You are at netAirspace : Forum : Spotting and Photography Forums : Photo Editing & Feedback

Just wondering what everyone else uses to open and edit RAW files.

For the past year I have been using Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and whilst it produced ok results, I was never quite happy with the results. The colours never seemed to be too accurate to me and adjusting the exposure often left the images looking a bit washed out. Even using the black tool made the black areas just a bit too dark overall. The sharpening and noise reduction included in ACR I found to be quite good though.

Using ACR is relatively simple, just open a RAW file, adjust the exposure and colour cast, and with sharpening and noise reduction already preset, the next step was to simply click "open" and start editing in Photoshop.

However from yesterday I downloaded a 60 day free trial of another RAW processing called Capture One. I'm wondering if anyone has ever heard of it or had any experience with it?

Using it to edit RAW files is a bit more complex that ACR but the results are much better from my point of view. Upon opening and making adjustments to a RAW file, you have to save the resulting image as a JPEG and in turn open it in Photoshop. The colour production seems a lot better than ACR and the noise reduction and sharpening also seem to be a step up from ACR.

I will of course keep testing it and comparing it to ACR however so far, it's winning me over.

Anybody use any other RAW processing programs?

ACR through CS6

For low-noise shots (where I don't need luminance NR - generally under ISO400), I use Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which I like.

For higher-noise shots, I use ACR for CS5, due to its superior NR and sharpening, as you said. But, like you, I absolutely HATE the colors and contrast I get out of ACR. The images frequently look kind of cartoony, though this is much more an issue with landscape shots than airplane shots.

DPP appears to replicate what I saw, and what the camera saw, which I suppose makes sense. ACR does not appear to replicate it very well. It's actually a gigantic source of frustration for me that two RAW editors see an image differently.

I know that's kind of the point, but I just don't like it. And no matter how much I play around in ACR, I can never quite get the image to look like the DPP version.

I've never used LightRoom myself, I've always used Photoshop CS3,4 and now 5, I assume LR is much like photoshop, jst with the important basics? I have a file with CS6 on it but at the moment I don't see much point in installing it as I'm happy enough with CS5.

I just compared some output images between ACR and Capture One and the differences are quite noticeable and in favour of Capture One. I'd recommend trying the Capture One 60 day. The sharpening and noise reduction is quite impressive.

mr chips wrote:I assume LR is much like photoshop, jst with the important basics?

That would better describe PS Elements, far as I know.

Lightroom, from what I understand, is Photoshop geared toward photographers, rather than graphic designers. So it probably doesn't have a lot of the graphic design stuff. But apparently it has great tools for organizing and tracking your photos.

mr chips wrote:I just compared some output images between ACR and Capture One and the differences are quite noticeable and in favour of Capture One. I'd recommend trying the Capture One 60 day. The sharpening and noise reduction is quite impressive.

Maybe I'll give it a shot. I'm always resistant to changing software, especially when it comes to photo editing - inconsistency drives me insane.

mr chips wrote:I have a file with CS6 on it but at the moment I don't see much point in installing it as I'm happy enough with CS5.

Hell, I still use CS3 for most of my JPEG editing. Runs faster than CS5 on my computer, but I don't have the ACR plugin for it, which is why I use CS5 for RAW.

vikkyvik wrote:

mr chips wrote:I assume LR is much like photoshop, jst with the important basics?

That would better describe PS Elements, far as I know.

Lightroom, from what I understand, is Photoshop geared toward photographers, rather than graphic designers. So it probably doesn't have a lot of the graphic design stuff. But apparently it has great tools for organizing and tracking your photos.

mr chips wrote:I just compared some output images between ACR and Capture One and the differences are quite noticeable and in favour of Capture One. I'd recommend trying the Capture One 60 day. The sharpening and noise reduction is quite impressive.

Maybe I'll give it a shot. I'm always resistant to changing software, especially when it comes to photo editing - inconsistency drives me insane.

mr chips wrote:I have a file with CS6 on it but at the moment I don't see much point in installing it as I'm happy enough with CS5.

Hell, I still use CS3 for most of my JPEG editing. Runs faster than CS5 on my computer, but I don't have the ACR plugin for it, which is why I use CS5 for RAW.

I've never considered LR however it sounds more suited to me than Photoshop, considered I do zero graphic design stuff, just photo editing.

I would probably be using CS3 aswell if it wasn't for Adobe being unwilling to allow new camera's to be made usable with older photoshop versions.

I'm always looking for new editing workflows so I'm often experimenting with different programs and techniques.

