Bibble users?

I've been using DPP for just over a year but find that it lacks a number of important features (e.g. flexible rotation, good noise reduction, highlight recovery). I've downloaded some trial versions and it seems to me that Bibble Lite offers a great product at a reasonable price. I'd appreciate any opinions on this matter

I've been very pleased with Bibble in that it can do almost all of the "routine" or non-retouching type of adjustments in one place with an easy workflow. Wants a fast PC, but is fast with a good computer. I can do straightening, noise, sharpening, curves, levels, lens correction as well as all usual RAW stuff all in one program. Lightroom I believe has a lot of the same benefits (and some others) but is a lot more expensive. Bibble has very good support and upgrade policies.

I have Bibble too. It is fast, it is good and I like it. That said, it doesn't do the same sort of nondestructive editing that Lightroom and Aperture do - it processes your file into another new file. You can use up a ton of disk space very quickly with Bibble.

It is one of the top Raw converters around.

J

JohnJ80 wrote in post #3358374
I have Bibble too. It is fast, it is good and I like it. That said, it doesn't do the same sort of nondestructive editing that Lightroom and Aperture do - it processes your file into another new file. You can use up a ton of disk space very quickly with Bibble.

It is one of the top Raw converters around.

J

I'm not sure I follow or agree here. If you don't process the file into a jpg or tiff with Bibble the only added file is a small "sidecar" .bib file of 7kb size stored with the RAW file of the same name. The processing steps are all saved and viewable in Bibble, printable from Bibble directly. How is that different from Lightroom or Aperture (I haven't used them so I'm open to the answer...)? Surely in Lightroom either the file is still a CR2 RAW file with viewable modifications or it's been processed into a jpg/TIFF etc. with size depending on settings and file type? Am I missing something?

not if you use the batch queues - then it makes a destination file. Otherwise, there is no reason to use Bibble over PS if you do it single image at a time. The power comes in applying corrections quickly as you preview items and then batching them through to completion.

J

That still doesn't explain the difference vs. Lightroom; that merely is the process by which it moves from a RAW file with viewable/saved nondestructive edits to the chosen final output; whether it is by batch or individually is irrelevant to the discussion of file sizes. A file can essentially exist in only two states - the RAW with nondestructive edits or the finished output (jpg, TIFF etc) - is Lightroom different??

I use the browser view in Bibble, make corrections on a folders worth of files (displayed in thumbnails above the large view of the current image), often pasting settings from one image onto several. When I've finished a group of pictures I simply select the thumbnails (or select all if I want them all) and hit the "send to batch" key to send all for processing - typically jpgs full size in my case, many other options available. I don't need to open a single image at a time - the images from the current folder are all displayed at top of my screen (location fully configurable).

Lightroom doesn't modify the file and carries an XML sidecar along about the changes.

Bibble doesn't have any real database capability - it is primarily an interactive raw converter.

J

Bibble doesn't modify the file and carries a .bib sidecar along about the changes. It doesn't have database capabilities, the file sizes/storage space however should be the same as Lightroom.

Bibble Pro I have used and respect it ... I will get it when v5 is released. The latest version of DPP is also excellent.