Remember that the value of batch processing depends on how much you want precisely the same settings applied to each photo.

If you shoot mostly RAW, then you will want to batch process them. But if you are doing that, then you might want to look at a number of other options. I use DxO which tests each lens/camera combination and calculates the corrections needed for each photo setting; that gives DxO much more controlled automatic processing for these parameters (at much greater cost too though). I'm not trying to suggest the use of DxO (or equivalent), but I am saying that HF should be compared with other raw processors if that is a substantial element of what you are interested in. But most people who shoot RAW are well into the advantages/disadvantages of various RAW processors already.

If you aren't interested in RAW, then you have to work out how much you really will want to apply all the same settings across a batch. Mostly, I suspect, if there's the same colour cast across a number of photos.

Looking at the other differences, HF (even in its latest beta) seems to me to be a much more traditional photo processor in approach and Sagelight appears to encourage more playing around. I wouldn't like to hazard any sort of guess or evaluation of which is 'best' without a lot more trying out, but I would say that I see them both as photo processors rather than image editors. I cannot really see how you can sensibly edit images without using layers.

~ HF has noise reduction - cant find any in SL really see effect unless you apply it...]

Discussion of Noise Reduction in Sagelight

And another

Even more discussion on 26th March in the BLOG

There may be (many?) programs better than Helicon, but few  if any  as easy to use!

It all depends on what is meant by easy to use.

Experienced users who use progs daily find a smooth workflow and shortcuts easaiest.
Users who understand what they want to do find it easy if those things are easily seen.
People who don't really know what they want to do or what is possible need an environment they can play around in or a set of clear instructions.

The limited set of main buttons in the new HF beta includes Chromatic Aberration. How many novice camera users know what that is?

This comes from their webpage:-
Some of the most interesting and unique features are:

• Live preview of all brushes
• Haze compensation
• Spectral sensitivity controls
• Chromatic aberration filter
• Vignetting and barrel corrections

I'm not sure how many people will understand why they would be interested in all these. Or what to do with them.

Don't get me wrong, Helicon Filter is a perfectly good program. I've used it before. And they have other programs that people might find interesting, particularly Helicon Focus which does what it does probably better than anything else around at the moment, including Photoshop. And in some ways it is quite easy to use.

I just feel that the thread was moving away from Sagelight and giving the impression that HF is better. I hadn't even looked at Sagelight before seeing this thread and it seems to me to have a different sort of UI to most photo processing progs and possibly more accessible to a lot of people. I haven't spent a great deal of time looking at Sagelight et, or the HF beta, but at the moment, I'd describe them as different approaches to doing many of the same things. Sagelight probably being in a currently much faster state of development. Whichever suits you best, is the one for you to use.

And there are a lot of free programs out there that do a lot of basic things, and some advanced ones, pretty well too.

... I just feel that the thread was moving away from Sagelight ...

- you're of course right, Dormouse.

I have also tried out Sagelight, of course, and was very impressed. The main reason I gave praise to Helicon was that while it took me an hour to get a fine result in Sagelight the very first time I used it, it literally took me less than a minute to get a similar result in Helicon. On the other hand I know from experience that it would take me much longer with some of the other respected editors. Is Sagelight difficult to operate? No, it is dead-easy! However, it took me an hour to figure it out, because of too many buttons in sight.

just edited my post above

[...]  I just found a 'Smooth Skin/Image' edit which = Noise Reduction, preview of effect doesnt allow you to zoom in though, so you cant really see effect unless you apply it... - a confusing interface here with changes shown 'live', and also a 'Preview Selection' setting which has the limitation as described in strikethrough text combined with: I not sure what exactly it's previewing ]

[...]

[edit] corrected SL noise reduction info [/edit]

Discussion of Noise Reduction in Sagelight

And another

Even more discussion on 26th March in the BLOG

the blog link recommends a good noise-removal plugin (awaiting improvements in Sagelight itself)

For those interested in RAW conversion, there is a very interesting post on 11th April in the Sagelight BLOG.

I am guessing he might be swamped with registration requests .. at least I donated 5 days ago and haven't received anything. I sent him an e-mail about it a couple of days ago which he hasn't replied to either.

I downloaded the trial of Sagelight... does anyone know if it can do lens correction (similar to DPP from Canon)?  I looked but could not find it...

I downloaded the trial of Sagelight... does anyone know if it can do lens correction (similar to DPP from Canon)?  I looked but could not find it...

I haven't used it much, but don't think it would have. It doesn't sell itself as a raw processor especially and it would be expensive to get sucked into that. Rob's already found it time consuming to support plugins. You would probably have to use something like PTLens or be very careful about how much you allow DPP to do.

Quote from: JavaJones on April 13, 2010, 06:40 PM

Before that blog post I honestly had little interest in Sagelight. Now I'm definitely going to try it when I get home.

If you're happy with what you have and know how to use it, then I'm not sure it's worth changing your workflow. What Rob talks about is applicable whatever software you use. That said his plans for Sagelight are very promising.

That's just it. I haven't settled on a package yet, and my absolute biggest priority is *proper* RAW processing. Which is why it's so important to me that he names the packages he tested, so I know A: how to reproduce the tests he's done with my own files and B: potentially what products to avoid or at least be wary of due to improper RAW processing. There is also the possibility that he accepted the program's defaults but that there are ways to get more "baseline" RAW output from a given tool and he just didn't use it, in which case naming the software would allow users of it to point out how the test might be made more fair.

- Oshyan

Really? Hmmm. Lame. Well, maybe he can just tell someone else and they can publish the results themselves as "verification".

- Oshyan

my absolute biggest priority is *proper* RAW processing. Which is why it's so important to me that he names the packages he tested, so I know A: how to reproduce the tests he's done with my own files and B: potentially what products to avoid or at least be wary of due to improper RAW processing. There is also the possibility that he accepted the program's defaults but that there are ways to get more "baseline" RAW output from a given tool and he just didn't use it, in which case naming the software would allow users of it to point out how the test might be made more fair.

He has to have accepted the default automatic settings. To do anything else would be seen as unfair (the other progs' developers will have chosen their default setting) as the settings would have been chosen by him and could not be reproduced others unless he explained what settings he chose and why. And trying to get the best possible photo out of them all would have taken a great deal of time. I think what he was drawing attention to is factors in developing raws that a lot of people don't know or ignore and that (some) other programs have a tendency to choose automatic settings that look better than Sagelight initially, but have actually lost information by doing so.

I think most, if not all, the major raw processors will allow you to choose settings that lose no information and will also allow you to automate it slightly by using the same formula for groups of photos that you think are similar. I'd be quite alarmed if they lost information unnecessarily whatever you did. What he is suggesting you do when you are testing raws is to check the histograms of the befores and afters. And the other thing, of course, is not to convert into jpgs if you expect to be doing much more processing, especially if it will involve a number of stages and saves.

It's not something I worry about. over much As long as I have a pristine copy of the raws, I can always go back. Any type of automatic processing or using defaults or using the same settings for a number of images is a compromise between time saved and quality. You choose the best mix you can according to your needs at the time.

Would anyone be interested in a website setup specifically to share source and output comparisons for RAW conversion? For example you would register, then upload a RAW file that you took for others to convert using their software of choice. Others would then upload their conversions, with e.g. details of program, version, and settings used. Then you could run a side-by-side or maybe a mouse-over flip comparison to judge the differences, as well as maybe download the full-size result files for better comparison.

This is something I've been thinking of doing lately, and I'm curious if anyone else would actually be interested not just in the results, but in contributing to it. Lutz, it looks like you'd have something to contribute.

- Oshyan