Last summer I had my first real vacation in years and I decided with my wife and son to go to Hawaii. After the initial excitement of the decision, I began to worry. Maui is no less than 10,500 miles away from where I live so we’d had to make two stops and travel for 22 hours – definitely the kind of stuff you only do once in your life.

Considering that the whole vacation was going to cost a fortune anyway, I thought I should make the best of it by taking lots of photos. When I started to pack all my camera gear (2 bodies, 8 lenses, vertical grip, spare batteries, 2 flashes, tripod and more), I realized that a. –  I’d need a very big bag for all of it, b. –  the last thing I want to do is to carry that damn thing with me along with the other luggage and c. – there’s a high chance for the equipment to get damaged in transit.

And then, thinking of Mr. Fogg who went around the world in 80 days with no luggage, just loads of cash, it hit me – when I go in a vacation, I don’t take my car with me – I rent one while I’m there. So why should I get all my expensive gear with me when I could find what I need there?

One minute later I had my answer: Maui Camera Rental is a photo rental company located in Maui (they have another office in Honolulu too). Browsing their inventory, I realized that not only I could find there all my beloved lenses, I could even try lenses I simply could not afford to buy. For example, a Canon EF 70-200 F2.8 L IS II USM that retails for $2,500 can be rented for just $100 for a whole week. So rather than dragging a whole bunch of lenses half the globe, it simply made more sense to take just my main camera body and the cards and rent everything else, depending on my needs.

Also, while I was preparing my gear, I realized I’d need some sort of underwater housing (Hawaii sans scuba diving? No way!) but to be honest I didn’t even know what to look for. Fortunately they have not only underwater housings for cameras and various lenses, but housings for flashes too! (I didn’t even know they exist).

Overall I was amazed by their offering. I could have made a whole photo session or a wedding with their equipment, as they have everything from Profoto lights and stands to CF cards and even Macs, including software.

So if you’re travelling to Hawaii, I think it’s worth checking them out. And even if you’re not and are going somewhere else, it’s still worth checking with the local businesses and see if you can save  time & money by renting the equipment.

I must start by stating that if you’re really serious about digital painting, you should consider Corel Painter 11, which is a dedicated natural-media painting program that allows you to use anything from a HB pencil to chalk, charcoal and watercolors and also simulates the canvas properties in addition to the brushes. Nevertheless, Photoshop’s new offering is a solid one and more than enough for many artists.

For best results, a Wacom tablet like the new Intuos 4 is also recommended, although not required. In addition to pressure sensitivity, the new Wacom also senses the angle of the stylus, allowing for even more realistic results.

Theory

There are two new features used for painting in Photoshop CS5. The first one is the new Brush Tip options.

New options in the Brushes Panel

With the new brushes, you can control the number of bristles, length, thickness and stiffness and not only can you see the result in the brush panel, you also get an overlay window that shows you the 3D virtual brush and its bristles.

Paint Preview

I am not really a big fan of the brush preview window but thankfully you can turn it off if you find it distracting.

The second ingredient in the digital paint toolbox is the Mixer Brush. The Mixer Brush is like a combination of the normal brush and the smudge tool. As you paint, it smudges and mixes the color, as if you were using wet paints.

Regular brush (left) and Mixing brush (right)

The way the brush color is mixed with the canvas is controlled by three parameters – the wetness of the paint, the load of the brush and the mix amount between the paint color and the canvas color.

Mixing Brush Parameters

To illustrate these parameters, I brushed quickly over an image with different settings:

Different Mixing Brush options

So, a heavy load will carry more paint over a stroke than a light load; wetness smudges and mixes the canvas color with the paint color; a high mix rate will use more of the canvas color than the paint color.

Practice

The real magic with the Mixing Brush is that you can paint using the colors from a picture, effectively helping to you turn a photo into a painting with little effort.

To demonstrate this, I will start with a nice photo I took 10 years ago on film.

The original photo

Create a new transparent layer. Select the Mixing Bush and from the top bar choose the preset Very Wet, Heavy Mix; choose the brush that you want from the Brushes panel and make it a big size.

