It's the darkroom step of film development, prior to the darkroom step of film printing in traditional terms. It's a raw converter, getting you from a raw file to an editable file with very interesting controls and characteristics that you simply don't get in other tools, done by someone who really knows what they're doing.
Lets say I use Adobe Lightroom. I import my images into Lightroom, and instead of making non-destructive edits on my RAW files in Lightroom, I have to select RPP as my external editing program, kind of like how I'd use PS CS3 right now. Do I understand this correctly?
Here's what I'd do-
Save the original NEF file in Aperture or on my backup media, do the raw conversion, then import the raw conversion into Aperture so that I have a copy of the original file, then one of the best RAW conversion possible. At that point, do any edits in PS and carry on as usual. The issue with using LR or PS to do the raw conversion is that you (a) get Adobe's view of exposure, (b) don't have as much control and (c) don't get the best starting point for editing.
The only way to use this as my RAW converter would be to import my photos into a new folder, bring them into RRP and make some edits, and then export as a TIFF back into my folder. From there, I load those photos into Lightroom, where I can then make further (non-destructive) changes to my files if I wish.
Is this what you're doing?
Pretty-much. Aperture 1.x and ACR do not produce the best raw conversions possible, so I was using NX for this step, now I'll likely be using RPP and taking advantage of its profiles and batch processing features to speed that part up.
Hmm, not entirely sold on this..
For film simulation, Exposure 2 blows this out of the water (albeit it is $249 US)..
I can't really see this being part of my workflow. Aperture and PS handle any tricky conversions I need..
It's not a full-on film simulator, it just has very pleasing tonal curves to give you the best starting point for any further manipulations. Aperture's conversions are *way* better than they used to be, but still not as good as NX. RPP seems to be as good- though I have yet to do a complete side-by-side comparison. ACR/PS/LR is ok quality-wise, but not anywhere near CaptureNX and their exposure futzing is annoying to me. The local contrast and autoexposure options in RPP really don't have analogs in other raw converters, but it's only a useful tool if you're willing to put another tool in your workflow or if you're replacing another raw converter in your workflow. I've played with half a dozen files and it's given me better results from those than anything I've used to date- in some images the difference in detail alone is worth it to me vs ACR.
In the past, I've spent serious time converting with LR, CS3, Lightzone, dcraw, Aperture, Bibble and Capture (4.x and NX.) I ended up with CS3, Aperture, Bibble Pro and CaptureNX as my "answer" to whatever I need to process and store.
I don't think you can save as an NEF file anyway, not using any software that has been mentioned so far.
Edits are made to image files,
Capture NX allows saving to NEF.
"non-destructive"). RPP doesn't really offer non-destructive editing in the manner that most people mean when they say "non-destructive". Unless RPP is also a browser, it won't be able to save the edits as a separate file, and apply the edits only whenever you want to export that photo as a
It's non-destructive as it doesn't touch the original file, just like when you tell Aperture to leave the original file in its original directory. Actually, if you look at the history function in RPP it's pretty darned powerful for its simplicity, and it does indeed save edits in the history file as timestamped transactions. It also does recursive directory profiling if you want to quickly convert a series of images, as well as allows history saving and transactional changes. There's a lot hiding behind a minimalist interface- most likely because the author knows where all the functions are.
One huge different betreen this program and Aperure is that Aperure is non-destructive. It does not "convert" the image. It keeps it in raw form until you export it.
If you tell Aperture to not move the original file, the function looks pretty-much the same, but RPP seems like it's got a more sane minimalist (do it quickly) batch featureset.
It's important to remember that RPP is one of the most powerful raw converters I've seen to date, and in its current state it's hands-down faster than CaptureNX, the best raw file converter for Nikon files. I also think the monochrome conversion technique is interesting, but it's not something I'll use that often.
Lots of folks are happy with ACR and LR or CS3, the interface is quick, and you can do basic adjustments just fine- if that works for you and you're happy with it, then RPP probably isn't the right tool for you.
If you're used to trying to tweak your raw files to be the best possible image before you start any editing, then RPP is more than worth a look, and you'll be blown away if you read through the docs and look at what it's giving you in terms of control and features (the whitebal alone is awesome.)
If you don't like Adobe deciding to mess with your exposure because they're defaulting to the wrong way or you're trying to get more shadow detail out of stacked raws for HDR, then RPP may be a good choice- depends on your workflow.
Finally, RPP will let you call another tool when you close a file, so it's easy to integrate into a workflow as the primary raw converter.
If you're going to evaluate it, I seriously recommend going through the help menu's manual with an image open- it's easy to miss what it's capable of if you don't really look at the options and what they mean.
