Photo Editor For RAW?

[astral]

I have recently upgraded to the Canon 40D and would like to use the RAW format.

Can you recommend an editor that will handle the RAW format,

without my having to shell out for the latest Photoshop.

There is no plug in for the my current copy of Photoshop CS.

[tonyevans]

I have recently upgraded to the Canon 40D and would like to use the RAW format.

Can you recommend an editor that will handle the RAW format,

without my having to shell out for the latest Photoshop.

There is no plug in for the my current copy of Photoshop CS.

I also have just changed to the Canon EOS 40D and use the Photoshop Elements 5 RAW plug-in 4.2 for edit of RAW but it will not handle the new sRAW although I have sent a request to Adobe to ask if /when sRAW will be supported. Elements 5 or the new elements 6 is still quite expensive although not so compared to the full CS.

I have not used the Canon supplied software so I do not know if it is good or not.

[Nordlys]

Why not the DPP that came with your 40D?

I use free version of SilkyPix Deverloper Studio 3.0. with limited feature which is good enough for me as I only make simple adjustment.

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/download/

I also have Adobe Photoshop Lightroom but I haven't installed it yet.

Edited November 16, 2007 by Nordlys

[tonyevans]

Why not the DPP that came with your 40D?

I use free version of SilkyPix Deverloper Studio 3.0. with limited feature which is good enough for me as I only make simple adjustment.

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/download/

I also havw Adobe Photoshop Lightroom but I haven't installed it yet.

I usually use DxO Optics Pro v4.5 which is an excellent workflow and optical correction tool for RAW images. This plug in works with the Photoshop products Elements 5 Lightroom and CS and is very good. The 40D unfortunately is not supported in the v4.5 DxO but a new version v5.0 is due out end of November which includes support for the 40D amongst other new models eg Nikon 300.

Using DPP I find a little awkward when transferring to elements but I suspect that is because I am not very familiar with the product.

[Orangutan]

If you have a Mac you can use Aperture 1.5.

-O

[hughden]

Adobe Lightroom is a one-stop library/editing/printing and web building tool which will read RAW, JPG, TIFF etc. Excellent for cataloguing and organising your photos; and the develop tools are powerful and will do just about everything you want to do with photo, I find that I rarely need to use Photoshop now that I have Lightroom. Lightroom supports the 40D.

Needs a robust PC to run it, seems to run quicker on an equivalently powered Mac.

[absolutelyBangkok]

Lightroom or Aperture - or CS3, but i understand your concerns.

The other question one has to ask: Is it really still necessary to shoot in RAW?

JPG out of the camera are mostly of such good quality that RAW development in most cases does not bring a significant gain in IQ.

If on a very important assignment or shooting a very important event, ok, I'd still go for RAW.

I for myself know no photographer who shoots RAW - they're all on JPG.

And for JPG adjustments your copy of Photoshop will easily do.

[Firefoxx]

Congrats on buying the 40D. It's supposed to be the one to get right now, and I'm saving up for it. One of the advantages of the 40D over previous models is the 14-bit RAW capture (vs 12 bit RAW, and 8-bit JPG), which gives better control over tones, gradients, and color. For most amateurs, shooting JPG would be fine, but for pros or serious enthusiasts who take their pics very seriously, RAW is the only way. Luminous landscape just did a comparison on how much you can do with JPG vs Raw. With the high capacity and low cost of CF cards these days, storage space really isn't an issue. That being said, I also shoot JPG, but my welfare doesn't depend on what I shoot. When I get the 40D, I'll shoot in RAW.

Big problem with the 40D is that it has a new RAW format which a lot of programs don't recognize. Of course there will be updates, but for now there aren't many choices (as already stated above). You could do like what other people in your situation do: use the supplied Canon software to convert the RAWs to TIFF (16-bit) and then edit in your old Photoshop.

[astral]

Thanks for all those suggestions.

I am in the process of downloading and trying the options.

I will post later when I make a decision.

AbsolutelyBangkok does raise a good question about the whole use of RAW.

My initial thoughts are these:

Lightroom seems to be a totally different interface and will need a new learning curve.

