RAW Conversions

I bought Photoshop CS2 and after listening to the Video training, I

am not sure which way is best to convert files.

Should I:

1) covert my Nikon RAW (NEF) files in Nikon View and then manipulate

in PS...

or

2) Convert in Adobe Camera RAW and manipulate in PS?

So essentially, which does a better job converting RAW...Nikon? or

PS?

Thanks,

George

There isn't really a clear answer, but there are a lot of comparative analyses of raw converters out there. Probably the first thing to do is google around a bit and see what you can find about them. That said, Nikon View is a limited version of their real RAW converter (Nikon Capture).

Sorry to seem unhelpful. For me, I use ACR instead of Nikon Capture, but that's at least in part because it keeps me from having to pay for something else and the analysis I did during the free trial period for Capture didn't immediately show me a need to get it instead.

so far...per Google..Nikon pretty consistently beats Adobe Camera RAW in most reviews...like:

http://www.bythom.com/raw.htm

I was hoping for other comments too!

Thanks,

George

I prefer ACR, but that's only because of the user interface. I think the results are good

enough, so I didn't actually made any comparisons with other converters.

George, that review you linked to is a touch old dont you think?

From my experiences, i have pretty much tried all Raw conversion software, it comes down to what you want from the converter.

Speed/Fast Workflow-A tie between Capture One and Rawshooters

Quality-A tie between Nikon Capture 4.4(too slow IME) and Capture One

Depth of Controls-No other competitor, Nikon Capture 4.4

I have also experimented with ACR (what i started with) and Silverfast HDR. I found Rawshooters to be briliant for going through hundreds of shots, just the quality was a little lacking (artifacts in images). Silverfast had nothing new or innovative/unique. ACR is OK but the quality is nothing to get excited over. Results are too soft, yes you can sharpen in PS but i dont want to if im going through lots of images.

At the moment im using a mix between Capture One and Nikon Capture (75/25).

My small and insignificant input

I use Adobe Camera Raw because <br>

- I have at least 7 different RAW formats that I work with.<br>

- I have seen nothing to indicate that anything else produces significantly better results on

a consistent basis.<br>

- I know it well and have developed a very efficient workflow using it.<br>

<br>

If you want to fully understand RAW conversion with Photoshop CS2 and Camera Raw,

obtain and read a copy of "Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS2" by Bruce Fraser. In

my experience, the same results are achievable with nearly every RAW converter, the

primary differences are how much work it takes to get them. Once understood, Camera

Raw and Photoshop are very efficient and fast.

<br><br>

Godfrey

IMO, Nikon's own NEF conversion beats everything else. But some others are so close in quality it's often moot.

Here are a few details to look for when trying to decide whether a converter other than Nikon's own is good enough:

1. Moire. Look for artifacts, particularly color artifacts, between closely spaced regular patterns, such as in fabrics and some architectural details: fences, masonry, window blinds, etc.

2. Jaggies. Look along hard edged diagonals.

3. Resolution of fine, closely spaced details, such as eyelashes and hair.

4. There should be no artifacts where no detail exists. Some RAW converters misinterpret minor gradations in skin tones, such as blemishes, and emphasize them as tho' they're wrinkles, pimples, moles, etc.

5. Clean edges and other details. No emphasis of colored artifacts along what should be neutral, monochrome lines. OTOH, true tiny color details shouldn't be rendered in monochrome.

NEF conversions from Adobe and Bibble Pro seem good enough for most purposes. Occasionally I encounter situations that Nikon's own conversion software handles better.

Lex is a Nikon afficionado.

I am a beginner, but like the range of RAW conversion on abobe purely for the control. I like to play. I can commit to any RAW format by saying so on the default exprssions. But I like to leave it open for each converstion. Perverse? Perhaps. But it allows you personal expression and the ability to 'fix' anything, to the degree that you have good light and good composition to start.

Just as an aside, Lex, the people at the lab I sometimes frequent, have told me that Nikon is more amenable to the use of their equipment, whereas Canon (sigh, my heroes,) like to tell you how to use their equipment and demand that you use it just so.... digital, I mean, and no control on the development of any B & W, or other SLR equipment.

Back to research on a wet dark room.

Where are the film/analog guys?

BTW, I'm on the verge of becoming a Bibble aficionado. I tried Bibble Pro a year or so ago but didn't bother with it again because at the time it demanded more resources than my PC had. Now it'll run well enough on a PIII with only 256 MB RAM and a reasonably fast 60 GB HD that's 2/3s empty.

Since then Bibble Pro has been greatly improved. I've been using a demo version of the latest incarnation of Bibble Pro for a few days. The workflow is more logical and streamlined, Noise Ninja is now incorporated (and works on RAW files, not just TIFFs and JPEGs) and output quality is comparable to Nikon's own conversions.

I think Nikon's NEF converter holds a slight edge in preservation of fine detail but Bibble makes it easier to obtain consistent white balance and overall color and exposure balances.

It'll be interesting to see what Nikon offers with Capture NX.

I also vote for Nikon Capture and Bibble Pro. On my monitors other converters produce images that are not even similar to those two. ACR, C1, Rawshooter would require extensive work to get anywhere close to the quality of "no adjustments whatsoever" NC and Bibble.

But hey - maybe it's just my personal taste.

Don't forget Lightroom and Aperture!

Seriously, I've found ACR 3 (PS/CS2) and CaptureOne to be far ahead. For years, PhaseOne's RAW software was head & shoulders above the rest; but IMHO ACR3 has caught up.

What I really like is the chromatic aberration correction.

Cheers! Dan