After some great advice from some fine folks here I purchased a Sony RX 100 1st gen. Its a great little camera that I'm still getting used to after using a Canon DSLR for years.

One problem I have is editing the RAW photos. The software that sony provides is a clunky mess in my opinion but maybe I just need more time with it? Sony's verions or RAW seems to be a .ARW file which doesn't want to play nice with my Canon software Digital Photo Pro, go figure.

So far I figure my options are 1. Get used to the Sony Junk or B. Shell out for something like lightroom.

So Sony enthusiasts, what software do you prefer for editing and any tips you have lay them on me.

I'm a huge lightroom fan. It can do 99% of anything you'd want to do to a photo, totally worth the money.

Try looking for trial programs, or free just for a start and compare.
I looked at as many free trials as I could using them to find one I liked to use.
Found I liked Bibble now Corel AfterShot myself, but the user interface is a very personal decision. They all worked well the Bibble/AfterShot program just fit my way of doing thing better.
search of Corel for .awr

butthead

Save yourself some headaches and learn Lightroom. It is an industry standard and it is cheap. Adobe sells it by subscription, which some people rail against but I have no idea why. It costs $9.99 a month or something like that and is packaged with a full version of Photoshop which is otherwise very expensive.

Spending a few hours (or many more) learning Lightroom basics with get you on your way.

Before you import too many photos into Lightroom, make sure you have a rational plan for organizing photos that is scaleable over future years. I.e. don't label each import by date. To each his own with folder structure.

The Sony software is crap.

A quick edit in LR just FYI.

One more tip regarding learning LR. Pay for a set of organized video tutorials. You can find anything on YouTube but you will spend more time drinking around trying to find it for free - better off paying a few bucks, save yourself loads of time, and learn expeditiously. I bought the Serge Ramelli Lightroom tutorial videos which were very helpful. There are many out there, and it is all the same material. Videos are quicker than books but I bought a book too so that I have a desk reference to use from time to time.

Currently 75% off for Easter with promotion code

I agree with Jeroldharter, do yourself a favour and learn Lr ... and then learn Photoshop :>) The absolute best tutorial, by far, for learning Lightroom is Matt Kosklowski's "Ultimate Lightroom Course." It's pricey but I guarantee it is the first and last course you will need on that subject. The Ultimate Lightroom Course
He also has an equally excellent and comprehensive course on Photoshop - "The Photoshop System" The Photoshop System
Matt is a terrific teacher and a genuinely nice guy. If you are interested in learning these two essential post processing programs this is the guy. If you want to get a feel for his teaching style he has plenty of free tutorials available online.

Yes, there are many ways to skin the cat. You could subscribe to Luminous Landscape and review their LR tutorials; you could subscribe to Kelby.com and review their tutorials (Matt Kozlowski is a contributor); you could purchase a myriad other options; or you could cobble together free tutorials on YouTube or even the Adobe website itself.

Lightroom is fairly basic and easy to learn, especially if you have any darkroom experience from film. In any case, the material is standard so don't spend lots of money. Just pick one and get busy.

quote jeroldharter: "A quick edit in LR just FYI. "

what did it look like before the edit? i see it now up on top.

i'd really rather prefer to learn to take better photos rather than lean on these post processing options. i realize most of you probably use them to give your photos a little boost, but my photos would need way more. maybe in the future i'll look at the Lightroom option.

I don't think you are thinking clearly about post processing.

If you are shooting JPG's, then you are simply letting your camera manufacturer do all of your post-processing in-camera the exact same way for every shot. The JPG you see is not a RAW image purely as you shot it. If you take RAW images, they look awful because they are just representations of the raw, unprocessed data off the sensor.

If you applied the same mindset to film photography you might say: I really don't want to cheat by learning proper film development and print processing. Instead, I need to find a way in-camera to make my drugstore snapshots look better.

Not trying to sound snitty - it might sound like it in text form - but learning post-processing is an integral part of being a better photographer. Also, if you are blind to post-processing techniques, you hinder your attempt to be a better photographer. Some simple examples - do you stop down to f22 for depth of field but incur loss of sharpness due to diffraction - or do you focus stack a few images in post processing to use your sharpest aperture? Do you blow out the highlights or sacrifice shadows?

Thanks for the advice everyone. I i bought the Serge Ramelli tutorial since it was cheapest. Especially after Jerod' s edit of my photo. I embarrassingly admit that I had already did some editing on it. After seeing it done right I realized I have a ton to learn. Better get cracking! Maybe I'll have something to contribute to the photo of the day thread soon.

Great. Have fun learning LR. No right or wrong way. The more you realize what is possible, the better you can visualize your way.