# What's your best RAW converter?



## dtornabene1 (Jan 14, 2009)

Just want to get a feel for what people think out there.  What is your best RAW converter?  I know what Popular Photography, Shutterbug, and other magazines have said.  Now I like to hear from my pears.  What do you think is the best at converting?

Do you think the manufacturers software is the best or are you a fan of third party converters?  Note, not all converters are the same.  So if you believe they are, then don't bother posting.

-Nick


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 14, 2009)

I used to use Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP), I thought it was pretty good at the time.

I use Lightroom now and would never go back to DPP.  Lightroom blows DPP away, IMO.

I'm not just talking ease of use - my pictures done with DPP look like crap compared the ones after I started using Lightroom.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 14, 2009)

Depends on the brand, however my personal fav is PS CS3 (soon CS4).


----------



## YoungPic (Jan 14, 2009)

LIGHTROOM IS BOSS


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 14, 2009)

Phase One's Capture One produces a much better file than Adobe's converter in my opinion, though I'm stuck with LR for now, given that upgrading C1 to read 5D2 files means that it won't run unless I upgrade my OS .


----------



## davebmck (Jan 14, 2009)

Lightroom 2.  I used to use Camera Raw in CS3, but LR2 is a much better tool.


----------



## craig (Jan 14, 2009)

Lightroom.

)'(


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 14, 2009)

Thank you everyone who responded.  It seems to be an overwhelming Lightroom and Phase One response.  However, has anyone used other third part software other than these two with best results?

Any a follow up question for Adobe users.  Isn't the RAW converter in Photoshop the same as Lightroom?  Don't they both use Adobe RAW or am I mistaken?  I truly don't know and I am upgrading soon.

Currently I use Canon's DPP then Photoshop 7.  I haven't needed more but feel I would benefit by upgrading.  So, the question still stands, what's the best RAW workflow?  What about bilbble, or DxO?

Thanks to everyone so far.

-Nick


----------



## MikeBcos (Jan 14, 2009)

dtornabene1 said:


> Any a follow up question for Adobe users.  Isn't the RAW converter in Photoshop the same as Lightroom?  Don't they both use Adobe RAW or am I mistaken?  I truly don't know and I am upgrading soon.
> 
> 
> -Nick



According to Adobe

_Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® software is built upon the same powerful raw processing technology that is available in the camera raw plug-in_

Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 14, 2009)

MikeBcos said:


> According to Adobe
> 
> _Adobe Photoshop Lightroom® software is built upon the same powerful raw processing technology that is available in the camera raw plug-in_
> 
> Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support


 
Thanks MikeBcos!  So, Photoshop or Lightroom are the same as far as RAW converters go, but I do understand there is a difference in user interface.

So, is everyone just using Adobe?  There has to be people out there using programs other than Adobe!  I'm not against using Adobe, after all I am an A.C.E.  (I have CS4 used for a Printing Company.  I just haven't found a reason to upgrade for my photography business).

But no one out there is using bibble, DxO, acdsee, etc.?


----------



## Garbz (Jan 15, 2009)

CameraRAW engine. This includes Lightroom too, they are essentially the same RAW converter.

This has to be coupled with the Adobe CameraProfiles beta from Adobe Labs which addresses the lack of red with the default ACR4.3 profiles in CameraRAW and Lightroom.


----------



## davebmck (Jan 15, 2009)

dtornabene1 said:


> Thank you everyone who responded.  It seems to be an overwhelming Lightroom and Phase One response.  However, has anyone used other third part software other than these two with best results?
> 
> Any a follow up question for Adobe users.  Isn't the RAW converter in Photoshop the same as Lightroom?  Don't they both use Adobe RAW or am I mistaken?  I truly don't know and I am upgrading soon.
> 
> ...


