# Raw processing software



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

I've been using Bibble 4 for pictures from Canon 350D. The app doesn't support 7D, so I'm looking into whether to just upgrade to Bibble Lite 5 ($59), or going to Lightroom 3.

I've ruled out the software provided by Canon, because it doesn't provide much non-destructive editing ability, and I don't have Photoshop either, so I prefer doing as much tuning as possible before converting from raw.

I've also ruled out Aperture given I'm not cool enough to be a Mac.

DXO seems to be a good alternative, because its output look pretty decent. However LR3 and Bibble 5 are closing the gap, which means I'm paying $169 for a very small improvement in output quality.

CaptureOne... expensive, useless, and poor quality.

So what have you been using, and why?


----------



## mathjak107 (Apr 1, 2006)

I use nikon capture nx2


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

I can't give much feedback as I use Aperture and Photoshop for all my photos. A lot of people out there love Lightroom though so it may be worth the small investment.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

LR3 really knows how to cook my laptop.

I'm running the trial LR3 on Vista, Pentium Dual Core T2390 laptop (1.86Ghz) with 2Gb RAM. While the app is converting the pictuers for slideshow, the CPU constantly runs at 100% and the fan is running crazy. The palm rest has become so hot that it's barely touchable. I've never seen the laptop getting so "excited" before. :yikes: What's worse, it's super slow converting from raw to jpg, even with the CPU running at full throttle. 

I like the fact that LR3 supports Canon's mRAW (and Bibble doesn't), but man... it's one hot piece of software that really has the potential to cook my laptop.


----------



## chicagofan00 (Feb 10, 2008)

Griffoun said:


> LR3 really knows how to cook my laptop.
> 
> I'm running the trial LR3 on Vista, Pentium Dual Core T2390 laptop (1.86Ghz) with 2Gb RAM. While the app is converting the pictuers for slideshow, the CPU constantly runs at 100% and the fan is running crazy. The palm rest has become so hot that it's barely touchable. I've never seen the laptop getting so "excited" before. :yikes: What's worse, it's super slow converting from raw to jpg, even with the CPU running at full throttle.
> 
> I like the fact that LR3 supports Canon's mRAW (and Bibble doesn't), but man... it's one hot piece of software that really has the potential to cook my laptop.


Why only 2 gigs of ram? :dunno:


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

At least on OS X, 4GB of memory is pretty much a minimum for Lightroom. I used to run it on a machine with 3GB and the experience was unsatisfactory. My current laptop has 8GB, while my desktop has 14GB of memory.

Lightroom user here since version 1. Prior to using LR I used Bridge to view and rank photos, then processed the keepers with Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. LR has made that process much more efficient, and I generally only dive into PS when I need to work with layers. Hogan published an article recently on raw converters that would be worth your while to read: http://www.bythom.com/softwareweek.htm.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

chicagofan00 said:


> Why only 2 gigs of ram? :dunno:


Because 2Gb is more than enough for me to run Vista and Bibble, and Bibble is the most hardware-intensive software that I need on the laptop - until testing LR3.



Cliff said:


> At least on OS X, 4GB of memory is pretty much a minimum for Lightroom. I used to run it on a machine with 3GB and the experience was unsatisfactory. My current laptop has 8GB, while my desktop has 14GB of memory.
> 
> Lightroom user here since version 1. Prior to using LR I used Bridge to view and rank photos, then processed the keepers with Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop. LR has mad that process much more efficient, and I generally only dive into PS when I need to work with layers. Hogan published an article recently on raw converters that would be worth your while to read: http://www.bythom.com/softwareweek.htm.


Interesting read, but doesn't quite answer my question. not looking for "get this instead of the rest" kind of recommendation.... well, that would nice, but I need to be convinced why I should get LR3 instead of Bibble... and LR3 isn't doing a good enough job to convince me to switch (yet).


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Griffoun said:


> Because 2Gb is more than enough for me to run Vista and Bibble, and Bibble is the most hardware-intensive software that I need on the laptop - until testing LR3.
> 
> Interesting read, but doesn't quite answer my question. not looking for "get this instead of the rest" kind of recommendation.... well, that would nice, but I need to be convinced why I should get LR3 instead of Bibble... and LR3 isn't doing a good enough job to convince me to switch (yet).


