[joele]

In bibble you can set up a default setting for processing though, the original default isn't my preference..

[WMBP]

Boy, this is a big subject. There are many dimensions to it; and there are lots of options here.

I've been using Picasa (free from Google) for the last year. It's great at managing my photos, satisfactory for basic post-processing fixes (cropping, tweaking brightness or contrast, etc.). Recognizes my PEF Raw files, but doesn't currently show Exif data, which is annoying. If I do NOT start shooting Raw routinely, I'll probably stick with Picasa. I own Adobe Photoshop Elements 5, too, and have made several serious attempts to get friendly with it, but I find it just too bloated. It's got some fabulous features (I am particularly fond of "stacks"), and the editor provides a ton of options (it's a junior version of Photoshop, after all), but I don't care for it overall. Photoshop Elements gives me the feeling that it expects me to spend an hour every day tagging and organizing my photos.

For Raw workflow management, there are lots of good programs, including: Bibble (not "Biddle" or "Bible"), BreezeBrowser, Capture One, Apple Aperture, and Adobe Lightroom. Lightroom is in the late stages of beta and expected to be released next month, apparently; at the moment, you can download the latest (fairly solid) beta for free. Aperture is Mac OS X only. Pixmantec's Raw Shooter used to vie with Capture One (from Phase One) as the top-of-the-line workflow tools but Adobe bought Pixmantec, and in any case, the release of the entry of Apple and Adobe into this market has shaken things up quite a bit. Bibble seems to be an excellent program - the Perfectly Clear one-button quick fix seems particularly good - but compared to Aperture or Lightroom, the user-interface is rather dated. Still, it's much less expensive than Aperture or than Lightroom is expected to be. You can download free trial versions of all of these programs. NOTE that Aperture works only in Mac OS X.

NOTE that the programs I have mentioned so far are all designed to cater - and cater exclusively - to the needs of photographers. Photoshop - along with the whole Adobe CS/Creative Studio line of products - goes WAY way beyond what most of us need as photographers. That's why they're releasing Lightroom. Photoshop (or Photoshop Elements, which is much cheaper) will still be there if you want to remove a zit from that portrait of your teenage daughter or if you want to whiten Uncle Marvin's teeth. But I'm inclined to think that most people who really need Photoshop (or one of the other pixel-editors like The Gimp, or ACDSee Photo Editor or PaintShop Pro) know this already.

I seem to be talking myself into using Lightroom. I'm working now with the beta - and keeping my photos also in Picasa. Lightroom has a really slick UI, with a lot of brilliant touches. I like the way Picasa integrates with Picasa Web Albums, which I've been using to display my pictures online; I guess I'd have to rethink that if I switched to Lightroom. But if I do start shooting Raw on a regular basis, I will almost certainly switch to Lightroom.

Will

[WMBP]

By the way, this is perhaps a sign of where things are trending, at least among the pros:

Darkroom Magazine - The How-to Magazine for Adobe Photoshop Lightroom

WP

[MPrince]

If I need to make white balance adjustments, I usually use PPL, otherwise I use UFRaw (it's free!) for exposure adjustments and to convert to 16 bit tiff. Then I use Microsoft Digital Imaging Suite to complete post processing. It's much easier to use than photoshop and much more reasonably priced.

[Photodan]

I'm using Photoshop Elements 3. I haven't seen a need to update to 4 or 5.

Elements is as easy or as difficult as you want it to be. It's as simple as Picasa for simply transfering images from your camera and, if you want to use tags or collections, or stacks that's equally easy. It's a terrific organizer that allows you to view your images by download, file name, date, etc.

As for image editing; it has easily 80 - 90% of it's big brother's capabilities and most of us won't use anywhere near all of them.

Last is the price. There's usually a deal at Amazon, Bestbuy, CompUSA, etc., where it can be had for as little as $39.95. Never a reason to pay bust out retail.

Dan

[dhodgeh]

Take a look at a program called Picture Window Pro (Google it to find). It's very complete and much more intuitive than Photoshop; not to mention much cheaper. It's designed for photographers so you are not paying for a million things that you will never use. You can download a fully functional trial and give it shot.

+1

For most photographic touch-ups it can do the same as PS, for way less $$$, and use a lot fewer resources.

However, if you do need a general purpose graphics and paint program, you may need to look elsewhere.

FWIW I use both PWP and PS CS where the strength of one or the other fits the task at hand.