The DxO Optics Pro v4.5 plugin requires Photoshop CS2 or CS3 and I only have CS.

I will try the trial for the full product.

Bibble Lite has annoying quirks, like no UNDO and no bail out feature that I could see.

I have ArcoSoft PhotoStudio which came with my Canon printer, but even the latest version there does not support CR2

[astral]

Why not the DPP that came with your 40D?

I use free version of SilkyPix Deverloper Studio 3.0. with limited feature which is good enough for me as I only make simple adjustment.

http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/download/

I also have Adobe Photoshop Lightroom but I haven't installed it yet.

Are you saying that SlikyPix handles CR2??

An initial test of the free download says otherwise.

[Nordlys]

Yes. I haven't checked if it supports 40D but all of the RAW images from my 5D were processed with Developer Studio 3.0 free version. It is a RAW to JPG converter.

JPG out of the camera are mostly of such good quality that RAW development in most cases does not bring a significant gain in IQ.

I for myself know no photographer who shoots RAW - they're all on JPG.

That's what I used to think looking at photos from my EOS 5D when I bought it. So I initially saved all the pics only in JPG. Then when I went on trips overseas I started saving them with both RAW and JPG. A few months after I returned from the trip I developed some of the RAW using SilkyPix and I was stunned what difference it makes, I ended up processing almost all of the images. I now only shoot in RAW, no JPG. If I don't need RAW then it means I don't need an SLR to begin with, I just take my point-and-shoot compact. I don't think you can make subtle adjustments with white balance and exposure without having shot in RAW.

Edited November 25, 2007 by Nordlys

[astral]

I had to download the trial version of the full version of Silky Pix and I am very impressed with

what it allows me to adjust, and not just in RAW images.

It allows me to adjust white balance etc in jpg's as well which is a real bonus.

I love the dynamic rotation tool, with the grid.

I have a bad habit of getting my horizon's skew whiff (old age perhaps) and this makes

it so easy to correct.

However it is a Development tool and does not seem to offer any resizing or cropping which I use quite

frequently before I publish images to friends etc. So I will still need a second tool for that.

At 32Mb SilkyPix is great deal more compact than Adobe PhotoShop. 180Mb

For me the jury is still out, but getting closer to a decision

[Firefoxx]

The new ACDsee Pro 2 supports the 40D's RAW, but not the sRAW (yet.. there will be updates). I prefer ACDsee since I can use it for batch processing and such, and the RAW processing options are vast. Basically all in one. The rotation option is also very nice... just drag a line that you want to be horizontal or vertical, and it adjusts automatically.

[Kan Win]

For me the jury is still out, but getting closer to a decision

Please let us know once the Jury does come in.

Yours truly,

Win

[astral]

I have dumped the bloated Photoshop that I bought in a back street store years ago.

For general photo editing I am using ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5 which came bundled with my Canon Pixma printer/scanner.

The interface is very similar to Photoshop, which makes it easy to get used to.

There was an update on the website, which I have duly installed.

I also invested in the SilkyPix Developer Studio, which handles RAW and sRAW images.

It is also superb for adjusting colour balance on existing jpg images.

[The Vulcan]

I have dumped the bloated Photoshop that I bought in a back street store years ago.

For general photo editing I am using ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5 which came bundled with my Canon Pixma printer/scanner.

The interface is very similar to Photoshop, which makes it easy to get used to.

There was an update on the website, which I have duly installed.

I also invested in the SilkyPix Developer Studio, which handles RAW and sRAW images.

It is also superb for adjusting colour balance on existing jpg images.

Astral, just give Adobe Lightroom a look. I used to use Silkypix but Lightroom is just simply on another planet. Silkypix needs a really powerful machine as it's so resource hungry (I needed to re-boot frequently) and it's just not as smooth and slick as Lightroom. As someone has pointed out, Lightroom is a total editing, viewing and organising tool. I never need to use Photoshop now and the only other software I employ is NeatImage to address any noise problems.

Just my opinion

[kash]

it sure is, and if any of you don't understand the concept of shooting in raw - why did you bother buying an dSLR in the first place?

