Is there a SIMPLE RAW processing program?

**ROBEFFY** · 03-09-2015, 10:39 AM - **1 Like**

My 2 cents favors LR for organizing, cropping, exposure adjustment in both RAW and JPG. I like to organize my pics, and find Ligthroom and Elements do that really well.

If I want to get more in depth, I am dabbling with GIMP, which is free. I transfer the RAW to a TIFF format, modify and resave it back the same directory it came from in LR, with a modified file name, and then recatalogue it in LR.

I used to design machinery for a living, and always said there are 50 ways to design something, 2 or 3 are really good, the rest will likely work, to varying degrees.

Personal preference comes into play with software.

mohb · 03-09-2015, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by lsimpkins

If you didn't like developing or printing from film, I wonder why you would want to step into the Raw side of the digital realm

Raw developing can be done in comfort and it's relatively easy to 'do' a days shooting in an evening, film developing and printing was done in the dark with smelly chemicals and half a dozen prints in a night was good going.
LR is quite easy to learn the basics and then can become quite addictive as you learn more and more, and you can try it free for thirty days

emalvick · 03-09-2015, 11:05 AM

Most commercial RAW software will have some feature for batch processing. I haven't tried one that doesn't. That being said, I think the bigger commercial ones tend to be the easiest to use. Lightroom is probably the most intuitive, and I'd recommend it over most because of that. However, DxO, CaptureOne, and Silkypix Pro all hold their own with fairly easy workflows as well. While Lightroom is perhaps easiest, I find the other three can provide better results. CaptureOne also has a catalog feature which could be useful.

The free and open source software like RawTherapee and Gimp (with UFRaw) are fairly powerful, but they often can be a step behind in user interface or simplicity. DarkTable can be a good program as an opensource Lightroom alternative, but it is only available in Linux and perhaps Mac(?). Lightzone is an interesting software that is now Opensource and it has a unique workflow that might appeal most to film users in its approach. I've installed it and used it occasionally, and it does work well.

6BQ5 · 03-09-2015, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by Setter Dog

I'm a lifetime photographer of over 60 years, but apparently have always been lazy. Never wanted to do my own developing and never had much interest in RAW processing,.....until now.

I really, really like my Pentax K50 and K3. They are the most fun cameras I've ever used. If the video was decent, I'd sell everything else I own. But, to the point, based on recommendations of forum members, I began shooting RAW when I found that was the only way I could get a really good sunrise shot. I got great results processing in camera and good results with Faststone, not only on sunrises but almost everything. . Faststone, however, won't allow changing AWB, at least as far as I can tell.

I'd like to find another RAW processor. It certainly doesn't have to be free, but it has to be fast and allow batch processing. Anything complicated will not hold my interest very long. Suggestions?

Thanks for the helpful input that I know I'll get.

Jack

Hi Jack,

You didn't mention if you are on a Mac or a WinPC. If you are on a Mac then the new Apple Photos may be for you. It is as simple as it gets (maybe too simple) but it will have Apple's excellent DAM. You can also buy Aperture for a little while yet.

Otherwise, your best bet would be something like Light Room, Capture One, etc. Use one of the built in presets and stamp the adjustments to all imported images. Done! Then, if you feel compelled, you can tweak images as needed. I have always felt that a JPG engine like what is found in these programs will run circles around what is inside a camera. You get your JPGs and you also get your raw files. That's like getting your prints and keeping your negatives too.

ant11sam · 03-09-2015, 01:32 PM

Just my 2 cents, from basic to more elaborated.... sort of

1- For basic stuff in windows :ACDSee Pro 2
2 - More elaborated win or Linux: GIMP
3 - Windows :CS2
4 - Light Room

**lsimpkins** · 03-09-2015, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by mohb

LR is quite easy to learn the basics and then can become quite addictive as you learn more and more, and you can try it free for thirty days

I am an LR advocate and 100% agree that some of the LR basics are easy to learn. I use it exclusively on >95% of my images, finishing the rest in PSE. And when it comes to developing an image there is no right or wrong.

However, when you consider the problems some users have had in coming to terms with importing, moving, and organizing images, LR is not without potential issues. If the OP were to use LR, I would strongly recommend viewing available on line training before importing the first image to it in order to avoid frustration or the feeling that it is too complicated. I find the training DVDs offered by Laura Shoe extremely helpful and refer back to them frequently to polish my workflow and get the most out of my images.

