Which Raw Workflow?

[mitchell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I no longer get hysterical when the computer doesn't do what I expect. I no longer think it's a conspiracy against me personally. I now know there is a solution, and chances are I'll find it.

 

But, I don't like spending a lot of time the computer. I'll never be a great printer, but I do aspire to doing my images reasonable justice.

 

I have a DMR and (at Solms) a M8, and I shoot RAW. I shoot mostly natural light outdoors, but am getting into dusk and night shooting in the city.

 

I would like to get onto a clear relatively simple workflow, and stick with it.

 

I'm fairly comfortable with CS2 and ACR, BUT it seems I'll be selling my images short if I use just them. I've loaded Jamie's profiles in C1. They're great, but the file organization of C1 drives me nuts. I've never understood it. I've looked at Raw Developer, and it looks promising. CS3 looks good, but I wonder about profiles for M8.

 

I haven't tried Lightzone, or Lightroom. Aperture may be great if it ever supports DMR, and M8. I've never used a didicated organizer like I V Media Pro (sp).

 

I guess what I want is to be told by those of you who like experimenting with all the options, and are good at evaluating color, to tell me which Raw Converter work flow to work with now and in the future. I could see using two converters if I was told the criteria for when to use one or the other. I could see using something like Lightzone that will become more complete later.

 

Sorry to be so long winded. Any help greatly appreciated.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

[Advertisement]

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

[robert_parker]

CS3 seems to be pretty good at converting RAW + DNG files, I like Lightroom for ease of use and it's currently free.

 

C1 Pro seems to producea sharper result but needs practice and my month trial has run out !!

[woodyspedden]

I no longer get hysterical when the computer doesn't do what I expect. I no longer think it's a conspiracy against me personally. I now know there is a solution, and chances are I'll find it.

 

But, I don't like spending a lot of time the computer. I'll never be a great printer, but I do aspire to doing my images reasonable justice.

 

I have a DMR and (at Solms) a M8, and I shoot RAW. I shoot mostly natural light outdoors, but am getting into dusk and night shooting in the city.

 

I would like to get onto a clear relatively simple workflow, and stick with it.

 

I'm fairly comfortable with CS2 and ACR, BUT it seems I'll be selling my images short if I use just them. I've loaded Jamie's profiles in C1. They're great, but the file organization of C1 drives me nuts. I've never understood it. I've looked at Raw Developer, and it looks promising. CS3 looks good, but I wonder about profiles for M8.

 

I haven't tried Lightzone, or Lightroom. Aperture may be great if it ever supports DMR, and M8. I've never used a didicated organizer like I V Media Pro (sp).

 

I guess what I want is to be told by those of you who like experimenting with all the options, and are good at evaluating color, to tell me which Raw Converter work flow to work with now and in the future. I could see using two converters if I was told the criteria for when to use one or the other. I could see using something like Lightzone that will become more complete later.

 

Sorry to be so long winded. Any help greatly appreciated.

 

Best,

 

Mitchell

 

Mitchell

 

I have tried and still use a number of raw converters. Right now my favorites are Raw Developer and Lightzone. There are a couple of features missing from both of these products (no lens corrections for either and no custom profiles for Lightzone) but they are very able products. Lightzone offers a very different approach from others and I have gotten good results.with it.

 

If you already have Phase One C1 Pro there will be an upgrade path to the new version 4.0 which, on paper, looks to be the best of all. C1 has always produced wonderfully color correct images but had a funky interface and again, no lens correction facility. As I understand 4.0 it is a complete rewrite and was developed so that third party "plug-ins" can be added similar to photoshop. When it comes out it is supposed to have the lens correction plug in developed by Phase One and I am sure there are folks out there with Beta copies and developer kits who are writing code as we speak.

 

I have also been trying Photoshop CS3 Beta and the inclusion of many features from Raw Shooter Pro makes for a much more robust product. It will be interesting to see the final ACR.

 

Woody Spedden

[chrism]

For those alarmed by the shrinkage of DNG files after opening in PSCS3, Thomas Knoll says it is lossless compression doing it. There is still the issue of C1 not being able to open them afterwards, though. See this thread.

 

Chris

[jonoslack]

Hi Mitchell

give up and go back to film!

Seriously, I've been thrashing about here, and if it was as simple as using two programs to get what you need then even that would be okay, but it really doesn't seem to be.

