Software Recommendations

[DLS]

Thanks for the advice everyone.

Jan (Sheiky)...thanks for the offer. I may still be taking you up on it.

So far I have only downloaded a trial version of LR3. It does seem intuitive. So far it seems to be very good. I wish the slide bars were less sensitive as they make it difficult to fine tune and, honestly, there are almost too many adjustments in the "Devolop" menu. But as I get used to them I am sure it won't seem so bad.


Brant

HI Brant. I find using shortcuts is a big help in LR3. THere are lots of keyboard shortcuts in LR3.....

In the Develop Module, try using CRTL plus 1, 2, 3....to access Basic, Tone Curve, HSL/Color/B&W.....and so on. I find shortcuts a huge help.

Here's another one I find helpful.
When in Library and Develop (or any of the other modules) if you are frustrated with the drop-down menus all being open at the same time as you are working in them, there is a setting where you can just have 1 open at a time.....Hover you cursor over the triangle-shape in the menu bar for that control (ex, Basic or Tone curve...etc.) hold down the ALT key and left mouse click. You will notice the triangle change from solid fill to dots-fill. Now, only one will be open at a time. Combine this with using CTRL + 1 (Basic) or 2 (Tone Curve) and so on, and you have a fast way to access controls. If you prefer the default, repeat the ALT plus click and it will revert.

My two cents. Good luck with your choice.

Cheers,

Damian

[btaylor]

My favourite LR3 shortcut is the "L" button.

It dims the rest of the screen on the first press, then totally blackens it on the next press. This makes is so much easier to check your crop, colours etc etc as you don't have the distracting elements around the screen.

[neuroanatomist]

I put together a quick comparison example of some popular RAW converters. I expect the primary difference in RAW converters is how they handle noise and color, and secondarily, how they handle lens corrections. For example, one reason I prefer DxO to ACR is that the former bases the lens corrections (distortion, vignetting, etc.) on controlled lab testing, whereas ACR's lens profiles are sometimes based on user-submitted results (subject to variation in lighting, etc.). Obviously, another important point is ease of workflow.

For a comparison, I picked a test image with a fair bit of noise - an ISO 3200 shot from the 7D. This shot simulated real-world high-ISO use, i.e. I used ND filters to reduce the illumination, rather than a fast shutter speed in bright light (as is commonly used in ISO noise testing, and results in lower read noise that isn't necessarily reflective of real-world shots). Shot was with the 7D and EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II @ 85mm, 1/60 s, f/5.6.

The same RAW image was converted to JPG with Canon's own DPP, DxO Optics Pro, Adobe Camera RAW (in CS5), and Apple Aperture 3. The appropriate camera and lens correction modules were used where available as part of the converter (i.e. all except Aperture 3, where you need a separate plugin).

Unfortunately, different RAW converters use different algorithms and the relative settings mean different things in different programs - so, there's really no way to meaningfully compare across settings. The approach I took was to assume that the developers of the software know their software best, and chose default settings optimal for the camera and ISO setting - obviously, they're going to be biased to what the developers think a good image looks like, but at least it's a baseline for comparison. For DPP default, I used the Standard Picture Style (the 'no adjustment' image used Neutral).

Here's what the output looks like (click for larger - 1600 pixels wide, which are 100% crops; warning: ~6 MB download):



Personally, my order of preference is DxO > DPP > Aperture > Adobe Camera RAW. ACR looks grainy and oversaturated to me, and with Aperture the contrast is on the low side. Again, these are just the default settings - with specific, image-dependent adjustments better results are certainly possible with any of the packages.

[HDNitehawk]

John

Why is the DxO sample so brown? Which is the closest to matching the actual real color?

[Kayaker72]

John,

Thanks for the effort. It is very interesting to see the different results.

Brant

[Sheiky]

Nice comparison John! Of course I want to know more about it

For example, one reason I prefer DxO to ACR is that the former bases the lens corrections (distortion, vignetting, etc.) on controlled lab testing, whereas ACR's lens profiles are sometimes based on user-submitted results (subject to variation in lighting, etc.). Obviously, another important point is ease of workflow.

Is that really a bad thing? The photos I take aren't really controlled lab photos either. I'm pretty sure DxO cannot do any better or worse on some of the photos I shot. Simply because they are so specific. Or does it read the focusing distance and correct for that as well? Distortion on a wide angle lens for a simple landscape shouldn't be too hard to correct, but what if there's an element close to the lens that is in focus?
Also ease of workflow is an important reason? Why is that? Is DxO easier than for example LR where I apply changes during the import of my photos? I cannot imagine a more simplified method, it's one click on the button.

Personally, my order of preference is DxO > DPP > Aperture > Adobe Camera RAW. ACR looks grainy and oversaturated to me, and with Aperture the contrast is on the low side.

One thing that catches my eye immediately is the DxO picture. What happened with the "dirty white" part? The part under the "30" sign. DxO seems to wash it out completely where all of the others leave it alone. In high key images this could be fatal for details. Any idea what this is about? That's one reason I shouldn't put DxO on top

If I compare the DPP no adjustment to DxO, I notice a little sharpening(which results in graininess), a little more saturation, a brown tint(different than all others) and washed out "dirty white"(also different than all the others)
If I compare the DPP no adjustment to ACR I notice more sharpening(which results in even more graininess), and a definite increase of saturation it also has a slight brown tint, but not nearly as brown as DxO.

Again, it's hard to make any conclusions by looking at this shot, since I have no clue what the original looks like. But I would personally worry about the washed out part.


About LR: I have tried the L button now and I love it! Thanks for the tip Ben!

[Kayaker72]

Hi Everyone....thanks for the tips. I have been pretty busy lately and am only now really getting around to testing the different software. I am comparing DPP, DXO 7 and LR3. Often all of you see things that I miss in photos, so I am interested to know what you see in the following pictures. I took three different shots all within the last week and I have processed them in each software with no modification, simply going to the RAW to jpg converter.

We rescued Stella recently. My wife has bought her several toys, but she loves this box:
Canon 7D, EFS 15-85 @ 70 mm, 1/60 sec, f/6.3, ISO 100, 580 II bounced off ceiling

DPP


LR3


And DXO


Frankly, I am surprised by how different the result is from each software.

[Sean Setters]

You know, I consider DPP as the default for any RAW conversion because it's made by Canon. I've always felt that LR3 handled the RAW files differently, by default, than Canon--something I never appreciated.

[Kayaker72]

Now for the noise reduction test:

Canon 7D, EFS 15-85 @ 15 mm, 1/125, f/4 ISO 6400

DPP


LR3


DXO 7


Final comparison that I ran today was the uncorrected Landscape---7D, 15-85 @ 35 mm, 1/160, f/5.6 ISO 100

DPP


LR3


And DXO


Thanks in advance for any insights....overall, I am still evaluating, but in terms of unadjusted I am impressed with the noise reduction of LR3 and DXO compared to DPP, but have a slight preference for DPP in the low noise photos.....

Thanks,
Brant

[cls]

I took three different shots all within the last week and I have processed them in each software with no modification, simply going to the RAW to jpg converter.
- - - - - - -
Frankly, I am surprised by how different the result is from each software.

Hi, if I understand you correct, that comparison isn't really fair in my opinion. As I understand it, you convert to JPEG in each tool without any adjustments. This means that LR and DxO will use some general default setting while DPP uses the exact setting you used for the shots. LR and DxO don't know any picture style, ALO or other settings that you preferred for the shots. DPP has all that info. Of course, this is an advantage that DPP has also in real life, but for comparison of the conversion you should consider applying settings for LR and DxO that are similar to the ones used in DPP.