Actually, your question was 'what have you been using and why?' and not 'why should I abandon bibble in favor of (product)<insert product="">?'. If Bibble does what you want and fits into your workflow, then spend the money to buy the version needed to support your camera and continue using it.

My workflow requires me to occasionally cull the keepers out of 1000 to 2000 photos produced from an event and quickly produce and publish proofs for possible sale. Lightroom has proved to be an efficient tool for that job, and it readily handles lower shoot volumes as well. If I didn't use LR then I would need to use a raw converter in conjunction with Bridge, Photo Mechanic, Nikon View or some similar tool to handle the culling process, then some sort of editor to create the proofs. LR does what I need in one box.

But that describes what I need from a tool. You haven't talked about your workflow needs at all.
</insert>


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Cliff said:


> Actually, your question was 'what have you been using and why?' and not 'why should I abandon bibble in favor of (product)<insert product="">?'. If Bibble does what you want and fits into your workflow, then spend the money to buy the version needed to support your camera and continue using it.
> 
> My workflow requires me to occasionally cull the keepers out of 1000 to 2000 photos produced from an event and quickly produce and publish proofs for possible sale. Lightroom has proved to be an efficient tool for that job, and it readily handles lower shoot volumes as well. If I didn't use LR then I would need to use a raw converter in conjunction with Bridge, Photo Mechanic, Nikon View or some similar tool to handle the culling process, then some sort of editor to create the proofs. LR does what I need in one box.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the feedback. :thumbup: The reason I asked such a generic question is to see any of you can share the benefits of the software you've been using, and whether I have taken those into consideration before.

I'm only taking pictures for kids and family events, so I have a very limited set of audience. I take about 100 pics per event on average. First I create a folder on my local drive, name it "YYYY-MM-DD [event name]", then copy all raw files into that folder. I then use Bibble to post-process the pictures. Instead of ranking the pictures, I would either keep, or simply hit the DEL key to get rid of them.

As for post-processing goes, I apply sharpening to all the pictures (select all pics in the folder and apply the sharpening tool), then go through the pics one-by-onel to correct WB, curve, contrast, vibrancy/saturation, CA, and then cropping. Once all the pics are done, I converted all of them into JPG, and move them to the NAS,

For some albums, I use Picasa to upload them to the web to share with my family, and I recently (a month ago) started using Picasa's face recognition to tag people.


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Griffoun said:


> I've been using Bibble 4 for pictures from Canon 350D. The app doesn't support 7D, so I'm looking into whether to just upgrade to Bibble Lite 5 ($59), or going to Lightroom 3.
> 
> I've ruled out the software provided by Canon, because it doesn't provide much non-destructive editing ability, and I don't have Photoshop either, so I prefer doing as much tuning as possible before converting from raw.
> 
> ...


Nikon Capture2 & Lightroom3.
Lightroom is fast, easy to use and handles most touch-up and exposure corrections very well. When I need to some some intricate burning or dodging, I use Nikon Capture.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

BLT said:


> Nikon Capture2 & Lightroom3.
> Lightroom is fast, easy to use and handles most touch-up and exposure corrections very well. When I need to some some intricate burning or dodging, I use Nikon Capture.


Seems like most Nikon users do use Capture... (unlike Canon's crappy DPP)

Do you use the one-touch adjustment on LR3?


----------



## BLT (Jan 30, 2006)

Griffoun said:


> Seems like most Nikon users do use Capture... (unlike Canon's crappy DPP)
> 
> Do you use the one-touch adjustment on LR3?


I use exposure compensation and the graduated filter often. A really nice touch with the graduated filter is that you can use it to control exposure(up or down), brightness, saturation, contrast and sharpness (including defocus (kind of)). The other feature I really like is the straighten tool, I hate it when the ocean is draining to the right or left.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Griffoun said:


> Thanks for the feedback. :thumbup: The reason I asked such a generic question is to see any of you can share the benefits of the software you've been using, and whether I have taken those into consideration before.
> 
> I'm only taking pictures for kids and family events, so I have a very limited set of audience. I take about 100 pics per event on average. First I create a folder on my local drive, name it "YYYY-MM-DD [event name]", then copy all raw files into that folder. I then use Bibble to post-process the pictures. Instead of ranking the pictures, I would either keep, or simply hit the DEL key to get rid of them.
> 
> ...


