RAW Editor Showdown: 5 Apps Put to the Test
Forget about JPEGs. You should be working with raw files, editing your photos at their most molecular level. We compare five raw image-conversion and editing apps that promise to take your photography to a higher plane of awesomeness

Would you slice wild Alaskan salmon with a blunted butter knife? You would not. So why would you edit your most coveted high-res images in the JPEG format, such an indelicate digital tool?
It’s all about control—and when you set your DSLR to capture images in the JPEG format, you’re giving up a whole mess of control. Sure, those images may look pretty good, but your final JPEG output never accurately reflects what your camera sensor actually sees, regardless of how well it converts data into the final picture.
A digital camera captures data on an electronic sensor. At its lowest level, this data is known as the raw file. It’s sensor data at its purist, virtually free of modifications and any digital conversions. All the sensor does is catch photons on millions of receptors and write the data to files. That data is literally raw—and DSLRs and some high-end point-and-shoot cameras give you access to this data in order to manipulate your photos with tremendous control.
Don’t like the ISO setting? Tweak it! White balance doesn’t seem right? Correct it! Editing raw files lets you work directly with pure sensor data, making decisions about exposure, shutter speed, fill light, and more, all after the image has been actually shot.
But the downside to control is complexity. Raw files often look “wrong” to your eye. You see every bit of noise, color is off, white balance looks weird. The upshot is that you’ll need good software tools to get the most out of your raw files. Instead of the camera making the decisions about color, exposure, and other details, you get to do that.
In the following pages, we’ll look at five software tools for editing raw images. Two are from Nikon and Canon, who together hold the lion’s share of the DSLR camera market. The other three are third-party apps: Bibble 5 Pro, Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, and Adobe Camera Raw. Which is best for your photographic workflow? Which has the most robust features? And what about processing performance? To gauge how well the apps take advantage of modern, multithreaded CPUs, we ran batch-processing tests on a Core i7-975 Extreme system running at 3.3GHz with Hyper-Threading enabled, converting 100 raw files to JPEG—just bare JPEG conversion, with no tweaks or filters applied.
The Reviews
Storage and Backup Strategies for Your Raw Files
Raw files consume vast amounts of hard drive space. In fact, we’ve accumulated 320GB of raw files in just the last three years. The upshot is that you’ll need lots of fast storage if you decide to start living life in the raw.
First bit of advice: Don’t just dump all your raw images onto a single big drive. That’s dangerous, as there are two types of computer users: those who have lost data and those who will lose data. So what you really need is a robust, reliable storage and backup strategy.
If you shoot mostly personal photos, a good external hard drive with a decent backup program can get the job done. Run the backup on a regular basis. If your main hard drive does go down, it’s easy to restore from the external drive.
Now, if you’re a professional photographer, or just shoot a lot of material for other people, you’ll need a better solution. A good start would be an automated backup to an external network storage device that’s set up as RAID 1 or RAID 5 redundant drives. In fact, it’s a good idea to have your main storage drive be RAID 1, so a single hard drive failure doesn’t take you down.
If you’re a pro or semi-pro shooter, you also need to think about offsite storage. One natural disaster or fire can destroy both your computer and your backup drives if they’re in the same location. One approach is to back up your backup to archival-quality optical discs, then store them at another physical location. And if you really need long-term archiving, converting proprietary raw formats, like Canon or Nikon raw files, to open DNG or TIFF files is probably a good idea.
Adobe DNG vs. Raw
DNG, or Digital Negative, is Adobe’s attempt at a unified raw format—a format that will be supported into perpetuity, guaranteeing that the images you shoot today can be opened and edited any time in the future. DNG is a freely licensed spec that Adobe has opened up to all software developers and camera manufacturers. The Library of Congress has even suggested that DNG be used as an archive format for digital photos.
The DNG spec is based on a version of the venerable TIFF format, but adds a wrapper that includes extra metadata (that can be tweaked in raw editors) and supports major color-filter technologies. The drawback? Well, the Foveon digital sensor employed by Sigma cameras can only use “linear DNG,” a version of the DNG spec that doesn’t actually include raw sensor data. Rather, the raw data undergoes a conversion process—and once the data is converted, it can’t revert back to raw. Yes, you can continue to adjust all that linear DNG metadata in a raw application, but the data you’re adjusting won’t be raw, undiluted sensor data.
