Which software? help with raw processing

Burbrock · Feb 2, 2011

Hi.
I'm new here. First post and all.
I've been taking lots of pics for a few years now and am slowly but surely becoming more serious about producing consistently better quality images (especially since people are starting to ask me to shoot events). I am very self-taught. Ok, so before I get this thread moved to the "introduce yourself" section, here's my pickle:

I just started shooting RAW. I like the idea of being able to change the exposure and white balance and adjust the sharpness among other things. But as usual, I am trying to bite off more than I can chew, and I want to do the right thing from the start.
I started by using the DPP software that came with my new Canon T2i (upgrade from a few years old Pentax K100). I actually like it very much. The basic adjustments are easy to find, and the interface is on the whole easy to get used to. So I am currently doing my basic corrections with DPP, and I send the image to PS CS4 if I really want to have fun with it.

But here's the thing. I also started reading photography articles and forums, and I keep hearing lightroom this and lightroom that, and "oh I don't need PS I just use lightroom" etc... So I went and installed a trial version of Lightroom, tried it, and am now utterly confused as to which I should keep on using.

The thing is: DPP runs really quickly on my computer, which makes sense considering how basic it is, whereas Lightroom is at times aggravatingly slow (much slower than PS for some reason) and I can't see how it would speed up my workflow. I wonder why since a sped up workflow is pretty much what people use lightroom for.

alright, let me try to get to a few clear questions:

Do serious photographers actually use DPP, or is it just something newbies use at first before moving on to Lightroom?

Am I losing something considerable if I stick to DPP for my RAW conversion and use PS when I am doing serious editing?

In terms of quality, for my recreational needs, is there a noticable difference between one and the other?

Are there people here who actually prefer DPP over lightroom for their RAW workflow?

Almost done. One last little thing: I noticed when converting from RAW to JPG a noticeable difference in terms of sharpness. If I open the RAW image besides the JPG, I can see the difference in sharpness without even zooming in. Is that normal? I understand the loss of data in the conversion (I read up on it) but still I didn't think the difference would be so apparent. Is it because I am not used to looking at RAW images that the difference seems major? Should JPGs always be re-sharpened for better results? And finally do RAW converters make a much better job of it than others?

thanks, sorry for the long first post

Overread · Feb 2, 2011

RAW photos are softer because the JPEG is sharpened inside your camera body, infact quite a bit of sharpening is added to overcome the AAfilter in your camera sensor which introduces a fair amount of softening. However because you're starting with the RAW you have the option to control that sharpening to be as much or as little as you want and to also define where and where not it should be applied in the photo.

As for RAW processing software the reason lightroom is so popular is not just because it does a good job of RAW processing, but also because it offers the photographer an easy organising system which helps a lot once they are dealing with large numbers of photos split over many events;days; years. So its a two part package that makes it a good choice for the photographer in addition to the fact that it will intergrate with photoshop editing programs (like elements or cs5) to allow you to slip from one to the other for when you want more control over the editing (Eg lightroom only does global change to the photo not area selective ones).

As for the RAW processing software programs - like a lot of processing programs there are many options on the market. In general there never is one overall market leader because its the best. Each one will do a good job on any RAW photo - however with a select photo one might give you more control and a better output than the others. However there is no specific way to tell which shot that will be and nor any way to perfectly duplicate that kind of shot in camera for every kind of shooting event and lighting condition. So in the end you've two choices'
1) Just use one and get good quality across the board
2) Purchase and learn to use several RAW processing packages and spend far more time editing to tweak the perfect result (which in the end might only be visiable at 100% crop size and not strongly, or even evident at all in prints or websized photos.

Burbrock · Feb 2, 2011

Thanks for the quick reply!

Overread said:
RAW photos are softer because the JPEG is sharpened inside your camera body, infact quite a bit of sharpening is added to overcome the AAfilter in your camera sensor which introduces a fair amount of softening. However because you're starting with the RAW you have the option to control that sharpening to be as much or as little as you want and to also define where and where not it should be applied in the photo.

Yea, I think I understand that, and I do tend to sharpen the hell out of my RAW images (next thread for me: Is there such a thing as an over-sharpened image?) but that's not the problem I am pointing out (or perhaps I misunderstood your comment). No, my problem is the opposite: the RAW image I look at is really really sharp after I tampered with it a bit, but once I convert it to JPEG, the image is noticeably softer (not day and night different of course, but enough to notice a slight difference on my cheap 17inch screen). Is that to be expected, or am I skipping a step somewhere?

