Digilux 2 - what software do you use for processing RAW files?

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After a month or so of playing around with my Digilux 2, I am ready to get a bit more serious. While I appreciate the convenience of JPEG, I want to try my hand working with RAW. Since I bought my DL2 used, I did not get any of the software that came with it.

 

I have Capture One from my D-Lux 4, but it does not seem to recognize the Digilux 2 files. I looked at the Leica support site, but I did not see any downloadable software for editing DL2's raw files.

 

What are you guys using? Will Photoshop Elements be adequate or should I consider the pricey ($699) CS4?

 

I've been reading everything I can find on the subject, but the personal experiences from this forum's member would be the most valuable to me.

 

Thanks a bunch!

 

Alberto

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[mactrix]

Hi Alberto,

I'm using Adobe Camera Raw to processing D2's row files on my old iMac. I also use UFRaw when I need to process it on my laptop with linux and I can say that is it a great software, much complete than Adobe Camera Raw. Best regards,

Ottavio

[ajthornbury]

Alberto, I use a free download from the web called Rawtherapy. Works well with D2

Alan J.

[hojoon0724]

Apple Aperture does a good job

[LKeithR]

I really like the look I can achieve with ACDSee Pro 3. It just seems to work very well with Digilux 2 files. You should try a free 30 day trial...

[sgilder]

+1 for Aperture. I'm a longtime Photoshop user. I recently demoed Lightroom 2, Photoshop CS4, PS elements 8, and aperture 2.6. The new version of aperture works great for me. It does everything I need. It's like having PS and lightroom in a simple, streamlined package. Granted, the retouching, image editing/manipulation features aren't as robust as photoshop, but that was never my thing anyways. I can do pretty much everything I would have done in a darkroom (which means PS is basically overkill for me. And I just plain didn't like elements. Too dumbed-down for me). And it'll cost you about $500 less than PS, unless you can get an education license. Then they are about the same cost. Just my opinion.

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you all VERY much for the thoughtful suggestions.

 

Since I am a Mac user and Apple offers a 30-day Aperture free trial, I will try that first. My long-term hope, however, is that Google will add more RAW support (and a few more features to Picasa.)

 

Thanks again to ALL of you for the input - this is a great forum.

 

Alberto

[John Thawley]

Thank you all VERY much for the thoughtful suggestions.

 

Since I am a Mac user and Apple offers a 30-day Aperture free trial, I will try that first. My long-term hope, however, is that Google will add more RAW support (and a few more features to Picasa.)

 

Thanks again to ALL of you for the input - this is a great forum.

 

Alberto

 

Personally, I'd make three recommendations.

 

1.) BUY Aperture.

2.) Learn Aperture properly and it will change and preserve your photography forever

3.) Disable the RAW function on your Digilux 2.

 

With the rare exception of trying to salvage something shot at ISO 400, I can't think of a single scenario where you will exceed the results of a the camera's own JPEG. It's just not going to happen.

 

JT

[lesh]

I can't imagine turning to anything else other than Lightroom, it's a game changer with unsurpassed capabilities. As with most software these days you can download and try it out for free.

Give it a shot - you'll be glad you did.......................imho

[farnz]

I can't imagine turning to anything else other than Lightroom, it's a game changer with unsurpassed capabilities. ...

For light or initial processing I'd agree but for more intensive processing using, for example, layers or LAB colour space then I think full PS or similar pp software is needed too.

 

Pete.

[jaapv]

 

With the rare exception of trying to salvage something shot at ISO 400, I can't think of a single scenario where you will exceed the results of a the camera's own JPEG. It's just not going to happen.

 

JT

John is very right here. I cannot imagine any reason to shoot the D2 in anything but Jpg. Not even mentioning the horrible software it came with....

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Personally, I'd make three recommendations.

 

1.) BUY Aperture.

2.) Learn Aperture properly and it will change and preserve your photography forever

3.) Disable the RAW function on your Digilux 2.

 

With the rare exception of trying to salvage something shot at ISO 400, I can't think of a single scenario where you will exceed the results of a the camera's own JPEG. It's just not going to happen.

 

JT

 

Hi John,

 

Thank you for the suggestion.

 

I spent the day shooting RAW yesterday (ISO 100) and ... 1) I found the wait time painful and costly in terms of lost shots while the camera was incapacitated and 2) I must admit that I did not see enough of a difference (either before or after post-processing) to make it worthwhile.