To paint on the new layer using the colors from the background, with the Mixing Brush tool selected, make sure that the option Sample All Layers at the top is selected. Deselect the icon (Load the brush after each stroke) then Alt-click on the image to load the brush and start painting on the new layer.

To paint effectively, you need to think in terms of layers, from background to foreground and from broad to detail. Therefore we’ll start painting the background, using broad strokes with a large brush tip, ignoring the shack/cabin completely. Your strokes should more or less follow the contours of the terrain and clouds.

Hide the background layer temporarily to see the effect so far:

Background (landscape) layer - work in progress

As you can see, I smudged the colors over the shack as if it did not exist. Also, notice how my strokes follow the hills and the shapes of the clouds. Keep working until you fill the layer and are happy with the result.

Background Landscape layer - complete

Next, we need to paint the cabin. It’s better to paint it on its own layer so that if you decide to change anything, it doesn’t mess with the background.

To do that, you need to hide the landscape layer, create a new one and paint on it. This time you’ll ignore the landscape and do just the cabin. You also need to make the brush tip smaller. Make sure the background photo is visible so it can pick the colors from it.

Cabin / Shack - complete

If you look at the roof, you’ll see that I erased from it some parts I did not like – this is why it’s a good practice to work on separate layer.

Now that we have the broad strokes, it’s time to bring in the details. Repeat the process – hide the shack layer, make sure the background photo is visible, make the brush tip even smaller, create a new layer and start painting on it. This time you no longer need to fill all the stuff, just short, fine strokes in the areas you want detail.

Details - distant, grass and shack

If you show all layers, this is what we get:

Background, foreground and detail layers

Not bad. We still want to add some more details like shadows. Create a new layer and set its mode to Multiply and opacity to around 60%. Choose a Dry Mixing Brush – now we don’t need to mix with the background – and black for color. Paint the shaded areas.

Shadows added in

At this point you can leave it as it is, or you can add a final touch. One of the nice things about oil paint is that it has thinkness. To give this kind of tridimensional effect, you need to create a merged copy of the layers. The easy way is to duplicate all layers and then merge the copy (quickest route: select the layers and press Shift+CTRL+ALT+E or Shift+CMD+OPT+E on Mac). Now you should have a new merged layer in addition to the original ones.

An even better method would be to select the layers, choose Layer –> Smart Objects –> Convert to Smart Object and then duplicate this smart object via Layer –> Duplicate Layer or CTRL+J (CMD+J on Mac). This method is better because it leaves the contents of the smart object editable as well as the Emboss effect.

Whichever method you chose, with this new layer selected, choose Filters –> Stylize –> Emboss and in the dialog enter some values like below:

Emboss Dialog

Make sure Height is relatively small – this depends on how large your canvas is, and make sure you crank the Amount all the way to the max. You can always tone the effect down later with opacity. With this emboss layer, set the mode to Overlay.

Here’s the end result, including all the layers for reference:

Final painting

And there you have it!

Check out the video below:

Pretty impressive.

Lightroom 3 and ACR will ship with a selection of lenses for automatic correction of distortions, chromatic aberrations and vignetting but the really powerful feature is the profile editor, which will allow the creation of profiles for any camera/lens combination, very useful when dealing with third-party lenses or old models.

My only complain is that the perspective correction is not good enough; having three sliders for X, Y and Z-axis rotation is cumbersome compared to DXO keytoning feature.

Overall, it’s a very important upgrade.

New Painting engine

This is something directly aimed at Corel Painter and its ‘natural media’ painting. It’s still not quite there in terms of sophistication as Painter but it’s a big improvement.

Color picker and painting

Puppet Warp

This has been present in After Effects and Flash for quite some time, but it’s nice to have in Photoshop when the Liquify doesn’t cut it. I’m especially thrilled about using the ‘pins’ for controlled image distortions as they illustrate at the end of the video:

New smart selection tools

The selection is getting smarter when there are fine details like fur over complex backgrounds. This stuff has been possible for some time via plugins, but it’s nice to see it integrated (not to mention that it forces the plugin makers to innovate).

Content-aware fill

Remember the healing brush and the patch tool? How amazed you were when you discovered them? Then prepare to be amazed once more:

Overall, Photoshop CS5 is shaping as a solid release, well worth the upgrade.
Of course, we’ll have to wait for the official announcement, but these features are pretty much confirmed.