Camera Raw in CS4 is supposed to have the same tools as the Develop module in Lightroom2.  I haven't seen it myself, so I don't know that the full functionality is actually there in CR.  Lightroom is more than a raw converter, though.  The Library module is a file manager that is superior to Adobe Bridge.  There are also Web, Slideshow and Print modules.  The advantage is that these modules are all seamlessly integrated.

If you're interested, my recommendation would be to go to the Adobe website and download the 30 free trial and get a good book on the program (I got Scott Kelby's book) so that you can see all the features without hunting for them.


----------



## freeflydive (Jan 15, 2009)

I like Aperture 2.0...upgraded from 1.0 and still a loyal and happy customer.

Cheers,
Majdi


----------



## Garbz (Jan 15, 2009)

davebmck said:


> Lightroom is more than a raw converter, though.



Oh most definitly. Lightroom is an entire workflow manager for working on many images quickly. I was just pointing out that Lightroom uses Adobe CameraRAW as the RAW converter engine inside it. All the settings for developing really are the same. Just in ACR you manually do one at a time or maybe import multiple from bridge or do some other nasty horrid thing to try and help you process faster, whereas Lightroom is just intuitive from the ground up.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 15, 2009)

freeflydive said:


> I like Aperture 2.0...upgraded from 1.0 and still a loyal and happy customer.
> 
> Cheers,
> Majdi


 
I was waiting for this one, and can't believe it took so long for someone to come forward with it.  So, this is one of the biggest choices so far.

Adobe or Apple?  Why is Lightroom better than Aperture or visa versa?  I wan't to make an educated purchase.  A consumer can read quite a bit from the company's themselves, but I am interested in the end-users.

Please let me know why you like one over the other.  Or just why you like one, period.

Please, I am less concerned about technical specifications, more about people specifications.

Thanks Folks!

-Nick

P.S.  So far these comments have been very helpful.  I am very appreciative of all of your time.


----------



## SlimPaul (Jan 15, 2009)

I use Aperture 2. Great editing software!


----------



## icassell (Jan 15, 2009)

I have Canon DPP, Adobe, and Phase One.  I essentially always use Adobe, because it is so seamless with Bridge and CS2.  I don't know if it's any better or not.

Ian


----------



## usayit (Jan 15, 2009)

Both aperture and LR2 have options to download for a free trial.  The best review is one that you perform yourself.  

I found that there will be more responses regarding LR2 over Aperture.  Not necessarily because LR2 is better but because LR2 has wider support (Mac and Windows) as well as the "Adobe" packaging name which brings over lots of loyal Photoshop users.

I use mainly LR2 and I love it.  I on occasion use Capture One.


----------



## Joves (Jan 15, 2009)

I use both Adobe and Capture NX. Any that Im working on in CS I convert to DNG first then work with it. Nikon still needs to work on NX to make it less of a resource hog.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 15, 2009)

There is a funny story about Thomas Knoll cracking Canon's RAW code over a weekend, after having asked Canon for it.

So what are your typical adjustments in the raw importer?

I like to start with a 'exposed to the right' image, AKA a bit hot in the exposure dept - then I slide the Blacks up a touch, and the Exposure down. Then I go to the tone curves and I turn up the Lights to bring the exposure back up a bit.

Then I do any sharpening if needed or desired and send it off to photoshop.

This produces a nice contrast image without blowing the saturation too much.  I typically do a few curves and levels once in photoshop just to explore the image range and the more familiar workflow in PS.  Desaturation, and/or luminosity only edit layers* are typical on more valued shots.

* picked up that tip right here!  Thanks guy from other thread. :thumbup:

Sometimes I just look at the shot and pass it to PS 'as shot' - rare, but it happens.

Another tip: if you can open your jpgs in RAW, the controls are still pretty good, even while lacking the 14bit pixel depth of a true raw format.  I don't have raw for the 5Dmii and this is working out pretty good for now.

BTW the cheaper upgrade path for Lightroom is another consideration - as I discovered while probing my own options here.