 

Given what you've been able to get out of the Digilux 2 (e.g. your now famous B&W shot of the race-car driver) and your very helpful video tutorials on Aperture, I will take your advice.

 

I'll report back...

 

Thanks,

 

Alberto

[lesh]

For light or initial processing I'd agree but for more intensive processing using, for example, layers or LAB colour space then I think full PS or similar pp software is needed too.

 

Pete.

 

Agreed..........from time to time I still need to make a trip to PS to use Layers, but mostly Lr can do everything I need. - that's even although I'm still using PowerPC based Macs. That will need to change soon though.

[LuxBob]

Another Aperture user here. There should be a new release out soon and many of us have big hopes.

Aperture also allows you to have plug-ins. I find that nothing equals Photoshop/Elements for layers and much image work. Try Elements first (as a plug in).

I also use Nik Software's Silver Efex plug in for Black and white. They have a nuber of other packages that you can buy as a bundle at a discount and all of these you can try on free trial. First though, just get Aperture and learn it thoroughly as John Thawley says. It will probably stretch you at first.

[h00ligan]

I am also new to post processing, but not to photoshop. I really feel that for a beginner to get hands on Lightroom offers a better package. It also has the added benefit of being cross platform should you need it on a Windows machine at any time in the future. Aperture is ok, I've spent some time with it, but to me Lightroom is more advanced and easier to use.

[John Thawley]

I am also new to post processing, but not to photoshop. I really feel that for a beginner to get hands on Lightroom offers a better package. It also has the added benefit of being cross platform should you need it on a Windows machine at any time in the future. Aperture is ok, I've spent some time with it, but to me Lightroom is more advanced and easier to use.

 

Without knowing Aperture THOROUGHLY, you can never appreciate the program's strengths. Many people point to localized editing as a "strength" of Lightroom. If you need to continually "fix" images, that might be valid. However, Aperture offers all the power and adjustment capabilities necessary, short of pixel manipulation. So, personally, I feel (unless you're fixing images) a non issue.

 

Where the true strength (and for me, a requirement) comes into play with Aperture, is the workflow and organizational strengths. The interface is so far and away beyond anything else out there, it's truly a no-comparison scenario. Aperture's interface is completely custom based on YOUR workflow needs. You arrange Aperture to suit your needs, not the other way around.

 

Unfortunately, people download the trial(s), immediately begin editing images and never delve into the true strengths of the program. Adjustments are adjustments. Each tools sliders have a sensitivity or "feel" that requires use to become familiar. It's all about retraining your mental muscles. Years ago, I could use quick strokes in Photoshop to quickly whip any photo into shape and ready it for transport. Today, I do it all in Aperture and frankly can no longer capture the same "look" with Photoshp. I've simply become more comfortable with Aperture's adjustment tools. Regarding my workflow, sorting, organizing and storage.... game over. Aperture has it hands down.

 

JT

[AlbertoDeRoma]

Without knowing Aperture THOROUGHLY, you can never appreciate the program's strengths. Many people point to localized editing as a "strength" of Lightroom. If you need to continually "fix" images, that might be valid. However, Aperture offers all the power and adjustment capabilities necessary, short of pixel manipulation. So, personally, I feel (unless you're fixing images) a non issue.

...

 

Based on John's suggestion, I am test-driving (i.e. free trial) Aperture and I agree that it is a very powerful and, after a relatively painless learning curve, intuitive program.

 

As with the Digilux 2, it's less about the features and technical specs and more about how natural, pleasurable and fun it is to use. I am still amazed at how well some of the controls work (e.g. "recover") fixing problems subtly but unambiguously - without producing an obviously synthetic result.

 

Having said that, Aperture is definitely a "whole picture" program. Not meant to cut, paste, mix, merge, etc. specific areas of a photo. You have to start with a photo that's basically right. Part of me would like the ability to do some more messing around with the images (e.g. to create some surreal landscapes, etc.) but I already spend too much time with my job looking at a computer screen and I think that PhotoShop will keep me more at the desk and less on the field - and I need/want to do more of the latter.

 

Thanks again to John and others for their recommendations.

 

Alberto

[h00ligan]

The interface is so far and away beyond anything else out there, it's truly a no-comparison scenario.

 

JT

 

See the issue I have with such absolutes is that they can't exist on subjective topics. You think the interface is far and beyond anything out there - I totally disagree. From a GUI design pov I think Aperture is very very clunky compared to Lightroom. You could of course say it's because I'm new to PP - but that would just prove my point.

