RAW files - which software?

[Mushi]

Hello every1
Which program should I use to open RAW photos??
thank you

[Colin Southern]

Hello every1
Which program should I use to open RAW photos??
thank you

Which ever one you have

[carregwen]

Hello every1
Which program should I use to open RAW photos??
thank you

Photoshop is best. But do you have it????

[Gnista]

Hi
What camera do you use? Did you not get a program with camera? I would use NX2 for NEF files. Paint shop pro X3 is reasonable price about £60 then there are the Adobe suite Elements 8, Light room 3 or Photoshop CS5 costly. GIMP is free I believe or the Google Picasa 3. I am not an expert but wish I had stuck to one and learnt how to use it.

[timo2]

For the fastest RAW processor (by quite a margin) take a look at Bibble:

http://bibblelabs.com/products/bibbl...res/speed.html

Bibble is also a very versatile processor, doesn’t cost the earth and there are lots of great free plugins too; I far prefer it to NX or Lightroom

[David]

Hi - Just to chip in. Raw Therapy has its devotees and it is free. It's a quirky yet very powerful system. Stick to the earlier version (2.4 I think) rather than the latest as there are some issues with file handling.

Regarding the Gimp, it actually uses software called UFRaw, again free (Google and ye shall find). UfRaw is a stand alone application or can be used with the Gimp. It takes a bit of work to get the best out of it, but has a long pedigree and is highly regarded by non-Photoshop people, like me.

Cheers

David

[revi]

And both Raw Therapee and UFRaw use Dcraw to do the actual RAW development (Dcraw is commond-line only though, it produces TIFF files with 8 or 16 bits/channel, and has quite a few options)

links:
Raw Therapee homepage
UFRaw homepage
dcraw homepage

Remco

Btw, for any question regarding software it might be a good idea to tell us what system is used: MS-Windows (and which one?), Mac OSX or Linux don't have the same programs available, or the programs don't work as well on different systems.

[Mushi]

Thanks everyone,

I have a Canon 450D, and did not like the program which comes with my camera. I tried to use Photoshop C.S, but its very slow and stacks (MOD: stops?) all the time. I will try to download what you suggest.

Thank you again. I am using Windows 7

[Eric M]

thanks to every1...
i have canon 450D i did not like the program which comes with my camera ,, i tried to use Photoshop C.S, but its very slow nd stacks all the time.. i will try to download what u suggest..
thank u again..
Am using window 7

Actually, Canon's Digital Photo Pro is excellant in its intended role as a RAW converter. As such, it can produce beautiful conversions but lacks editing features of software like Adobe Photoshop. Canon has also incorporated some interesting noise reduction capability into later versions of DPP that is automatically run if you select a noise reduction setting in the camera menu.

[Hansm]

You can also try Lightroom.
download it and try id fro free for 30 day's.
It's a very nice piece of SW.

[Mushi]

thank you Eric nd Hans .. i will try to use both softw nd see which one is easy to use

[Geoff F]

Just to confuse you even more, Salim, here is a comparison report on several of the popular Raw Conversion programmes http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawco...converters.htm

At the moment, after trying several of the free converters, I am using Raw Therapee. As David said, it is something of an enthusiast's programme although I think it gives the best results of the free converters. I have, eventually, partially, managed RT version 3 which I much prefer over the earlier 2.4 version; but it does take quite a bit of handling.

The basics of using RT are quite simple; it's just a rather unstable piece of software until you sort out how to overcome the various operational 'bugs' in the system.

I also tried the Scarab Converter which is also free and I found it to be fast, very stable and quite easy to use; but I thought that it didn't give me as many options as RT. http://www.scarablabs.com/scarab-darkroom

Earlier today, I was editing some photos and I wasn't totally happy with the way they looked (a bit flat and soft) so I converted them with Raw Therapee, Canon DPP and my Serif Photo Plus editing software's own converter.

Then I compared the results. Raw Therapee was quite noticeably better than the other two. Unfortunately, this meant that the photo problems must have been caused by my poor shooting technique!

[Dansk]

I'll add another vote for RawTherapee. I'm using the slightly unstable alpha release of version 3 at the moment, but it's far better than any of the other options I've come across. It does the job perfectly aside from the odd bug and provides for a very well-thought out workflow. I can't wait for the day when it's declared mostly bug free and given a final release; at that point it will simply demolish the competition.

[Colin Southern]

I can't wait for the day when it's declared mostly bug free and given a final release; at that point it will simply demolish the competition.

I'll bet you a chocolate fish that it has pretty much zero effect on the competition. Personally I use ACR - always have - probably always will. Why? Because it does the job well, and it is tightly integrated with other Adobe products in the workflow.