-Shea


----------



## kundalini (Jan 15, 2009)

another vote for LR2.


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 16, 2009)

Ls3D said:


> I like to start with a 'exposed to the right' image, AKA a bit hot in the exposure dept - then I slide the Blacks up a touch, and the Exposure down. Then I go to the tone curves and I turn up the Lights to bring the exposure back up a bit.



Exposing to the right can often lead to blown out highlights and once blown, that is detail forever gone.  In digital, it is more difficult/impossible to recover lost detail than it is to raise exposure to recover detail in the shadows (which under some circumstances increases noise in the shadowed areas).

The better methodology for digital photography is to PROPERLY expose for the mid-tones and in post, becuase this is a compromise, should be able to recover both the highlights and shadows successfully.

I've been in some nice discussions with a few local pros that use Nikon D700s and they are often commenting on things like easily exceeding 9 stops of data in a single picture.  That's kind of interesting considering that even a D700 has for all intents a practical limit of 9 stops (and that is only between ISO 100-400, it drops once above that).  This is what happens when you combine understanding with good technology along with strong technique and post processing skills.


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 16, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Exposing to the right can often lead to blown out highlights and once blown, that is detail forever gone.



That is overexposure, not exposing to the right.  Read any of the many articles on the technique; none of them advocate overexposure to the point of blowing the highlights.  Exposing to the right means making an exposure/file with the maximum amount of useful information possible for the given scene, lighting, and camera.  Tones placed above 255 are not useful information.

When it comes to raw converters I've tried a few including Capture One and DPP.  I couldn't see a significant, consistent difference in the quality of the processing.  With one photo I'd get slightly less noise, slightly better color, etc... with one raw converter, and then a different photo would get slightly better results using a different raw converter.  In the end I went with the one that I liked the interface the best which was Adobe Camera Raw (CS2).  I recently upgraded to CS4 and LR2, and I really like them.  Although Camera Raw and LR2 are pretty much the same, I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock!


----------



## xposurepro (Jan 16, 2009)

I do everything in PS & Bridge CS3


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 16, 2009)

ksmattfish said:


> That is overexposure, not exposing to the right.


Technically, but the resultant effect is that you decide on purpose to expose at a higher level than what is optimal, and then try to bring it back in post.

While this is good on film, this technique *will* cause more blown out areas and more loss of details.  What you are doing is hoping that the dynamic range contains enough leeway to help pull back the details from the areas close to or yes, blown out areas.  That is the issue here... treating digital as if it responded the same way as film... which it is far from capable of doing.



ksmattfish said:


> Read any of the many articles on the technique



Sincerely, I have.  For film it is a valid technique.  For digital, its less effective simply becuase there is less dynamic range in a digital camera vs film (~11.5 for film vs some of the better cameras on the market like the D3 or D700's greatly less 9 stop range).  So doing this is counter productive to an optimal and "properly exposed" shot in the digital world.

Now, let's set something in concrete here.  BOTH methods are going to give you a printable final results... but which will give you the THEORETICAL best?  The picture with the PROPERLY exposed settings vs the one where you push things in camera and then _hope_ you can bring it back in post process?  Obviously, if it is done right *IN CAMERA*... is right and less manipulation is needed.  I'm not talking sharpness or bokeh or saturation/contrast, just straight exposure.  It is *always* going to be easier and *less* chance of any losses in the overall picture's detail level to bring out detail from the shadows over lowering the luminance of a purposefully exposed picture that is exposed HIGHER than optimal.



ksmattfish said:


> Exposing to the right means making an exposure/file with the maximum amount of useful information possible for the given scene, lighting, and camera.  Tones placed above 255 are not useful information.


Actually, not really.  It means what it says... taking the picture some amount ABOVE the optimal settings for the reasons of increasing tonal details in the darker or shadow areas... and then HOPE you can bring the brighter parts of the picture back in post process.  An inappropriate technique for the digital world becuase we don't have anywhere near the same dynamic range as a buffer that film does, but this TOTALLY is acceptable for film.

