digital photo software clean up.

<p>I have a nikon d7100 and currently use AF-S 18-140 vr, AF-S 70-300 vr, and snagged a sigma EX 10-20 AF HSM lens.<br>

I mostly am shooting family and kids sports stuff. I am looking into some software to clean up photo's in batch processing and automatically for the majority of my shots. i need to process both raw and jpg as I do have the nikon AW 100 as well. <br>

My main goal is High ISO clean up, then batch automated picture fix/clean up. I am getting into indoor sports (basketball and cheer so high ISO is becoming a concern. As is a newer faster lens like the AF-S 70-200 VR</p>

<p>So far looking at the Athentach and the DxO pro. <br>

Can anyone explain why one over another or their advice on these or one I maybe should look at instead and what to watch for? Also i currently only have the View Nx2 software from the camera.</p>

<p>Give Lightroom 5 a whirl. It's a huge improvement over ViewNX2. The trial version is full featured for 30 days. Excellent all around workflow, batch editing and the heal/clone tool now behaves like a real brush rather than a spotting/dabbing tool.</p>

<p>Some folks report DxO has somewhat better noise reduction capabilities for high ISO shots, but I'm not familiar with the workflow. After over a year with Lightroom I'm still satisfied enough with the noise reduction quality, improving editing tools and overall continuity for processing lots of shots from the same session.</p>

<p>Be sure to watch some of Julieanne Kost's video tutorials to grasp the basics for workflow, editing, etc. There are lots of Lightroom video tutorials online but I like Julieanne's for the appropriate pacing, reasonable length, top notch preparation and her vocal intonation. Too many other video tutorials overlook basic stuff, like actually being prepared with an outline so the tutor isn't continually fumbling and stumbling for words. And good vocal qualities really help clarify the lessons - another underrated characteristic. Some otherwise competent digital darkroom wizards have poor speech habits which makes it necessary to review some parts of the tutorials to grasp what they're talking about.</p>

<p>And avoid the trap of trying more than one new program at a time. I've neglected my own advice a couple of times and never got the full benefit of the trial periods for some programs because I was trying to learn two or more editing programs during the same trial period.</p>

<p>I'll second Lightroom. It is a very good product. DXO is more like Apple Aperture in it's workflow and design (IMO), which you may want to try as well. DXO has a trial basis, so I'd try them all. Use the same shots when testing so you can compare one to another. DXO is very good, I just prefer Lightroom's workflow.</p>

<p>Julieanne Kost's Lightroom video is an excellent suggestion. She works for Adobe so that it is official from the source.</p>

<p>Indoor sports photography is very demanding on equipment. Eventually you'll need some faster lenses than those f5.6 consumer zooms. However, for basketball, you may be able to get away with something like a 85mm/f1.8 AF-S instead of the very expensive 70-200mm/f2.8 types.</p>

<p>For high ISO images, I don't think any program gives you better results than DXO with their new PRIME NR option. It is time consuming but the results are truly amazing (the PRIME NR option can add several minutes to image processing time depending on the size of the image but in the end, the exceptional IQ is for high ISO images is worth the wait). I am not familiar with Athentach. You should probably try them both out and see which you like better.</p>

<p>Actually I did try Perfectly Clear by Athentach recently and was not impressed with its NR. Since both DXO and Athentach offer free demos, you should probably test them both out for yourself.</p>

<p>I have used both DxO (through version 8) and Lightroom (through version 5). Both are very useful for image processing. But Lightroom is also great for organizing large sets of images.<br>

Also, DxO files are huge if you keep them in raw format. The DxO "linear DNG files" are often twice as large as the original NEF files. In contrast, Lightroom's DNG files are usually 10% to 20% smaller than the NEF files. This makes a big difference if you are processing and storing hundreds (or thousands) of images at a time. But if your goal is to batch process NEF files to JPEG, DxO is very helpful. </p>

<p>Lightroom is the usual candidate, and DxO has its share of fans. There are more players, though, and it can be worth checking them out, look at screenshots to get an idea of their User Interface, and then give the one that has the most appeal to you a try with its trial version. Others to consider would be CaptureOne 7, Corel AfterShot, RAWTherapee and (Nikon) CaptureNX2. The downside of these being lesser known applications is that you will find less tutorials, but any of these applications can deliver pretty great quality. Personally, there are aspects of the Lightroom UI that I dislike, and bad experiences with the stability, speed and UI of an older DxO version steer me away from them (plus I'd need the expensive Elite version for my camera). I've been using CaptureNX2 for a long time, and even though it's an old program, it's still very capable but not as fast as others; my current choice is CaptureOne Express, which does everything I want quick, efficient and with an UI that works for me.</p>

<p>That all said, Lightroom remains the usual candidate - many happy users, so it really can't be a bad choice. But User Interface preferences are very personal, so it can be worth it to have a look at all options.</p>

