RAW in LR-5 or in RAW processor?

[PhilT]

Question (naive? ): When I directly edit my RAW files (NEF) in LR-5 I get good results (I export them after as JPEGS or TIFF if I want to print). Then do we need a specific RAW processor, or if I use LR only it's enough?
Thanks for your answers,
PhilT

[DanK]

No, there is no reason to use a second raw processor. Once you have exported the file in another format, it is no longer raw, so you would not use any of the raw conversion functions of a second piece of software. Most raw conversion software includes some additional editing features, but if LR doesn't have all of what you need, you're best option is to choose a second software package for its editing capabilities, not for raw conversion. For example, I do much of my editing in Lightroom, but when I need layers and masks, or if I want other features LR doesn't have, I export the image into photoshop.

[Manfred M]

If you are happy with the results, why would you change? The raw processing engine in Lightroom (Develop Module) is identical Adobe Camera Raw (the user interface is different). If you want to try other engines, two that I can recommend are Phase One Capture One and DxO Labs Optics Pro.

That being said, why would you spend more money if you are happy with what you are using?

[xpatUSA]

If you are happy with the results, why would you change? The raw processing engine in Lightroom (Develop Module) is identical Adobe Camera Raw (the user interface is different). If you want to try other engines, two that I can recommend are Phase One Capture One and DxO Labs Optics Pro.

Why indeed?

It can however happen that one converter is "better" than another, where "better" is in the eye of the beholder.

I remember when Adobe Camera Raw 4.5 was quite a poor second to my camera manufacturer's proprietary converter - and FastStone Viewer was at the very bottom of the pile (uses dcraw). So I have stuck with the manufacturer's converter to this very day

Since I'm talking Sigma, I do realize that the above comment will carry little weight in this thread . .

[Shadowman]

You would need a specific RAW processor until your current software gets updated. Most new cameras wouldn't immediately be compatible with LRs RAW converter.

[PhilT]

Thanks to all our masters here.
The point being "Do RAW processors make something better than LR-5 (or higher) doesn't?", I understand that the straight answer is: "not really". This makes the process easier, and eventually cheaper. I guess specific RAW processors are mainly for those who works with an editor not dealing well with RAW format. Is it right?

[Black Pearl]

Lightroom is a raw processor?

Is your question regarding the specific conversion software supplied by the manufacturer with your camera?

[PhilT]

Lightroom is a raw processor?

Is your question regarding the specific conversion software supplied by the manufacturer with your camera?

My question was in general. But that's an interessant point. What's your thoughts about it?

[george013]

My question was in general. But that's an interessant point. What's your thoughts about it?

I think there is some misunderstandment. A RAW-processor exist out of 2 parts: 1) the conversion from the RAW data to an image and 2) the editing of that picture.
RAW data is captured mostly in R,G and B pixels. One pixel-one colour. Then they're converted to imagepixels: a RGB raster where every pixel has 3 colours, RGB. In that process some assumption will be done but at the end you've a RGB raster image. From here on normal editing is what you do.
I made once a scheme for that process. A mixture of Dutch and English.

The moment you see the image on your screen,you're in the RGB raster image block.

For this reason it's impossible to convert a RAW twice. You might be able to open a JPG in a converter, but the only part you use is the editing part.

George

[Black Pearl]

My question was in general. But that's an interessant point. What's your thoughts about it?

Use the software you find to be the best solution for your creative workflow.

Years back I used Nikon's own software as it came with the camera and thats what friends and colleagues tended to do at the time. I then switched to ACR as I got more and more familiar with Photoshop and what it could often but in recent years I do all the heavy lifting in Lightroom utilising the occasional plug-in and some of the deeper capabilities in Photoshop which all integrate nicely with each other via my CC subscription.

I personally don't feel the need for another piece of raw software as I feel LR offers me the simplest and strongest around workflow though I know some who use Iridient Developer specifically for Fuji RAF files as Adobe's demosaicing is a little wayward at times.

[DanK]

I think there are two different topics in this thread:

--which raw converter is best?

--is there any point in using a second raw converter after rendering the image in Lightroom.

I don't know which the OP intended. I thought it was the second. The answer to the first is that it is a matter of taste and preference. The answer to the second is simply 'no'. You can only convert from raw once. After that, if you need editing that your raw converter won't do, you should pick software based on its editing capabilities, because you will be feeding it an image that is not raw.

[PhilT]

I think there are two different topics in this thread:

--which raw converter is best?

--is there any point in using a second raw converter after rendering the image in Lightroom.

I don't know which the OP intended. I thought it was the second. The answer to the first is that it is a matter of taste and preference. The answer to the second is simply 'no'. You can only convert from raw once. After that, if you need editing that your raw converter won't do, you should pick software based on its editing capabilities, because you will be feeding it an image that is not raw.

To clarify a bit: I'm now used to import RAW files to LR, doing basic edits on the RAW to correct what need to be if it needs it (exposure, highlights, luminance and saturation of colors, etc) and then export. According to what is written in this thread, the response to my question (as quoted here) seems effectively to be "no".