Attached are two images, the first is opened and edited using Adobe Camera Raw and saved at 3000 pixels. The second is opened and edited using Capture One Pro 7 and again saved at 3000 pixels.


Adobe Camera Raw Qatar (original image) by Aviation Dave, on Flickr


Capture One Qatar and NN (original image) by Aviation Dave, on Flickr

Slight difference in colour however the sharpening and noise I find is much better in the Capture One edit. I could crank the sharpening higher using Capture One, however if I did the same with ACR, it would just turn to mush.

I use ACR with CS5. I am not 100% happy with the results, though they are much better than with CS3, which I used previously.

I have tried Canon's DPP, and indeed, it's not bad. But the fact that I have to use 2 programs - first the RAW processor and then PS - puts me off.

Usually, I do some basic editing work in ACR. Adjusting exposure and brightness, and applying some standard sharpening and noise reduction. The rest is being done in PS, including the final colour correction, using the levels tool for each colour channel separately (a brilliant method that vikkyvik (IIRC) recently introduced here).

As for LR, it may be great, but I have gotten so used to using layers in editing that I just can't get used to LR. I guess I will be stuck with PS forever.

One more - I never use the Blacks tool in ACR. I usually start with the Auto function and then adjust the settings manually. And I always set Blacks to zero. It indeed tends to darken the image too much. You can do the contrast correction much more efficiently with the levels tool in PS.

Zak wrote:One more - I never use the Blacks tool in ACR. I usually start with the Auto function and then adjust the settings manually. And I always set Blacks to zero. It indeed tends to darken the image too much. You can do the contrast correction much more efficiently with the levels tool in PS.

That's my take on it, but adjusting with the levels tool in photoshop means you're not using the RAW file to it's potential, as it's a JPEG which is holding less detail. That's why I'd rather sort the levels and contrast, etc, in the RAW editing program. I may be completely wrong though.

mr chips wrote:That's my take on it, but adjusting with the levels tool in photoshop means you're not using the RAW file to it's potential, as it's a JPEG which is holding less detail. That's why I'd rather sort the levels and contrast, etc, in the RAW editing program.

That's not quite how I see it.

If you use ACR + PS, then the data that is transferred over to PS after RAW processing does not hold less detail than the RAW file. The reduction to 8 bit (which is required to save the file as a JPEG) ideally takes place at the end of the editing workflow, so until then, you do not really lose any detail.

The main difference between RAW and JPEG / PS editing is that RAW editing is non-destructive. The RAW file always stays as it is, and the editing steps are saved in a separate file, and can thus always be changed later on.

But since you keep the RAW file anyway, I don't care much about what I still have to do in PS later on. I still have the RAW file, and can reprocess it any time I feel the need to do it.

For me, the key question is which program delivers better results for a specific tool. For colour and exposure correction, ACR delivers fast and good results. Sharpening and noise reduction used to be sub-par with ACR / CS3, but has gotten much better with ACR / CS5, and since it's easier to apply via presets, I do it in ACR these days, and only give it a final touch in PS, when needed.

The Blacks tool, however, is not ideal in ACR. So I skip it and do the work in PS instead. For me, it's the result that counts, not at which step I apply a tool.

So until I will find a RAW processor that delivers a better final result than the combination of ACR & PS, I will stick with the latter. Mostly for the seamless transition between RAW processing and final editing. If use another RAW processor and then have to save the file as a JPEG (by thus reducing it to 8 bit) which I can then edit in PS, then I will lose information along the way. With ACR + PS, I can do the final editing in PS still in 16 bit mode.

mr chips wrote:That's my take on it, but adjusting with the levels tool in photoshop means you're not using the RAW file to it's potential, as it's a JPEG which is holding less detail. That's why I'd rather sort the levels and contrast, etc, in the RAW editing program. I may be completely wrong though.

That's my take on it as well, because I don't go directly from the RAW to the JPEG in PS; I save the RAW as a JPEG then open it later.

However, I have to agree with Stefan that I don't particularly like ACR's Blacks tool (ummm, we are talking about photo editing here, right...??). I usually use it, but not all the way. So I'll bring it up close to what I'm striving for, and then tweak it in PS.

Again, the Levels tool in DPP works way better. I would use DPP for all my editing, if its luminance NR tool was at all useful.

Bottom line: I CANNOT get photos to look the way I want them in ACR. So anytime I have to use it (which is fairly frequently, given the quantity of high-ISO shots I take), I feel like I'm sacrificing something.