<p>FWIW, DXO Version 9 is the first version of DXO to include their PRIME Noise Reduction feature. Unlike most noise reduction programs, DXO Prime reduces noise without loss of detail. Version 9 is very, very stable and is far improved over previous versions.</p>

<p>+1 for Lightroom. I find it easy to use for RAW conversion and photo adjustments. And it has the advantage of the catalog to help you find things when your list of photos gets too large for your memory to handle.<br>

<br /> If you go for Lightroom, try to learn as much as you can about it early in the game. The online tutorials can be a big help here. When I first started using it I just used it for the editor. Eventually I started putting keywords onto the images and that helped me to search for things. But it was several years before I started using the 1-5 star ratings and color labels to sort things out and eventually I had to go through 30,000 images to sort them.<br>

<br /> I never developed the ability to delete the semi-useful and duplicate images (I do delete the downright junk stuff) so they cluttered up the catalog. Adding the ratings (1 star is fair, 5 stars is great, 0 stars is not really worth much) and/or color labels (green=great, red=rotten, yellow=Yeah!, blue=But I thought it would be useful......) makes it easier to figure out which of a given subject is the one you liked most.</p>

Ditto, the user interface consideration Wouter described. While I'm

generally satisfied with Lightroom I prefer Picasa's interface and speed.

But Picasa lacks Lightroom's raw editing versatility.

 

RawTherapee was powerful and versatile but the choices could seem

overwhelming and unnecessarily complicated. I used it for a few months

after the trial version of Lightroom 4 expired, but by the end of 2012

switched to Lightroom and stayed with it.

 

Occasionally I'll use ViewNX2 for converting raw to TIFF for some low ISO

photos that will be processed in a specialty editor - DxO FilmPack3, or

Paint Shop Pro. I do like some Nikon default settings such as b&w with

filter effects. But I dislike Nikon's software interface overall and

wouldn't pay for Capture after trying it.

<p>Having recently tried both Lightroom 5 and DxO Optics Pro 9, I would say that Lightroom is definitely faster, but DxO definitely has better noise-reduction (at least when using their most powerful version, which works great but further slows things somewhat).</p>

 

<p>Tons of great input from all!! Now some more questions:<br>

-Do either of the free downloads add a bunch of junk to your computer?<br /> <br /> -When you say Lightroom is faster like how much? Say you have 1000 RAW photo to process? I am newer to the DSLR so not tons of RAW images to process. But a lot of old point and shoot to try to clean up.<br /> <br /> -My current raw images are 30MB so how bad is processing time gonna be. New i5 processor, Samsung EVO solid state drive and 8gb RAM<br /> <br /> -How do they differ for the storage of files pre and post processing. If I am just wanting to clean up files in RAW and leave in RAW and then only convert to jpg for what I want to print? Are the originals kept and then new ones created post processing or not? I don’t think I want to have doubles and triples of everything? Or do I then just delete the originals once I am good with the fixed images.<br /> <br /> -Do any of the programs over do any adjustment often/make pic worse or is one better at leaving a photo be?<br>

If a RAW image, that is simply converted to a jpg, will the jpg have some sort of processing automatically and look better as a jpg than RAW?</p>

<p>Below are example of crops from a D800 image shot at ISO 6400.</p><div></div>

<p>Processed with CS6</p><div></div>

<p>DXO Prime processed</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a sample shot of what I got last weekend in general for appearance. Pretty good i assume given, thes low f/4-5.6 lens, about 200ft away, horrible lighting leds/strobes/etc, and smoke machines every now and then. Maybe I don't need the better high ISO cleanup of the DxO Pro 9?<br /> <br />RAW file converted to jpg of 1600x1067 avg compression no processing at all from View NX2<br /><br />d7100, AF-S 70-300 VR, shutter priority, 1/640, ISO 3200, f5.6, 240mm handheld<br />still have learning to do, but the ISO Noise looks pretty good? NO?<br /> <img src="http://i1365.photobucket.com/albums/r757/ptreef/DSLR%20photos/DSC_4665_zpse9d9592b.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Elliot, what is CS6?</p>

<p>The DxO Prime seems to leave a little more deatil and less smoothing?<br>

Thanks for the comparison photo</p>

<p>CS6 is the latest version of Photoshop.</p>

<p>I use both CS6 and DxO. <br />DxO is my software of choice when processing a large number of images that don't need much editing. It's very slow with its most powerful noise reduction enabled, but you can chose that on a case by case basis. When I shoot indoor sports and have a relatively arge number of images that need to be processed quickly I usually process 100 or so in DxO, make all the adjustments, hit batch processing, go for a beer or two and come back later (or the next morning).<br />When I shoot landscapes or a few family shots (with only a few images to process) I like to process them individually in CS6.<br>

Many of DxO's automatic corrections (including NR) do a pretty decent job. CS6 always takes me longer, but often I prefer its results.</p>

