Software for RAW files: I like FastStone software and use it almost all the time. My question is: will I get a better result using Photoshop when working on a RAW file? Thank you.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

I like FastStone software and use it almost all the time.

My question is: will I get a better result using Photoshop when working on a RAW file? Thank you.

mper812 Loc: Atlanta GA area

dandi wrote:

I like FastStone software and use it almost all the time.

My question is: will I get a better result using Photoshop when working on a RAW file? Thank you.

It will depend on the level or correction you wish to achieve. Faststone is a free software which is very good to a point but there are other raw processing softwares which are much more comprehensive and offer more capability to perfect a digital photo. Photoshop with Camera Raw is excellent as is Adobe Lightroom. Another great choice is Corel After Shot which is very user friendly

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

mper812 wrote:

It will depend on the level or correction you wish to achieve.

I am mostly interested in dealing with detail in the shadows and highlights. Can you say that Photoshop will do a better job reducing blown out highlights?

tsilva Loc: Arizona

Blown out is blown out. There is NOTHING that will recover data that isn't there.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

dandi wrote:

I like FastStone software and use it almost all the time.

My question is: will I get a better result using Photoshop when working on a RAW file? Thank you.

FastStone has only the basics. For many people, it is enough. But to make picture have some real pop, it takes something more. Lightroom is one such tool.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

dandi wrote:

I am mostly interested in dealing with detail in the shadows and highlights. Can you say that Photoshop will do a better job reducing blown out highlights?

PS CC is by far the king of PP software.

Check out the new version of ACDSee ultimate. They have a novel way to deal with editing images.

You can select either Luminosity or color edit or both. Their stuff is more intuitive than PS CC and allows you to see what you are doing (masking). In addition you can use your own mask (paintbrush) and opacity of the effect.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

tsilva wrote:

Blown out is blown out. There is NOTHING that will recover data that isn't there.

Shows how much you understand what a raw file is.

Blown out needs to be really bad not be able to use the raw dynamic range. You may want to check discussions on ETTR and extreme over exposure... Here is one

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Rongnongno wrote:

Shows how much you understand what a raw file is.

Blown out needs to be really bad not be able to use the raw dynamic range. You may want to check discussions on ETTR and extreme over exposure... Here is one

Member tsilva hit the nail dead on. He is absolutely correct. If the raw data is blown, even just slightly, it is totally gone.

With a 14-bit raw file that would mean a sensor value of 16,383, and if a there is an area that is brighter... it will still be just that and never higher. When processed all of those sensor pixels, regardless of how bright they actually were, will have exactly the same data values.

You are confusing over brightness in a JPEG file, not the raw sensor data.

The other thread you cite is loaded with misinformation. One post claims that Adobe's raw processor can recover over exposed raw sensor data, and that no other raw converter can. Wrong. It also talks about a constant value they call ERADR, and everyone reports wildly varying values even for the same camera models, which they all think means production line variations the same model. Wrong. (They are all within perhaps less that 1/3rd of an fstop. probably even between different models.)

For the OP you might consider always looking at the RAW converter and your image editor as two entirely separate processes. As you begin to understand how they each work, that will allow customizing the configuration of each to best serve just one purpose, rather than trying to match it up with what they other is doing.

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

Apaflo wrote:

For the OP you might consider always looking at the RAW converter and your image editor as two entirely separate processes. As you begin to understand how they each work, that will allow customizing the configuration of each to best serve just one purpose, rather than trying to match it up with what they other is doing.

I've been using Photoshop CS5 for some time but would not call myself an expert, I like to use Photoshop when I am playing with layers but for basic editing I use FastStone. I tried a few times to edit the same RAW file in FastStone and Photoshop and didn't notice a big difference.
So, is it because I didn't learn Photoshop enough (I am sure I didn't) or it can't do more than other software?

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Apaflo wrote:

.../...

And here comes the fertilizer in chief.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

dandi wrote:

I've been using Photoshop CS5 for some time but would not call myself an expert, I like to use Photoshop when I am playing with layers but for basic editing I use FastStone. I tried a few times to edit the same RAW file in FastStone and Photoshop and didn't notice a big difference.
So, is it because I didn't learn Photoshop enough (I am sure I didn't) or it can't do more than other software?

As you noted PS (any recent version) power resides first in the layering/masking/selection. Beside GIMP I do not see anything that compares (an opinion).

Each program has its strengths and limitations. It really is up to the end user to determine what what one is comfortable with.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I am a JPEGian photographer... so RAW to me is for those wheo do not expose their shots correctly... (no - - kidding.. sort of?) LightZone is a RAW processing program with a different approach and is an "Open Source" program.
http://lightzoneproject.org/node/2/

"What is LightZone?
LightZone is professional-level digital darkroom software for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, that includes RAW processing and editing. Rather than using layers in the way that other photo editors do, LightZone lets the user build up a stack of tools which can be rearranged, readjusted, turned off and on, and removed from the stack."

Take a look at Lightzone and let me know....
--------------------------------
PS: Please just agree with Rongnongno and move on.. he is always correct... If you do not believe me, just ask him. It is remembered that he is a "Contrarian" ... I personally do not believe it tho ... best discussion on contrarian addiction .. quick look... is:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2014/03/prefer-contrarian-questions-vs-answers.html

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Rongnongno wrote:

Shows how much you understand what a raw file is.

Blown out needs to be really bad not be able to use the raw dynamic range. You may want to check discussions on ETTR and extreme over exposure... Here is one

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

dcampbell52 wrote:

Rongnongno wrote:

Shows how much you understand what a raw file is.

Blown out needs to be really bad not be able to use the raw dynamic range.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Note that is about "what a raw file is".

And if the raw file is blown out even slightly there is no more dynamic range, there is no recovery, and it is permanent. Lost forever.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Apaflo wrote:

Note that is about "what a raw file is".

And if the raw file is blown out even slightly there is no more dynamic range, there is no recovery, and it is permanent. Lost forever.

I saw that after the fact and agree, however we are assuming that the op understands the true description of a blown RAW and the difference of blown highlights or darks. LR is very good at pulling data out of shadows but totally white is total and there isn't much you can do regardless of software.