Overread said:
As for RAW processing software the reason lightroom is so popular is not just because it does a good job of RAW processing, but also because it offers the photographer an easy organising system which helps a lot once they are dealing with large numbers of photos split over many events;days; years. So its a two part package that makes it a good choice for the photographer in addition to the fact that it will intergrate with photoshop editing programs (like elements or cs5) to allow you to slip from one to the other for when you want more control over the editing (Eg lightroom only does global change to the photo not area selective ones).

Ok, so if I don't care much for the organizing aspect of lightroom (I actually wouldn't want to use it--die hard XP user here :sexywink:

so I like to keep my folders in order myself) I guess it would make it considerably less interesting for me. I'd really be curious to hear from someone who has used both DPP and Lightroom for the pros and the cons.

I get that different softwares will do varying jobs with different pictures, but I'm definitely not the kind of guy who'll keep a range of softwares that do the same thing and try them on different pics. I'm simply not that perfectionist. I'd like to choose one program and stick with that one, only I'd like that choice to be as enlightened as possible, i.e. if a lot of people on a big photo forum such as this one tend to discredit DPP completely, I might reconsider sticking with it. If however, I hear that some people who know what they're doing use it regularly, then I'll stop feeling so conflicted about it

...or something like that:crazy:

KmH · Feb 2, 2011

Photoshop CS5 and Photoshop Lightroom 3 have the same Raw conversion edit rendering engine - ACR 6 (Adobe Camera Raw).

As Overread pointed out Lightroom's main function is image database management, not Raw conversion editing.

Adobe designed and intended Lightroom to be a compliment to Photoshop CS.

Lighroom by itself is not a complete image editing solution.

Burbrock · Feb 2, 2011

Thanks.

I understand the difference between what lightroom and photoshop do, and I am not hesitating between one and the other. I already use, and will keep on using PS CS4 for my serious editing work.

I am not hesitating between editing softwares, I am hesitating between RAW editors and converters; in this case Canon's DPP versus Lightroom.

I could certainly get used to Lightroom as a database manager and the interface sure looks good, but everything is so darn slow in there. In DPP, opening a raw file for editing takes around 3 seconds on my PC and switching from one file to another is almost seamless, but in Lightroom, opening the same file for editing can take around 10 seconds, and just browsing from one image to another in the library can be painful. Major hindrance. So, same question: does anyone here actually use DPP regularly?

another quick question: I know that converting from raw to jpg will lose some data. But how about raw to tiff? Basically from DPP to PS. Is that lossless?

And while I'm on the topic of file format. I took a raw file, sent it to PS, did a few edits and saved as a level 6 medium quality JPEG. Now I look at that 1mb image at 100% right beside the original 20mb raw image, and on my computer screen I can barely see the difference.

So my question is: what, exactly, is the use of a high quality level 12 10mb jpeg???

Big Mike · Feb 2, 2011

And while I'm on the topic of file format. I took a raw file, sent it to PS, did a few edits and saved as a level 6 medium quality JPEG. Now I look at that 1mb image at 100% right beside the original 20mb raw image, and on my computer screen I can barely see the difference. So my question is: what, exactly, is the use of a high quality level 12 10mb jpeg???

Jpeg is a compression format...so every time you save or re-save an image as a JPEG, you compress it...which causes some data/quality loss. But the more you compress it, the smaller the file size gets.

So if you were going to repeatedly open and save a JPEG image, then you would want to use the highest quality so that you keep the data loss to a minimum. Realistically, in that situation you should use something like TIFF or PSD.

However, if you are just going to display a JPEG on the web, or send it to the lab for printing...then you can turn up the compression (quality slider) in order to get a smaller file size.

I think that most people are affraid of going too low....but I'll bet it's hard or impossible (especially on a screen (without pixel peeping)) to tell the difference between a JPEG saved at 12...and one saved at 6...or maybe lower.

table1349 · Feb 2, 2011

Look at lightroom this way. It is not an editing software. It is a digital darkroom. All of the adjustment functions in lightroom are what were we did in the old days of negatives and dark room development and printing. Lightroom is and excellent piece of digital darkroom software that meets about 90-95% of most photographers needs. Plus it has the added advantage of providing decent database management.

If you want to do true editing Photoshop is the answer.

thingsIsee · Feb 2, 2011

I use LR3 for 90%+ of my processing and when push comes to shove I move in to elements 9. Would love to get CS5, but the cost of it is way more than the combination of LR3 and PSE9 and CS5 has way more capability in areas I really wouldn’t use. I also find CS# less user friendly then the other 2.

LR3 can and does do an outstanding job of total image RAW/JPG processing with GD filters, selective brushes, spot removal and print modes you can do almost everything needed to take a shot from camera to printer without ever needing other software. On the other hand if HDR, selective processing and graphic design is more your thing then CS# is the way to go. PS elements has great capability for a fraction of the cost, but is very limited in RAW processing as well as many fetchers of CS#.