What follows is the official announcement for the availability of Lightroom 3 beta 2. I’ll start playing with it right away and report my findings. I am a bit disappointed that there’s no word on any optical corrections, but I won’t judge anything for now.

Adobe today released an update to its Photoshop Lightroom 3 beta software, available immediately through Adobe Labs. Building on the success of the first Lightroom 3 beta, which was downloaded by more than 350,000 photographers, Lightroom 3 beta 2 incorporates feedback from the first iteration of the beta while offering users several new features and greatly improved performance throughout the application.

New features in this release include tethered shooting support for select Nikon and Canon cameras, the ability to import and manage video files from DSLR cameras for a streamlined workflow and additional behind-the-scenes architecture enhancements for faster importing and loading of images. The addition of luminance noise reduction to the color noise reduction options already available in the beta helps photographers achieve overall exceptional image quality from high ISO images. The import experience and watermarking functionality have also been modified to reflect feedback received from the Lightroom community during the first beta period.

The input from the photography community has been extremely valuable and Adobe would like to thank everyone who has participated in the beta program. Adobe encourages photographers to test this new selection of features and provide the product team with feedback so they can produce the highest quality final product.

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom
Adobe Lightroom is the essential digital photography workflow solution, helping serious amateur and professional photographers quickly import, manage, perfect and showcase all their images in one intuitive application.

Pricing and Availability
Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 beta 2 is available as a free download to anyone on a Macintosh or Windows platform and is available in 12 languages. Visitlabs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom3/ to learn more and download the second beta. Feedback can be submitted on the Lightroom forums:forums.adobe.com/community/labs/lightroom3/.

The good news is that Apple just released Aperture 3 – and not a moment too soon, considering how many users were tempted to ‘jump ship’.

Aperture 3 brings a number of improvements across the board, most notably:

• better library organization, with easy catalog switching, searching and filtering; GPS integration; face detection;
• support for video;
• non-destructive brushes.

It’s still hard for me not to see it as Apple trying to catch up with other products. Non-destructive brushes have been available in Lightroom for an year and more recently in Bibble. Same with almost all other features like fullscreen support, import options, image attributes such as color labels and so on.

Other features seem more geared at the casual photographers rather than the pros (not that this is bad thing), like export to Flickr or Facebook.

Overall, I believe Aperture is not about bringing new users rather than keeping the existing ones, but Apple’s commitment is important not only to reassure the users but also to keep the pressure on competition (Adobe, I’m looking at you).

You can see the full list of new and improved features on Apple’s site.

Aperture 3 is priced at $199 for the full version and $99 for an upgrade.

While people think of visuals as being the biggest achievement of Avatar, it would be more appropriate to call it immersion – the feeling of being there, without any distracting clues that the world and its characters are computer-generated.

Bringing characters to life in a convincing manner is a daunting task. Final Fantasy – The Spirits Within was the first to try and they failed spectacularly. The reason is psychological: while the brain can interpret a simple stick figure as a human, as the complexity of the increases, perceived realism improves until a point where the character is almost – but not quite – alive. Such a character looks real but dead. This dread area is called the Uncanny Valley. After the Final Fantasy flop, few have ever attempted to cross the Uncanny Valley; although LoTR’s Gollum is often cited as a realistic digital character, he was supposed to look repulsive, so the challenge wasn’t that big.

Performance capture

James Cameron wanted to create beautiful, sexy characters you could fall in love with (and judging from various talks on forums, it seems that Neytiri had that effect) and for this, rough motion capture that is usually employed was not enough.

Cameron and his team coined the term performance capture – that is capturing all the nuances, body language and feelings of an actor and translate them on the digital counterpart. For this they used innovative solutions from Giant Studios (that company was responsible for all motion capture) and they added a helmet-mounted camera attached to a rod, that sit in front of the actors’ heads; this way, the facial expressions could be captured along with the whole body motion. The helmets also featured ears and braids, helping actors remain aware of them. In addition to that, they used up to 12 HD cameras to capture the actors from different angles in wide and closeups to preserve all the fine details.

