Software recommendations

[sambisu]

I am trying to decide what software would best fit my needs and budget.

I would like to have the capability to make panoramas and HDR photos. I have downloaded trial versions of Autopano and Photomatix and those both seem to be highly capable programs, but I know that both these features can also be found in Photoshop. I also downloaded a trial version of Lightroom, but I'm not sure that program is worth the cost over just using Canon's DPP.

It looks like Photoshop Elements has photomerge for panoramas, but I'm not sure about HDR.

So I would just like some input on what software or combination of software would best accomplish what I am looking for. I have access to the education discount on Adobe software.

[andnowimbroke]

Thought CS5 was about $175 with student prices. Not sure what CS6 would be. Photomatrix has long been the Go-To program for HDR, but you're looking at $100 for the Pro version (which is what most get) last I checked which has been awhile. I'd stick with Adobe if I just had a little money to play with and fill in the gaps once you start to outgrow certain areas. Without a special discount Elements can be had for $50-80 depending on sales. Not sure what student pricing would be.

[jrw]

My own recent experiences with pushing exposure by 5 stops to see what happens is making me rethink my software choices. Am finding RawTherapee, which is free, is the only option for that particular task. Also has many features the other RAW converters don't. The wheels fell off when using LR4, and CameraRaw 6.7 which is a release candidate. Hopefully, it is improved before the final release.

New release of DPP includes HDR which I have been having fun playing around with. Results look quite good to me. In the 5D3 review, Bryan also spends some time covering new features in DPP. PhotoStitch, which comes on the software CD with the camera, does a creditable job with stitching. Any harsh seams created in the process are easily dealt with in PhotoShop or LightRoom. I'd favour PhotoShop for the extra capabilities it has.

[sambisu]

I downloaded the newest version of DPP (3.11.4.10) and I am not seeing any HDR tools.

[DavidEccleston]

The newest DPP, as of yesterday, is 3.11.26.0. It may not be listed on all Canon sites, or under all cameras yet. It has "Start HDR tool" and "Start Compositing tool" under the tools menu. I used the Canon Canada 5DmkIII download link Bryan provided in the news feed.

[sambisu]

Excellent...hopefully this can save me from having to buy a dedicated HDR program.

What are peoples thoughts on Lightroom vs DPP? Would you pay $150 for the additional functionality of Lightroom?

[Daniel Browning]

What are peoples thoughts on Lightroom vs DPP? Would you pay $150 for the additional functionality of Lightroom?

For me the primary factor is speed. How long does it take for me to get in, edit 3000 photos, and get out? By this metric, Lightroom is way ahead. Every time they come out with a new version, there are fewer and fewer reasons for me to export a TIFF and edit the shot in Photoshop. As far as image quality goes, it's good, but not the best (IMHO). I prefer RawTherapee when I'm going for maximum image quality (and time is no object).

[jrw]

Should explain that I've been using LightRoom as my primary editing software for some time with no complaint regards to speed or function. Only recently when I decided to try major change in exposure levels have I not liked the way it processes images. In reality, that isn't a regular usage of any image editing software. When I picked up 5D3 I've been forced into importing using other software as the files aren't supported yet. So to use it with raw files in the meantime, I've needed to import using DPP, convert to tiff, import again into LR so the catalogue can see it and finally start processing. The catalogue of LR is causing me the extra import stage on a temporary basis only, otherwise the search and filtering capabilities that it possesses are really nice to work with. Just get in the habit of importing images with LR to avoid the extra step. All of the other editing software I've used can see the files imported by LR.

Occasionally, I do export images to PhotoShop for editing capabilities beyond LR, but with improvements to capability with every new release that is happening less and less often. Photoshop did have better softproofing and has better plugins for my printer, but new version of LR has closed the gap somewhat. I haven't done any printing with the new version as of yet, but playing with the print module seemed improved over LR3.

Bang for the buck, LightRoom still wins my vote now that I've had more time to mull things over and move on. Its easy to learn your way around and it has pretty much all of the functionality that most people need. Can't remember offhand if the new version has perspective correction (keystoning) but if it doesn't RawTherapee does.

[bob williams]

What is not being said here is that Lightroom is an entire image processing software. This includes importing, cataloguing, non-destructive editing and output processing of images and now video. It easily and quickly handles about 95% of all my imaging needs. LR also has plugins for Zenfolio, HDR efx pro, Flicker and a bunch of of others. So, If your looking for just one "does everything" software, then LR is probably what you are looking for. If you are looking for specialized software that does just one thing very well, Then LR probably isn't the software you need. CS5/6 is absolutely king of editing, Photomatix or HDR efx pro are the kings of HDR and there is probably very specialized software for stitching as well. So, Considering your "student pricing" access, I would suggest LR and something like HDR EFX pro Plugin and you would have a very nice package for less than 200 bucks. When the opportunity arises, then pickup CS6 for around $200 student pricing for your high end editing needs.

Back to your original question:

What are peoples thoughts on Lightroom vs DPP? Would you pay $150 for the additional functionality of Lightroom?

Absolutely, no comparison

just my 2cw

Bob

[Dr Croubie]

I've been making Panos and HDR and HDR Panos on free software for a while, so i'll share my thoughts:
I use Linux (hence I couldn't use PS even if I wanted to), so I use Hugin for Panos and HDR Panos, and Luminance HDR i use for HDRs.
Both are free, both have windows versions (afaik).
Both are very powerful programs, unfortunately too powerful for their own good (at least, too powerful for their user manuals).
Hugin for panoramae works very well in automatic mode, you get to check that it's all nice and good and fix things, if it fails you can do it manually anyway (normally it fails if your images don't overlap enough, or they're really dark or have very repetitive patterns, i tried yesterday to stitch 6 shots of the Milky Way taken with my samyang 35/1.4, ended up doing the whole thing manually).
For HDR Panoramae, I tried just creating the file in Hugin (to tonemap in Luminance), but it uses shadow information from even the darkest shot (instead of taking shadows from the brightest only), so he image is incredibly noisy. Now I use Hugin to create panoramae layers of similar exposure, then merge to HDR in Luminance.

As for Luminance HDR, again it's very powerful. For bracketed shots (even without a tripod), it can align them nicely, for pre-panoramaed layers from Hugin and Tripod shots it's even better, but you can't stitch and HDR in one, you have to pre-stitch in Hugin. You can de-ghost (like I always have ducks swimming on lakes i'm trying to photograph), but results vary.
Creating the .exr file there's too many options to choose from and no explanation of what they do (google it and you'll find numerous people complaining about this too). Through trial-and-error i've decided preset4 works nicely for most shots, if you've got the time it's worth experimenting.
Then when tone-mapping, again, there's too many options, you just have to try each out and see what it looks like. Man'06 makes nice 'HDR-look' photos, but on the linux version you get a black bottom-right corner (my mate uses it on windows and makes nice ones), just leave 'detail' at 1 or expect a lot of noise. The last option (forgot what it's called) makes for nice ones with 'local tone-mapping' checked. Fattal (i think) makes interesting ones but can bring in the false-colour look too easily (makes nice B+Ws from what I remember though)

Anyway, that's what I remember off the top of my head, haven't used them for a month or two, been too busy. Considering that they're free, if you've got the time to experiment then they're well worth the look, I can give more pointers later too if you're interested.