Anyone use/still use Bibble for RAW processing?

[overclicker]

I remember running across Bibble (http://bibblelabs.com/) a few years ago, but have never used it. Anyone use or like/dislike it.

Thanks for any info.

[overclicker]

fwiw... I downloaded the trial version. Do believe this is a keeper.

[bacchanal]

I trialed it along with Lightroom and CaptureOne. I ended up getting Lightroom because I'm a conformist, but I did really like Bibble. I think it's the best of the 3 for the money. FWIW, Bibble 5 is under development and looks really promising...haven't heard anything on the release date though.

[mbellot]

I still use it as my primary RAW converter, although I do dabble with DPP from time to time. There is nothing better when you have a ton of images to PP. I went through 3900 images (sorted, adjusted and jpg generation of over 1800 "keepers") in one week just a couple hours each evening.

ACR has never been good to me, and now that I have a MkIII but CS2 its a totally moot point.

Lightroom is way too catalog/database centric for my liking.

[agedbriar]

I'm happy with Bibble Lite. Color rendition is great and I can do most of my global PP within it.

Compared to the late RawShooter (renown for its sharpness, but also for its muddy color), Bibble is softer. Not to the point of loosing fine detail, but still you have to put some effort into sharpening if you want to get all the resolution a fine lens is capable of. I solved that with Focal Blade.

This is 30D, 70-200 f/4 IS, handheld at 1/320s, Bibble Lite and Focal Blade (100% crop). The little face is 2 years old here.

[TonyKInTexas]

Count me as a Bibble Pro user. Jumped on at v4 and still hanging in there. Some of Sean Puckett's plug-ins for Bibble make it a very good converter and first pass image manipulator.

Mind you I won't get rid of PS CS3. :)

[blinded]

I've always found Capture One to be rather arrogant, but loved their custom camera profiles (since super correct color is important to me), so I tried Bibble because they also have camera profiles (though they don't really state this explicitly anywhere). Turns they are MUCH faster than C1 and way cheaper too, so I've stuck with them. I really like Bibble's color and the auto-level option.

Bibble 5 looks REALLY good but Lightroom/ACR still has an advantage with some better tools - highlight recovery works better in ACR, plus the B&W tool cannot be beat. "Andy" in Bibble is only a film simulator, not a customizable B&W tool so I disregard it completely. Plus Bridge is the ultimate file browser, way superior to Bibble's right click layout approach and MUCH faster to generate thumbnails and previews. Bibble needs to be all over whatever Adobe is doing to get their fast previews. And I still can't wrap my head around the silly "individual white balance and neutral point" philosophy (if you have a whibal and use Bibble you know what I'm talking about). I've already heard that a bunch of these problems may be solved in version 5, so I'm holding out for that.

Oh, and about the sharpness: I recently saw a comparison of RAW converters with sharpening off and Bibble was the softest because it really wasn't doing anything whereas other converters were applying some sharpening by default even at zero.

[Plant McCloud]

...so I tried Bibble because they also have camera profiles (though they don't really state this explicitly anywhere). ...

I didn't know that. Can you recommend a group, website, etc. where people trade them? I searched but couldn't find any.

[TonyKInTexas]

It would be good to have a profile or two. :)

[agedbriar]

...

Oh, and about the sharpness: I recently saw a comparison of RAW converters with sharpening off and Bibble was the softest because it really wasn't doing anything whereas other converters were applying some sharpening by default even at zero.

Only after I bought Bibble Lite and experienced the live color I was missing from RawShooter, I went to analyse the reason for the latter. I discovered that with RS default (zero) Detail Extraction settings, the program was applying a very thin black halo around all fine detail. That was what was producing the color muddiness in close portraits, on fabric, or any detail-rich area that was in focus.

If I set RS Detail Extraction to the lowest value in Processing Parameters and again in image settings (for each image), the color muddiness was indeed gone, but so was the proverbial RS sharpness.

Of course I stayed with Bibble, due to the amount of adjustment options over RawShooter.

And yes, I too am looking forward to see some current flaws fixed in version 5.

[overclicker]

Thanks all for your input, experience, and insights. Ordered Bibble through Adorama (hoping for the best, no experience with them up to now), and ought to be here some time next week. Went through them instead of Bibble's immediate registered key for the printed manual, figured the trial will get me through till then.

I also have C1 (the lite/non-pro version), and CS3, but this... I really like so far. Still have alot to learn, so I really appreciate the tips around here. Kept running into POTN through specific Google searches, so I just lurked for the last month or so. This is a really nice spot on the web.

Thanks again...

