Comparison of raw converters.

[vincent_j_m]

I've been spending some time finding the best raw converter for my EOS files. I

have access to adobe ACR (CS2), raw shooter essentials, capture one LE, canon

DPP and bibble. I've been playing with these for a few weeks now and have

understood the quirks and features of each of these to a decent extent.

<p>

People swear by one or the other converter, and most people here swear by adobe

ACR. Strangely, most photographers I am in contact with, both working pros and

hobbyists seem to avoid ACR and use alternatives like RSP, DPP and capture one

to a large extent. In my tests, I too found ACR pulling less detail from most

of my images compared to capture one and even canon's free DPP. I was quite

surprised at this.

<p>

Some examples (not mine) are at:

 

<ul>

<li><a href="http://clemens-and.nihongonauts.com/?p=334">here</a>

<li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/cdrebel/image/51383562/original">here</a>

<li><a href="http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/

rawconverters.htm">here</a>

<li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/dnewell228/raw_comparisons">here</a>

<li><a href="http://www.pbase.com/sonny2/converter">and here</a>

</ul>

<p>

 

The first one is quite detailed and you can see what I'm talking about. Anyway

with lightroom, things may change and it may perform better than ACR.

[tobiasfeltus]

The topic is fascinating, i must admit. but i have discovered another issue that i am curious about. I use a Fuji S3 Pro, and its raw format is 16bit, which is higher than any of those converters seem to support. So i was just fiddling with Fuji's Hyper Utility 2, that came with the camera. it is clunky, and offers little other than the in camera settings for jpegs. it has a curve, and white balance, but i am not sure if it allows for the same kind of adjustments that Lightroom, for example, has (as that is the only other converter that i have installed). Thus i have no idea what happens to the bit depth.

 

Also, oddly, i have found Lightroom to be so slow that it is borderline impossible to work with, and my machine should be capable, as it is a 3.4ghz P4, 1gb ram, and up to date XP. has anyone else had this problem?

 

the pondering continues. and i still wonder if it is just not easier to use jpegs out of the camera, which are very good from the S3.

 

t

[jimstrutz]

Lightroom is still in beta so it should be slow. Optimization for speed will come later. - Hopefully.

 

In the examples above what passes for lack of detail in ACR, and some others, seems more like reduced contrast and sharpness in the default settings of the conversion software. Both are easily adjustable. This just seems like different choices from different software companies. I'm not an Adobe fan or even a user, these critiques don't seem to wash in the above links.

[andreas_weber]

> In the examples above what passes for lack of detail in ACR, and some others, seems

more like reduced contrast and sharpness in the default settings of the conversion

software. Both are easily adjustable. This just seems like different choices from different

software companies.

 

Additionally, some converters are more aggressively "guessing" structures at the limit of

the sensors resolution than others. Sometimes this works remarkably well, but it

leads to "interesting" artefacts when it fails. That's a behaviour I strongly dislike for

example in RSE.

 

Andreas

[ed_gerson]

I still rely on PS CS1 for reliable but paced RAW processing. LightRoom? The video was more

encouraging than the program, which is simply an abomination to use.

 

Biggest surprise? Nikon NX Trial. Colors are jaw-dropping. NX's control points take a while to

get used to, its a very intuitive but off-handed approach. It works great with Nikon RAW, as

well as tiff's & jpgs. Its more RAM intensive than PS CS1, but far less demanding than

LightRoom. - Ed

[ted_marcus1]

Differences in "sharpness" and contrast may also be due to a difference in intended use. ACR is largely intended for importing raw files into Photoshop for subsequent post-processing. Other raw converters could produce finished images and prints, which need more sharpening and contrast.

 

Regardless, I think it's a good idea to have several raw converters available. Each of them is different, and regardless of which one you use most you're bound to find images that work better with other raw converters.

[rainer_nagel]

Thanks a lot Vincent, very helpful links!

until today I have only some experience with Silverfast HDR V6.4.4 (can save the day for people shots, birthdays, weddings)

[rainer_nagel]

Damn1,

just an example using a Canon EOS D60 and shooting RAW. (Contax Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 3.4/35-70 adapted, BZ 8, 1/750 sec)

RSE recovers a lot more details than Canon Zoombrowser EX<div></div>

[rainer_nagel]

the color difference is like maybe Agfa Ultra 100 vs Kodak Portra 160VC film

Color Space: sRGB

screenshot taken from TIFFs opened in Photoshop 6 on a MS Windows Computer.<div></div>