John, I'm not sure that just 'having a look' would qualify you to pass comment on LR.

Its good to see a range of options being laid out. I don't really understand the apparent resentment expressed here of the various comments I have made about LR. No, I'm not speaking as a LR user, and have never claimed to be. But I speak as someone with an interest in the process of RAW conversion and image management generally.

What I feel needs some balancing is the often heard crys we get like .. 'do it all in LR!' - 'click here, click there in LR - Job Done' -'easy in LR'.... etc etc.

Now, I'm not trying to say these comments are not accurate in the experience of those people - but when its part of a wider comparison and suggestions of what to try, I think its worth mentioning that LR is a complex, multi-leveled and technically sophisticated product. Thats why there are so many huge books on it as opposed to 'mini-guides'.

Thats' all I'm saying, as well as defining its scope in terms of what it does - thats clear to see, and I think needs to be pointed out when considering comparisons with other options.

No, we don't want that ! Well, you don't seem to want that. I don't know what motivates it really - certainly there's no need to defend LR, as it has plenty of vocal support here.

But rather than just discredit me, lets stick with the argument (if there's actually any argument) and tell me what I have saying about LR that is so wrong, miss-informed and that needs qualification before I say it. You can quote anything I've said - you'll hardly find any criticism of LR - I can assure you that I am more than happy to be corrected on anything I have been saying.

Its good to see the Lightroom evangelists alive & kicking Look, you couldn't publish large books on the program if there wasn't a great deal of detail and technical knowledge to cover. Its clearly a complex program in terms of what it is capable of - naturally there will be a learning curve which is significant.

The point was that it is perhaps misleading to suggest that anyone will just dive in, click around and get easy good results 'intuitively'. Some will of course, if they have a good knowledge already of RAW and the standard parameters, and a knowledge of workflow principles. But others will have to learn in a slower way with help.

I don't need to try it as I am glad to have other options I like to use - anyway, I assume this repeated quip is to suggest that as I don't use it I am unqualified to pass comment? Well, I don't buy that - I make comments on things that interest me, not just on things I actually do.

Also, do you use the Histogram on your Preview screen when reviewing the image you've just taken? I would suggest to use it as its very helpful for assessing the correct exposure to set. I would think a correct histogram for these scenes would show a larger rise of tones in the mid to lower half of the graph, with a small amount at the extremes of shadow and highlights.


I really like the last shot you just put on, but again, I feel it could do with at least 0.5 to 1 stops less exposure.

If that were really the case how come there is apparently a big market for massive 300-500 page books on using it - a lot of Waterstones photo sections heave under the weight of these tomes plus the Photshop equivalents!

Great shot, love the small DOF! It might just be too scary in full focus

I don't know if its the filter necessarily? It should be neutral of course. On the surface it looks like a white balance issue, too much magenta. If these were JPEGs what were the colour-fine tune settings? Or maybe AWB has overcompensated with the green cast that would be preset in this location?

There's one tool I use in PS Elements which is effective at sorting out this sort of thing - its called 'Correct Clour for Skin Tones'. Its very versatile - click on a grey area - initially with these shots you'll get an immediate shift towards green, probably too much, but then you fine tune it with a bit of magenta and also 'Tan' and master temp slider. Give it a go if you have the program, I'm sure it'll work well here.

Perhaps all the shots would benefit from a reduction in midtone and highlight brightness also - a lot of the foliage in the sunlight is overexposed I think. But nice viewpoints and compositions!

Smeggy, your points about the IQ differences are very valid, however yet again we are missing the point about what it is that can go into making a great photo equipment-wise.

For example, the classic 'pro-look' that non-photographers often identify as special is the typical portrait headshot with a tiny depth of field behind - this has ben achieved often with a good 'portrait' focal length, fast and high quality lens with all the focussing and metering bells and whistles provided by the sophisticated DSLR attached to it (not the forget the photographers skill in knowing how to use all this stuff).

Or what about the amzaing landscape with the low viewpoint, total massive DOF, great reflection control and colour rendition provided by the top quality lens stopped down to f16 with a polariser on the front, shutter tripped with mirror lock-up to prevent the slightest movement.

Its exactly the same - a mixture of photographer skill and pre-knowledge, plus equipment and technical aspects that you could not apply with a camera-phone, no matter how big its sensor or how many megapixels it has.

Its true that RawTherapee has many layers of complexity, but you don't need to use everything at once. I have got to grips with a few key adjustment controls that work brilliantly and left others to learn about in future (EG the 'LAB' mode tabs).

But its sharpening, edge restricted sharpening and noise reuction are excellent, as are the colour balance controls and extremely sophisticated highlight reduction / restoration feature.

Also as a big bonus it includes batch processesing capability - save your own settings as a 'preset', apply it to any selected files in the browser window, send to queue, then click process - go off and let it get on with it.

And its free.

The Silkypix product in its various forms has neve been regarded as an easy to use or intuitive piece of software, but then when people have used it and got used to it generally they report very good results. I'd keep it available for once you've tried some RAW processing and gained some experience - you may find certain things that it can do very well.

What to choose first depends on what you're overall needs are and how much detailed work you want to carry out in RAW (as opposed to making a basic conversion and doing deatailed stuff in Photoshop for example).

If you need comprehensive cataloging and management of images as well detailed RAW conversion, then Lightroom is the way to go according to most opinions you would hear. If its something more simple in these areas plus the guts of Photoshop for detailed editing work, then Photoshop Elements provides all that.

There are a few other paid-for options, Bibble is one, I'm sure others will mention the rest that include image cataloging.

If you're happy with how you organise your image collection and just want RAW conversion, then there are a few quality free products worth investigating. I use RawTherapee for more detailed and complex work, and the Pentax Digital Camera Utility for shots with simpler needs. But others will no doubt suggest a number of alternatives to these that are also free.