<Arnold inflection> I'll be back... </Arnold inflection> :)

[agedbriar]

Should your trial expire before you receive the boxed version, you may contact Bibble Labs (email address in their forum) and they will reactivate the trial version for another period.

Yes, they are a friendly and helpful group.

[blinded]

I didn't know that. Can you recommend a group, website, etc. where people trade them? I searched but couldn't find any.
No, I mean they're built in. Bibble does the profiling themselves, though I still wish they had a manual override of it like Capture One's profiling tool (it's like ACR's calibration tool but for every single hue) even if I didn't use it. You can see the profiles that Bibble does use if you go to "\Program Files\Common Files\Bibble Labs\BibblePro\supportfiles\profiles" they won't say like Canon XTi, Canon 40D, they're numbered and kinda cryptic.

[Plant McCloud]

No, I mean they're built in. Bibble does the profiling themselves, though I still wish they had a manual override of it like Capture One's profiling tool (it's like ACR's calibration tool but for every single hue) even if I didn't use it. You can see the profiles that Bibble does use if you go to "\Program Files\Common Files\Bibble Labs\BibblePro\supportfiles\profiles" they won't say like Canon XTi, Canon 40D, they're numbered and kinda cryptic.

Thanks. Guess I misread your post. I assumed you meant profiles that can be created and loaded.

[Plant McCloud]

Oh, and about the sharpness: I recently saw a comparison of RAW converters with sharpening off and Bibble was the softest because it really wasn't doing anything whereas other converters were applying some sharpening by default even at zero.

About this. Wouldn't it be a good practice to leave sharpening off in any RAW converter and leave it to be done with a tool that specializes in that function such as Nik or TLR?

[DizzyV6P]

You can leave sharpening checked off in Bibble Lite. However, I'm not sure where you saw the comparison, but sharpening seems to work fine on my Bibble lite. When its off....its off. Once you turn it on and start moving the sliders, you'll see some results. If other convertors are applying sharpening even at zero..doesn't that kind of ruin the point of having it set at zero?

I've been using it for the past year ever since seeing a friends photos that just "popped" Bibble's "Perfectly Clear" works decently as well :)

[blinded]

You can leave sharpening checked off in Bibble Lite. However, I'm not sure where you saw the comparison, but sharpening seems to work fine on my Bibble lite. When its off....its off. Once you turn it on and start moving the sliders, you'll see some results. If other convertors are applying sharpening even at zero..doesn't that kind of ruin the point of having it set at zero?

Yes, that ruins the point. I can't believe I can't find the comparison still either. I believe it was on Dpreview, and it was comparing DPP, ACR, C1, and Bibble. The image was an antenna in a purpleish sky. The antenna looked like it was at a 45 degree angle. I also remember that everybody commented on Capture One's different demosaicing method, but still can't find the post.

[agedbriar]

...
If other convertors are applying sharpening even at zero..doesn't that kind of ruin the point of having it set at zero?




It does, IMO too, but many will attribute that sharpness, achieved through some "smuggled" sharpening, to a better demosaicing algorithm. Which sells, of course.

Here is a rather old review, where RawShooter scored high on resolution, while Bibble didn't
http://www.photozone.de/conclusion-on-going

[overclicker]

Update... UPS just delivered the box from Adorama today, count this as a positive first experience in dealing with them. Two minutes after opening the box, registering online, input the reg key from email... it's golden.

agedbriar, if you're still out there.. thanks for the tip to check out Focal Blade. Found a favorable/although getting older review of it (summer 2003) at The Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/focalblade.shtml). Have you or anyone else compared it to Fred Miranda's Intellisharpen plugin (http://www.fredmiranda.com/shopping/IS)? Other sharpening tools?

Thanks again.

[TonyKInTexas]

IIRC the makers of Focal Blade also did B/W Styler, which is what I use for B&W photos now. Best PS plug-in I've used. :)

Andy Pro for Bibble is also good and is less costly. Not as configurable but does good results if you want one-stop processing.

[agedbriar]

You are welcome, overclicker.

No, the only other sharpening tools I have used were the standard Unsharp Mask, High Pass and The Lights Right's sharpening action.

[agedbriar]

Also, I would like to draw the Focal Blade first-time users' attention to the White & Black Halo Reduction sliders under the Fix tab.

Try setting them between 100 and 120, crank the edges sharpening amount up much higher than the amount first suggested by the image auto analysis, and be greeted by a halo-free solid sharpness. To me, it's amazing that something like that could be achieved at all. I always thought that halos, although contained, were the essence of acutance boosting.