RAW processing - what do you use, and why?

[Keith B]

I feel like I am able to retrieve more highlights and shadow detail when I blow a shot. It seems like it is able to eek a little more dynamic range from the image.

Oh yeah, I forgot that one -- that's one of my favorite features of Lightroom. It's highlight "guessing" software. When the pixel is blown, it tries to guess what the value would have been. Other programs have that feature too (including RawTherapee), but none of them can guess as good as Adobe. The only thing I hate about it is that you can't control it or disable it -- even when the guess is completely wrong and looks really unnatural (sometimes blown whites would be better than a bad guess).

I was saying in my experience with ACR CS3 and Aperture 2, Apertures Images natively seemed to retrieve detail better. I posted a while ago, in a thread similar to this, an image processed in both. It was an shot of a chef in a white coat. In aperture I was able to bring the burned white areas up and you could see the thread texture in the material. The ACR those textures were lost and the image edges looked harsh and edgy. ACR may be better two versions later though.

[Daniel Browning]

Ooops, sorry Keith. I should try for a little better reading comprehension. []

[Sheiky]

Adobe Lightroom as I posted before the crash... [:P]

[Dave Johnston]

DPP as previously mentioned. [:S]

[realityinabox]

I use ACR mostly. I've tried Aperture (not sure which version, my wife had it before we met, so probably the original?) but found it clunky and limiting and I couldn't figure out the file sorting system. I have thought out using Lightroom, but considering that I already have CS4 (yay for student discounts!!) with Bridge and ACR, and that I like to manage my files myself, I didn't see the need to buy another product.


Maybe I'll try a few free trials today to see if they revolutionize my workflow, but with my long list of gear needs, I can't image a change in program jumping to the top of my list.

[Jaell]

late to the thread, but mainly because lately I've been wondering the same thing--which one should I be using? Before I got comfortable in my skin in CS4, I used DPP exclusively. Then once I started using Bridge, ACR was just a double-click away. I haven't educated myself enough to know why ACR loads with the default settings it does (e.g., brightness starts at +50, contrast +25), and how those defaults interact with my in-camera settings (shoot mostly faithful, or with minor bumps to saturation & sharpness). But I like the options ACR gives me, and the control, and the way it seamlessly meshes with PS.

[Daniel Browning]

I haven't educated myself enough to know why ACR loads with the default settings it does (e.g., brightness starts at +50, contrast +25),

The +25 contrast is easy to explain: typical users like the "Default" raw conversion to have a little extra contrast (post-processing) applied. They could leave it at zero, but users would probably complain that the default is too dull and boring.


The +50 brightness is harder for me to understand.I'm not certain, but I think this is what's going on:the brightness, tone curve, and contrast settings are all just tone curves. When they are all zeroed ("linear" for tone curve), then only the gamma curve gets applied to the image. The gamma curve assumes that there is 1 stop less headroom between middle gray and clipping than lightroom does (through it's exposure slider). Therefore, a brightness of +50 is required to increase midtones one stop to match the expected mid-gray level without changing clipping level. Take that with a grain of salt, I'm just guessing here.



<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="content-type" />

and how those defaults interact with my in-camera settings (shoot mostly faithful, or with minor bumps to saturation &amp; sharpness)

They don't interact at all. Adobe doesn't read any of the settings that you put in a Picture Profile. (They do read white balance, of course.)