Once you hit the top of the limit, info is forever gone, there is nothing to recover.  In film, this was not the case.  First we are dealing with analog, and there was a huge gap over and above where we *could* pull things back in post (well technically, in development, while in the tank... lol).

Also, let's look at this.  Your histogram shows that you are properly exposed... at some point along the mid areas, it is peaking right close to that 255 zone (in an 8-bit file), but our technique is to "expose to the right"... so we push it... what happens?  We blow out detail from the mid tones!  That is not recoverable, it is forever lost.  Ah, so what if our mid-tones are not peaked?  That is simply a BAD exposure... so if in this case you want to expose to the right... you are not doing that, you are just coming closer to optimal exposure.  Now... do NOT forget to not just look at the luminance level... but how many people here are looking at the RGB histogram results?  How many times are people "pushing to the right" without even looking at THESE parts of their pictures?  I do not think it is far from the truth to say... the vast majority.  If they were, they would soon find out that they are pushing either one, two or more of their RGB histograms WAY past that limit and blowing out more parts of their pics over and above just the lighter areas.  There are *many* ways to blow out a pic and it is not just at the pure white end of a histogram, but from camera speak... ANY level that hits 255 anywhere between pure white to pure black is technically considered "blown out".  We refer to the white end because it shows on the pic as no colour placed by the printer on that part of the paper, but really... we do not want any colour up there.  It means lost detail.

Also, that 255 tone refers only to an 8-bit file and that *is* the limit.  If it is hitting 255, that *is* blown out useless info (pure white if all the way to the right on the histogram, pure black if on the left).  If dealing with RAW files as you mentioned, its 4095 for 12-bit and 16383 for 14-bit files.  Hopefully, if you are working with RAW files, its NOT at the 8-bit level, given a choice!  



ksmattfish said:


> When it comes to raw converters I've tried a few including Capture One and DPP.  I couldn't see a significant, consistent difference in the quality of the processing.  With one photo I'd get slightly less noise, slightly better color, etc... with one raw converter, and then a different photo would get slightly better results using a different raw converter.  In the end I went with the one that I liked the interface the best which was Adobe Camera Raw (CS2).



I cannot speak for the Canon people, but the words "the best" to Nikon users can mean many things to many people.  If "the best" to you means being able to access and manipulate the RAW data from your camera in ways that no other software can, then Capture NX2 is "the best" for Nikon people, because it can access data that no other non-Nikon software can, such as Active-D lighting, camera saturation, sharpness presets and a few others.

My definition of "the best" goes closely along your lines.   CS3/4 as it is a less clunky and more intuitive software over NX2, that can further manipulate the imported file in more ways than Nikon's software, so for me, though it is not "the best" in all ways, it is the better choice compared to the alternatives, based on my needs.



ksmattfish said:


> I recently upgraded to CS4 and LR2, and I really like them.  Although Camera Raw and LR2 are pretty much the same, I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock!



I'm still using it, I'm still learning it... but try as I may, I just cannot get into LR2's swing.  :er:

I always seem to fall back to straight file/directory manipulation with Bridge/CS3 and do better and faster using my tried and true established and tested and perfected ways using my own methods of cataloging, tagging and post processing.  

At least I am trying out the LR2 route and giving it a more than fair shake (using it for 4-5 months now), but not all users will have the same answer to their needs, and LR2 just may not be the best toy for my needs or way or working.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

^ this whole argument assumes the user will accept clipping highlights when exposing to the right

if the shooter is in control and is mindful of tonal and RGB histogram than exposing to the right will produce better shadow detail.... this at the sacrifice of nothing because no highlights were blown...


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 16, 2009)

Yeah, to the right - not blown.  This is an unusual example since it is 2:30am.  Please ignore the rear element dust bunny!
I brought up the Blacks a bit as shadow detail is not as important in this shot IMO.