If that works for you, then stick with it.

To go into a bit more detail on my routine:

I use LR to ingest my photos, assign keywords, enforce metadata values like embedded copyright information, and assign a file name that is descriptive of the shoot. LR's default behavior is to copy the ingested photos into a yyyy/mm/dd folder hierarchy and that structure is ok for my needs.

I use a uniWB white balance setting in my camera (google it). I take reference shots for white balance as required during the course of a shoot. I will adjust the white balance for those reference shots, and I also have default settings I use for clarity, saturation, sharpening, and camera calibration that I apply globally just after ingest. I synchronize those settings across the shoot as appropriate.

Once I've done that then I go through the photos and rank them. I used to use 1-5 stars, but I've simplified and just gone to a flag/no flag state. I'll delete any that are absolute junk. If I've been shooting HDR or panos I'll create stacks for the groups of photos as appropriate.

Once I've flagged the photos I want to work on further, I go into LR's develop module and adjust the exposure as required. I may also crop or straighten, apply a graduated filter, healing brush or whatever at that time. I may open the photo(s) in an external editor (Photoshop/Autopano/Photomatix) if there is something special I need to do.

At that point, I export to jpeg and upload either to my site gallery or my Smugmug gallery. I have several export presets in LR that add frames, watermarks, copyrights, and captions as appropriate.

I have a nightly scheduled backup job that sweeps my photo library to my storage server.



Griffoun said:


> Seems like most Nikon users do use Capture... (unlike Canon's crappy DPP)


I have it but never use it. I bought it mainly to create some custom curves for my camera. It's poor for working with large photo volumes.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

Cliff said:


> If that works for you, then stick with it.


It works for now, but I'd like to shorten the time as well. I could batch-apply "Perfectly Clear" on all pictures in Bibble but it turns out too bright and lose details. I'm at the point that I'm willing to try something new to provider similar, if not better result while shortening the workflow.


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Griffoun said:


> It works for now, but I'd like to shorten the time as well. I could batch-apply "Perfectly Clear" on all pictures in Bibble but it turns out too bright and lose details. I'm at the point that I'm willing to try something new to provider similar, if not better result while shortening the workflow.


Then it's time to experiment.

Trial versions are available for most of these software packages. Use LR to process a shoot. Capture One recently acquired Expression Media from Microsoft, which I used to use back before Microsoft bought Iview when application was called Media Pro. Capture One apparently feels they can compete with LR and Aperture and Media Expressions is the digital asset management piece of their puzzle. Try using Photoshop Elements or Paint Shop Pro and see if they accommodate your needs.


----------



## Griffoun (Jan 19, 2006)

I decided to go back to Bibble 5. I think I got very comfortable with Bibble 4 that working on LR3 is very awkward, no matter how hard I try.

People complain Bibble 5 controls are all over the place, but I find that's the exact problem with LR3. I understand the 5 steps, but it's just not the right way to implement.

Maybe someone can help answer my question... but the zoomed window on the right for adjusting sharpness... is there any way to undock or move it somewhere so that I can use that same detail window to adjust noise level? I found myself scrolling up and down just to apply the right amount of noise reduction... and many times I want to see how the setting affect my picture at the 1x level.

I just find it hard to make consistent adjustment to same attribute (say, sharpness, saturation, etc) to pics in large batch using LR3 and then fine-tune for each pic.

And I think LR3 actually overwrites the RAW file, or it saves a separate file with the adjustments somewhere on my computer?


----------



## Cliff (Apr 19, 2002)

Griffoun said:


> And I think LR3 actually overwrites the RAW file, or it saves a separate file with the adjustments somewhere on my computer?


LR stores adjustments in its database unless you specify these changes are to be written to XMP sidecar files via the Metadata pane on the Catalog Settings dialog. LR does not modify the original raw files.


----------



## IlyaN (Mar 6, 2006)

Using Photoshop CS5 myself, but had Light Room 2 before. It was nice and got the job done. I'd expect LR3 is even better. If you're only choosing from the 2 titles above, then def. LR3. Nikon Capture nx2 is nice too btw.


----------