 

I think the main point is that there is a new paradigm for dealing with RAW files - i.e not converting them at all. Lightroom and Aperture do this, and having spent a year using both, I find going back to a legacy program like C1 or even Lightzone to be a really dispiriting experience.

 

I think that Aperture really is the best option - but it doesn't support the M8 yet, or the DMR or the V-Lux1 or the Kodak slr/n . . . . . or lots of other important cameras, and that's a real downer. Lightroom is much better at this, and also looks like it will support versions and cloning and despotting in it's next incarnation. I really do think that these programs are where the future lies - life instantly becomes so much more simple. . . . or, at least, it would do if they supported the cameras one uses!

[AlanG]

I have been using C-1 almost every day for about 3 1/2 years. I know the interface may be daunting at first but it actually is very well thought out and efficient once you learn it and use it properly. I will give a brief run down on how to start using it. I've only used the Windows "Pro" version, but I think that most of the work flow is similar in LE. (Tethered shooting is not supported in LE.)

 

Keep in mind that C-1 generates "preview" files from the raw files. The preview files are for on screen use and greatly speed up the program's ability to browse images and adjust those images. I store all or my preview files in one folder. (The default folder that C-1 creates.) Preview files can later be removed when they are no longer associated to files that you are working on in C-1) The magnification window lets you see any part of the image at 100% whenever you need closer inspection. So the lower resolution of the Preview fiels is not a limitation.

 

Here's how I do it in Windows. (Mac should be similar.) In Windows Explorer, I create and name a new folder for the project that I want to download. Lets call it "Images ABC." I then transfer the images from the card reader to this folder. (You can also create the folder from inside C-1 and you can use the C-1 utility to import the files.)

 

Start up C-1 and use its browser's navigator to go to "Images ABC." Click on that folder and the previews will start getting generated into C-1's browser. At this point I use a button on the C-1 folder menu to create a sub folder of this project and call it "Best ABC" In the C-1 browser it should now display the title "Images ABC" and another title with "Best ABC." I click on "Best ABC" to highlight it and then I click on the top menu choice "Collection". Inside "collection" I click on "Assign as the move to collection." Now the title of the folder "Best ABC" will turn blue.

 

This makes "Best ABC" the folder that your best images will be sent to whenever you press the Backspace key. I find this to be a key feature for me because it will allow me to quickly separate my best images from the others. (You can also tag the images but I prefer to physically move them to a new folder.)

 

So then I click on the "Images ABC" folder and start browsing through them. When I see one I like, I hit the backspace key to move it to the "Best ABC" folder. Once I'm done making my selection, I then click on the "Best ABC" folder and the browser will now display all of the images that I moved there. These are my selected images for the job. I then go into the little window over the browser and type what I want to name the images. Let's say some of them are children on bicycles. So I type "Children on bicycles" in the input window. I then highlight all of the images in the browser that are of children on bicycles and then click on the rename icon. All of these images will be renamed and numbered. (Various numbering parameters need to be set in advance.) I can then type in another title for other images and I keep repeating the process until all of my best images are named and numbered.

 

I then select each image and adjust it using C-1's controls. (I won't go into that as I'm just going through the work flow.) If you have similar images you can adjust one image and then apply those adjustments to a group of selected images. At this point, I generally don't make final tiff conversions, but I often make small jpeg files for my clients to use for selection. So I highlight all of the files in the "Best ABC" folder and then go to the menu item "Collection" and click on the sub menu "Quickproof" this opens up a feature that will very rapidly produce small jpegs or tiffs of the selected raw files. And these small files will show all of the color and exposure modification that I made. (You can set the size of these Quickproof files and choose tiffs or jpegs as output.) The default folder will be titled "Quickproof" and will be stored inside your "Best ABC" folder. The beauty of this system is that C-1 does not have to access the raw files and convert them in order to make the Quickproof files. Instead it works from the Preview files and can make a Quickproof image in just a few seconds per photo.

 

Later I go back to the "Best ABC" and work on each image separately after the client gives me a list of the images they want. These I convert to hi res tiffs. Usually this is a pretty easy task as I already have the images adjusted pretty well. Of course I often do some fine tuning at this point. These images will be stored in a folder titled "Developed" which will be inside the "Best ABC" folder as well.