Don

[grcolts]

Well I can tell you Iphoto on the Mac does not support RAW for the Pentax and apparently does not support png either. So, in order for me to review raw shots I had to download a trail version of Adobe Lightroom. No problem loading the dng raw files.
BTW, this program is not yet for sale but the trail version is great. Does anyone know a way to use Iphoto with raw files for the Pentax? Maybe a new version of Iphoto will include that ability. Oh, I did use the Pentax software to load pef raw files but it was soooooo slow I decided to go another route.
GR

[WMBP]

Well I can tell you Iphoto on the Mac does not support RAW for the Pentax and apparently does not support png either. So, in order for me to review raw shots I had to download a trail version of Adobe Lightroom. No problem loading the dng raw files. BTW, this program is not yet for sale but the trail version is great. Does anyone know a way to use Iphoto with raw files for the Pentax? Maybe a new version of Iphoto will include that ability. Oh, I did use the Pentax software to load pef raw files but it was soooooo slow I decided to go another route.

GR,

Adobe Lightroom is currently in beta 4.1 and over at the Adobe forums for this product there's very open talk about it being officially released some time in February 2007, in other words, in about a month of this writing. Expected price = $200 (based on the appearance of this item on Amazon.com). It's an outstanding product.

I'm surprised to hear that iPhoto has no converter for PEF Raw files, but in any case, I don't think you'd want to use iPhoto to process your Raw images. Picasa can read and process my Pentax Raw files, but it's kind of like saying that the radio in my truck can play music: it's only true if you're in a generous and forgiving mood. If you're going to bother with Raw - and that really ought to be a serious IF - but if you are, then you might as well use a proper Raw workflow program. The alternative to Lightroom is Apple's Aperture program, which is Mac OS X only and costs about the same. Both Aperture and Lightroom are terrific. But there are others. I am pretty sure that Capture One has a Mac version. Adobe Photoshop Elements can also handle Raw files (not sure whether the Mac version can handle PEF files, though.)

But if you're happy with iPhoto, you should think hard about whether you want to stop using it and move to Raw. I'm still struggling with this issue myself and I'm doing some writing on the topic right now. Raw's advantages are undeniable. It's disadvantages are also undeniable. The question is, is the upside of Raw greater for YOU than the downside? I really want to like Raw, but so far, I'm not sure that the benefits are worth the hassle and the extra expense involved in using up 5-6 times as much hard disk storage and buying also that many more CDs or DVDs to archive photos.

Will

[grcolts]

I know it is a tough decision. After playing around with RAW and JPEG on the K10 I can see a difference in the images. Whether this difference is worth the costs and storage space is certainly interesting. Saving an image from raw to jpeg shows a difference which I think is better. Lightroom seems to be a worthwhile program. At this point in time, I can't consider Apple's own Aperture due to the fact it needs higher processing power than what I have on my Mac, and I do use OSX. Probably for most of my shooting jpegs will work just fine. It is nice to know raw is available for those shots that need it. Time will tell which way I go as for which format I will settle upon. Iphoto does a decent job with the jpegs.
GR

GR,

Adobe Lightroom is currently in beta 4.1 and over at the Adobe forums for this product there's very open talk about it being officially released some time in February 2007, in other words, in about a month of this writing. Expected price = $200 (based on the appearance of this item on Amazon.com). It's an outstanding product.

I'm surprised to hear that iPhoto has no converter for PEF Raw files, but in any case, I don't think you'd want to use iPhoto to process your Raw images. Picasa can read and process my Pentax Raw files, but it's kind of like saying that the radio in my truck can play music: it's only true if you're in a generous and forgiving mood. If you're going to bother with Raw - and that really ought to be a serious IF - but if you are, then you might as well use a proper Raw workflow program. The alternative to Lightroom is Apple's Aperture program, which is Mac OS X only and costs about the same. Both Aperture and Lightroom are terrific. But there are others. I am pretty sure that Capture One has a Mac version. Adobe Photoshop Elements can also handle Raw files (not sure whether the Mac version can handle PEF files, though.)

But if you're happy with iPhoto, you should think hard about whether you want to stop using it and move to Raw. I'm still struggling with this issue myself and I'm doing some writing on the topic right now. Raw's advantages are undeniable. It's disadvantages are also undeniable. The question is, is the upside of Raw greater for YOU than the downside? I really want to like Raw, but so far, I'm not sure that the benefits are worth the hassle and the extra expense involved in using up 5-6 times as much hard disk storage and buying also that many more CDs or DVDs to archive photos.

Will