I only use RAW for highlight recovery and to get a tiff file.

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Am I missing out on something?</p>

<p>I tried at least 4 different raw converters before settling on Raw Therapee. It is the easiest and most intuitive converter FOR ME. Even though I feel that way, after many months of use, I pretty much stopped using it for anything except highlight recovery and for converting the image to a tiff file. I have been using CS2 for quite a while now and I'm just much more comfortable doing any editing that I need in PS. In particular, I've become quite addicted to doing many things like contrast, color and sharpening, selectively which thus far can't be done in most converters that I know of.</p>

<p>If I had my way, I'd prefer that my Canon 30D would just spit tiffs into my hard drive so that I wouldn't have to even bother with the conversion process. I don't use jpegs because they just won't stand up to some of the heavy editing that I do.</p>

<p>So, am I missing out on something? Would I somehow end up with a better file if I were to do more of the editing in the converter as apposed to PS?</p>

 

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>My opinion that I can`t prove is you are better off doing as much as you can in the raw converter. Someday i will do a side by side test. I have no idea if it even translates to a final print.</p>

<p>Lightroom and CS4 have local controls. CS3 has a much better single panel converter than CS2. It is very nice to have all the common adjustment controls all in one place that you can see totally.</p>

<p> </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>You'd probably speed things up but I have never used raw therapee so I can't comment on it. The problem wit han y camera made JPEG or TIFF is you lose thigns like highlight recovery. Do you use layers when you do your post processing work in Photoshop?</p>

[bernardwest]

One difference, which I can't verify for the newer versions of photoshop, is the internal maths used to perform adjustments. With lightroom vs PS7, if you take a very underexposed shot and perform a radical brightening curve on it, it will fall apart much quicker in photoshop compared to lightroom. This is of course using 16 bit all the way. It would be good if someone could perform this test with a newer version of photoshop. Take a 16-bit underexposed shot (preferably radically underexposed so as to highlight the problem easier), and boost brightness/exposure in PS vs your raw converter of choice. Post results so we can see the difference. I'll post one for PS7 when I get the chance. Cheers.

[KenPapai]

<p>ACR 5.x in CS4 can do everything you want and more. CS2's ACR is rather crude compared to the two major ACR releases that replaced it.</p>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Thanks for the answers everyone. I appreciate it.<br>

Bernie,<br>

For increasing the exposure of grossly underexposed shots, I bet you're right about the converter doing a better job. That IS something that I always do in the converter if necessary. Looking forward to your experiment.</p>

<p>Ken,<br>

Would I have to upgrade to CS4 to get the latest ACR or are they separate things?</p>

<p> </p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Yes -- ACR and PS CS versions are JOINED at the hip. One requires the other; Adobe needs to give you a good reason to upgrade -- it's only $199 for you.</p>

<p>HOWEVER, starting around ACR ver. 3.7 it started getting really good. But still ACR 5.1 (CS4) blows away anything 3.x (CS2)</p>

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Thanks Ken.</p>

[bernardwest]

Well, I've learnt something new from this thread. In performing my own experiment, I have discovered I was in error. Usually when I have tried this I have performed a radical curve adjustment in photoshop, seen the degradation, and then cancelled the adjustment. But this time, because I wanted to post some of the results on photo.net, I accepted the adjustment and realised that the preview in the curves dialogue must be only 8-bit or a compressed approximation. The final image is fine, and just as good as the lightroom adjusted image.

 

Sorry for the confusion.

[jammer_jammer]

<p>Bernie,<br>

Thanks for doing the experiment. Interesting. Maybe I'll just continue doing things that way I have been. Having used PS for quite a while now, things are just much easier and smoother in there. No reason to change unless there is a very important reason to do so.</p>