I'm tempted to share my observations on high-ish ISO vs length of exposure as I worked these shots, but the conditions had too many variables in terms of sensor temps and my liberal exposure compensations to be of value.  Basically I could push ISO to 3200 and drop from 30 to 10 second exposures until things heated up (5dmii).

With the dessert winds blowing offshore in I would go from full leather jacket, to T-shirt & back.  Surreal night.






-Shea


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 16, 2009)

Cool, this is turning a little off topic, but into a VERY interesting conversation.  

Ls3D, answer me a couple questions:

- what is the main subject of that picture?
- what are the RGB histograms showing before and after?
- what are your focus points?

If you are telling me that your lifeguard tower were the main subjects, I will suggest to you that you should have metered for it and not the background in the first place.  The details would be initially as your 2nd pic was, if not even a little brighter, depending on your exposure mode (matrix, center, spot, etc...).  I would say that your top picture is a little underexposed, not exposed properly.

I also suggest to you that you are NOT showing an example of "exposing to the right".  On a histogram, exposure "amounts" are not displayed right to left, but top to bottom.  

The term exposing to the right came out looooooooong before digital histograms ever existed and this was where you increased the overall exposure of the entire pic and relied on film's ability to not lose detail due to the higher dynamic range of the picture.

Now, if in some cases digital photographers are now calling moving that little mountain in their histogram so that it is more on the right than the left, this is SO not the same technique that it really should not be called this.  Technically it is not the same thing.  

In film, we are moving those up past the "255 level" because we can, and in post process, bringing it back down.  In digital, you are just always hopefully staying within the boundaries of the dynamic range of the media... but increasing the exposure a little, becuase once you are above that 255 area, there is no coming back... like you could in film.  That is the entire reasoning for the existence of "exposing to the right".


----------



## weddingguy (Jan 16, 2009)

Got one of the first Lightroom copies to come out . . have loved it! Just bought Lightroom 2 but haven't installed it yet. Hearing great things about the upgrade, so excited about getting at it! Apparently it leaves not a lot to do in PS afterwards.:thumbup:


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 16, 2009)

Whatever it is Jerry, it's working for me!  :thumbup:  Just showing what I often do inside the RAW converter taking the 'what platform' conversation to some meaningful user experience, especially the context of 'it is the same engine' in LR or PS. I'll ignore your questions this time so as not to derail the thread, hope you understand.

-Shea


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Cool, this is turning a little off topic, but into a VERY interesting conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Jerry, what in gods name are you talking about?   Exposing to the right is "moving the little mountain so it's more on the right".  There is more tonal value available on the right side of the histogram.  This is why you push your image to there... to preserve MORE detail.  You then bring the image back to center in post.  

Exposing to the right is a perfectly acceptable practice shooting digitally.  Done properly it provides a advantage to the user.  To argue about is to argue about math.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 16, 2009)

Thanks again everyone!  I want to get this back on topic, so I am going to try to recap a bit.  Please correct me if you feel I am in error.

Best ways to go would be Lightroom (including any Adobe product) or Aperture.  I have seen some positive responses for Phase One, but not overwhelming.  For get bibble or other software.

Think I have the pulse of the crowd.  Two last questions, _ksmattfish _posted ...I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock! ... Is this different than in Photoshop?  Lastly, is the above paragraph fairly on the money?

Thanks floks!

-Nick


----------



## MikeBcos (Jan 16, 2009)

dtornabene1 said:


> Two last questions, _ksmattfish _posted ...I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock! ... Is this different than in Photoshop?  Lastly, is the above paragraph fairly on the money?
> 
> Thanks floks!
> 
> -Nick




The graduated filter and adjustment brush both exist in Photoshop CS4's Camera Raw.