This approach helped the animators at Weta  to concentrate only on bringing up every nuance of the original performance, like small winks, swaying of the hair or movement of the ears. It was also a boon for actors, now freed of tedious details like markers, lighting and costumes, now being able to concentrate on what they do best – conveying emotions.

They also used motion capture for creatures (using actors for stand-ins), and even for helicopters and banshees. This allowed for a better interaction with the actors and more natural motion paths (especially tricky for helicopters, which sway in their path in a way only a helicopter pilot can describe). The Weta animators still had to refine the motion and add all the necessary details, but the general motion path was already given to them in the way the filmakers wanted.

Real-Time feedback

Everybody has their own camera eye and sensibility and to translate that through an intermediary is very difficult

Another problem of working with CGI-heavy pictures is that the actors play in an empty space and when standing on the floor it’s difficult for everyone (actors, cameramen, director) to imagine how the end result will look like. So James Cameron and his team devised a “virtual camera” hooked to Motion Builder, allowing them to see the virtual environments in real-time.

“Everybody has their own camera eye and sensibility and to translate that through an intermediary is very difficult“, said Rob Legato, referring to the traditional workflow that required the animators to handle camera movement, with variations taking weeks to complete.

James Cameron holding the virtual camera

For Avatar, they would move the camera in the empty set and the virtual camera would do the same inside the simulated environment, all while actors movements were being captured and applied to their digital models. This way, instead of doing a scene with actors, having the motion interpreted later and receive an animation weeks later, the production team could see the results instantly, providing them with the essential feedback needed to refine the details. This approach allowed them to stop using storyboards and just experiment. For camera work alone, they could try 15-20 variations – wider, lower – to get the best look.

Viewfinder shows low-res CGI with real-time motion capture applied

We gave Weta what was essentially a rough videogame version of the scene

When a scene was ready, it was given to Weta and they replaced the low-res models with high-res ones, did the tweaks and small details and rendered it.

Another clever thing was the Simulcam – a rig that allowed them to do real-time compositing over green-screen. So they’d film actors in areas that required digital extensions (for example the hangar bay) and the image in the viewfinder would show the composited result, with the digital backgrounds instead of the green screen. Needless to say, this is a huge help for people behind the camera, now able to see how the scene is going to look like and how to frame it.

Low-res realtime footage

Attention to detail

The creatures started as sketches on paper and were then digitally sculpted with Z-Brush. Vehicles were modeled with Maya, XSI and 3ds max.

ZBrush study

For the avatars, Stan Winston Studios built full-size models of generic Na’vi male and female characters that were laser-scanned and tweaked.  Incorporating features from the human characters was a challenge in itself as the avatars had to have some resemblance to their ‘operators’. Moreover, a face conformation too different from the actor’s face did not translate well for face performance capture, this is why the Na’vi ended up looking quite similar to the actors portraying them.

Direhorse muscle system

Speaking of performance capture, to fully retain all the nuances of the body language, the Weta artists had created all the face muscles, fat and tissue and used state-of-the-art shaders and light models to give the sense of depth beneath the skin, with the usual sub-surface scattering model replaced with a sub-surface absorption one.

The modeling and texturing of the models and characters had to go through several update cycles, because as the one character model was made more realistic, all other CGI near it started looking obviously fake and had to be improved as well.

Someone actually modeled all the stitches and tiny details

For the vegetation, Weta created a library of almost 3000 separate plants and tress, that enabled them to “decorate” the Pandora jungle in a realistic fashion. By the way, initially the vegetation was supposed to be cyan, but the jungle was too alien, so they bough back some green for a more familiar look.

Further reading

You can find out more about the companies and software involved in the making of Avatar. Weta did most of the work, but even they were overwhelmed by the sheer number of CG scenes, so received help from ILM for the animations involving humans’ aircraft and from Framestore for the Hell’s Gate compound.

PS: Congratulations on winning the Golden Globes Award. Despite its detractors, I believe Avatar is strong film both on technical and human level.

Updated on January 16 with more details. Also, in a new article I’m providing some details on the challenges and innovations involved in the making of Avatar.

Although usually only big names like Weta Digital or ILM are mentioned in the making of high-budget CGI, there are always tens of companies involved (possibly hundreds considering that work often gets outsourced), with thousands of digital artists, 3d modelers, animators and compositors working to bring the script to live.

It’s also too bad that many of the companies (the ones involved in the production and the ones making the software) do not promote their software more. Adobe was the quickest to show how their line of software was involved, even though it wasn’t really crucial to the project and this is why I decided to make a list and try to give proper credit to everyone involved.

Wireframe of a Na'vi

For Avatar, these are the companies credited for the visual effects:

• Weta Digital, New Zealand (most of the work, character modeling, animation, rendering)
• Industrial Light and Magic, USA (180  non-character shots, mostly the human aircraft in the final battle)
• Stan Winston Studios (most of the props, including the Ampsuit and the Samson helicopter)
• Framestore, UK (70 shots of the Hell’s Gate)
• Hybride, Canada (graphics for the link room)
• Prime Focus, USA (design and compositing of the control room screens, HUDs, etc)
• Look Effects, USA (compositing)
• Hydraulx, USA  (digital extension shots of crematoria and cryovault)
• Giant Studios, USA (motion capture)
• Blur, USA (4 space shots of ISV Venture Star)
• Pixel Liberation Front, USA (screens and HUD design)
• BUF (the conscience-transfer tunnel)
• Lola VFX, USA (digital cosmetic)

ZBrush study

And here are the main software used:

• Autodesk Maya
• Pixar Renderman for Maya
• Autodesk SoftImage XSI
• Luxology Modo (model design, e.g. the Scorpion)
• Lightwave (low-res realtime environments)
• Houdini (unknown area)
• ZBrush (creature design)
• Auodesk 3ds max (space shots, control room screens and HUD renderings)
• Autodesk MotionBuilder (for real-time 3d visualisations)
• Eyeon Fusion (image compositing)
• The Foundry Nuke Compositor (previz image compositing)
• Autodesk Smoke (color correction)
• Autodesk Combustion (compositing)
• Massive (vegetation simulation)
• Mudbox (floating mountains)
• Avid(video editing)
• Adobe After Effects (compositing, real-ime visualizations)
• PF Track (motion tracking, background replacement)
• Adobe Illustrator (HUD and screens layout)
• Adobe Photoshop (concept art, textures)
• Adobe Premiere (proofing, rough compositing with AE)
• many tools developed in-house
• countless plugins for each platform, some of them Ocula for Nuke, Ktakatoa for 3ds max, Sapphire for Combustion/AE.

The list of tools is not exhaustive and you can see there’s overlap in capabilities, depending on each company’s pipeline.

Setting it up

1. Open Edit –> Preferences –> Guides, Grid and Slices
2. Edit Gridline every… 100 percent
3. Subdivisions… 3
4. Click OK

That’s it!

Now to show or hide the grid, just press CTRL+’ or select View –> Show –> Grid

Image with visible grid

What is this Rule of Thirds anyway?

Just in case you never heard of this “rule”, let me give you some points:

Beginners in photography tend to frame everything dead in the center. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t. There are many rules that can be used to achieve a more pleasing composition and this is one of them.

The Rule of Thirds states that you can achieve better composition balance if you place the interesting features of your photos along horizontal and/or vertical lines that divide your picture in thirds, or at the intersection points.

To illustrate my point, have a look at the pictures below:

Horizon and tower aligned to the lines

Eye at the intersection

As with any photography “rule”, you shouldn’t get obsessed with it. Not everything has to be framed according to it. Understand it, learn it, try it – then break it!

Updated on January 4, 2010 with the final release of Bibble 5.

The lineup

For this test I selected:

• Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 3 beta;
• Bibble 5 Pro;
• Capture One 5 Pro;
• DXO Optics Pro 6.

Notable absents would be Apple Aperture and Silky Pix.

I did not select Aperture for this review because it’s older (apart from updates and patches it’s still a 2008 product) and it’s also the only Mac-only product (all the programs in this test are available for both PC and Mac; Bibble is also available for Linux). In the case of Silky Pix, I started testing it, but I felt it’s not in the same league as the others, so a direct comparison would not be fair.

Also, in the case of Lightroom 3, it is still beta software; I decided that it’s stable enough to be used in production, so it wouldn’t be unfair to it. It’s good to keep in mind however that it may add features and/or improve image quality before it is released.

Originally, this article presented the beta version of Bibble 5, once it was released I retested and included new results from it.

Test images

For this test I found myself in the difficult position of not having enough test images. I made a habit years ago to convert all my pics to DNG. Unfortunately, DXO and Bibble don’t support DNG, so for this test I had to find some RAWs. If you think that would be easy, well, I actually had to run a program to recover some pics from my cards.

Second of all, I initially had some nice architectural pictures from Milan and Paris that were taken with a compact camera (a perfect test for noise reduction, chromatic aberrations and so on). Again, some programs (DXO and Capture One) did not support it.

Third, I wanted flawed images. I believe that test images should not be perfect – how would I be able to check chromatic aberrations if the image was taken with a razor-sharp, $2000 lens? Or how could I evaluate highlight recovery for a perfectly-exposed scene? Or noise at low ISO? or… you get the picture.

So if you look at the images in the test and wonder why they’re not so good – it’s because I selected them to be like that.

Interface

All four programs have remarkably similar interfaces: dark/gray color schemes, tabs and sliders.

All interfaces look similar, but there are differences in organization and workflow

I absolutely love Capture One‘s interface. It’s polished, simple and logical. It’s very easy to find the tools and the tabs are arranged in the proper order – from capture to details.

Lightroom comes very close, but for it the keyword would be ‘customization’. You can easily customize the interface to fit your own workflow, turn panels off, even customize the “nameplate” to your company name – a nice touch for when you’re working with a client.

Bibble is more of a mixed bag. They changed the UI completely from version 4 and copied many concepts from their competitors, but it’s still a bit confusing as buttons are all over the place.

DXO suffers from the same problems as Bibble – a rather confusing interface, with options arranged not very intuitively; for example, why is White Balance (a basic setting) placed after DXO Lighting (an advanced feature)? Still, in terms of speed and stability, it’s a huge improvement over DXO5.

Import and export

Lightroom has probably the widest camera support – it can read all camera formats under then sun and it also supports DNG (obviously, they invented it). Lightroom also goes beyond the typical RAW processor, as it aims to be a full DAM (Digital Asset Manager). In two years, it still hasn’t convinced me to use it exclusively, but it’s simple enough to import photos in its database and process them. It can also handle variations, has an unlimited history, snapshots and more. New in version 3 is the export system – you can publish from it directly to a service like Flikr. For me, it would be incredible to output directly to iStock, so I can only hope a plugin will come.

Bibble also has a wide camera support, but they don’t support DNG (despite numerous customers requesting it, I might add). Import and export are very easy and I like how printing is also treated like an output option and how easy it’s to define your own presets.

Capture One has a very straightforward way for import and export, focusing on simplicity. I might add that tethered shooting is perfectly integrated in the interface, a bonus for studio photographers. Capture One is more picky about direct camera support, but it does support DNG, so you can always convert to DNG first and then import.

DXO is the most cumbersome in this regard. First you must drag-and-drop files from the file system to a project, edit them and then drag and drop files from the project to the output queue. It just feels tedious for me, without enabling any advanced behaviour. DXO is also very picky about camera support and adds lenses into equation as it provides automatic correction for known camera-lens combinations. It also doesn’t import DNG (why oh why); it can output linear DNG, a feature I never used.

Unique features

As mentioned above, Lightroom is not only a RAW converter but a complete DAM, which comes in handy when you have tens of thousands of images (I have about 16,000 DNGs since 2003). You can easily filter by multiple criteria – tip: it really helps to use keywords for all images. The unlimited history, snapshots, virtual copies help you play creatively with photos, trying different looks. On the other hand, it’s the only program in this test that does not posses any sort of lens distortion correction, which is very disappointing (I still have hopes for the final version). Since version 2, LR also has some localized corrections (color, sharpness, exposure) via a brush or a gradient.

DXO is the unchallenged master in optical corrections. If you have a supported camera and lens, the precise corrections are great, and even if the lens is not recognized, you can still apply most of the corrections – sharpness falloff, light falloff, distortion corrections, even fish-eye corrections. The most impressive feature would be the keystoning, which lets you easily correct perspective distortions – a must-have for architectural shots (not everyone has a tilt-shift lens). It also has a built-in color rendering for emulating different film looks and more.

Capture One has the best support for tethered shooting  and a very useful focus checker – it will overlay the areas that are in focus, a great way to quickly asses a collection of images without zooming in, making it almost perfect for studio work.

Bibble has an incredibly powerful feature: layers. You can make a selection on the image and make any and all settings apply only to it. You can have an image with two or more different WB settings if you want. Areas can be defined using some tools or brushes and you can easily set/change the feathering. The system goes way beyond what Lightroom can offer. Bibble also has some interesting features licensed from other companies –  Noise Ninja for image reduction and a lens distortion database from PT Lens.

Processing Quality

This is where the fun begins.

Color rendition – portraits

With each program, I did not rely on defaults, but tried to achieve the best look. Looking at the image below, you can still see that each one has a different philosophy:

I think B5 nails it best with Lr3 second; though many will prefer C1's more natural look or even DXO's vividness

White balance was set for the black+white dress. I did not enable any “creative” color settings or film emulations.

Capture One really likes to stay neutral and true to the ‘real’ colors. Besides the WB tool, it also has a ‘skin color tool’ for achieving a pleasant skin color.

Lightroom throws more contrast; at least for my camera it has the tendency for more reddish skin, which I dislike. I know I can make my own color profiles (and I have), but how many users will?

Even with the Portrait contrast setting, Bibble generated a more contrasty image, while DXO created a very punchy result – very contasty, more yellowish skin and lipstick.

DXO6 makes gets too much contrast and C1 too little.

Four programs – four interpretations of the same scene with WB set for the eye white. What’s not to love?

Capture One again favors a very bland/neutral look, while DXO goes “a little” overboard with contrast. I think I like Bibble best.

Color rendition – landscapes

I really like the way Lr3 renders colors; DXO is over the top

For this image I also used a little Fill Light to open the shadows in the flowers and fruits. WB was adjusted for the white wall. Both Lightroom and DXO produce beautiful colors – Lightroom with a great blue sky (not very realistic since it was overcast, but beautiful nevertheless); DXO has a bit unnatural grass, but I’ve seen the color in magazines and ads a thousand times. Lightroom also gets the purples right but gets the orange walls a bit wrong. But this is just nitpicking.

Capture One misses it – the grass seems dirty/muddy and the Fill Light doesn’t work nearly as well. Bibble fares better but the colors are off and the contrast and shadow/highlight details are not that great.

Dynamic Range

You could get a taste of how well Fill Light & Highlight recovery work from the previous test, but now lets try something extreme:

DXO6 obtains the best results, followed by Lr3

DXO is really amazing with this image. Beautiful colors and look how detailed the dark, shadowed part of the building looks. Lightroom comes in close.

Initially, Bibble generated a rather poor image in the Preview release 3, but in the final version I managed to get better results.

As for Capture One, it just can’t.

Detail extraction

Let’s see now how much detail vs. noise can our four contestants extract from an image (100% crop):

Excellent detail in Capture One and Lr3

DXO produces a clean but not very detailed image, with some speckles here and there. Capture One removed too much chroma and has a quite speckled look (but note how natural the skin looks). Bibble 5 puts Noise Ninja to good use, leaving a pleasing image in terms of noise and details. Lightroom 3 renders the best image in terms of details, even though it’s slightly noisier.

Noise reduction

I don’t shoot usually at high ISO, but I have for this test- a boring detail of my keyboard.

It's B5's turn to show what it can do

The image above was shot at ISO6400.

Thanks to Noise Ninja, Bibble gets the crown. Lightroom 3 has the luminance noise reduction disabled in the beta, so the final version may look different. Although very noisy, it’s not that bad – I prefer Lr3 over C1. DXO cleans the luminance nicely but leaves some coarse chroma noise. With Capture One I tried 2 different approaches but the results are still very poor. The one shown above has luminance noise reduction very low, chroma to max; also reduced sharpening to zero.