 

I can't say Lightroom is the superior product, I can say that as a newcomer faced with post production and all it entails - which can be quite overwhelming at the rookie stage - I personally found it more intuitive.

 

I guess this basically boils down to quark vs indesign - supporters on both sides. For me, I MUST work cross platform as part of my workflow - so Aperture isn't really a choice. I also think compared to some of their other apps, Apple didn't seem to nail aperture's UI as well or as simply.

 

It is quite possible that if I FORCED myself to use Aperture daily, and only Aperture, with a bunch of lessons and forum scouring, I would come to the conclusion Aperture is better. But that again supports my point - I haven't really had to force myself to use Lightroom to get used to it - it's more intuitive. The measure of usability (not depth of power) and UI design is absolutely a measure of how easily a novice can learn it and use it effectively, so I totally support people getting free trials of both and deciding what fits them the best. At the end of the day they basically do the same things (yes there are unique features in both but I'm speaking generally).

 

my view may change as I learn more, this is how it seems in the now.

 

edit - just to point out - my daily use computer is a macbook with snow leopard. My media server and desktop editing machine is a quad core with Windows 7 (that uses programs unavailable on the mac - I don't subscribe to cable and can't get antenna signals), and my storage solution is a roll your own linux machine. I am biased towards OS X for my favourite OS, but the other two certainly have areas in which they spank os x..not just talking about hardware costs.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[John Thawley]

See the issue I have with such absolutes is that they can't exist on subjective topics. You think the interface is far and beyond anything out there - I totally disagree.

 

Excuse me, but when you say "I TOTALLY disagree," is it fair to interpret that as you ABSOLUTELY disagree?"

 

I can say that as a newcomer faced with post production and all it entails - which can be quite overwhelming at the rookie stage - I personally found it more intuitive.

 

Since you admittedly are a self-proclaimed "newcomer" overwhelmed by post production, why not allow those with experience to assist the original poster with EXPERIENCED answers.

 

I have 17 years of Photoshop experience, both PC and MAC. I currently store 6TB of images... 4TB in Aperture Libraries. Used Aperture for several months prior to Adobe releasing Lightroom. Ran Lightroom for 4 months and finally committed to Aperture. And, for what it's worth, I completed Aperture Certification. Forgive me if I feel qualified to state my opinion as an EXPERIENCED user who is neither overwhelmed by post processing OR (the greater issue) of archiving over 200,000 images.

 

I appreciate your enthusiasm and desire to share your opinion, but if it's as a self-proclaimed rookie and overwhelmed newcomer, I think a "tiny" bit of consideration of someone's experience might be in order.

 

So, in case I wasn't clear:

The Aperture interface is far and away beyond anything else out there.

[h00ligan]

You may have the experience in photography, but i'm a career IT professional (17 years like you, mostly supporting publishing and prepress), not an idiot. Your first quote is ABSOLUTELY designed to piss me off - which is ridiculous, nitpicking a choice of words that was plenty coherent(your first choice was really to try and pick on my grammer - perhaps incorrectly - see 3b - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absolute) - and you haven't even remotely considered that which I offered as said newcomer. I also took the time to explain my POV, and be respectful to yours. I expect the same. Just because someone is not a pro photographer, doesn't mean they can't have a valid opinion on computer software - but then you fail to see my pov in that regard.

 

Also, if you are going to quote me and nitpick, do it accurately. I said it can be overwhelming to a newcomer, not that I am overwhelmed.

 

Sheesh, I expected more from this forum based on my previous experience here.

 

Also, do I need to link to endless posts by pro photographers that choose LR over Aperture? Would that make my thoughts more valid in your far superior eyes?

 

Self righteousness is seldom the path to prove a point. I really didn't expect this arrogant of a response frankly.

 

one site claiming 5.5% infiltration for aperture supports professional photogs use lightroom more. http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/11/aperture_vs_lightroom_vs_every.html maybe you are an anomaly, and should consider that before poo poo-ing other respectful POV's - yes it's an old article and i'm sure it has more market infiltration now, but I bet LR is more frequently used. Also, perhaps one newcomer's opinion to another newcomer might be HELPFUL.

 

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/10/aperture_vs_lightroom.html

 

look it up at the infotrends website and marvel that a useless newcomer came to the same conclusion as a great many pros. I wonder if being certified means you might be biased?