[Firefoxx]

Although I do advocate shooting in RAW if you wan the most of your picture, I'd have to say that it's not the only reason to buy a dSLR. There are PLENTY of reasons to get a dSLR without having to care a bit about RAW. DSLRs are just superior in so many ways to other cameras, with the only drawbacks being bulk, weight and movie mode. Even price is not much of a consideration any more since they're selling in point and shoot pricing right now.

[kash]

Even price is not much of a consideration any more since they're selling in point and shoot pricing right now.

well, wouldn't say my last 85 1.2 lens was cheap at 75k something... ;-)

[Nordlys]

Although I do advocate shooting in RAW if you wan the most of your picture, I'd have to say that it's not the only reason to buy a dSLR. There are PLENTY of reasons to get a dSLR without having to care a bit about RAW. DSLRs are just superior in so many ways to other cameras, with the only drawbacks being bulk, weight and movie mode.

Each to their own. I used to think much like you and I only shot in jpeg the first few months after I bought my EOS 5D, that is until I've developed a few RAW images for trial. Now I don't bother saving in JPEG. If I don't have to shoot in RAW I'd just take my compact. If I have to use dSLR I'd like to use it for what I bought it for.

[Firefoxx]

I'm talking about the body and the kit lens price, which is enough for starting to take pictures (and which many, many, many, many people buy). If you want to include the price of add-ons like lenses, you might as well set aside a couple million dollars, because for SLR add-ons, the sky's the limit.

I'm not arguing with you Nordlys. I'm not even saying that I shoot in JPEG (which should have been clear in what I said). Go ahead and look at my first reply in this thread. I responded because Kash implied that there was no use to buy a DSLR if you don't use RAW, which is ridiculous. Plenty of people use their DSLRs for learning to take pics, or just recreational photography, and they all take their pics in JPG. Would a P&S or prosumer digicam fit the bill too? Of course not, it's a totally different experience. You have a 5D, so of course you take your photography very seriously, but there is a HUGE segment of people who want to learn (the 350D, D40, etc segment) that will happily take pics in JPEG, since it's more than good enough for them. RAW processing isn't trivial, and can get in the way of the learning process and enjoyment of photography, so it isn't for everyone, especially not for someone just starting.

Edited December 26, 2007 by Firefoxx

[Nordlys]

Silkypix needs a really powerful machine as it's so resource hungry (I needed to re-boot frequently) and it's just not as smooth and slick as Lightroom.

My thought too. And my Silkypix is a free version.

As someone has pointed out, Lightroom is a total editing, viewing and organising tool.

Does Lightroom come with slide show feature like Apple's aperture? I have Lightroom myself but I haven't installed it yet as I ran out of HDD space of my laptop. I've checked in Adobe website but I couldn't find anything about it.

RAW processing isn't trivial, and can get in the way of the learning process and enjoyment of photography, so it isn't for everyone, especially not for someone just starting.

I found RAW processing to be much easier than I thought, at least with Silkypix I use. And I thought learning to develop RAW images into JPEG was part of the learning process. After all RAW mode is provided on 350D and D40 and they do come with RAW processing software (do they not?).

Edited December 26, 2007 by Nordlys

[hughden]

Lightroom has a library module, a develop module, a print module, a slideshow module and a web module (build a web page for you).

The Library module is great for organising your photos when you first import them and then categorising them for future access. The Develop module does almost everything you need to do with a photo without having to go into Photoshop; but if you do step out into Photoshop, Lightroom will keep track of your original image and the PS modified version. What I really like about the Develop module is that it never changes the original image. So if you shoot in RAW for example, and then make various changes to the image; all those changes will be kept in the database and applied to the RAW file when you convert it to JPG or whatever; but the original RAW remains unchanged.

I have shot more than 10,000 images in the last six weeks; I could not have managed and processed so many photos without the help of Lightroom.

It runs very nicely on a Mac, not so quick in Windows.

[The Vulcan]

Silkypix needs a really powerful machine as it's so resource hungry (I needed to re-boot frequently) and it's just not as smooth and slick as Lightroom.

My thought too. And my Silkypix is a free version.

As someone has pointed out, Lightroom is a total editing, viewing and organising tool.