 

I know this is complicated and it is just part of what C-1 can do. It took me a long time to learn all of the features but I found it well worth it as the work flow for selection, renaming and Quickproof is very efficient. Lately I have been doing all of my final conversions in DxO because it has lens correction and better dynamic range control. (Highlight recovery and DxO lighting for shadow detail.) DxO also has more ways to control the color such as the ability to shift the hues, saturation, and contrast of each color individually. I generally prefer the color I get in DxO. However, DxO does not currently support Leicas.

 

Maybe the next version of C-1 will have some of DxO's features, but it is hard for me to believe they will test each lens as DxO does. (This allows for automatic correction of vignetting, C/A, sharpness, and distortion.)

[Woody Campbell]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Alan's long post hits the nail on the head. C1 for speed and workflow and very high quality conversions. DXO for troubled images (shadow and highlight recovery) and for lenses with issues with rectilinearity (this doesn't matterr in all images) and CA.

 

I would add Raw Developer to the list. The interface is so-so but its fast and it produces better-looking high ISO files (without having to resort to Noise Ninja etc) than C1.

 

In the end there is no perfect conversion software (just as there is no perfect focal length for a lens) - its useful to have several tools.

[abrewer]

Great post Alan.

 

I think most agree that the Capture One RAW products are the best out there, but they aren't as multi-purpose or intuitive as some others.

 

I've continued to work with them even though it's easier to do everything within Photoshop or Lightroom.

 

Thanks.

 

Allan

[mitchell]

Thanks everyone, and especially Allan. I'm going to try your workflow out. I really liike having selections move to a best folder.

 

The forum is great.

 

Thanks,

 

Mitchell

[jonoslack]

I have been using C-1 almost every day for about 3 1/2 years. I know the interface may be daunting at first but it actually is very well thought out and efficient once you learn it and use it properly.

 

Hi Alan

That was a great and informative post, but, to me, it simply emphasizes the need to use one of the newer programs (Lightroom or Aperture) where you don't have to do 3 sets of conversions for every file, with all the ramifications that has on your file structure.

 

Then you say you use DxO for the final conversions, so C1 doesn't even have the benefit of doing your conversions properly.

 

I'm irritated by the fact that Aperture doesn't yet support the M8, and until Lightroom has versions and clone/despotting tools together with version control, then it really isn't quite there, but these are all features that traditional RAW conversion software doesn't support at all.

 

Maybe version 4 of Capture One will drag itself into the 21st century, but at the moment it seems to me that your workflow, although well thought out and intelligent, is from the last century.

[mike prevette]

I'll play devils advicate here and put in a vote for Lightroom. I just got a new laptop and before I had anything else installed on it I decided to give it a whirl. I blew it off when it was announced a few months ago. I usually hate managed library programs like it, but I will eat my words. It is hands down the most influential imaging program I've used since I first sat down with photoshop in the mid 90's.

 

I know It's not popular here because It doesn't have the reddots' seal of approval. But I do 90% of my work in it, and if an image has an issue I'll try to let C1Le have a crack at it. Most of the time to no avail. I personally do not see a major quality difference, but I gain the ability to do almost every bit of image manipulation in one program. Short of dodging and burning, and maybe a little spotting, Lightroom does everything I need. In a very cool "darkroomesque" way.

 

C1 is so poorly put together it kills the creativity for me. I need the speed and flexibility that a lightroom style program gives me. It makes me experiment more and in the end I end up with stronger images. I've done things to pretty straight shots, that I never even would have thought to do in other apps.

 

_mike

[AlanG]

Hi Alan

That was a great and informative post, but, to me, it simply emphasizes the need to use one of the newer programs (Lightroom or Aperture) where you don't have to do 3 sets of conversions for every file, with all the ramifications that has on your file structure.

 

Then you say you use DxO for the final conversions, so C1 doesn't even have the benefit of doing your conversions properly...

 

 

Only two conversions usually. For commercial work, one often has to provide low res proofs to the client. I certainly don't have a need to produce hi res tiffs from everything I shoot. If needed, C-1 can produce low res jpegs and hi res tiffs simultaneously. (It can actually output three different conversions simultaneously from the same file.) I don't think it is "last century" as you say. Also keep in mind that commercial photographers often have to produce different versions of the same file for various applications. (More or less sharpening, CMYK versions, low web versions, watermarked versions, etc.) So having this ability in C-1 along with its ability to orgnaize this is not a disadvantage.