----------



## dEARlEADER (Jan 16, 2009)

dtornabene1 said:


> Lastly, is the above paragraph fairly on the money?
> 
> -Nick



Hey Nick FWIW I forgot to mention LR2 for me as well..

If the above paragraph you were referring to is regarding my statement re expose right than hopefully someone will back me up...

The 4096 tonal variations on a 12 bit image are not equally divided across the histogram.  The first stop (highlights) contain half of the tonal data and subsequent stops diminish by half all the way down to the bottom.  The left side of the histogram contains the fewest tonal variations, this is why they posterize when you try to bring them up.  You can record more tonal information by pushing the image to the right where the action is.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 16, 2009)

> hopefully someone will back me up...


Well since it is in essence my back you are covering, I've got a nine in my right back pocket, the chamber is clear but the safety is off :thumbup:, so be sure to take two quick exposures, to the right of my head 

Experience has shown me that if you try to recover shadow detail in a typical exposure you get way more noise than if you shot a bit hot and adjust down.  The physics, math & history are interesting, but I'm a simple shooter looking for that special feeling  when a shot looks good and then a few seconds latter looks great. The data in the hot image is much nicer to work with, if as was pointed out, it is not blown. Of course I don't always shoot and apply this technique.

OP - Get LR for a cheaper upgrade path, or PS if you are inclined to edit and utilize the broader toolset.

-Shea


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 16, 2009)

dtornabene1 said:


> Thanks again everyone!  I want to get this back on topic, so I am going to try to recap a bit.  Please correct me if you feel I am in error.
> 
> Best ways to go would be Lightroom (including any Adobe product) or Aperture.  I have seen some positive responses for Phase One, but not overwhelming.
> 
> -Nick



I would say that you ought to try out trials of these programs (most, if not all, are available as free trials) and decide for yourself, rather than relying on the opinions of random people on the internet. Most of these programs work fairly well, it's more about what you prefer in a piece of software that should dictate what you use.


----------



## dtornabene1 (Jan 16, 2009)

dEARlEADER said:


> Hey Nick FWIW I forgot to mention LR2 for me as well..





dEARlEADER said:


> If the above paragraph you were referring to is regarding my statement re expose right than hopefully someone will back me up...





For the most part.  Today's cameras handle noise better than ever.  Even with that said, you are absolutely fundamentally correct.  With any digital sensor you want to favor the right of the histogram.  Back down in pp and remove lots of noise and improve contrast.

Finally, yes I can use the software and try myself.  Even owning software, it is unlikely I would find all the nuances which makes one software better than another.  This is why I ask for everyone's opinion.

Thank you all again.  I think I have enough.  On to my next thread...

-Nick


----------



## JerryPH (Jan 17, 2009)

Ls3D said:


> Whatever it is Jerry, it's working for me!


 :thumbup:  Heck yes.  Final results are all that matter, no matter if you call it exposing to the right or adding softener to the rinse cycle... lol



Ls3D said:


> I'll ignore your questions this time so as not to derail the thread, hope you understand.



Sure, no prob. I did pull it off topic, sorry.


Also just to get back a little on topic, ACR for PS CS3 is of a lower and incompatible version than for PS CS4.  LR, when updated to the latest (as of this post), uses ACR v.5.2 which is the higher version that comes with PS CS4.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 17, 2009)

> Also just to get back a little on topic...



Good to know, I can't cheat forever.

-S


----------



## MikeBcos (Jan 17, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Also just to get back a little on topic, ACR for PS CS3 is of a lower and incompatible version than for PS CS4.  LR, when updated to the latest (as of this post), uses ACR v.5.2 which is the higher version that comes with PS CS4.



And to add to this, ACR for PS CS3 cannot be updated to the latest version, CS3 will always be missing some tools, including the graduated filter and adjustment brush.

I have come to the conclusion that those two tools alone make the upgrade to CS4 worth it.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 17, 2009)

If some 'upgraded' CSC opened my 5Dm2 RAW files I would not miss those tools you like so much.  I tried some updated codec that mentioned my camera, but no luck.