Does Lightroom come with slide show feature like Apple's aperture? I have Lightroom myself but I haven't installed it yet as I ran out of HDD space of my laptop. I've checked in Adobe website but I couldn't find anything about it.

RAW processing isn't trivial, and can get in the way of the learning process and enjoyment of photography, so it isn't for everyone, especially not for someone just starting.

I found RAW processing to be much easier than I thought, at least with Silkypix I use. And I thought learning to develop RAW images into JPEG was part of the learning process. After all RAW mode is provided on 350D and D40 and they do come with RAW processing software (do they not?).

L/R does indeed come with a full slide show, also web presentation, multi format printing, and so on. You can set up your own parameters, likes and preferences to spped up your workflow. And it's great at tagging the info for future reference as well as tracking images quickly.

I'm somewhat at a loss to understand this myth surrounding RAW processing. A RAW image is merely an unprocessed image available as shot. There's no in-camera manipulation, cropping, sharpening or tuning. What you get is what you shot and not what some boffin in Japan decides is a good shot. Just as was the case with film negative.

Then it's just a matter of possessing the right software (see Lightroom) to read the RAW file and the rest is up to you. Manipulate or not. Re-size, crop, sharpen, adjust colour, contrast etc. All these choices are exactly the same as was presented to you with a film negative. As opposed to daunting I'd prefer to use the expression "freedom"; freedom to present a final image as you wish.

[The Vulcan]

Lightroom has a library module, a develop module, a print module, a slideshow module and a web module (build a web page for you).

The Library module is great for organising your photos when you first import them and then categorising them for future access. The Develop module does almost everything you need to do with a photo without having to go into Photoshop; but if you do step out into Photoshop, Lightroom will keep track of your original image and the PS modified version. What I really like about the Develop module is that it never changes the original image. So if you shoot in RAW for example, and then make various changes to the image; all those changes will be kept in the database and applied to the RAW file when you convert it to JPG or whatever; but the original RAW remains unchanged.

I have shot more than 10,000 images in the last six weeks; I could not have managed and processed so many photos without the help of Lightroom.

It runs very nicely on a Mac, not so quick in Windows.

Precisely.

[astral]

Well I did try Lightroom a few weeks back and was put off by the unfamiliar interface.

It has left a little "nasty" in the registry so I cannot try again, without buying

or re-installing Windows.

[Firefoxx]

OK, this is my last post in this thread, since I seem to have been put into the "RAW haters" bin, even though I'm not.

When I mean that RAW processing is not trivial, I meant that JPEG files can be viewed and used *instantly* without *any* need for special software or manipulation. Any type of manipulation, be it silky smooth or oh-so-easy, is still an extra step. DSLRs aren't for the super-technical or super-rich any more, so many people don't buy them for those reasons.

And *again*, my point was that someone who buys a DSLR *doesn't* need to use RAW. Just the same as someone who buys a DSLR doesn't need to buy a $2000 lens. Doesn't need to buy a $400 tripod. Doesn't need to buy a $400 flash. Doesn't need to use mirror lockup. Doesn't need to use long exposures. Doesn't need to use high ISO. It's THERE but it's NOT why *everyone* buys a DSLR, OK?

I'm done.

[Nordlys]

It's THERE but it's NOT why *everyone* buys a DSLR, OK?

What do they buy it for then?

It's up to the owner/user to use it whatever the way deemed fit for him. I'm not arguing you should shoot photos in RAW just because you have a dSLR. But most people I know who own dSLR didn't choose to buy it just because it's cheap or because they wanted a heavier or bulkier camera, but because they wanted to be little more creative with photography than they were with P&S. And like Vulcan pointed out, having the internal processor of the camera do all the processing with parameter set by "boffins in Japan" and permanently losing the detail in trade off to me is against everything creative photography is about.

[astral]

I bought a DSLR because I have been an SLR user for 40 years and it was a logical step.

No need to have two bodies for different film stocks.

RAW did not come into the equation, it is just another feature to be explored.

[ChiangMaiAmerican]

For anyone interested in RAW vs JPEG the following link is to an experiment by a professor of computer science at the University of California at Irvine who is also a photographer.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/pix/rawvsjpg/