I have been long searching for decent RAW processing software. Don’t get me wrong – there is a plethora of different programs offering various bells and whistles. They all look wonderful, but how do they contribute to my workflow?
Most of us have got our own unique way of processing, categorising and re-working our photos and the software we choose should complement our needs as opposed to forcing us to adopt other’s. And so my requirements are more than likely to differ from yours, obviously.
So, what am I looking for in the RAW processing software? Below is a list of criteria important to me personally. The list is not presented in any particular order – all items are equally important.
- First off, I need to be able to adjust all properties of the RAW file – sharpness, noise (both colour and luminance), brightness, contrast, exposure, vibrance and saturation. I should also be able to edit tone curves both master and for each channel individually.
- Second, I need to be able to manage my photos including the storage of processing settings and cache. This means that I don’t want software to store “sidecar” files in the same directory as my photos given that I might be processing photos directly from the memory card (should I have the necessity) or optical media (which would effectively prevent the processing software from writing to the storage anyway). This prompts for the software which allows me to select storage for the processing files. It is necessary to mention that Adobe’s sidecar invention will result in the hard disk fragmentation as they tiny in size. I also want to able to use a dedicated hard disk for processing cache, catalogue and or database as opposed to storing it all on local drive.
- Third, is catalogue and database. IMHO it is a waste of time. I want an option to turn it off, since I have very little need of being bound for life to some proprietary database. If I want to catalogue my shots, I will do it myself thank you very much. And if software insists on using database, it might as well be using a proper database engine such as MySQL or MSSQL. I am sure many would appreciate being able to maintain a far more manageable database than software offers.
- Fourth, functional tools allowing you to deal with distortion (barrel and moustache) and CA. There should not be need to process the images in 2-3 different apps.
- Fifth, stability and speed. Few people enjoy software crashing every 5 minutes and/or crawling at a pace of a plastered snail (Adobe Photoshop springs to mind). Some may argue that upgrading the hardware and updating drivers resolves the issue. I agree to disagree. When software is released, is it written with future drivers in mind? I don’t think so. Furthermore, if I have used my camera since 2005 for instance, and size and structure of my RAW files hasn’t changed, and my processing software previously worked at a decent speed, how come now I now have to put up with bloatware? And I prefer increase of speed at a cost of beautiful 3D interface.
- Last but not least, I appreciate the software which can remember last opened folder and perhaps also be configured to always open a default folder for file export. Not really much to ask for, I hope?
Most of the software will attempt to entice and lure you with catchy and impressive slogans such as “with the flexibility to adapt to the way you work” (ACDSee Pro Photo Manager 3), “…fundamentally changed the way digital photo editing is done—reducing complexity
and returning control to photographers” (LightZone), “designed to create the best image quality in the market and holds a series of easy-to-use tools created to match the professional photographer’s daily workflow.” (PhaseOne CaptureOne). This list can go on.
First thing to perhaps realise that these slogans are written by corporate sales departments – people creative in their own right but as long as decent sums of money are involved. In reality they have no interest in photography and yours in particular. Please forgive my cynicism, but after 9 years as a systems engineer I boast quite an experience of corporate machinery.
So, with all this in mind, in the coming series of posts I will review all the software I have been (un)fortunate to use
Leave a Comment