 

The workflow is actually very efficient and thorough but has a steep learning curve for some. C-1 can also do a very good job on the final conversions, But I feel that I need what DxO can do. If DxO could incorporate the C-1 workflow, I'd be happy. (Or if C-1 can incorporate DxO's tools.) Many of myother programs can display RAW files so I certainly don't have to convert all of my photos just to organize and store them.

 

Also keep in mind the fact that C-1 makes Preview files is a great advantage that ultimately makes working with lots of large files much faster. (Moving from image to image and making adjustments is almost instantaneous.)

 

Addiitionally, I often shoot tethered to the computer using C-1 and it is phenomenal for that. When I am done shooting, most of my work is done too.

 

For many people, any of the converters will do the job. But I have reasons to be so particular that using both programs is a good solution.

 

While it may seem complcated, it is really quite easy and fast once you get the hang of it. As it is, it works for me. There really is no problem shooting tethered with C-1, renaming and sorting my photos in it, and providing Quickproofs. Then I just pull up the selected files in DxO and convert them. That is another reason they are moved into the "Best ABC" folder. How hard is that? (I have 4 gigs of RAM and a fast machine so I can keep several programs open at once.) My laptop also is pretty fast and has 2 gigs of RAM so I usually do most of my work on site. Final color and exposure adjustments are made back at the office before delivering most jobs.

 

See this example - http://goldsteinphoto.com/dxo-c1.jpg

 

I havne't used Lightroom or Aperture so I can't comment on them.

[DaveSee]

Although this reply will likely put off many, I humbly submit the use of dcraw (David Coffin's RAW converter). It generates 8 and 16-bit files (TIFF or PPM... or a Netpbm data stream) and may also call in an ICC(M) profile, if needed.

 

As with Jono[1] (please correct my misunderstanding), there are far too many "click-n-drag-n-click-n-drag" ministrations using most of these RAW programs. Additionally, I prefer to do most of my work with the camera, not the computer

 

So, let's say that my batch processing script yields a few shots that would benefit from further post-processing tweaks... OK, so I stil have that opportunity. And that is no longer a RAW Workflow, but a "Per-Piece Workflow(sic)", in my book.

 

Best of all, no monitor/LCD callibration required: I did all the work with the camera and I trust the bits I set on the SD card will yield a good print. So far, my bad shots are still bad

 

I run a Linux shop, but that doesn't mean I cannot assist others with the stuff I've cooked up...

 

rgds,

Dave

 

[1] Jono: really enjoy your 'scapes, stormy or otherwise!

[jonoslack]

Only two conversions usually. For commercial work, one often has to provide low res proofs to the client. I certainly don't have a need to produce hi res tiffs from everything I shoot. If needed, C-1 can produce low res jpegs and hi res tiffs simultaneously. (It can actually output three different conversions simultaneously from the same file.) I don't think it is "last century" as you say. Also keep in mind that commercial photographers often have to produce different versions of the same file for various applications. (More or less sharpening, CMYK versions, low web versions, watermarked versions, etc.) So having this ability in C-1 along with its ability to orgnaize this is not a disadvantage..

 

Hi Alan

the whole point with Lightroom or Aperture is that you don't need to produce ANY versions of the files (or, at least, not as different copies) - you keep the RAW files as they are, and all the modifications and changes you need are held in a database to be picked up if you need them again. Versions is beautiful in that you can have 10 versions of a file without the need of having 10 different files - you might want a basic file, a saturated file, a monochrome file, a sepia file , etc. etc. (as you state above) - you can do all this within Aperture without having to save any other files anywhere.

 

In the last century ;-) I had a basic file structure for simple projects where I had a folder structure which contained:

1. the original

2. the updated file

3. the print file

4. the web file

5. the thumbnail

 

This was easy enough to maintain until (for instance) the time when I needed to change keywords for the files in a project - the amount of work required to maintain keywords for each of these files for each project (to say nothing of the backup and retrieval requirements) is a nightmare - and if you want various different versions of a file - it was easy to end up with 20 or 30 versions of a file in different sizes and different status.

 

With Aperture and Lightroom, you have one copy of the file, with one set of ITPC data, but a batch of different instructions for different circumstances.

