So now that you know about our cameras, let's go over at the RAW processing solutions I examined.

I've run the trial of Bibble 4.9, so I will do my best to sum up my RAW conversion digital workflow findings. I downloaded and used the SILKYPIX beta for 3-4 weeks and now I'm using the 30 day trial of the newly released version. I'm watching the exchange of Japanese Yen vs. US dollars and will purchase SILKYPIX within the next month. The more I use it the more I like it.

Picasa 2
I know Connected Photographer has written about Picasa before. But there's never been any coverage about it in terms of RAW image processing. That's what I'm covering here.

Picasa 2, shown in Figure A, is free. For the armchair photographer and desktop challenged, it is the best digital software workflow solution on the planet. For my use, it converts RAW data from my two camera types, Panasonic FZ30 and Pentax K100D.

FIGURE A


Picasa is a nice, free program. Roll over picture for a larger image.

Picasa 2 does a great job with *ist DS .pef format (which is one of Pentax' native RAW formats). Even though I traded in the *ist after 30 days for K100D, I still have a pile of pictures from the *ist I want to process.

Sadly, though, now the K100D raws come in way undersaturated. I'm sure Google's next release of Picasa will fix this. That program never ceases to amaze me. Some "big name" RAW/workflow programs do not even read the K100D .pef yet (BREEZE and ACD come to mind).

Pros for Picasa
Picasa has a super-simple interface that gives you good, restricted control over post processing. Most adjustments are like fine tunings rather than obnoxious wide-range adjustments found in Photoshop and like image editors.

Picasa was made specifically for people who do not have a clue what Photoshop does nor want to or have the time to learn that kind of complex software. Plus, page setup for printing is the best batch printing interface I've used.

Picasa isn't destructive to original files. All edits are saved in one directory's ini file that Picasa uses to display, print and export images. It's the most streamlined way of handling non-destructive edits. This approach also eliminates full size copy revisions, which saves a ton of hard drive space.

Picasa 2 can also create photo CDs and online albums, has very good fill light adjustment for Gamma gain, and has clean, smooth display of image previews. And, did I mention it was FREE?!!

Cons for Picasa, at least for the high-end amateur
On the down side, I found file organization is confusing for the desktop challenged. Internal folder organization does not reflect local drive organization. I prefer managing my local folders myself. There, again, it is a "no-brainer" photo organizing interface.

Picasa doesn't have an Exif (Exchange Image File Format) for processed RAWs. Exif is unique because it allows you to embed metadata inside the RAW files. I bet you didn't know that the official abbreviation is Exif, not EXIF. It's true. Then again, most people using Picasa are going to shoot in JPEG anyway.