Best Software for RAW Images

RxRick

Greetings. I recently bought a 50D and am in the process of learning how to shoot and process RAW files. I currently have the DPP software that came with the camera and I downloaded the ACR update for use with PS Elements 6. Both do amazing things. I shoot a fair amount of higher-speed and low-light stuff, so I also want the noise-reduction abilities that come with shooting higher ISO speeds in RAW. Before I spend a lot of time and money, is there a hands-down concensus on the best software to use? I've been reading about Noise Ninja (as a plug-in for Elements) and also about Aperture and Lightroom (I can get LR for $100 since I'm a teacher - Apple doesn't discount anything). Is there a concensus or is this one of those everybody-has-their-own-opinion kind of things?

--RxRick

MarkR

You'll find most people on these boards use Lightroom and/or ACR, which should attest to the quality of Adobe's offerings.

Having said that, there are several top-notch raw converters out there:

Silkypix, Capture One, DXO, Bibble, Lightzone, just to name a few. Each one has its supporters and detractors. Luckily they all have free demos -- and that would be the best way to assess them, imho.

My preference is Bibble, which rightly puts lens correction and noise reduction (Noise Ninja plugin) at an early stage in the workflow, but then I use Lightzone for most of my creative work. Bibble 5 is expected "before the end of the year" and should clear up most of the UI wonkiness it often gets dinged for.

dlplumer

If you have a Mac, I would strongly suggest Aperture.

pathfinder

LR2 uses the same engine as Adobe Camera Raw for Raw processing and works very nice for this.

I have used Noise Ninja and NeatImagine, but strongly prefer Noiseware these days for my denoising software.

Noiseware does not depend on camera profiles, or decisions from me, but just works quickly, simply and well.

I hear that CS4 has much improved noise removal abilities also, but I still used CS3 at this time.

Tee Why

From what I've been reading, I hear that the new DPP 3.5 is better than ACR at Noise Reduction with the 50D. If it was me, I'd use DPP and the finish things up in PSE 6.

LR uses ACR conversion for RAW images IIRC, so I don't think you'll see a huge difference in image quality between ACR and LR, although LR has more features.

I have a PC and use DPP, PSE 6, and LR, so I can't comment on Aperture. But seeing as you have a DPP and PSE 6, I'd probably stick wtih those two and save the dough. I find DPP actually excellent in color reditin, details, sharpening, and now in NR as well.

RxRick

As I suspected - four responses, four different answers. But it's all good info. I printed it and put it in my camera folder. Thanks.

Tee Why wrote:

If it was me, I'd use DPP and the finish things up in PSE 6.

Despite the fact that all my Mac buddies keep telling me how much they love Aperture, I really like DPP and PSE 6. I still have a lot to learn so maybe I'll just stick with this for the time being.

I just noticed I can download a 30-day demo version of Aperture. After Thanksgiving, I'll try that.

--Rick

dlplumer

RxRick wrote:

As I suspected - four responses, four different answers. But it's all good info. I printed it and put it in my camera folder. Thanks.



Despite the fact that all my Mac buddies keep telling me how much they love Aperture, I really like DPP and PSE 6. I still have a lot to learn so maybe I'll just stick with this for the time being.

I just noticed I can download a 30-day demo version of Aperture. After Thanksgiving, I'll try that.

--Rick

Do it, and then get a few assorted plugins: noise ninja, dfx, etc.

John Mueller

I have tried and used best of the best over the years and have come back to OEM.
No reason to spend money or doing trials.
Simple, powerful,fast and reliable.16bit tiff and PS to finish it off.

joshhuntnm

The thing with lightroom that is great is not just how it process images, but how fast you can go through a thousand images after a wedding. it is built for speed.

John Mueller

joshhuntnm wrote:

The thing with lightroom that is great is not just how it process images, but how fast you can go through a thousand images after a wedding. it is built for speed.

And for some,it speeds to crash

joshhuntnm

John Mueller wrote:

And for some,it speeds to crash

2.1 is pretty stable on my machine - Vista with 2 gig of ram

Art Scott

John Mueller wrote:

And for some,it speeds to crash

I have never had a lightroom to crash......I have been using it since it inception...............

BTW what is OEM? you do not work in raw, but tif instead?? that in itself uses tons of resources and does not give the flexability that raw does......I wish raw had been around when I first started on the digital journey ... just for the flexability.

RxRick

Art Scott wrote:

BTW what is OEM?

In my other hobby (motorcycles), OEM stands Original Equipment Manufacturer, so I assume he's talking about DPP which comes from the camera maker. Just a guess.

--RxRick

Ric Grupe

RxRick wrote:

In my other hobby (motorcycles), OEM stands Original Equipment Manufacturer, so I assume he's talking about DPP which comes from the camera maker. Just a guess.

--RxRick

That would be an excellent "guess".:D

My thought on this subject is: LR if you are a pro processing a ton of pics, and Camera Raw in Photoshop for lower volume more highly polished images.

Remember that PS can do everything LR does, but the inverse is not so.

John Mueller

Art Scott wrote:

I have never had a lightroom to crash......I have been using it since it inception...............

BTW what is OEM? you do not work in raw, but tif instead?? that in itself uses tons of resources and does not give the flexability that raw does......I wish raw had been around when I first started on the digital journey ... just for the flexability.

Sorry I didn't explain myself better.

I use Canon's software "DPP" for my RAW editing and then convert to a 16bit tiff where I use PhotoShop for my finial output.

LightRoom worked OK until I upgraded it to 2.1 and ran the 50D files.Somewhere there is a problem for me that caused it to crash.

RANT
Sometimes I get upset when people say that It works fine for them and for that reason,it should work for everybody.

END RANT

jfriend

Ric Grupe wrote:

That would be an excellent "guess".:D

My thought on this subject is: LR if you are a pro processing a ton of pics, and Camera Raw in Photoshop for lower volume more highly polished images.

Remember that PS can do everything LR does, but the inverse is not so.

PS can do everything LR does for image editing, but it doesn't have lots of other features that LR has for cataloging, searching, organizing and printing.

I was amazed how easy it was to go through the last year's worth of photos (24,000 images) in LR to find the 12-15 that I wanted to use in a holiday card montage. To find a soccer shot of my daughter, I literally just clicked on my daughter's name as a hierarchical keyword under the soccer team, sorted the results by rating (two more clicks) and then looked through the top rated shots. When I found the one I wanted, I dropped it into a collection I had created for the holiday card shots. Similarly, I walked through the other events for the year, ended up with 70 shots in the collection that were candidates for the card, printed a proof sheet, reviewed them with my wife, settled on 17 to use and ended up fitting 13 onto the card. This whole process would have taken a lot more time with my older PS/Bridge approach.

pathfinder

I agree - While it would be nice to use only Lightroom or only Photoshop ( and cheaper too), I find I really want and need the tools each makes available.

RAW-Shooter

John Mueller wrote:

Sorry I didn't explain myself better.

I use Canon's software "DPP" for my RAW editing and then convert to a 16bit tiff where I use PhotoShop for my finial output.

LightRoom worked OK until I upgraded it to 2.1 and ran the 50D files.Somewhere there is a problem for me that caused it to crash.

RANT
Sometimes I get upset when people say that It works fine for them and for that reason,it should work for everybody.

END RANT

Maybe the 50D RAW file format is to blame...Canon is known to change their proprietary RAW format ever so slightly...

The newest Canon RAW might do the trick.

arodney

If you're on a Mac, I'd suggest you give Raw Developer a try http://iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html

But for full workflow functionality, I'm a Lightroom guy. That said, RD produces stunning quality renderings. I wish Adobe would buy it <g>