RAW processing - what do you use, and why?

[neuroanatomist]

Hi All,


Lately, I've been thinking about my RAW workflow, and how it might be improved in terms of image quality.


[poll]


I'm curious about what people are using, and why. I'm sure there's no 'perfect' program for this, but there are certainly differences among the available options. Personally, I'm most interested in resulting image quality, secondarily interested in ease of use, and not really interested in photo organization - but I know for some that may be a big factor.


For those that don't use DPP, does the lack of Canon's automatic lens-specific corrections (vignetting, distortion) and/or lack of support for Picture Styles bother you? I really like those features (although DxO would seem to be a good alternative for thelens-specific corrections).


Also, if you use special-purpose software for one part of your RAW workflow (e.g. Noise Ninja), chime in!


Obviously, DPP has a big cost advantage. But given that any of the other software licenses cost less than almost any of the lenses in the Canon lineup, and such software has the potential to improve every image that comes out of the camera, a couple of hundred dollars would seem like a worthwhile investment.


Any and all thoughts appreciated!


Thanks,


--John

[Keith B]

I use Aperture 3


Why: When the 5D2 came out Adobe refused to update CS3 to support it because CS4 had just been announced essentially bullying people to upgrade or buy Lightroom. Since I had to buy new software I figured I'd buy Aperture.


I personally find Aperture's rendering more pleasing. 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. I don't know the specifics but I did a side by side with Aperture 2 and CS3 ACR and the Aperture 2 was far better. I also found the ACR image looked a little aliased (not necessarily sharper) compared to the Aperture's. This may be different with CS4 & 5 but I'm already an Aperture believer.


I really like Aperture's interface also. v2's zoom was a little quirky but v3 is way better. v3 also runs a lot faster than 2.


I don't miss DPP auto lens correction, I rarely fix vignetting but if I need to it only takes a few seconds to do so in Aperture. I rarely reduce noise, Sometimes I actually add it. Especially if the focus is off in a shot. I did consider noise reduction software when I had the 7D.Once I get my 1Ds2 I may reconsider NR though.

[Daniel Browning]

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).

[Bombsight]

I'd be interested in which of those mentioned has the most user friendly tutorials.


I hear Aperture has a much more friendlier platform than Lightroom?

[Daniel Browning]

I hear Aperture has a much more friendlier platform than Lightroom?

Maybe, but I can't imagine how LR could be any more friendly. It practically fetches your coffee for you. []

[Richard Lane]

<div>


I downloaded the trial versions for Aperture 3, Lightroom 2 and Lightroom 3 beta for 30 days each.


I thought they all did an excellent job with post processing Image quality. At the time,Lightroom 2 couldn't handle Video files and Lightroom 3 was stuck in beta hell. So, those factors played a role in my decision.


Ultimately, I ended up purchasingAperture 3 for its; handling of video files, more intuitive interface, ease of use, and tight integration with Mac OS X.


It did appear to me that Lightroom had some advanced professional features that I didn't require.


Rich
</div>

[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]

[iso79]

No Adobe Lightroom? [:|]