<p>Steve, it's difficult to make a really fair comparison, because both programs have a bunch of controls, different defaults, etc. I would just saw this--with typical minimal / modest edits, Lightroom's processing seemed essentially instant, while DxO's could take a moment, and with DxO's best noise-reduction used, it could take two moments. I use a Dell tower with a an Intel Core i5 (second-generation, quad core), 8 GB of RAM, and Windows 7-64 bit, and most of the raw files were 16 MP.</p>

<p>As for noise reduction, just remember that both programs give you a substantial amount of control, and what types and what degrees of noise reduction you apply will have a major effect on the results. I don't think Elliot's examples are typical of what I've gotten--show a bigger difference--but his general conclusion is similar to mine. I think that DxO has a definite edge in noise-reduction sophistication; on the whole, you can get less noise while maintaining more detail with DxO.</p>

 

<p>Steve, there are all kinds of little tricks for making batch editing efficient in Lightroom. For example, you can flag or rate a bunch to get certain types of edits, or drag them into collections. Apply the same white balance, EV adjustments, curves, etc., to the entire batch in that collection.</p>

<p>If you have several photo that are oriented identically, or nearly so, you can even apply brush retouching (tricky for eyes, though - the alignment is critical). But batching generalized brushwork, gradients, even crops, can be applied to several nearly identically composed photos.</p>

<p>If individual photos need adjustments after batch processing, it's quick and easy to tweak each one without going overboard and losing a cohesive overall look.</p>

<p>Picasa has a very similar batch workflow, but with much less sophisticated tools. It's handy for JPEG-only stuff and I still use it occasionally for my older JPEG/TIFF-only P&S cameras.</p>

<p>The Lightroom method is tricky to grasp at first. It doesn't affect any photos directly. For example, you could retouch a raw or JPEG file heavily, then open the same file in another editor and see no changes at all. Same with Picasa and other similar tools. The edits are all instructions, not actually applied to the original, and it isn't necessary to save an intermediate file in any proprietary format, or in TIFF, PNG, BMP, etc. You can even close Lightroom without "saving" anything and all the edits are saved because the edits are just instructions.</p>

<p>When you're satisfied with an edit, then you can save it to a new file - anything from a small JPEG for web sharing to a TIFF for export to another editor such as DxO FilmPack, Nik, etc. Lightroom does its best to minimize the risk of ever saving over an original JPEG, TIFF, etc., and of course it's almost impossible to screw up an original raw file.</p>

<p>Elliot's CS6 noise reduction example looks like the typical default setting, which tends to be a bit too aggressive with many noise reduction utilities, both built in and standalone. I almost never use that much luminance smoothing, even for my noisiest files. It just isn't necessary because moderate luminance noise rarely shows in print.</p>

<p>You could probably approximate the DxO results just by dialing the luminance noise reduction way back, using mainly chroma noise reduction to minimize the blotchy color specks. If any remaining roughness really bothers you a little brushwork around gritty looking facial details - noses, lips, eyes, etc. - can selectively minimize noise without excessive smoothing and loss of skin texture and desired detail.</p>

<p>Just depends on the intended output. If for printing, the amount of NR used to make a 100% view of a photo on the monitor seem smooth may be too much for print. And if the output is a small web sized photo for sharing, downsizing a photo and converting to JPEG tends to minimize noise anyway.</p>

<p>Lex, you are correct. I did use the default CS6 settings. But I don't know if anything less would not have removed the noise in a manner similar to DXO Prime. Perhaps you or someone else who has more experience with customizing the NR process in Photoshop can post samples.</p>

<p>My point was simply that there is basically no loss of detail with DXO Prime NR. If CS6 and other programs have the same abilities, that would be good to know. I originally tried the Athentach software because of claims of exceptional NR (and other IQ), but did not find it very effective. FWIW, prior to DXO prime, I often found myself applying some form of NR in CS6 for my very high ISO image processed with DXO.</p>

<p>Also, keep in mind that the crops I posted are at the pixel level. In a typically sized print such as an 8 x 10 (or smaller), I doubt you would be able to see much,<em> if any</em> difference in IQ assuming the image was not cropped.</p>

<p>Try less aggressive luminance noise reduction in Photoshop. That's the main difference I see between the CS6 and DxO examples.</p>

<p>The DxO example also shows very slightly more saturation in the red chroma noise.</p>

<p>I don't know how much control those tools offer. The standalone version of Noise Ninja offered very fine control over luminance and chroma noise, including color channels and HSL. Such fine control was seldom needed but was occasionally useful in selectively minimizing redness in skin noise, and similar fine tuning, without excessive smoothing overall and loss of fine detail and natural texture.</p>

<p>Lightroom doesn't offer such finely, selectively adjustable noise reduction - no selective adjustments for chroma RGB or HSL - but this is seldom a factor for most of my photos. When I do need that extra bit of selective adjustment Noise Ninja still works very well, although it's a bit of a hassle to save raw to TIFF just to work in the standalone version of NN.</p>