john carter Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 Has anyone else tried this? I have six converters mostly freeware, and I've run the same images through each using the 'default' processing. Then I viewed them on the same organizer. They are: Xnview, Raw Therapee, Pentax Lab, the Adobe that came with PSE3, RAW Shooter, and Picasa2. I also used LightRoom but now that it is out of Beta, I'm not going to use it (it wasn't the one I like best). Adobe, RAW Shooter, Picasa2 all were exactly the same. The Pentax Lab was really good but just a little light. The top two in my opinion were XnView and Raw Therapee. They were both a little dark but had a richness that I liked (very much). When I adjusted the light converters (darker) and lightened the the others, my personal favorite was XnView, but I can't figure out how to get 16bit TIFF file so by default RAW Therapee was my top pick. I enjoyed this test and now have a converter that I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted April 28, 2007 Share Posted April 28, 2007 I didn't care for the Lightroom beta versions, but version 1 is pretty good. You have a couple more days to buy it with a $100 discount. I don't have a problem with Bridge/Photoshop either. It would seem the most important characteristic you seek is "free". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_axford1 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 You didn't try Silkypix. Some top pros use it & love it. When I did a test of all converters - larger group than yours - it won. Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronald_moravec1 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Picassa has nowhere near the control of ACR. Bibble is supposed to be nice. I dislike NX by Nikon. Bibble is 129 at Amazon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_zamora_morschhaeuse Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Check Klaus Schroiff's (from photozone.de) overview and quality comparison between raw converters; some of the converters are free, too: http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/rawindex.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john carter Posted April 29, 2007 Author Share Posted April 29, 2007 Free is not my motivation. I just wanted to try some other converters. I was surprised at how they were so different using default settings. I probably have paid for more photo equipment over a longer period of time than most people. I will probably be purchasing Bibble's RAW converter as it really shines. I used the Pentax Lab that came with my K10d and it is SilkyPix, but I don't know if it is the same. I was just surprised at how much better some of these converters are, at least in my hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Lookingbill Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 A decent RAW converter that comes free with the camera and works in OS X was one of the deciding factors for my purchasing the Pentax K100D. To me I can't understand having to buy even more software when you've plunked down large amounts of cash for the camera. Wow! I didn't realize there were so many free RAW converters. Competition is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
t_n1 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Capture One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_hall2 Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I think you use Nikon. If you use Canon, their packaged raw converter is good. The Canon people told a us that there are real differences between Adobe and the Canon product. Interesting. And, your post was intersting. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Hi John, I tested a bunch of RAW converters when I received my Pentax K10D. My workflow up to that point had been Photoshop CS2+Bridge+Camera Raw based for almost three years (since whenever CS2 shipped... and using CS before that). My evaluation basis was a set of four radically different RAW captures, each processed from the original RAW file to a TIFF file solely in the RAW converter and printed through my standard workflow using CS2. The biggest eye opener to me was Adobe Lightroom. It produced the TIFF files that printed the best, and the prints that its own Print module produced were ever so slightly better to boot. That being said, the differences between all six RAW converters I tested were on the level of nuances that are virtually impossible to articulate on the computer screen (yes, I've tried). Print output is indeed different from what you see on the screen. I'm convinced that with any one of the good RAW converters available today, you can obtain extremely similar results, so the criteria of choice for which one does the best job for you is generally based on other factors ... Learnability, ease of use, how well you can remember what it does, etc are a larger factor in what works best than the operations of RAW conversion itself. Any of the RAW converters that I tested with will do a very very good job of producing high quality RGB image files with adequate study and practice. I found Lightroom's operations suited me best. I moved my photographic image processing system to Lightroom after v1.0 was released and reorganized the rest of my image processing system to suit it best. I use Photoshop CS2 and LightZone Basic as plug-in editors, to accomplish editing work beyond the global editing and RAW conversion that Lightroom is designed to do, and use Lightroom's organizational and print facilities extensively. I do continue to use some scripts that I built for Photoshop CS2 occasionally, so Bridge and Photoshop remain important parts of my total workflow. All of this together is proving to be a productive environment for my work, producing top-notch results ... which in the end is all that is really important. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john carter Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Nuances, that is the key word, Godfrey. I used LightRoom for B&W conversions, XnView for web work (no TIFF16bit), Pentax for batch, and RAWtherapee for TIFF16bit to printer. Isn't it great to have so many choices? I hope to meet you soon Godfrey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 It is great to have choices that work well for each of us. I am curious about your use of Pentax' Browser and Lab for batch operations, however. On my system it is abominably slow and tends to crash regularly. Both Lightroom and Photoshop CS2+Bridge+Camera Raw do a much better job of processing batches of images, present much more usable editing tools. Let's get together for coffee or something soon. We can both bring prints. :-) Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john carter Posted April 30, 2007 Author Share Posted April 30, 2007 Godfrey, Right, I'll email you. I use the Pentax because I figured it out. Mine is slooow, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmitri_schekin Posted May 1, 2007 Share Posted May 1, 2007 cs3 camera raw plugin has 'Fill Light' and 'Vibrance' controls. Sounds interesting - does anyone know what they do ? -D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greglynch Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 You don't list it, but you owe it to yourself to look at BreezeBrowser Pro. There's info on it at Art Morris's website (www.birdsasart.com). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfrey Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 Dmitri: Fill Light raises luminance on the middle tones without pushing the white clip limit or black point around, analogous to what good fill lighting should do. Vibrance is a more subtle variation on Saturation adjustment. It achieves a more tightly controlled saturation adjustment differentially across the scenes regions, with less tendency to channel clip. Godfrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now