Adobe RAW vs other converters

B
Posted By
bmoag
May 7, 2006
Views
331
Replies
1
Status
Closed
Sad to say but Adobe is falling behind features that are available in third party raw converters.
In particular I would recommend RAW shooters check out Bibble and Raw Shooter. Bibble has some features in particular for drawing out detail from slightly underexposed/overexposed areas that are much simpler to use, although not necessarily better, than what I am able to achieve strictly using CS2.
I also find myself using several independent plug-ins to simplify processing, for example some of the Nik filters, and increasingly question why much of this functionality is not already available in a product that costs as much as Photoshop. Personally I think a large proportion of the "art" filters in Photoshop are useless junk that have been in there since the early days when they had a genuine "gee whiz" quality. I presume CS3 is due imminently, based on recent Adobe product marketing cycles, and that a beefed up raw converter will be part of the package. Personally, I would prefer that Adobe split off the web design features from Photoshop and invest more in the photoprocessing part of the package.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

H
Helen
May 7, 2006
"bmoag" wrote in message
Sad to say but Adobe is falling behind features that are available in third party raw converters.
In particular I would recommend RAW shooters check out Bibble and Raw Shooter. Bibble has some features in particular for drawing out detail from slightly underexposed/overexposed areas that are much simpler to use, although not necessarily better, than what I am able to achieve strictly using CS2.

I shoot only RAWs, and lots of them, and have been through all the converters in depth, and would place Adobe’s offering way near the bottom of my list, with Pixmantec’s RawShooter Pro at the top. Part of this is speed, part of it is ease of use/workflow, and of course part is the results. King at one time, Capture One is losing it, and is expensive compared to the competition. I can’t get on with Bibble at all, so it’s at the bottom of the list. Even Canon’s own humble DPP is better than Adobe’s RAW converter, and is unbeatable for some types of shot.

I also find myself using several independent plug-ins to simplify processing, for example some of the Nik filters, and increasingly question why much of this functionality is not already available in a product that costs as much as Photoshop. Personally I think a large proportion of the "art" filters in Photoshop are useless junk that have been in there since the early days when they had a genuine "gee whiz" quality.

I agree with you. I use Nik’s Color Efex filters (well, some of them) quite often, but the ones I use are fairly fundamental, eg, graduated blue, great for helping out a dodgy sky. Certainly, there’s little in Nik that can’t equally be achieved in PS alone, but using Nik saves time.

I presume CS3 is due imminently, based on recent Adobe product marketing cycles, and that a beefed up raw converter will be part of the package. Personally, I would prefer that Adobe split off the web design features from Photoshop and invest more in the photoprocessing part of the package.

Yes.

Must-have mockup pack for every graphic designer 🔥🔥🔥

Easy-to-use drag-n-drop Photoshop scene creator with more than 2800 items.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections