am not sure about CS3. Give them a try and see what works best for you.

[Dermit]

I shoot about 30,000 images a year and only shoot RAW. I do 100% of my RAW work in Lightroom.

[Chet]

I use DPP to get sharpness and WB perfect then use Paint Shop Pro for the PP.

[canonloader]

I use ACR to adjust exposure, light, highlights and shadows, then convert to jpg, open that in CS2 to crop, resize, noise reduction, and sharpening.

[subtle_spectre]

silkypix

[RCoulter]

Bibble Pro fan here :)

[davidcrebelxt]

I USE LR... but have found ACR's (which LR uses) colors for my camera to be off consistently (yet inconsistent in terms of which colors, and how FAR off.) In particular my reds shift to orange, and my blues go a little green.

I've found DPP to be the best as far as good colors go, but am using LR because I prefer the tools and extra functionality there... I deal with the color problems as best I can using presets to "try" to help correct for the color shifts. Had I not gotten LR during the deal they had when it was released, I would be sticking with Rawshooter and DPP right now.

[Tareq]

DPP > CS2/CS3

[Welby]

ACR/CS2, can't stand how slow lightroom runs on my machine so havn't really messed with it alot to have a complete opinion on it.

[lhilg780]

tried a few different programs but downloaded the 30 day free trial of lightroom and haven't used anything else since!!!

[khnordeen]

Lightroom FTW!!! :D

[expatdude]

Lightroom but I'm keeping an eye on Raw Therapee.

[canuck88]

Lightroom here as well.

[rfreschner]

Another vote for Lightroom....

[FlyingPhotog]

Lightroom is my first line of defense but I also have CS3 in case I need to do major pixel-level surgery.

[canonloader]

Just curious, I've never owned lightroom, but I thought it was sort of a light weight Photoshop. If you had both, then why use the light weight program? I'm thinking the codec's is what makes a program, and I think PS has that sewed up?

[cfcRebel]

When i first started shooting RAW, I have tried RawShooterEssential, DPP, and PSCS/ACR. I wanted to keep my workflow in one program if possible. So, I pick CS/ACR. Since then i have upgraded to CS3/ACR4. However, to view and organize I still use RSE.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just curious, I've never owned lightroom, but I thought it was sort of a light weight Photoshop. If you had both, then why use the light weight program? I'm thinking the codec's is what makes a program, and I think PS has that sewed up?

"Elements" is a lightweight photoshop, Lightroom is Adobe's dedicated RAW converter and tool.
If anything the ACR in PSCS is a "lightweight" RAW tool compared to Lightroom.

IMHO this is actually one of lightroom's weaknesses, it actually tries to do too much ..

[spcalan]

DPP and CS2

[canonloader]

If anything the ACR in PSCS is a "lightweight" RAW tool compared to Lightroom.
Might have to give it a try then, cause I really like ACR. Thought it was pretty strong.

[probe1957]

I am new to digital photography and even newer to raw but, as of now, I am using DPP and Paint Shop Pro 9.

[davidcrebelxt]

Just curious, I've never owned lightroom, but I thought it was sort of a light weight Photoshop. If you had both, then why use the light weight program? I'm thinking the codec's is what makes a program, and I think PS has that sewed up?


I've often wondered too why people who own CS3 already would get LR also. For some, it makes sense... pro photographers, wedding photographers, sports shooters. From what I've heard the RAW capabilites are identical (although does CS3 have the TAT tool?) In fact I thought ACR when used in CS3 actually let you push some of the sliders a bit further.

Also, if you like the organizer/catalog aspect, I can see LR making sense.

But as, over the years, many casual users have HATED importing photos to be able to view and organize them over the years <READ: Elements organizer bashers>... why are so many using BOTH CS3 and LR? I figure many are curious over all the attention LR is getting, or just must have money to burn, as neither app. is particularly cheap.

I personally think, for hobbyists/amatuers like myself, LR and Elements are a great match, and keeps software costs down, as LR GREATLY expands the Elements implementation of ACR for developing RAW, whereas with CS3, you are mainly buying into the organizer concept, slideshow, web and print modules.

- For beginners to RAW, I still HIGHLY reccomend DPP... only moving up when you feel its limitations or the need.

[canonloader]

if you like the organizer/catalog aspect
I fell in love with the Bridge as soon as I found it. It's a resource hog, but then, I have 4Gig of RAM, so it's bearable. :)

[rfreschner]

I've often wondered too why people who own CS3 already would get LR also.

