[LarryDeBx]

One caveat: Its present version, 4.9, does not work with DNG's. It is rumored that the next major update, to 5.0, will.

Larry

Hmm, Bibble comments on DNG (in their forum) made me impression that they are not going to support DNG anytime soon, even more, it seems that there are no real technical problems to do that, they just think that DNG is evil

I stand corrected.

A few months ago, there were some hints that DNG would be included in the next major upgrade, but it seems now that Bibble has no plans to include DNG support.

They justify this decision by their statement that DNG's do not provide all the camera specific information that RAW does. And therefore, use of DNG's would yeild a somewhat inferior result. This conclusion seems to agree with the [subjective] impressions of several posters on the other forum who have compared DNG from ACR and LightRoom with RAW from either Silkypix or Pentax Lab (for the K10D).

Larry

[Edvinas]

They justify this decision by their statement that DNG's do not provide all the camera specific information that RAW does. And therefore, use of DNG's would yeild a somewhat inferior result. This conclusion seems to agree with the [subjective] impressions of several posters on the other forum who have compared DNG from ACR and LightRoom with RAW from either Silkypix or Pentax Lab (for the K10D).

Well, first of all you shouldn't compare DNG from one program and PEF from another.

My subjective impression is that Silkypix gives the same result with PEF and with DNG created with Adobe DNG converter. And this is not strange. As far as I know, DNG includes all maker noter + camera profile. So there's no real technical problem to get the same results from DNG and from PEF.

It seems to me that Bibble people really don't like the fact, that DNG is format created by their competitor and that is the main reason for not supporting it.

[LarryDeBx]

Well, first of all you shouldn't compare DNG from one program and PEF from another.

My subjective impression is that Silkypix gives the same result with PEF and with DNG created with Adobe DNG converter. And this is not strange. As far as I know, DNG includes all maker noter + camera profile. So there's no real technical problem to get the same results from DNG and from PEF.

It seems to me that Bibble people really don't like the fact, that DNG is format created by their competitor and that is the main reason for not supporting it.

1. My comments specifically applied to DNG's vs. PEF's from the K10D, ONLY. AFAIK, ACR cannot [yet] [fully] utilize k10D specific information in the DNG file. Thus the possible differences in final results, DNG vs. PEF, with the K10D.

2. I agree that no DNG support is a poor marketing choice, if Bibble's goal is to increase as rapidly as possible the gross size of its user base.

But for an full featured, near zero learning curve RAW processor, that gives great results, Bibble is as good or better than anything out there. I personally would gladly sacrifice DNG compatability for the power of this program. I highly recommend the program.

Larry

[russellwolff]

i got my K10D...

(KILLER deal from a local store. get to know your local mom and pop shops and do business locally if you can. it makes the world a better place)

HATED Pentax software
SORTA HATED SilkyPix software

Photoshop CS2 is a clunky ride for RAW

that leaves 2 options:

1. Lightroom Beta, which I can tolerate and get decent results from

2. as of today, Raw Developer supports PEF and DNG from K10D. (I prefer it to Lightroom, but have been using Aperture a lot)

[foxglove]

HATED Pentax software
[snip]
Photoshop CS2 is a clunky ride for RAW

I agree on the Pentax software - opened it, couldn't figure out how to do anything, gave up in minutes. But what's clunky about CS2? I find it pretty smooth, not that I have anything (other than Pentax) to compare with. It seems intuitive and streamlined. Is this a K10D-specific problem, or do I just have low standards?

Julie

[russellwolff]

hey Julie

i use photoshop for tons and tons of design tasks. that said, when i compare bringing photos into Photoshop through ACR as a means of RAW conversion to some of the other programs out there including Adobe's own Lightroom, i find ACR and Photoshop a bit archaic.

any english majors out there to check that run on sentence?

[foxglove]

when i compare bringing photos into Photoshop through ACR as a means of RAW conversion to some of the other programs out there including Adobe's own Lightroom, i find ACR and Photoshop a bit archaic.

any english majors out there to check that run on sentence?

Hm, it'd be interesting to try out Lightroom to compare. But ACR + PS is working for me, I guess if I don't know what I'm missing, I'll continue to be happy with it!

I'm not an English major (that's probably obvious) so the sentence looks fine to me. Of course, I'm the queen of run-on sentences...

Julie

[russellwolff]

Julie

The nice thing (although confusing as hell) is that most of these programs offer a fully functional trial.

I would recommend going through the list and seeing what you feel most comfortable with and what you are most happy with the output from.

That's what I did and it led me to use different programs for different types of images... and also, now that I have the K10D I am a bit limited. It made me realize how much I love the output from RawDeveloper though!

-russell

[davemdsn]

Adobe has stated that ACR will be getting a makeover when Lightroom is released so that files will be cross-compatible between the two converters. That supports what they said when they bought Pixmantec, that the technology acuired would be used accross the entire CS family. This all means that while Lightroom is the first to show this newly acuired raw process, it will show up in ACR very soon.