Just curious about the preferred RAW converter

I'm not sure how to set up the voting thing I have seen here. I am just curious to know how many members use the following as their preferred converters.

LR

DPP

Other

It's called a Poll -- you set it up as you are creating your initial post.

And, to get more meaningful results, you would have to expand "other" -- Photoshop Camera Raw and Aperture are pretty huge and then there are other apps that have real supporters.

But stuff like this will tend to be skewered -- you will hear from "fans" of each without it being necessarily statistically correct.

I use Lightroom and I also use DPP, but then I don't use a Mac so I couldn't use Aperture even if I wanted to!

This poll is done frequently. Spend a little time with the search engine.

I decided I'm not going to bother with this. I’m currently in limbo with my work flow. 90% of my work is one image at a time. I really like using DPP as my converter and then PS to do all the final work. This is a bit of a long story so I appreciate the patience with my learning curve.

I took an intro to LR course a few weeks ago. Primarily to help me the other 10% - when I do an event. Since I do PP for events about 6 times a year it is usually a nightmare. I forget what did the last time and it takes so long I have whiskers down to my knees by the time I’m done.

For the few times I will use it, I was not sure I wanted to spend $300 on LR. What the course did was help me explore (even though not a powerful as LR) the options DPP has. Stuff like recipes, etc. I used a new PP process using DPP on 600 images about a week ago. It went well and was far quicker. I batch converted 600 images to full sized Jpegs for print and again used DPP to convert them to 800 on the long size for web viewing. I got the images to out to our friends (I shot my god daughters dance recital) last week. I was in a hurry so I just copied them to a USB and delivered them. For some reason I decided to look at them again over the weekend and noticed the full sized conversions looked great but the web sized looked awful. Terrible sharpening. I quickly set up an action in PS and resized the full images to web size (which took about 5 minutes). The PS resized images were very crisp so I gave my friends the second version. I have always used PS for web sized converions.

I am also taking a PS course. I wanted to revisit it to get more out of it. Last night our instructor told us that when he works on an image that will be printed 11 x14 or bigger he imports it from LR into PS. He claims the PS sharpener is more powerful. I found that interesting.

A bit of history. When I first got into digital in 2005 I was amazed at the crisp bird, etc image I would see on the web so my quest was to learn how to do that. I got into all types forums, etc and learned about mass down sampling, multiple methods on how to resize for web. Doing it in three stages, actions people created, etc. I must have about a dozen resizing actions. However, I’m not sure what Abobe did with the algorithms but in the last few versions of PS I have noticed that resizing for web produces excellent results in just in one pass.

Also last night we found that the school I’m attending is accredited by Abobe so I can purchase the full version of LR as an instructional deal for $110. I went home and opened the trial version of LR and did some testing and no matter what I tried I just could not get the resized images as crisp using LR or DPP. Full sized again looked great. So far I revised my workflow by converting full sized images in DPP and then using an action in PS for web size which takes just minutes.

I know LR is the standard and considered cream of the crop. I was just curious to see how many people used it compared to DPP. Not sure why. I think I was trying to justify even spending $110 on LR. Now I figure I’d be pretty dumb not to get it for that price just to have it as an option. That is what happens when you try to think about things late at night I only have 8 days left on the trial version. If I own it I can take all the time I want to fine tune it. Adobe is great at continually improving their products.

Thanks for your patience.

So you know, the academic discount has nothing to do with the class being Adobe-certified -- it is offered to all "official" students and academic faculty -- if you can produce an ID you get a discount.

FYI, I enjoy using DPP a lot for "quick" conversions -- shots/shoots that don't require "serious" processing can pop in and out of DPP with nice results.

But, Lightroom is still for my "serious" stuff -- escpecially with the local adjustment features Lightroom can do a whole lot that passes DPP, although there are still some things where it is nice to have Photoshop on hand.

Pus, I've been using Lightroom since, well, I guess '07 to manage my catalog, which is in the tens of thousands of images, and I'm totally happy with the Lightroom interface for that. So, even if I work on some images in DPP they will still go into Lightroom for all that it can do.

tonylong wrote in post #12443801
So you know, the academic discount has nothing to do with the class being Adobe-certified -- it is offered to all "official" students and academic faculty -- if you can produce an ID you get a discount.

That sounds closer to what he said. I really like the catalog feature and many other things LR has to offer. I'm still just hung up on the sharpening which I'm sure I'll figure out.

I'll play:
Canon 20D for most shots.
Aperture for when I need 12-bit color or more exposure and WB latitude for adjustments.
RPP for when I want to get creative and/or get a closer to film look.

I'm not the only one.

http://www.fredmiranda​.com/forum/topic/10103​58

RPP, Raw Developer and DXO. Sometimes CaptureOne and DPP.

In this case, it is nice to be a Mac person, as RPP and RD are Mac-only and produce consistently far better output than LR/ACR.

Kirk

LR sharpening:

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=12370162&pos​tcount=376

Reply. We just about to leave for the weekend. I'll check all this out when we come back.