For me, it was a combination of the organizer function and the streamlined workflow. I used iView but felt that LR handled (or will in the future handle) everything I need to do.

(although does CS3 have the TAT tool?)

No but, OTOH, CS3 has a better Curves control.

But as, over the years, many casual users have HATED importing photos to be able to view and organize them over the years <READ: Elements organizer bashers>...

Any DAM application worth using requires importing, AFAIK.

I figure many are curious over all the attention LR is getting, or just must have money to burn, as neither app. is particularly cheap.

I think it's really a workflow issue in that LR lets you process many images at once through printing whereas the Bridge/CS3 combination doesn't handle that quite so well.

[davidcrebelxt]

You're the perfect example of someone I can see using LR AND CS3, and it being sensible, Rick.

I was just pointing out some curiousities (such as those who poo-pooed Elements' organizer because of the hassle of importing, only to go gaga over the same aspect of LR.) OTOH, of course there are those who stay far away from LR BECAUSE of still not liking that aspect of it.

Ah, yes, I did forget about the curves control being different in CS3 also... good point.

In the end of course, we are free to use whatever software we like, different needs for different people... I'm certainly no one to judge. I only speak from my point of view that purchasing LR alone (at $170 even) was a pretty big software purchase decision for me, and I've been shooting digital/messing around with pp for awhile now... it makes my jaw drop to see people NEW to digital photography and any sort of post-processing in general willing to throw the kind money of money they do at BOTH applications without understanding how they relate to one another.

[aia21]

I use Lightroom and would consider CS3 and/or GIMP for effects but Lightroom is normally sufficient for me.

I tried DPP and didn't like its controls nearly as much and it lacks the organizational abilities which I really like in Lightroom. On Boxing day in the afternoon I took about two to three hundred photos during at a family gathering. You really need good organization at those kind of numbers of photos I think...

Before trying Lightroom I was using Aperture but once I tried Lightroom I immediately switched. Far more intuitive/easier to use and the controls are lot easier. Obviously you may like Aperture more than Lightroom, I am sure it is at least in part completely subjective as to what you like.

it makes my jaw drop to see people NEW to digital photography and any sort of post-processing in general willing to throw the kind money of money they do at BOTH applications without understanding how they relate to one another.

You seem to forget a lot of people use pirated software and even if that were not the case a lot of people get access to very significant discounts through their work or through being students...

For example I get complete free use of Aperture as part of my work and I can get Lightroom and Photoshop at a fraction of the cost it would be in the shops because of the "education sector discount" available from Adobe and if my other work were to buy them for me they would together cost well less than US$100 on the volume license my work has.

And for students Adobe do pretty good discounts as well (as do most big software companies).

Best regards,

Anton

[rfreschner]

I'm really getting accustomed to working with both LR and CS3 - it's taken me awhile because I don't do a ton of shooting and processing. Most work is done in LR, but then off to CS3 for touch-up, if needed, and output sharpening using Photokit Sharpener then back to LR for printing. I'm just starting to really play with my 3800 so next will be learning how to soft proof. Once LR adds that functionality along with the output sharpening, and I believe it's only a matter of time with Jeff Schewe and others of his mindset influencing the design team, I think my round trips to CS3 will really diminish. I doubt they'll ever go away though, as CS3 just has too many little things that come in handy "once in a while".

[Sumoto]

I just started to shoot RAW so I went with a free program, RawShooter Essentials. Still learning my way around but so far so good.

[vetkrazy]

I just started to shoot RAW so I went with a free program, RawShooter Essentials. Still learning my way around but so far so good.

Rawshooter is an excellent program, only one drawback. Adobe bought Pixmatic and used it as a jump off to Lightroom. It will then not be updated to the newer camera's being released. Use it as long as you can, I find it to be a great raw converter.

[toddb]

Another important thing to point out about LR vs Bridge is that it's a Database where Bridge is not (does have cache but not a Database like LR). If you've ever used google desktop search over a non-index search for files on your system you'll appreciate the difference. Unless your doing some heavy pixel manipulation you could pretty much just live in LR. It's a complete work flow implementation for photography where Photoshop is more for pixel work. My work flow speed has improved greatly with LR.

[Keith R]

It will then not be updated to the newer camera's being released.

Sad but true - bur there's a useful workaround here: http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/articles/rawshooter-essentials-and-the-40d

[hannaxt]

I like Capture One Four.


