Who uses Bibble?

[00silvergt]

Can you let me know what you think of this RAW workflow software? Thanks.

[00silvergt]

No one here uses this program? Wow, Shutterbug reviewed this and touted it as the next best thing to slice bread. lol

[KmH]

There are 5 possibilities:

1. No one here uses Bibble.
2. Some here use Bibble but have not yet seen your thread.
3. Some here use Bibble, but have chosen to remain silent for one some reason.
4. All the Bibble users are guests and can't reply to your thread.
5. You have online B.O.

[dgs]

I used it while I used linux on my laptop. Now that I have moved on to a mac, (unix sys adm, web develper), I have started using lightroom. Now that lightroom is advancing, I wouldn't be happy going back.

[ohenry]

It's one of the few that I haven't played with.

[Mr. Pickles]

I used it. It works. Does a good job on a lot of images. It wasn't vastly better with the images, and it was worse with the interface and flow. Thus I selected Lightroom and have been with it as it has grown to a very powerful program for me.

Everyone else mileage may vary...and does sometimes.

[zemlin]

I like Bibble - Bibble Pro and Noise Ninja Pro are staples in my PP work. The slow evolution of V5 is a bit frustrating, but I'm holding out hope that the finished product will be a real winner. It is bloody fast and produces great results.

[Rense]

I use Bibble Pro 4 together with the plugins from Sean.
I can recommend that version. Version 5 however, I had high hopes, but they are still in a beta phase after more thtan a year. If you bought any recent camera's its raw format maybe not included so do a torough check.

[photojazz54]

I used it for a short period, liked it but was turned on to Lightroom so I have not used again.

[00silvergt]

I had a feeling that's what may happen, that I would come running back to LR like a school boy...

[Arved]

I used to use Bibble Pro 4.x. I was frustrated by highlight recovery, and it's tendency to "restore" highlights with pink splotches. Then I found that copy and pasting the WB setting didn't copy the WB setting, but the difference from one image to the next, and I got fed up. The only way to copy the WB setting itself was to manually make a note of the WB in your reference image, and manually type that number in each image. I've been chasing down why skin tones don't match after I supposedly correct the WB. Turns out I'm not correcting the WB, so I have no hope of matching skin tones from shot to shot.

Not only is that all screwed up, the developer somehow thinks this is a feature.

Bibble 5? Still vaporware. Announced 2 years ago. Publically demonstrated 6 months ago, and still not shipping.

I've become quite happy with ACR, and it's improved my productivity. The new camera profiles are superb.

I'm due a free upgrade to Bibble 5 when it comes out. I'm not going to bother. I feel I got burned. Just the WB issue - I got burned. All I want is a RAW converter. That's why I'm not interested in LR2 or Bibble 5. Bibble 5 is promising to be one huge sack of bloatware. No thanks.