pecohen,

From what I understand about Lightroom and PSP X-6 is that Lightroom is a pared down version of PhotoShop, and PSP X-6 is a full application in direct competition with PhotoShop.

This is a very bad misunderstanding/misrepresentation of what Lightroom and Photoshop are as well as comparing PSP to Photoshop capabilities. Here is a capsule summary of the not some minor differences
http://www.mosaicarchive.com/2012/12/12/whats-the-difference-between-photoshop-and-lightroom/

Here are some links for Bridge (Photoshop Raw Engine vs Lightroom)
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/the-complete-picture-with-julieanne-kost/should-i-use-lightroom-or-bridge/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vd8XLYG8A0s&list=PL657554B111D83968&feature=c4-overview-vl


Now to your original question about RAW and processing RAW saved images. I think you need a good basic understanding about exposures, values, and compression in digital files.

Lightroom and Photoshop both share identical Adobes Camera Raw (ACR) converter engine, but, differ in how they are controlled (user Interface is more visual in Lightroom using instant feedback sliders) Most experienced LR users find that LR can handle 90+% of all their image adjustments as well as cataloging, printing books, prints, creating slideshows etc. but images that need "pixel level" adjustments need a "pixel editor" (Photoshop or PSP). With the more recent versions of LR (LR4 and 5) the power of editing in LR has grown by leaps and bounds using advanced masking, healing tools and such. ACR has been able to bring back formally considered blown out highlights with true detail without resorting to HDR in a lot of cases. Rather than wonder about what LR can do, try it for 30 days free from Adobe as well as Photoshop. I can say that although LR is somewhat intuitive (more so that Photoshop), it's the complexity that offers the real gains when you really need it. So, if one is interested in extracting all the image potential they have captured in the camera, the quality of the raw converter is paramount. I don't know about PSP, but, in LR one can add individual profiles to correct for lens issues (distortion and vignetting compensation), build camera profiles easily to correct for the sensor color bias (all the camera sensors aren't perfectly neutral from the manufacturers) and have ACR compensates automatically for the specific tweak your lens needs)

When film reaches over-exposed, or under-exposed levels there is nothing we can do to re-capture the lost data. The same is true with digital sensors. Once the data is lost, it cannot be recovered.

This is the reason there is a technique called Exposure to the Right (ETR) where you push the exposure of your highlights just below clipping and this will simultaneously open up the shadows as much as possible to avoid the muddy look. With modern raw converters this can be about +1 stop apparent overexposure (typical subject) and still be useable (i.e. no clipping) via modern raw converters. It may not look good on the camera LCD, but, the image (dare I say "Digital Negative") will be perfectly good for viewing and printing AFTER PROCESSING. Does it take time - not a lot, and programs like LR can batch process images so you may spend a few minutes on the first image, and then all the rest of the images shot under the same conditions are a few mouse clicks and seconds from being duplicated - it's all part of the special sauce that the processing program (e.g. LR) has.

Back to light levels and Volts.

Image editing software may be able extract that tiny amount of detail, and with a very high resolution monitor may be able to present that over exposed data on the screen as slightly over-exposed image data. The question is whether the Human eye can perceive that over-exposed data amongst a bright white background.

[/color]One doesn't need a very high resolution monitor to see slightly overexposed data, either you see it or you don't and certainly, printing has little tolerance for overexposure so you need to know where the image peak is. Show two images to someone where the highlights are burned out and they will immediately know - now can your raw converter or technique fix it - that is the question. And if it's beyond the capability of the sensor and the raw converter, then HDR is required or the game is over. [/color]


If you would rather expend hours in front of your computer working on RAW conversions and editing an image, the time is yours to spend. You may have lost an otherwise salvageable scene with several hundred hours on the computer.

I think the question should be is the image worth the effort - not all images are, but, with "batch processing" and easily adjusted sliders, some further adjustments may just be worth it


In today's digital world we have may choices, we have the old film methods, the RAW method, and the intent of HDR processing. Most good image editing software will process digital files as HDR and produce a very nice, well exposed final product, and allow you to feel proud of your accomplishments.


The advantage to HDR is a much wider range of exposures that can be merged into a final image. With RAW you will not know what you have until you expend the time to process it, with HDR as the intent you will see the product while you are working on the merging process. You will see the preview of the -2EC image, the 0EC image, and the +2EC image on your monitor. At that point you can select either image and save it, or perform the merge process.

Now back to the image sensor and its exposure values.
If an exposure reaches 1 Volt we can consider this to be over exposed, and anything above 1 Volt will also be over-exposed to blown out whites. If we apply -2EC to one exposure we now bring down the voltage level in the sensor to, perhaps .7 Volts. We now have a formally over-exposed element under-exposed with a new volt level .3 volts below blown white. This can represent a much wider range than camera RAW.

Because we are using digital on a memory stick we are not expending film and chemical processing to see all the images that are not worth keeping. Delete is a wonderful button.

To make the best decision on which method to use (RAW or HDR) you will need to train your eye for exposure values within a specific scene and determine which will capture the best overall image, and expend the least amount of time on your computer. Practice, experimentation, and more practice is the only way for you to learn how to evaluate a specific scene for exposure.

Never heard anyone talk about a decision to be made on method to use before ! One fact is the human eye is much more capable and sensitive than any lens and sensor since the eye can adjust to what one is looking at - in a very dynamic scene, the human eye can look at the highlights and see detail and then focus on the shadows and see detail there as the iris an brain compensate for the physical light quantity and our area of interest - the camera sensor is too objective - either it's within the sensor range or not. One needs a light meter to know for sure or to be on the safe side, take several different exposures to be merged together in an HDR image later if the photographer decides it "worth the effort". Yes in a digital world we can easily delete images (but do it in the processing program, not the camera delete button unless there is something specifically wrong with it) if it doesn't meet our keeper criteria AFTER we PROCESS the digital negative!

BTW - ACR supports 32bit images for unbelievably smooth gradations of skys etc when needed - does PSP support this?

Not all photographic scenes are suitable for HDR, and RAW, or manually set EC may produce the better overall final image.

HDR, RAW and EC have no mutual interaction, if the scene is worth it (e.g. other than a snapshot), RAW is the most flexible way to bring out all the digital qualities captured in the digital negative - the jpeg or tif or psd can be derived from the RAW at any point after post processing. HDR merely allows one to capture a scene that has a dynamic range exceeding our current 12-14 bit sensors and still view or print it sort of the way our eye remembers it, and EC merely biases the meter to correct if our subject is not a 18% grey which our camera manufacturer calibrated it to - just bringing our subject into the calibrated range of the camera exposure meter.
Michael G