RAW - Best Software for Mac

[filibuster]

I've just upgraded the firmware on my camera (Canon SX1) to include an option for saving pics in RAW format. What are the pros and cons for a relative novice to choose from Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop RAW Plug-in? I currently use an iMac (Intel with 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM) with PS CS4 and OnOne Perfect Photo Suite.

[bobby1961]

If you have and can use photoshop there is no need to go for anything else. I personally use lightroom 4.2 because there is no sharp learning curve it is easy and intuitive.

[PCarell]

If you have Photoshop already and have experience on that there is no need for other software for editing. I personally use Aperture because it is very simple (easiest of the three options PS, Lightroom, Aperture) and inexpensive.

[phuketrichard]

i use photoshop CS5 and Camera raw.

You wont find a better tool

 

Suggest when u shoot , ( if u can ) shoot in raw an basic, that u have a easily useable jpeg an the raw do edit with

[filibuster]

Thanks for the input, guys. I've loaded the Camera Raw Plug-in that supports my camera and had a bit of a tinker with some jpegs ... we'll see what happens when I shoot in RAW.

 

 

Suggest when u shoot , ( if u can ) shoot in raw an basic, that u have a easily useable jpeg an the raw do edit with

 

Thanks for the reminder - apparently I have a choice.

 

[Little Evil]

I used to shoot in RAW all the time, no matter what I was doing. I thought that any semi-serious to professional phtographer who takes the medium seriously has to shoot in RAW. As I got a little better with my camera, I realized that RAW mode, for all of its plusses in post-production, is kind of a pain in the ass for casual shooting. If I can pull off decent shots in a no-pressure situation (ie: not for work), then why do I need to shoot in RAW all the time? I started only using RAW for work and for more serious/artsy shots. If I bring my camera on vacation or to a family event, I typically just use JPG. I'm not going to go crazy with post-production or converting files for casual use, and my jpgs are usually pretty close to spot-on.

 

Don't get me wrong--I'm not telling you to not use RAW, but just because you have access to it now, don't feel like you have to use it exclusively to be a "photographer".

[Spanky99]

I use RAW for everything. Doesn't matter if I'm shooting for someone paying me or shooting for myself. The biggest benefit is correction of the image after the fact. You aren't working with a compressed file. Most photographers use a LightRoom or Aperture to do their post with a few still using PhotoShop for the heavier edits if they have to.

[bionome]

I've just upgraded the firmware on my camera (Canon SX1) to include an option for saving pics in RAW format. What are the pros and cons for a relative novice to choose from Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop RAW Plug-in? I currently use an iMac (Intel with 4 GB DDR2 SDRAM) with PS CS4 and OnOne Perfect Photo Suite.

 

Well Adobe just came out with Elements 11 and it has everything you need for but I use Photoshop CS6 and Lightroom. If you are new to editing software I would point you to Lightroom. It will be easy to pickup and you can do just about everything you need. So I would say get Lightroom. Plus there are a lot of preset for free out there and if you do get ligth room PM with your email and I can send you some presets that you can use. Good luck.

[bionome]

I used to shoot in RAW all the time, no matter what I was doing. I thought that any semi-serious to professional phtographer who takes the medium seriously has to shoot in RAW. As I got a little better with my camera, I realized that RAW mode, for all of its plusses in post-production, is kind of a pain in the ass for casual shooting. If I can pull off decent shots in a no-pressure situation (ie: not for work), then why do I need to shoot in RAW all the time? I started only using RAW for work and for more serious/artsy shots. If I bring my camera on vacation or to a family event, I typically just use JPG. I'm not going to go crazy with post-production or converting files for casual use, and my jpgs are usually pretty close to spot-on.

 

Don't get me wrong--I'm not telling you to not use RAW, but just because you have access to it now, don't feel like you have to use it exclusively to be a "photographer".

 

The big reason to shoot RAW is not so much about post but you record all the info but in JPEG you bake alot of info and if you want to convert to black and white or change in post you are limited to what you can do. For me I always shoot in RAW and post I do not spend alot of time in post with RAW. Also with RAW you can make copies of the orig and try alot of post on them and the image will never degrade like a JPEG file. For me I like RAW and alway shoot. It how well you know your camera and how well you can see light before shooting. Thats the big thing.