 

 

I havne't used Lightroom or Aperture so I can't comment on them.

 

I stand by my original remark, that with respect to your instructions for C1, it was a useful post, but don't you think you should, at least have tried one of these new programs before commenting on workflow?

[AlanG]

I stand by my original remark, that with respect to your instructions for C1, it was a useful post, but don't you think you should, at least have tried one of these new programs before commenting on workflow?

 

 

I do not hold myself out as an authority on all the various RAW programs. It has been very time consuming just to carefully compare three. (C-1, DxO, and DPP) I only tried to explain how one should use C-1 as that was the question. I am not saying that this is the only way or the best way to have a good work flow. I am only saying that it works for me and tried to explain what I liked about it.

 

I am glad that Lightroom works for you. I think the example I posted should give some idea of why I like DxO so much. And C-1 has a new version coming out soon, so there are a number of choices.

 

I have to supply all of my files to clients as jpegs and tiffs, so they have to be converted and stored. Of course with any of these programs, I could just keep the raw files with the recipes for conversions without actually outputting the tiffs and jpegs until needed too. But once I convert a file for a client, I am going to save it so that I won't have to convert it again if they or someone else needs the file.

 

There are a number of different ways one can go with the whole concept of Digital Asset Management. A colleague of mine has written a good book on the subject: (However I started my system long before Peter wrote this book.) It might be worth a read before anyone plans a system for handling a lot of images well into the future.

 

The DAM Book: Digital Asset Management for Photographers

 

I do not believe that Lightroom or Aperture lets one shoot tethered or does it?

[AlanG]

In the last century ;-) I had a basic file structure for simple projects where I had a folder structure which contained:

1. the original

2. the updated file

3. the print file

4. the web file

5. the thumbnail

 

This was easy enough to maintain until (for instance) the time when I needed to change keywords for the files in a project - the amount of work required to maintain keywords for each of these files for each project (to say nothing of the backup and retrieval requirements) is a nightmare - and if you want various different versions of a file - it was easy to end up with 20 or 30 versions of a file in different sizes and different status.

 

With Aperture and Lightroom, you have one copy of the file, with one set of ITPC data, but a batch of different instructions for different circumstances.

 

I can see Lightroom working for this but there is a distinction between an archiving system and output files. The Holy Grail is one good program for all of our conversion, manipulation and organizational needs. My archiving system (Cumulus) has been in place for several years. When I browse the thumbnails or search in it, I will be directed to the raw, jpeg, or tiff files that are stored off line. (I also store hi res jpegs of all jobs on-line.) But my image data information is only used, organized and updated in Cumulus. I think a key is to choose a system that will be around for some time and one that will continue to evolve to support the latest raw file formats. (This is the downfall of Cumulus.) So if you think that Lightroom will stick around, then go with it. Peter Krough (In The Dam Book) makes a good case for DNG files.

[jonoslack]

I do not hold myself out as an authority on all the various RAW programs. It has been very time consuming just to carefully compare three. (C-1, DxO, and DPP) I only tried to explain how one should use C-1 as that was the question. I am not saying that this is the only way or the best way to have a good work flow. I am only saying that it works for me and tried to explain what I liked about it.

 

I am glad that Lightroom works for you. I think the example I posted should give some idea of why I like DxO so much. And C-1 has a new version coming out soon, so there are a number of choices.

I'm actually not very keen on Lightroom, I much prefer Aperture, although (as noted above) I'm not too happy with the cameras it supports.

 

I think my point was that these programs are really not just new RAW programs, but a different paradigm.

 

 

I have to supply all of my files to clients as jpegs and tiffs, so they have to be converted and stored. Of course with any of these programs, I could just keep the raw files with the recipes for conversions without actually outputting the tiffs and jpegs until needed too. But once I convert a file for a client, I am going to save it so that I won't have to convert it again if they or someone else needs the file.

 

But why would you want to save Tiffs and jpgs when you can recreate them from the originals faster than you can find your archived files on DVD's in that cupboard in the corner? The whole point of the way these programs work is that there is no conversion until you need to send it to the client, and that you can store a number of different versions (with different names) without the necessity if increasing storage space to accomodate it.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not believe that Lightroom or Aperture lets one shoot tethered or does it?