I just got the final release of CaptureOne 4 and I prefer it to LR or Aperture.
Nice interface and workflow and naturally C1's renowned RAW conversion quality of Canon files.

I think I'll eventually get C1 4 Pro for tethered shoots.

[maxsoul]

Most of the time I use Rawtherapee and sometimes ACR.

[lungdoc]

Bibble Lite with occasional Photoshop CS2 for detailed work. I use Bibble the way most use Lightroom, minus the organizational functions.

[Vortex99]

Lightroom once I tried the 30 days, I had to have it..
I find myself spending less time outside of lightroom, seems to meet most of my needs..

[Bill Boehme]

I primarily use the CS3 combination of Bridge, ACR, and Photoshop. The RAW converter engine in Lightroom is ACR. Since the CS3 package works seamlessly together, that is my preference. I also use InDesign, Illustrator, and Dreamweaver as part of this same application with Bridge as the "hub". This works best for me, but others who aren't doing print and web editing may not have the same preferences.

[Tinh Ngo]

I have a question

When I drag my raw file into lightroom and have done all of my editing etc... and when I import the file into jpge is the quality the same as tiff or does it lose any coloring etc..? Also how do you batch raw editing in lightroom btw? Also is the file still 8bit when i drag it or 16bit , or what is the best way of converting it? Thanks

[canonloader]

Has anybody used Fireworks? It's really a vector graphics program, and I don't use it much, but it has some great compression engines in it and I've used it to get good looking images that I can post online and they will look way better than a CS2 compressed jpg of the same size.

[Tinh Ngo]

Anyone?

[rfreschner]

When I drag my raw file into lightroom and have done all of my editing etc...

Tinh - I'm assuming you mean after you import a RAW file into LR, because you must import an image before you can work on it.

when I import the file into jpge is the quality the same as tiff or does it lose any coloring etc..? When you export an image to JPG you will lose some quality compared to TIFF because JPG is a lossy compression format while TIFF is a lossless format, but it is negligible for printing. If you are going to keep editing the resulting output file, I would keep it TIFF or PSD. I'm not really positive about the question on color, but I would assume that, since you can export either format in multiple color spaces, you shouldn't lose any color other than what can't be handled in 8 bits (JPG) as opposed to 16 bits (TIFF).

Also how do you batch raw editing in lightroom btw?LR doesn't have a batch editor per se, but you can make adjustments to a single image and then apply them to multiple images using the Sync command.

Also is the file still 8bit when i drag it or 16bit , or what is the best way of converting it? ThanksWhen you import a RAW image it is edited in 16 bit. When you export an image, you have the choice of exporting in 16 or 8 bit although, depending on the output format, you might not have both options.

[canonloader]

you have the choice of exporting in 16 or 8 bit although, depending on the output format, you might not have both options
JPG can only be saved as 8bit. There is no 9bit or 16bit jpg. ;)

[rfreschner]

JPG can only be saved as 8bit. There is no 9bit or 16bit jpg. ;)

Which is why I said, depending on the output format (meaning JPG, TIFF, PSD, etc.), you might not have both options. ;) BTW, what is 9 bit - never heard of that? :confused:

[canonloader]

Neither have I, but there isn't any. Nothing but 8bit. :)

[Bill Boehme]

I have a question

When I drag my raw file into lightroom and have done all of my editing etc... and when I import the file into jpge is the quality the same as tiff or does it lose any coloring etc..? Also how do you batch raw editing in lightroom btw? Also is the file still 8bit when i drag it or 16bit , or what is the best way of converting it? Thanks

When you save a file in the JPG format, it utilizes a scheme to reduce the file size that is quite similar to the way that a color NTSC television image is compressed. When color broadcasts came along, the color components of the signal meant that addition bandwidth was needed, but the TV signal had to remain within the channel bandwidth of 6 MHz. Researchers in the early 1950's determined that a very good color image could be generated if the fine details of the images were carried in the luminance channel just the same as it had always been done for B&W and the color could be applied as much larger blocks of information. So basically, the average color of a square area that had much coarser resolution than the luminance channel was applied to the image by the chrominance channel. JPG works much the same way where blocks of 4, 8, or 16 (or even larger) pixels are assigned a single hue. Mixing a particular hue with luminance values will give each pixel its own color, but they will be various shades of the same hue. If you enlarge a JPG image that has been heavily compressed, this effect is very obvious. So, this is a very long way of saying, yes, the JPG file does lose color details when compared to a TIF file.