[Little Evil]

The big reason to shoot RAW is not so much about post but you record all the info but in JPEG you bake alot of info and if you want to convert to black and white or change in post you are limited to what you can do. For me I always shoot in RAW and post I do not spend alot of time in post with RAW. Also with RAW you can make copies of the orig and try alot of post on them and the image will never degrade like a JPEG file. For me I like RAW and alway shoot. It how well you know your camera and how well you can see light before shooting. Thats the big thing.

 

I'm well aware of the advantages of RAW and limitation of JPG. I guess my point was that if you are in a no-pressure situation, RAW isn't always a necessity and sometimes the convenience factor of JPG takes precedence. I can shoot 16gigs of JPG and the only touch up that could be required is a tweak to a curve here and there. I'm experienced enough to get exposure and white balance down within a very small margin of error, allowing me to run with JPG's. If something is mission critical, I still shoot RAW. I just no longer go through the hassel if all I'm going to do with the picture is email it to a family member or post them to some online photo album. I guess RAW still makes sense on vacation (camera setting, that is), as some places aren't exactly easy to get to again for another shot.

[bionome]

I'm well aware of the advantages of RAW and limitation of JPG. I guess my point was that if you are in a no-pressure situation, RAW isn't always a necessity and sometimes the convenience factor of JPG takes precedence. I can shoot 16gigs of JPG and the only touch up that could be required is a tweak to a curve here and there. I'm experienced enough to get exposure and white balance down within a very small margin of error, allowing me to run with JPG's. If something is mission critical, I still shoot RAW. I just no longer go through the hassel if all I'm going to do with the picture is email it to a family member or post them to some online photo album. I guess RAW still makes sense on vacation (camera setting, that is), as some places aren't exactly easy to get to again for another shot.

 

I see what you are saying and I understand.

[bobby1961]

I'm well aware of the advantages of RAW and limitation of JPG. I guess my point was that if you are in a no-pressure situation, RAW isn't always a necessity and sometimes the convenience factor of JPG takes precedence. I can shoot 16gigs of JPG and the only touch up that could be required is a tweak to a curve here and there. I'm experienced enough to get exposure and white balance down within a very small margin of error, allowing me to run with JPG's. If something is mission critical, I still shoot RAW. I just no longer go through the hassel if all I'm going to do with the picture is email it to a family member or post them to some online photo album. I guess RAW still makes sense on vacation (camera setting, that is), as some places aren't exactly easy to get to again for another shot.

 

 

I feel the same all my photos are in JPEG. I know all the benefits of raw but I only send my pics to emails or post on facebook so cant be arsed, and my photos from the last 8 weeks were mostly to do a timelapse. I am lucky that my viewfinder is an OLED one so I can see if the white balance is off and adjust before I shoot.

[LeftCoaster]

Lightroom is non destructive to your original Raw file and allows

you more latitude in post production when trying to reproduce what you

imagined the image to be when shot.

There is a learning curve to the nuances of post production in any

application and I find that every time I experiment in LR I learn

something new which means that as my skills grow I can revisit

my files (if necessary and if I want to) and start from scratch on a

RAW file without the image degradation of working on jpg's.

[phuketrichard]

I still stand by shooting both raw and basic Jpeg, best of both worlds, I than go tru all photos an dump the raw ones i know will never edit/use to save space.

 

I find using cs Bridge which comes with Photshop a better edting tool than lightroom.

 

PLUS have you all played around with Content aware in cs 5 ???

what a great tool!!!

 

I recall back when i went to the sf art institue. WE had to photograph downtown an make a artsy photo

 

Very hard with all the wires, reflections, cars, people staring at u etc etc,

Now with Content aware Be gone!!!

[tom48]

Lightroom is non destructive to your original Raw file and allows

you more latitude in post production when trying to reproduce what you

imagined the image to be when shot.

There is a learning curve to the nuances of post production in any

application and I find that every time I experiment in LR I learn

something new which means that as my skills grow I can revisit

my files (if necessary and if I want to) and start from scratch on a

RAW file without the image degradation of working on jpg's.

Good point!