Is there some incremental upgrade or patch to CS3 that you are referring too?  Test file HERE, after the upload.

-Shea


----------



## vendorinquiries (Feb 8, 2009)

If you are considering raw conversion only- then the best is DxO Optics Pro (now at 5.3). Hands down they do the best demosaicing of most raw files.

If you're a Nikon user Capture NX2 will give the best overall results right out of the processing engine because they have access to proprietary information about the NEF file that other converters cannot access.

But for pure raw conversion DxO has the best demosaicing algorithm and produces the cleanest files with the least artifacts. All raw converters basically have all the adjustments (shadow/highlight recovery, noise reduction, white balance, exposure, etc) and are able to fine tune an image. Some are better than others but most all popular programs are competent at it. Raw conversion is a completely different story. It is wholly dependent on the mathematical algorithm written into the code of the software program. Whoever produces the least artifacts gets the best picture because artifacts cannot be "adjusted" out of an image.

But "best" is subjective. Most everyone is willing to sacrifice some image quality for effect or workflow advantage in order to get what is best for THEM. I use Lightroom for workflow but would never use Adobe's raw conversion. Check out...

DxO Optics Pro: A RAW converter that breaks the rules

Digital Camera RAW Converter Comparisons with Canon 1Ds Mark II & 20D Images

Comparison of various RAW demosaicing methods

Hope this is helpful.


----------



## AUZambo (Feb 9, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Depends on the brand, however my personal fav is PS CS3 (soon CS4).


Agreed.  My sony came with something that worked okay, but was very limited in it's capabilities.  Basically all it was good for was making adjustments to white balance, exposure compensation, and curves. 

CS3 does so much more.


----------



## Mystwalker (Feb 11, 2009)

Currently, Canon's DPP - FREE.

Would like to learn (move to) Lightroom, but have not found time to sufficiently "test drive it" - limited time I did have to play with it (trial period) left me confused and running back to DPP.


----------



## ksmattfish (Feb 12, 2009)

With film people had their favorite film/developer combos, and some folks were always trying new things looking for some magic combo (I did it too).  In the end I found that the best results came from picking one combo, and using it until I really knew how it was going to turn out.  It mattered less what the label said, and more what my experience level with the materials was.

With Raw software I find it the same.  I hear this program or that program is better, but when I compare a raw processor I know vs one I don't I always get better results from the one I'm familiar with.  When (if ever) I catch up on work I really want to spend some time learning some other programs so I can do an accurate personal assessment.  Until then I'm sticking with ACR.

I've seen a few software comparisons (resizing, noise reduction, processing, sharpening, etc...) by folks who I think know what they are doing.  Often times it seems like in the end they say that program A works better with this sort of photo/situation, while program C works better with a different photo/situation.  When I did my own comparisons of Neat Image, Noise Ninja, and Noiseware I found that they all worked pretty good, but on some photos one worked better than the others, but it wasn't always the same one.  In the end I chose to purchase Noiseware because I liked the interface.


----------



## DWS (Feb 12, 2009)

Aperture 2 here....simple to learn and use, and meets my editing requirements


----------



## zemlin (Feb 13, 2009)

I love working with Bibble Pro from Bibblelabs.com.  It's very fast, the quality is great, and the workflow works well for floating the best shots to the top of a large pile.


----------



## Alleh Lindquist (Feb 14, 2009)

I use Adobe DNG converter and convert everything over then trash the RAW's


----------



## DonaldC (May 12, 2012)

I use DXO Pro 6.6 (soon to be 7) with the film pack 3.2 (great addition). I have used Capture One, Adobe Lightroom 3, and ACR versions. Clearly, they are all very good, but for me, DXO Pro is the best by far, offering the best noise reduction in the biz, specific lens modules to download that automatically correct lens issues. It is intuitive to use and the learning curve is not steep. One can create custom templates of all sorts, which is great for batch processing and the program offers great flexibility of use and personalization with regard to work flow. The good people at DXO are very meticulous in their work and it shows in the end product. Customer support is also good, as they respond very quickly and effectively.