 

No, absolutely not - this is obviously an important function, and one where C1 really does shine (especially if you're using a number of different supported cameras). But I would maintain that this, although important, is a distinct function outside of the normal workflow.

[jonoslack]

Hi Alan

 

I can see Lightroom working for this but there is a distinction between an archiving system and output files. The Holy Grail is one good program for all of our conversion, manipulation and organizational needs.

 

This, I think, is the real nub of the question - I used to use Extensis where you use Cumulus, but the whole point of the new programs is to do both - so that you can completely abandon the separate task of your Archiving system, and with the versions paradigm you can keep much much more on line at any given time.

 

I reckon that the holy grail has already arrived - twice in fact, once in the form of Aperture (which I prefer) and once in the form of Lightroom. Currently you still need photoshop, but all the rest of the functions covered by just the one program.

 

I think you should have a look!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jamie Roberts]

Jono--

 

With all due respect (and that's a lot because you know I respect you and your work immensely), some of us are not on Macs, and hence will never use Aperture.

 

Some of us will also not ever use beta software for production (been there, won't do that again), so that lets Lightroom right out for now.

 

Some of us also want the flexibility of input ICC profiles; that lets out both Aperture and Lightroom so far.

 

As for quality of conversion, in my opinion, C1 cannot currently be beat--by any other RAW converter (though I like FlexColor for the DMR, but it's buggy)

 

But there are other reasons for liking C1. Yes, versions is very nice, but, like Bridge and ACR, they generate many many XML side files so far with Lightroom. That's ok; they're not that large, but on thousands of files they add up in terms of file overhead just like C1 does.

 

I may be mistaken (and I'm happy to be mistaken) but I don't really think Lightroom uses a rel. database in the truest sense. Aperture may use one, but that's problematic to me too, since, yes, DBs do scramble. And when they do, they're actually a lot harder to rebuild than backed-up files.

 

DBs also incur major overheard computationally. So while I'm not going back to DCRAW (though I appreciate it and use it from time to time!), I do like the fact that C1 is pretty quick on my Windows machine, and that for selecting shots, seeing how they really will look, and outputting multiple files it's solid as a rock. When you're relying on the RAW converter for 2000+ shots, it's got to just work.

 

Yes, it chews up preview space. Yes, it needs a re-write and optimization (verson 4 at last!!), and lens tools (though, really, with the lenses most of us are using there isn't that much needed that I wouldn't do at final output anyway, and that still means Photoshop for me!).

 

But C1 is hardly old-fashioned. Non-standard, yes, but it is really is quite an excellent, high-volume, multiplatform (Windows / Mac) converter, with exceptional output.

 

I guess I'm also saying I don't mind having multiple programs for different parts of the job either. I think this is a volume thing. With event photography, when I'm culling shots from many thousands, I want speed and preview (especially focus) accuracy. When I'm working with the keeps from a job, I want conversion accuracy and flexibility, and not so much speed...I also tend to do two backups... original RAW file and finished PS output (because that's sharpened, etc.. for print).

[Guest guy_mancuso]

I fall in Alan and Jamie's league on this and one becuase C1 has been around a long time and i have been doing digital a long time. But some of these programs are new and really are beta and i can't depend on a beta program because it simply may change a whole bunch before it is live. C1 has been my go to program and like Alan i do multiple files for clients usally a high res Tiff than even 2 different kinds of jpegs. So either I run a action or just do as much as i can in C1. Lightroom and Aperture are plus systems for management also and Aperture does not support my files , so right there I refuse to even bother until they smack themselves in the head a few times and i do own Mac. Some of these programs have died also like Raw Shooter and transformed into others. i think a lot of this is comfort zone also and even the many systems we have owned . I had every DSLR canon , Nikon, leica's and such and they all ran in C1. Plus the workflow for Pro's maybe more important sometimes than the output itself. if you do event work like i do some of that the files that you need to work maybe massive in numbers and frankly i want that to fly as fast and painless as possible. i also think of these things as mature and stable, yes C1 maybe old in interface but it is a stable sytem also. Most of the new ones have not settled in on profiles or controls yet and still buggy. Then there are programs i really like Raw converter is very nice but again there is a learning curve to be learned. Time is a big issue to keep bouncing around trying to figure a system that works the best for you.

 

All of this is personal taste and how you like to work and how you like your files. So nothing is wrong with any of them per say just some are more to your taste overall.