Setter Dog · 03-09-2015, 02:56 PM

Thanks to all of you that took time for the thoughtful responses. This forum amazes me. It is so much more active that DP Review for Pentax that it's hard to realize both forums deal with the same cameras.

I think for starters, I will download a trial version of LR. It seems to be universally popular. In the meantime, I get good results with both in camera raw processing and Faststone so I have that to fall back on. Actually, with these cameras, it's hard to go wrong. The SOOC jpegs are beautiful.

Great ideas you've given me. Thanks.

Jack

stevebrot · 03-09-2015, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by Na Horuk

Raw files don't look as good as jpegs until you process them.

Ahem...RAW files don't look like anything. They are data only until converted into a viewable image format (JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc.).

Steve

stevebrot · 03-09-2015, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by dms

And if you simply use the part that process the raw file (Bridge)

It is my understanding that the more recent versions of ACR (required for full Pentax K-3 support) will not work with the CS2 version of Bridge.

Steve

stevebrot · 03-09-2015, 09:24 PM

Originally posted by jatrax

The best workflow (IMHO) with Lightroom is to work completely in RAW and never export to a finished file

That is my flow as well, though there is a catch. The catch is that the files remain in proprietary format* and potentially less available should technologies change. TIFF or JPEG have a greater chance of being readable by our great, great, grandchildren.

Steve

* Yes, even DNG files from your Pentax cameras are proprietary. The DNG basically "wraps" a PEF.

**jatrax** · 03-09-2015, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

TIFF or JPEG have a greater chance of being readable by our great, great, grandchildren.

Good point. Though it assumes our great, great grandchildren (if any) give a rodent's rear end about some old 2d pictures.

DSims · 03-10-2015, 02:03 AM

The one that came with the camera is genuinely a good place to start, because it allows you to emulate the camera's JPEG settings by having the same settings in the editor, which you can apply to your RAW files. Then (unlike Lightroom) they start out looking the same as you're used to, and you can work to improve them from there. Plus you don't have to deal with Lightroom's catalog before you can get started (though eventually you probably want to use a cataloging software system, whether it be Lightroom's, Capture One's, or something else).

**lsimpkins** · 03-11-2015, 10:13 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

* Yes, even DNG files from your Pentax cameras are proprietary.

DNG was written by Adobe, but is far from proprietary. The spec is freely available for download by any software developer or anyone who is the least bit curious. In addition to Pentax, Leica and Hasselblad have adopted it as an available Raw file format in their cameras.

ScooterMaxi Jim · 03-12-2015, 05:53 PM

I'm a user of both Capture One and LR. While I agree with others who point out that the organizing available in LR is excellent (but tends to capture the user for life), I think C1 is now a superior tool, quicker, and overall easier to use. Especially for the K-3, it will yield better fine detail. You can trial it for 30 days, so not much at risk other than your time spent on it. Not that LR is a problem, but very little has been updated since the 2010 improvements.

indy · 03-12-2015, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by dms

Photoshop CS2 is apparently now free. And if you simply use the part that process the raw file (Bridge) it is very easy and very powerful. Actually as you use it more and more the program is really excellent and will not limit you.

As a help/guide I suggest Bruce Fraser, "Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" (2005)

+1 to the above. I have the full cs5 suite (thank goodness it was free) and rarely ever go beyond Bridge. The only time I actually open a photo in photoshop is if I have a digital negative I need to invert. I wish Adobe would offer Bridge with with a small selection of tools from Photoshop as a standalone.