One can try a fully functional trial version for 30 days, so one can really dig in and give a real chance.  The tutorials are great and show a streamlined, efficient workflow and demonstrate how to get the most out of this superior product  The price is very reasonable for what is offered and I recommend purchasing the Film Pack (Expert version), as it is a great addition with good flexibility and can be used in the application, or as a stand alone program.

The only drawback I can see is that the time to develop the image is a little slow, but worth the wait. That issue is being addressed and I anticipate it will speed up in future versions. I always convert to 16 bit TIFF files, but there are many other options as well as creating ones own output method.


----------



## Buckster (May 12, 2012)

You realize this thread hasn't been active for more than 3 years, right?

At $430 for the "expert" versions of the RAW converter you recommend, I'm glad that LR4 fully meets my needs for less than a quarter of that price.


----------



## belial (May 12, 2012)

Buckster said:
			
		

> You realize this thread hasn't been active for more than 3 years, right?
> 
> At $430 for the "expert" versions of the RAW converter you recommend, I'm glad that LR4 fully meets my needs for less than a quarter of that price.



The only difference I could tell between elite and standard is camera and lens support is a bit more for elite. I looked up your camera model and it's supported with what looks like a pretty complete list of lenses. So if you did want it there seems to be no advantage in elite for you. Now the photo pack expert does look better but I'm guessing standard would be decent. Ive never tried it so I'll be doing the trial just because


----------



## Buckster (May 12, 2012)

belial said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LR4, as previous versions did, already recognizes my lenses to do auto image distortion and vignette correction.  It also includes a fantastic noise reduction section, that I rarely have a need for anyway, and I also have Noise Ninja installed in Photoshop if I really need some serious noise reduction help which is, again, rarely.  And for those rare occasions I feel a need for them, they seem to work just fine for me - noise gone, but not clarity or sharpness or detail that I want to keep.

So what's to gain by paying so much more for this other program?

Play with it and let us know what you find out, especially if you're a LR user as well to compare them.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (May 12, 2012)

LR4  <---when second best RAW software "won't suffice"


----------



## belial (May 13, 2012)

Buckster said:
			
		

> LR4, as previous versions did, already recognizes my lenses to do auto image distortion and vignette correction.  It also includes a fantastic noise reduction section, that I rarely have a need for anyway, and I also have Noise Ninja installed in Photoshop if I really need some serious noise reduction help which is, again, rarely.  And for those rare occasions I feel a need for them, they seem to work just fine for me - noise gone, but not clarity or sharpness or detail that I want to keep.
> 
> So what's to gain by paying so much more for this other program?
> 
> Play with it and let us know what you find out, especially if you're a LR user as well to compare them.



   I use LR. but I'm still on 3. First impressions. I don't like it. Like you said I don't notice any real functionality gains but I do notice a lot of functionality losses especially on fine tweaks regarding tones. I also so far am finding the interface way clunky when compared to Lightroom and the image needs to re load at every change which is horrible for workflow and makes it really hard  to get your tweak just right (imagine for example tweaking exposure. Every time you move that dial by even a point you have to wait a few seconds for the image to re load to see the results) .

   So far it gets a resounding thumbs down. It may as some have said have cleaner conversion results but I've never been unhappy with my Lightroom results so for the downsides I see no real gain. Stick with lightroom I say. I'll probably be uninstalling before the 31 days is up though I'll give it a few more days. I haven't played with the film pack yet though and that plugs into lightroom so maybe that'll be better but I can't see it being worth the cash.

    All in all so far I find it unusable at least for my workflow and the way I like to process.


----------



## gsgary (May 13, 2012)

Phase One, Cature One 6


----------