Nikon, Canon, Sony, and Olympus don’t support DNG. However, Casio, Pentax, Leica, Ricoh, Samsung, and Hasselblad do support the pure DNG spec, and if you’re using one of their cameras, shooting DNG files is an easy choice. If you’re shooting with Nikon, Canon, Sony, et al, you can convert to “pure” DNG using Adobe’s own converter.
Which Flavor is Best?
Canon’s Digital Photo Professional is a serviceable tool for basic manipulation of Canon raw files, but it’s the most limited app we tested—you really will need something better for robust photo editing. Nikon’s Capture NX2 offers a couple of very cool features (particularly control points), but the software’s price might be hard to justify for some.
All three of the “non-camera-affiliated” raw apps have strengths and weaknesses. If you’re committed to buying just a single tool, Bibble 5 Pro is a compelling choice. Its rich feature set, speedy performance, workflow management, and layering support make for a tidy, complete package, although we do have some concerns about its stability under 64-bit Windows.
Adobe Camera Raw requires the purchase of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, as it’s really an integrated add-on. The current version offers rich raw-file manipulation, but it’s not really a useful stand-alone tool. However, if you’re already a Photoshop or Photoshop Elements user, Adobe’s Lightroom 2 is a must-have. Its workflow management eclipses that of Adobe Bridge (included with Photoshop), it integrates all the features of Adobe Camera Raw, and adds superb management of print output along with other features. Toss in 64-bit and useful multimonitor support, and you’ve got a great tool. As a stand-alone app, Lightroom 2 is incredibly useful if all you do is crank out large volumes of photos for clients, using presets to automate tasks. But it’s best used in conjunction with Photoshop or Elements.
You can get excellent results from all these tools; some will just take a little extra effort. Once you’re past the learning curve for a particular app, however, you’ll be able to create jaw-dropping photos that people will cherish for years.
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
![]()
cokakoehler
August 06, 2010 at 6:00pm
In the article "Some Like It Raw" there are some obvious innaccracies. Some have been mentioned here like the ISO adn Shutter Speed being editable in a Raw file - which of course they are not. A RAW file does have many advantages over a JPEG or other image in that it is the straight Capture from the sensor before going through the processor. Many of the tasks that the processor does can be controlled via the RAW Software being used. Almost all of these things are done better in the onboard processor of the camera, so the idea is to get as good of an exposure as possible from pure camera settings.
The biggest advantage to a Raw file is the Dynamic Range. Once an image is stored in 8-bit format as a jpeg there is little information left to manipulate and the result of too much correction will be banding and artifacts like noise. With a Raw file there is a lot more data in all tonal areas so they can be manipulated greatly with no loss of detail or introduction of artifacts. Additionally these edits can be done in a non-destructive manner that allows the original sensor information to remain unchanged. That is why Adobe calls their RAW Format DNG (Digital Negative) meaning that it is the information that was captured by the camera. If done correctly a single RAW Capture can create effects that are similar to or better than HDR.
The main reason that I am writing is to point out that there was another error in reffering to the capability of the Nikon Capture NX Software. The article stated that Noise Reduction could not be perfprmed in both the Luminance and Chromaticity separately. This is wrong. In each manipulation available on the Nikon Software there is an Opacity Selection. When this is checked it opens another dialog that lets the user apply the adjustment in many different methods. In addition to the different applications it also lets the user apply the modifications to either the Luminance or Chromaticity separately or any combination of both if desired.
I use Capture NX 2 almost exclusiovely and only go to Photoshop for cloning and other non-photographic applications.
Just my two cents.
Coka K
![]()
therathman
April 28, 2010 at 12:20pm
Yes, Bibble, Lightroom etc... are workflow management tools, but do offer some excellent editing capabilities. Used in conjunction with other editing tools they do help to round out the toolbox. I am surprised the article does not include Phase One - Capture 1 - the 800 lb gorilla in this arena. I have used Capture NX2, Phase One Capture 1 Pro, and am currently experimenting with Lightroom. The article brings some good points forward on the products. But the article, I think sell all these products short and really does not capture their real strengths and weaknesses. So far, I have found them all very poor on reducing digital noise... But the omitting of Phase One is unforgiveable! I could comment further, but point made.
