DPP vs Aperture vs Lightroom vs PS

Ok.. maybe I can just get the photoshop elements to do the selective layers for color/sharp, blurring..

If you're considering Aperture/Elements, then you should also consider Aperture/Pixelmator.

spcalan wrote in post #8822022
Can you do selective sharpening in Aperture?
Like in PS - I can select just the eyes and add a sharpening layer to them?

That's not what a RAW tool's for. If you want to work on specific parts of an image you should expect to use a pixel level editor.

LR/Bridge is slowly bringing in features like that, though I doubt selective sharpening will be added in a hurry, you can brighten and darken parts of the image easily, do gradients, etc. That makes sense, as you have the advantage of working on the RAW data. Cloning and stuff in ACR makes less sense, but is VERY handy and is great for my workflow.

dpp seriously needs a 'levelling' feature for slanty horizons.

I'm thniking of getting a mac but buying LR2 and CS4 *again* is cost prohibitive, even though I'd really love doing my pp on a mac.

im curious how aperture performs, though

spcalan wrote in post #8815098
Instead of pro's and con's.
Lets forcus on what the programs cannot do compared to the other programs.

It's a matter of personal taste as much as anything else. Here's my take on a few of them:

Lightroom.

• I use this the most because it provides the fastest workflow and tons of post-processing features.
  
• Unfortunately it does poorly with high noise (e.g. high ISO), resulting in unnatural-looking blotches unless you smear the detail with noise reduction.
  
• One advantage is that it avoids many demosaic artifacts with chroma aliasing (mazing, etc.).
  
• Adobe does not offer the same amount of control over the image as some other do. For example, there is no way to apply negative exposure compensation without also activating the highlight-guessing algorithm.
  
• Adobe applies some "secret" modifications behind the scenes. For example, on every 5D2 camera it applies a hidden +0.33 exposure compensation. This causes 1/3 stop of highlights to be clipped needlessly. You can get around it by setting -0.33 exposure compensation as the default in Lightroom for your 5D2.

• DPP has some nice Canon-integration features, such as applying the correct nonlinear exposure compensation if you use HTP, and automatically correcting the lens falloff (only if you use Canon lenses, of course; they wouldn't dare help their competition). It also does Auto Lighting Optimizer in the same way as the camera JPEG engine, if you use that.
  
• I like how it handles noisy shots better than Lightroom (with fine, grain-like appearance, instead of blotches).
  
• What I dislike the most is the demosaic artifacts, such as mazing.

• Excellent workflow also, but only the new version (Bibble 5) supports recent cameras like the 5D2, but the new version is not out of beta yet.
  
• This was my favorite before I switched to Lightroom, again because of the fast workflow.

• Slower and more difficult to use.
  
• Very high image quality. For example, if you compare Lightroom vs RPP on a noisy (e.g. high ISO) image, you may find RPP to have higher detail, and finer, grain-like noise; whereas Lightroom has mushy detail and clumpy "digital" noise.
  
• It also allows more control over the development.
  
• Focuses only on raw conversion, does not include "post processing" type features.
  
• Plus, it's free.

Ok, maybe my workflow is actually flawed.
What do most people do in raw before converting to jpeg/tiff??

I do most of my edits in Aperture. For 90% of my images, that's it. When done, I export to JPEG and rarely to TIFF. For some images I use the Nik suite for Viveza, Color Efex Pro, Silver Efex Pro, Sharpener Pro and Dfine if necessary. Occasionally I'll fire up PSCS4 for some edits, principally layer work, but not too often. I've just started using Pixelmator and it has a lot of the features of PSCS4, but is faster at many things (since it uses the 32 processor cores of my gpu) and is only $60.

spcalan wrote in post #8822371
Ok, maybe my workflow is actually flawed.
What do most people do in raw before converting to jpeg/tiff??

There is nothing wrong with your workflow. Some have an elitist attitude about stict separation between the raw converter and image editor. In fact, no such firewall need exist. With the modest image editing capabilities in Lightroom I can keep just raw files (25 MB) and metadata as archival. If I have to export to Photoshop for editing, then I have to keep the raw file (25 MB) as well as TIF (110 MB), using space up 5 times faster. Of course, that's still only 10 cents per image for disk space.

Part of the reason for that attitude is that they feel any attention given to image editing features (masking, local edits, etc.) take away from the core functionality (demosaic, etc.). I do see the trend for multi-functional converters to have lower performance than the dedicated ones, so it may be true, but it doesn't really matter. For me, for most images, the convenience trumps the difference in quality. When I sit down to blow through hundreds of shots from a wedding, I want every last ounce of workflow speed, spending just seconds per frame, and I think Lightroom and Bibble excel in that regard, precisely because of their non-core image editing features. For other images (e.g. landscape) when I'll spend all day on a single frame, I use whatever converter gives me the best quality, no matter how slow, inconvenient, or clunky it is.

I find that LR is also great for OOC jpegs, which is what I mainly shoot. You have access to all the same "develop" tools as you would with RAW.

Gene

spcalan wrote in post #8815098
Lets forcus on what the programs cannot do compared to the other programs.

Trying to decide on which one to buy.

Here's something I posted last month:Aperture vs Lightroom - an initial review

My current suggestion would be to download trial versions of Aperture & Lightroom and use them as much as you can for 30 days to get a good feel for them.

I imagine that both makers will be releasing 3.0 versions late this year or early next year. I would try to hold off on making a decision until then if possible.

Tony-S wrote in post #8822048
No selective editing in Aperture, but LR has some of those features.

Tony, you just showed, how in another thread.

Right Click choose edit with Dodge and Burn, change drop down to Sharpen, selective sharpen.

Selective edits are in external apps (e.g., plugins) but not within Aperture itself. "Dodge and Burn" is an Aperture plugin that comes with Aperture. I can also do selective edits with the Nik suite as well, and use Viveza and Silver Efex Pro extensively. But all those edits with external plug-ins are returned to Aperture as 16 bit TIFFs, not as raw edit files.

bluefox9er wrote in post #8822286
I'm thniking of getting a mac but buying LR2 and CS4 *again* is cost prohibitive, even though I'd really love doing my pp on a mac.

You don't need to repurchase LR2 & CS4 if you move over to a Mac. Contact Adobe and request a platform license change from Windows to Mac. Simple process.

Tony-S wrote in post #8824047
Selective edits are in external apps (e.g., plugins) but not within Aperture itself. "Dodge and Burn" is an Aperture plugin that comes with Aperture. I can also do selective edits with the Nik suite as well, and use Viveza and Silver Efex Pro extensively. But all those edits with external plug-ins are returned to Aperture as 16 bit TIFFs, not as raw edit files.

Ah, got it, good to know, thanks. So people keep saying Aperture v LR is about wf, but there are more fundamental differences than just wf preferences. For example, the fact it is in TIFF, then I have two files where, LR still just has the one.

Any edits on versions created within Aperture are data files (i.e., edit data, not TIFFs or JPEGs). So you can create many version of a raw file and each will only be a few hundred kb in size or smaller, depending on the complexity of the editing done. It's only if you go outside of Aperture do you get a new version that is a TIFF. It is hoped that Apple addresses this in Aperture 3.