I can't imagine a time when someone says "wow - Colin - this image is yours is suddenly on a different level - what did you do", to which the answer will be "I changed RAW converters". Honestly, I think in the vast majority of cases it's not going to make any significant visual difference; one might produce a slightly different result, but in most cases this is simply different - not better - not worse - just different. Sometimes these differences happen to be in a direction that meets with the photographers approval (eg "it does a better job of dealing to shadow noise than product X", because photographer "A" likes noise free shadows (and probably prints everything 6 feet wide x 4 feet high and then examines it with a microscope) (or the digital equivalent of examining pixels at 200% magnification), whereas photographer "B" won't like the product because although it reduces shadow noise, it does that at the expense of sharpness, and photographer "B" values image sharpness more than leaner shadows, so he'll prefer a different product.

At the end of the day, I'd suggest that the differences between one RAW converter and another (in terms of the conversion quality anyway) plays a pretty small part overall final presentation of the image.

[delboy]

Well said Colin

Delboy

[carregwen]

At the end of the day, I'd suggest that the differences between one RAW converter and another (in terms of the conversion quality anyway) plays a pretty small part overall final presentation of the image.

I think the only thing that makes a significant difference to your shots is that lump of grey matter just behind your eyes.

[Dansk]

Oh I'm not arguing that, I'm quite certain I could get comparable results out of any of the other converters out there. But what the others DON'T have is the design. RawTherapee's usability and workflow are what appeal to me and made me stick with it.

'Demolish the competition' was a little bit of hyperbole, I didn't mean for it to be taken literally.

[Colin Southern]

what the others DON'T have is the design. RawTherapee's usability and workflow are what appeal to me and made me stick with it.

Well, I've just had a look through the "significant changes" on the website, and to be honest, I really can't see anything particularly earth-shattering that Adobe RAW & Photoshop haven't had for a long time.

eg ...

- Multi-tab interface (ACR has tabs for Basic, Tone Curve, Detail, HSL / Grayscale, Split Toning, Lens Correction, Effects, Camera Calibration, Presets, and Snapshots)

- Batch Processing support (yep, had that forever)

- Preview and Detail are gone so you work from just the one image screen that can be zoomed (yep, had that forever)

- 16 Bit thumb nails (Why? - the human eye can't even differentiate all existing 8 bit levels)

- Before / After Views (yep - and we can undo as many edits as we want, or save as many intermediate snapshops as we want)

- Curve Editior (yep, got that - with either sliders or unbounded controls)

- Per image selectable demosaicing algorithm (Why???)

- New colour and luminance demosaicing methods (ACR has seperate colour and luminance noise reduction controls covering luminance, luminance detail, luminance contrast, colour, and colour detail)

- Automatic CA correction (yep, manual and automatic)

- Perspective correction (yep, auto and manual)

- Bad pixel removal (yep)

How does RT go with non-destructive targeted adjustment tool? Spot removal? Red-eye removal, adjustment brush, graduated filters?

Does it have reference profiles for different colour temperatures that it can interpolate and extrapolate between/from for accurate colour reproduction under just about any colour temperature? Can it do post-crop vignetting? Can it automatically apply different defaults based on ISO or camera serial number?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to knock it - I think for a free ("begware") application it's an incredible piece of software, but in terms of "no holds barred" powerhouse performance, I'd be quite happy to go head-to-head with it using the functionally equivalent Adobe products

[Dansk]

The bottom line for me is it's free, and that's why I wasn't including anything by Adobe in my comparison. If you want to pit RawTherapee against Adobe, there's no question which will win. One is made by volunteers, the other is made by a team of highly paid programmers. It's just not a fair fight.

The question is how important a consideration money is in your decision. (For me it was a deal-breaker if it cost anything--unless I stood to gain a significant amount of functionality by paying--but that's my personal preference.) I'll stand by my assertion that RT is the best of the free software by a significant distance, but I'll happily concede that it's bested by Adobe. That's not something to be ashamed of, IMO.

[Geoff F]

Well as I have said previously; for me, RT gives the best results of the free converters. And as far as I can see, anything better will cost around £100 (or more) which is where I will probably end up eventually. If only I could make up my mind and accept another learning curve to conquer!

But as Colin says, RT occupies something of a niche market and will never be a market leader. It is too complicated (even if the bugs are sorted) for the average 'point and shoot' user and not quite sophisticated enough for the professional. Which leaves the rather limited number of enthusiasts who want something in between.

For the moment, however, I will stick with attempting to 'outwit' RT 3. But I will always need a more comprehensive editing programme to complete the final tweaks to my photos; until I get something more inclusive.