![]()
Travis Penner
April 22, 2010 at 7:50am
I just have to say the picture with that red stuff swirling around a camera... Salmon is it? Is SO disgusting it makes me nauseous just looking at it. Really - do I have to look at crap like that MaxPC? I couldn't even read the article in my magazine because of that bloody picture. Ugh. GROSS!
Travis
![]()
Scarterous
April 16, 2010 at 8:34am
Lightroom 2 is NOT an editor, it is a workflow management tool. Yes, it has some editing capabilities, but it's bread and butter reason d'être is workflow management.
Love how MaximumPC assigns review of a photography-based article to someone who isn't a PRO photographer.
Your articles are sometimes useful, but you are mostly about flattery-based reviews of products sent to you by your advertisors. Very, very lame.
![]()
dracx619
April 16, 2010 at 3:18pm
id like to respond to this post, but max pc keeps markin it as spam, and no i wan't going to insult you or be a troll. so i guess all i can say is. HI!!
![]()
loyd
April 09, 2010 at 9:05am
Mea culpa to everyone who caught that shutter speed comment in my article. What I was trying to get at -- and didn't explain it well at all -- was how editing raw gave you control over the pure sensor data. I should have just gone into a brief description of how light is captured, what the histogram means, and avoid excessive, unclear expostion to try to make a point. My bad.
![]()
markoo2
April 09, 2010 at 4:35am
That review should never have been released, isnt there any peer review of facts. Iso is changed in camera, Not in editing, it is a camera function affecting photo quality, speed and DOF. White balance can be adjusted in most editors in Jpeg, and in camera. Raw for most is a waste of time editing, and a memory hog as many cameras are already so advanced in photo parameter control the Jpegs actualy surpass Raw for some top cameras for simple shooting. The review gets 0 stars, its not a review of actual program functions or facts. My 8 yr old can do better.
![]()
dracx619
April 09, 2010 at 7:16am
i had a nice detailed explanation but max pc keeps flaggin it as spam so ill summarize. jpeg stores color in 8 bit, raw in 16 bit. you have more control over color with raw so you can have better iamges with raw in the end. jpeg is only good for point and shooters, raw is for pros and enthusiasts that demand full control. if you want to know more, google is a click away
![]()
Jono
April 09, 2010 at 1:00am
cmon now lets not get carried away. Unless the camera writes multiple variations of shutter speed into the data file which I doubt, this would only be an effect or simulation of shutter speed, simply blurring or sharpening a photo. Seems like a bunch of gimmicks to me. The only legit adjustments you could do on a RAW file without loosing data are color correction/white balance and attempting to pull slightly more detail from extremes.
![]()
rhowington
April 07, 2010 at 6:20am
No mention of Corel's Paint Shop Pro? It is better than any of these except Canon's Photo Pro. I use Photoshop for a lot of things but, it sucks at handling RAW.
![]()
ErikTheGreat
April 07, 2010 at 5:16am
I am a Lightroom nut now that I have put some time in to learn the workflow. I recently added Picasa 3.6 to my tool bag as it recognizes my RAW files and backs them up to the web. I do local backups too but it is really nice to have access to my entire RAW photo collection anywhere I go. I got a free Eye-Fi card for bumping my account to 200GB and couldn't be happier.
![]()
onotron
April 07, 2010 at 4:46am
I stopped reading when you said that you can change ISO and shutter speed in RAW.
![]()
dracx619
April 07, 2010 at 3:12am
been using lightroom the past couple of years and it absolutely rules. hardly ever use photoshop unless im doin something crazy btu ever since i switched to lightroom, i get the basics done way faster.
![]()
Saigua
April 06, 2010 at 11:23pm
I keep thinking of the Reuters cameramen in Iraq who got 30mm Apache fire up in their grill carrying their Canon gear with light guarding slung low; surely higher carries get less dust, and with enough salmon, nobody mis-calls your kit as munitions. Ah, what do I know about salmon microfiber in town.
Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook
Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.




