Optical corrections

Unfortunately I did not have any RAW picture to really have a need to correct the chromatic abberations or barrel/pincushion. As I mentioned in the beginning, almost all of my pictures are DNG.

Having said that, based on my past experience I can safely say that DXO is unmatched in optical corrections – especially with a supported lens, whereas Lightroom comes in last since it has no distortion correction.

Here’s something from a previous test in 2007:

DXO Keystoning in action

I was able to test for purple fringing:

DXO really saves this image

Bibble has the least effective fringing correction (I couldn’t actually see it making any difference, although the Fringing option was set to Standard). Lightroom is also largely ineffective in this area (Purple fringing was set to All Edges). Capture One corrects the purple fringing but leaves a glow. DXO corrects both the color and the luminance in the affected area, leaving a sharp image.

It’s also worth mentioning the noise – Lightroom image is noisy but detailed (look at the black lace), while Capture One’s looks clean but speckled.

Speed

Speed comparisons are not very fair, as we’re comparing apples and oranges – some programs offer more advanced corrections so it wouldn’t be fair to say that they are slow when they also offer superior quality. Also, speed is dependent on many factors and will vary greatly from image to image.

As a general statement, Bibble is the fastest, followed by Lightroom and Capture One and unsurprisingly DXO comes at the end.

Pricing

Quality is not the only factor in making a decision. Let’s see how competitive are the prices:

• Adobe Lightroom 2: $300 USD (I can only assume version 3 will be priced the same)
• Bibble 5 Pro: $200 USD
• Capture One 5 Pro: $400 USD ($130 for the standard version)
• DXO Optics Pro 6 – Elite Edition : $200 USD ($109 for Standard edition)

Some notes:

• Capture One 5 standard does not offer optical correction and tethered shooting.
• DXO differentiates Stardard and Elite based on the supported camera bodies. High-end (full frame) digital SLRs require the Elite edition.

Updates

I intend to update this article when the final versions of Lightroom 3 and Bibble 5 are released and to also add more tests – so please come back.

I will also gladly correct any factual errors that may have slipped in this review (I worked for a week on it).

Updated on January 4, 2010 with the final release of Bibble 5. I changed some three of the Bibble results and used the new sales price.

Conclusions

It should come to no surprise that there’s no “perfect” program – each one has its strengths and weaknesses and your decision on which one is better for you should be based on the type of photography you do.

Having said that, I have a hard time recommending Capture One. I really wanted to like it and I know it has its fans, but I just can’t justify its price tag vs the output quality or the workflow. The interface is nice and clean, but it has nothing worth 4 times the price of DXO or the quality and workflow offered by Lightroom. It may work well for studio photographers because of its tethered shooting features and focus checker but even then it might be worth testing it along with Lightroom.

In terms of features and quality over price, DXO 6 is an absolute steal. If your camera and lenses are supported, $110 is nothing, even if you also use a different RAW converter. If you shoot landscapes or architectural elements, HDR, ultra-wide and so on DXO is a must. DXO 5 used to be a nightmare, with frequent crashes and a very slow interface, but DXO 6 is nothing like that – it offers a solid experience and in many cases it produces beautiful results.

Bibble 5 has great potential – it’s very fast and its adjustement layers feature is truly powerful. It supports more camera models than DXO and Noise Ninja does wonders for high-ISO images (obviously, you can always purchase Noise Ninja or Neat Image separately).

Lightroom is a very good all-round program. Its image management and workflow features are very useful for professional photographers. On the other hand, it’s relatively more expensive and lacks more advanced optical corrections. Adobe has included optical corrections settings in the latest DNG standard I hopefully support will be added in Lightroom 3.

So which one is best for you?

If you’re an amateur with a compact camera that supports RAW and want to get creative, go with Bibble. It will correct noise problems and optical distortions and will let you get creative.

Landscape and architectural photographers will benefit from DXO advanced corrections.

Portrait and studio photographers who work closely with their clients and shoot thousands of photos will be best suited by Lightroom.

Capture One has its fans too. It has some very professional features but its scope is limited. I would recommend it for professional studio photographers who worry more about correct colors than high ISO performance.