03-09-2015, 02:56 PM	#22
Setter Dog Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Orange County California Posts: 117 Original Poster	Thanks to all of you! Thanks to all of you that took time for the thoughtful responses. This forum amazes me. It is so much more active that DP Review for Pentax that it's hard to realize both forums deal with the same cameras. I think for starters, I will download a trial version of LR. It seems to be universally popular. In the meantime, I get good results with both in camera raw processing and Faststone so I have that to fall back on. Actually, with these cameras, it's hard to go wrong. The SOOC jpegs are beautiful. Great ideas you've given me. Thanks. Jack

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best Post Processing Program algorithms for K-3 Raw Images?	Krusty Surfer	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	29	09-05-2015 05:26 PM
Is there a half case for the Super Program	weijen	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	9	10-15-2014 09:30 AM
Is there any chance a BIOS update will fix the abysmally slow raw speed?	ChopperCharles	Pentax Q	16	01-29-2014 03:49 AM
In Juried Art Contests, is there a bias against digital processing?	philbaum	Photographic Technique	3	02-06-2011 10:59 AM
K-5 Is there a simple way of going from HDR back to RAW?	allantois	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	11	10-23-2010 05:42 PM

03-09-2015, 10:39 AM - 1 Like	#16
ROBEFFY Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Northern Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 248	My 2 cents favors LR for organizing, cropping, exposure adjustment in both RAW and JPG. I like to organize my pics, and find Ligthroom and Elements do that really well. If I want to get more in depth, I am dabbling with GIMP, which is free. I transfer the RAW to a TIFF format, modify and resave it back the same directory it came from in LR, with a modified file name, and then recatalogue it in LR. I used to design machinery for a living, and always said there are 50 ways to design something, 2 or 3 are really good, the rest will likely work, to varying degrees. Personal preference comes into play with software.

03-09-2015, 10:41 AM	#17
mohb Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,912	Originally posted by lsimpkins If you didn't like developing or printing from film, I wonder why you would want to step into the Raw side of the digital realm Raw developing can be done in comfort and it's relatively easy to 'do' a days shooting in an evening, film developing and printing was done in the dark with smelly chemicals and half a dozen prints in a night was good going. LR is quite easy to learn the basics and then can become quite addictive as you learn more and more, and you can try it free for thirty days

03-09-2015, 11:05 AM	#18
emalvick Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Davis, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,642	Most commercial RAW software will have some feature for batch processing. I haven't tried one that doesn't. That being said, I think the bigger commercial ones tend to be the easiest to use. Lightroom is probably the most intuitive, and I'd recommend it over most because of that. However, DxO, CaptureOne, and Silkypix Pro all hold their own with fairly easy workflows as well. While Lightroom is perhaps easiest, I find the other three can provide better results. CaptureOne also has a catalog feature which could be useful. The free and open source software like RawTherapee and Gimp (with UFRaw) are fairly powerful, but they often can be a step behind in user interface or simplicity. DarkTable can be a good program as an opensource Lightroom alternative, but it is only available in Linux and perhaps Mac(?). Lightzone is an interesting software that is now Opensource and it has a unique workflow that might appeal most to film users in its approach. I've installed it and used it occasionally, and it does work well.

03-09-2015, 12:07 PM	#19
6BQ5 Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Nevada, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 3,348	Originally posted by Setter Dog I'm a lifetime photographer of over 60 years, but apparently have always been lazy. Never wanted to do my own developing and never had much interest in RAW processing,.....until now. I really, really like my Pentax K50 and K3. They are the most fun cameras I've ever used. If the video was decent, I'd sell everything else I own. But, to the point, based on recommendations of forum members, I began shooting RAW when I found that was the only way I could get a really good sunrise shot. I got great results processing in camera and good results with Faststone, not only on sunrises but almost everything. . Faststone, however, won't allow changing AWB, at least as far as I can tell. I'd like to find another RAW processor. It certainly doesn't have to be free, but it has to be fast and allow batch processing. Anything complicated will not hold my interest very long. Suggestions? Thanks for the helpful input that I know I'll get. Jack Hi Jack, You didn't mention if you are on a Mac or a WinPC. If you are on a Mac then the new Apple Photos may be for you. It is as simple as it gets (maybe too simple) but it will have Apple's excellent DAM. You can also buy Aperture for a little while yet. Otherwise, your best bet would be something like Light Room, Capture One, etc. Use one of the built in presets and stamp the adjustments to all imported images. Done! Then, if you feel compelled, you can tweak images as needed. I have always felt that a JPG engine like what is found in these programs will run circles around what is inside a camera. You get your JPGs and you also get your raw files. That's like getting your prints and keeping your negatives too.

