Better to process RAW with Camera Manufacturer's software or?

[marissa_c._boucher]

I've heard that it may be smarter to use your actual camera

manufacturer's RAW converter over let's say ACR, or Phase One.

 

I would think that in theory this makes more sense since the

software is made for your specific camera brand.

 

I'd like to know if anyone here has compared their manufacturer's

RAW converter to ACR or Phase One and noticed significant

differences.

 

I notice that my Canon files always look a little off with ACR's

white balance tool. They also look a little bluish, too cool if

anything. I have also noticed this from other photographer's shots

who I personally know use ACR and shoot Canon.

 

Any feedback appreciated.

[beauh44]

I don't think I could say one way or the other. Some RAW converters have features that others don't. Canon's RAW converter *has* gotten much better than it used to be. But I still use ACR because it works fine for me and I'll end up in Photoshop anyway. FWIW, my Canon files don't get bluish in ACR... If anything they're on the warm side! Go figure...

[ben_kriete]

Yeah, my experience with DPP was that I got really "warm" looking images, like they were shot at sunset on the beach, no matter what I did to the white balance (unless I made a radically unrealistic color shift towards blue). ACR does a much better job of developing the RAW as I think it should look. Camera is a 300D, if it makes any difference.

[patricklavoie]

ACR is in my oppinion a must have. fast, precise and part of CS...easy to use. On some web

site they said that Capture one is the best, then CS, then Element, then all of the

manufacturer.

[godfrey]

I tried Canon's, Olympus', Sony's, Konica Minolta's, Pentax' and Panasonic's supplied

software. No way. Camera Raw does a better job; Photoshop CS2, Bridge and Camera Raw

provide a far more useful workflow.

 

And with Lightroom and Aperture, new and highly productive RAW to final image possibilities

go so far beyond what the manufacturers provide it's not even sensible to bother comparing.

 

Godfrey

[KenPapai]

Leave the cameras and the sensors to Nikon and Canon and the processing software to the experts. You are not going to get any better RAW processing software than Adobe's ACR or Phase One C1.

[ellis_vener_photography]

<I>You are not going to get any better RAW processing software than Adobe's ACR or

Phase One C1.</I>In that league there is also Bibble Pro.<P>The thing about ACR 3.3

(Photoshop CS2 and Bridge) isthat you really can tune the defaults for ACR 3.3 the way

you want the results to be. See Bruce Fraser's indespensible book <A HREF = http://

tinyurl.com/agojm>Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS2</A> So my vote

generally goes to ACR 3.3 and Photoshop CS2. Sometimes I will use Capture One but that

is generally when I am shooting with the camera tethered to shoot directly into a

computer.

[tom_swanson]

RSP gets my vote as the best raw converter. However, Phase One's Capture One (with Magne's profiles) provides the best color I've seen in RAW conversions.

 

Either one crushes Canon's offering.

 

ACR is okay, too.

[bill_fouche]

Yikes, I'm outnumbered here, but all the more reason to offer a different perspective. I find Canon's updated offering - Digital Photo Professional 2.0 - to be superior to ACR and RSP in color rendering. I agree that the whitebalance presets are a bit too warm, but this is easily solved by shooting a grey card first and using the "click whitebalance" feature, which works like a charm. Canon's "picture styles" must be learned to maximimize the program's utility. The new sharpening slider on the raw panel is highly useful. And it's quite well integrated with PHotoshop, though (obviously) not as seamlessly as ACR. But, to me, DPP's color is just better. NOt dramatically so, but dependably, once you find the proper "picture style" to use as a starting place.

 

RawShooter Professional, in my experience, is not even close to the other two in color accuracy for skin tones or for deep reds.

[marc_rochkind]

For <b>conversion</b>, there's some logic to the idea that the camera manufacturer can

do

a better job, since there's only one format to deal with. But the great thing about ACR is

that,

in addition to conversion, I can do <b>processing</b> with the raw image before it gets

imported. (With the NEF plugin, all I could do was set white balance and exposure. WIth

ACR, I can do much, much more.) Theoretically, the longer one stays in the RAW domain,

the better. It's also probably true that, mathematically, certain algorithms that work in

RAW no longer are as effective with the converted image. This is especailly true of

Elements, which likes to work

with 8-bit (a.k.a. 24-bit) color once the RAW conversion is completed.

[vincent_j_m]

I'd go with non-canon software any day. Though DPP produces great results, the workflow is very time consuming and I'd like to have better control. Among all the raw converters I've tried (ACR, Raw shooter, capture one, bibble, etc) I got the most accurate results with the finest detail from capture one. RSE was a close second in terms of detail, but color rendering left a lot to be desired. ACR colors are very accurate and pleasing but it can't extract fine detail for nuts, unless you bump up sharpening to 40-50+.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Try this site: <a

href="http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/color

chart.htm">RAW converter comparisons</a>