[Manfred M]

To clarify a bit: I'm now used to import RAW files to LR, doing basic edits on the RAW to correct what need to be if it needs it (exposure, highlights, luminance and saturation of colors, etc) and then export. According to what is written in this thread, the response to my question (as quoted here) seems effectively to be "no".

The answer to the second part of the question is definitely NO. You can only do a raw conversion once and then proceed to editing the image. The raw file is never changed by the editor, so if you would like, you can open the original raw file multiple times and use a different converter. The only exception is if you use Adobe's DNG format, and if this is the case, not all raw converters will be able to open this file format.

The software (in this Lightroom) has two separate and distinct functions. The first is to take the raw data that your camera has captured turn it into image data. The second is some of the basic editing you have identified.

While the same "tool" does both, the two steps are distinct and must be looked at as separate operations.

If you are asking. should you use an additional editor, over the basic functionality found in Lightroom, then you will get a different answer. If the basic level of editing is all you want to do, then sticking with Lightroom is fine (and that is what some people do). If you want to do additional and more complex edits, then an additional editor comes into play. A lot of people (members and others) combine Lightroom to do some of the basic things you have listed and then move over to Photoshop for the "serious" editing work.

[DanK]

Exactly as Manfred has written, except that I would replace "serious" with "additional." "Serious" might be taken to imply that if you are serious about editing, you should move the image to photoshop. Often, LR is perfectly sufficient for serious editing in that sense. It depends on the image. Lightroom just has less editing capability than some other programs, and if you need what it doesn't do, you have to look elsewhere, and Photoshop allows you to do a vast amount more. Manfred, I'm guessing that this is why you put the word in quotes, but I just wanted to to be clear to the OP, who seems to be early in the learning process.

[Brev00]

Lightroom is a raw processor. Whether it meets your needs for you and your workflow is entirely up to you. Since your question is so abstract, I encourage you to do a free trial of a few different raw processors. Photo Ninja, DxO Optics, etc. Nothing like direct experience.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Manfred, I'm guessing that this is why you put the word in quotes, but I just wanted to to be clear to the OP, who seems to be early in the learning process.

Perhaps not the best choice of words, Dan.

The implication I was really a point made by one of the college instructors made during a photography course I took at the local community college a few years ago.

When asked the question regarding using Lightroom only versus a combination of Lightroom / ACR + Photoshop, the instructor's answer was in a similar vein to my reply. He said that he assumed that all of the students in the class were either looking to make some money with their photography or were looking to up their skills. In either case Lightroom has limited editing capabilities and while it might be all that is needed for certain images, other images would require more complex editing and that can only be done with a tool like Photoshop (or some of the other pixel based editors out there).

[DanK]

He said that he assumed that all of the students in the class were either looking to make some money with their photography or were looking to up their skills. In either case Lightroom has limited editing capabilities and while it might be all that is needed for certain images, other images would require more complex editing and that can only be done with a tool like Photoshop (or some of the other pixel based editors out there).

Point taken. We agree.

[JBW]

Question (naive? ): When I directly edit my RAW files (NEF) in LR-5 I get good results (I export them after as JPEGS or TIFF if I want to print). Then do we need a specific RAW processor, or if I use LR only it's enough?
Thanks for your answers,
PhilT

Hi Philippe, you have had many answers so let me give one from a layman's perspective. if you are getting results that you are happy with keep doing what you are doing.

if you are unhappy then you have two basic choices.
(1) keep the raw convertor you are using and add on a jpeg editor. (2) try a new raw convertor and match it to a jpeg convertor.

I shoot RAW in my Sony Alpha a58. I have come to enjoy the Capture 1 Sony pro software for raw conversion. When I find Capture 1 will not do what I want I move the jpeg into GIMP.

If money is no problem there are lots of high quality products out there. if money is a problem there are still many high quality products out there.

I have found that the trick is to find one you enjoy and then take the time to learn it inside and out. Post processing is both a science and an art and requires time and effort to get the wanted results.

[xpatUSA]

To clarify a bit: I'm now used to import RAW files to LR, doing basic edits on the RAW to correct what need to be if it needs it (exposure, highlights, luminance and saturation of colors, etc) and then export.

Hi Phil, to clarify just a bit more:

As others have said, data in a raw file can not be edited. Here's how it works:

The application converts the raw file into a temporary working file on your computer. The conversion is usually made into RGB, often called demosiacing. I've read that LR uses a signed 16-bit format and a bastardized form of Kodak ROMM, digitaldog (Andrew) will know more about that. Main point being that the temporary working file is editable but the raw file stays exactly as it is. The temporary file stays on your computer until such as you:

a) exit without saving, in which case it disappears.

b) you save the file, in which case it saves as whatever LR defaults to.

c) you 'save as', in which case you get to pick what file type, what color space, what quality, etc.

Too much information?

[DanK]

The temporary file stays on your computer until such as you:

a) exit without saving, in which case it disappears.

b) you save the file, in which case it saves as whatever LR defaults to.

c) you 'save as', in which case you get to pick what file type, what color space, what quality, etc.

Lightroom has neither "save" nor "save as" options. You save a file by "exporting" it. The export dialog gives you the choices you mention.

I believe that the internal color space in LR is a variant of ProPhoto they call "Melissa." However, LR renders the image on a screen (at least, my screens) in sRGB.