03-09-2015, 01:32 PM	#20
ant11sam Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 52	Just my 2 cents, from basic to more elaborated.... sort of 1- For basic stuff in windows :ACDSee Pro 2 2 - More elaborated win or Linux: GIMP 3 - Windows :CS2 4 - Light Room

03-09-2015, 02:32 PM	#21
lsimpkins Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: SE Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 537	Originally posted by mohb LR is quite easy to learn the basics and then can become quite addictive as you learn more and more, and you can try it free for thirty days I am an LR advocate and 100% agree that some of the LR basics are easy to learn. I use it exclusively on >95% of my images, finishing the rest in PSE. And when it comes to developing an image there is no right or wrong. However, when you consider the problems some users have had in coming to terms with importing, moving, and organizing images, LR is not without potential issues. If the OP were to use LR, I would strongly recommend viewing available on line training before importing the first image to it in order to avoid frustration or the feeling that it is too complicated. I find the training DVDs offered by Laura Shoe extremely helpful and refer back to them frequently to polish my workflow and get the most out of my images.

03-09-2015, 09:19 PM	#23
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Na Horuk Raw files don't look as good as jpegs until you process them. Ahem...RAW files don't look like anything. They are data only until converted into a viewable image format (JPEG, TIFF, PNG, etc.). Steve

03-09-2015, 09:21 PM	#24
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by dms And if you simply use the part that process the raw file (Bridge) It is my understanding that the more recent versions of ACR (required for full Pentax K-3 support) will not work with the CS2 version of Bridge. Steve

03-09-2015, 09:24 PM	#25
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by jatrax The best workflow (IMHO) with Lightroom is to work completely in RAW and never export to a finished file That is my flow as well, though there is a catch. The catch is that the files remain in proprietary format* and potentially less available should technologies change. TIFF or JPEG have a greater chance of being readable by our great, great, grandchildren. Steve * Yes, even DNG files from your Pentax cameras are proprietary. The DNG basically "wraps" a PEF.

03-09-2015, 09:44 PM	#26
jatrax Site Supporter Join Date: May 2010 Location: Washington Cascades Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,991	Originally posted by stevebrot TIFF or JPEG have a greater chance of being readable by our great, great, grandchildren. Good point. Though it assumes our great, great grandchildren (if any) give a rodent's rear end about some old 2d pictures.

03-10-2015, 02:03 AM	#27
DSims Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Southern California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,236	The one that came with the camera is genuinely a good place to start, because it allows you to emulate the camera's JPEG settings by having the same settings in the editor, which you can apply to your RAW files. Then (unlike Lightroom) they start out looking the same as you're used to, and you can work to improve them from there. Plus you don't have to deal with Lightroom's catalog before you can get started (though eventually you probably want to use a cataloging software system, whether it be Lightroom's, Capture One's, or something else).

03-11-2015, 10:13 PM	#28
lsimpkins Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2013 Location: SE Pennsylvania Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 537	Originally posted by stevebrot * Yes, even DNG files from your Pentax cameras are proprietary. DNG was written by Adobe, but is far from proprietary. The spec is freely available for download by any software developer or anyone who is the least bit curious. In addition to Pentax, Leica and Hasselblad have adopted it as an available Raw file format in their cameras.

03-12-2015, 05:53 PM	#29
ScooterMaxi Jim Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Minnesota Posts: 1,520	I'm a user of both Capture One and LR. While I agree with others who point out that the organizing available in LR is excellent (but tends to capture the user for life), I think C1 is now a superior tool, quicker, and overall easier to use. Especially for the K-3, it will yield better fine detail. You can trial it for 30 days, so not much at risk other than your time spent on it. Not that LR is a problem, but very little has been updated since the 2010 improvements.

03-12-2015, 06:11 PM	#30
indy Senior Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana Photos: Gallery Posts: 274	Originally posted by dms Photoshop CS2 is apparently now free. And if you simply use the part that process the raw file (Bridge) it is very easy and very powerful. Actually as you use it more and more the program is really excellent and will not limit you. As a help/guide I suggest Bruce Fraser, "Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2" (2005) +1 to the above. I have the full cs5 suite (thank goodness it was free) and rarely ever go beyond Bridge. The only time I actually open a photo in photoshop is if I have a digital negative I need to invert. I wish Adobe would offer Bridge with with a small selection of tools from Photoshop as a standalone.