Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Wonderful but confusing processing choices  (Read 2576 times)
mdijb
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 388


WWW
« on: April 20, 2006, 06:30:15 AM »
ReplyReply

The good news is that there are many good choices in software for raw or jpeg/tiff post processing.  The bad news is that there are TOO many good choice of the same.

DXO Otics, bibble 4.7, Light machine, and others have new , more powerful updates that offer some easy to use correction package and all with apparently good results--at least the sample on their websites indicate so.

What is the experience and opinions, including cost considerations, about these various packages in the photo community.

MDIJB
Logged

mdiimaging.com
marc.s
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 91


« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2006, 08:34:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The good news is that there are many good choices in software for raw or jpeg/tiff post processing.  The bad news is that there are TOO many good choice of the same.

DXO Otics, bibble 4.7, Light machine, and others have new , more powerful updates that offer some easy to use correction package and all with apparently good results--at least the sample on their websites indicate so.

What is the experience and opinions, including cost considerations, about these various packages in the photo community.

MDIJB
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=63156\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the most important factor is that you use a program you feel comfortable with. This includes that you feel comfortable with the image quality, which is a rather subjective measure.

Most programs have a free trial download, so why not give all the ones you are interested in a whirl? You can try processing the same few test pictures on each program and compare the results.

For months I used Raw Shooter Essentials, and while I was fairly happy with the workflow and image quality I still needed to do further tweaking in Photoshop. Later I found weird artifacts and when comparing with other raw converters I found it only happened in this program. I should have run a more detailed comparison earlier because I had to reprocess a good number of images. I've used Capture One, Canon Digital Photo Professional and Adobe Camera Raw and have also tried Silkypix and Bibble. The only one I have found reasonably nice to use is ACR although I'm impatiently awaiting Adobe Lightroom for PC. If I remember correctly all these programs deliver decent image quality, unlike my experience with RSE.

On the other hand many photographers are very happy with RSE/RSP so it really is very subjective. I don't think you can go wrong with any of these programs if you just run some comparison tests first and pick the one you are happy with. Do remember to try some test pics that push the programs to their limits - whichever kind that would be for you. For me it's high iso - high detail combinations, and I'm very pleased with ACR's way of handling it (Canon DPP is very similar, but with less control).
Logged
Serge Cashman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 200


« Reply #2 on: April 22, 2006, 10:31:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree it's extremely subjective. Try and see for yourself.

One thing I disagree with is that the many choices are "good". Digital photography software is pretty horrible, no matter what you use. And you should approach it this way. Choose the one that's least bad.
Logged
David White
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 272



WWW
« Reply #3 on: April 23, 2006, 12:24:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Alain Briot has posted some video reviews of various raw processing programs.  You can find them at Raw Converters Comparison Movies.
Logged

David White
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad