Comparison of almost all the raw conversion softwares

[jasper_wisp]

<p>Gianluca - thanks for the review and personal opinions. Thanks to all the commentators for the insightful feedback and personal experience.<br>

<br />I am a new owner of a Sony NEX-6 and notice you (hopefully other commentators too) are also using the NEX-6. I would like to get some recommendations for the best set-up to handle (convert) and post process RAW files imported from the NEX-6.</p>

<p>I am limited in one way: I am not a Apple/Mac user. Therefore I would be interested in recommendations either for Linux (Ubuntu, Debian, etc.) and/or MS-Windows systems.</p>

<p>I see that GIMP is working on 16/32 bit support with version 2.10 and GIMP comes highly recommended for post processing and raw conversion (with UFRaw only?). Until such a time that ver. 2.10 is up running and bug free what would you and the others recommend?</p>

 

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>I am a new owner of a Sony NEX-6 and notice you (hopefully other commentators too) are also using the NEX-6</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hello Jasper, and thanks to you for your kind words.<br>

<br>

Keeping in mind that:<br>

a) I have a Nex-3 (not 6), and<br>

b) I don't use Linux for photo processing anymore, so I don't know the last development in this kind of software for the penguin<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>FOR LINUX</em></strong><br>

I would suggest you <strong>RawTherapee</strong>. It's a terrific piece of software, that gives you terrific results as well.<br>

It can be intimidating at first, because it has a ton of options, but it's just a matter of become "acquainted" with them (a week or so will do the trick).<br>

<a href="http://www.rawtherapee.com">http://www.rawtherapee.com</a></p>

<p>If you want you can take a peek of what I mean at this old post on my blog (it is the last of a series of five, the links to the other four are under the title) in which I compared almost all the serious raw converters available at the time, using the same set of pictures (yes, Nex-made included):<br>

<a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/05/31/review-raw-converters-mega-test-part-v/">http://www.addicted2light.com/2012/05/31/review-raw-converters-mega-test-part-v/</a></p>

<p>Another excellent option would be using <strong>UFraw</strong> in the stand-alone version (the one that comes without Gimp). This way it will support 16bit output, and with really nice results. The biggest downside, in comparison to RawTherapee, is the substantial lack of developing, de-noising, etc. options.<br>

<a href="http://ufraw.sourceforge.net">http://ufraw.sourceforge.net</a></p>

<p>Last bit of software to suggest, not listed in the aforementioned review and that I tried only briefly, is <strong>DarkTable</strong>. It's Lightroom-inspired, and many people swear for it. Give it a try.<br>

<a href="http://www.darktable.org/features/">http://www.darktable.org/features/</a><br>

BTW, all of the listed softwares are free and open sources.<br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><strong><em> </em></strong><br>

<strong><em>FOR WINDOWS</em></strong><br>

For Windows there is, obviously, a much vaster offer, but not necessarily a better one.</p>

<p>Just check the first part of the review on my blog I mentioned before; there I listed for each piece of software the operating system for which they are available.</p>

<p>Anyway, even on Windows I would still use <strong>RawTherapee</strong>.</p>

<p>The only serious alternative would be using <strong>PhotoShop</strong> (but more for the possibilities in image manipulation that for the CameraRaw module) or <strong>Lightroom</strong> (that keeps your pictures organized as well). Obviously the price tags here would be wildly different!</p>

<p>And remember that now PhotoShop has gone online-only, so you would probably have to search for an old (CS 5 or 6) version.<br>

I hope I've been able to shed some light, in the meantime enjoy your new camera and happy pictures!</p>

[Garret]

<p>I'm a bit late to the thread but thought I'd express my appreciation for all the information and opinions here. It's much more than I can absorb but certainly more than a taste of the complexities in the world of raw format. The opinions and photos are extremely helpful.</p>

<p> I'm just now trying to educate myself about raw format, its benefits and the learning curve(s) to the software. I've seen some eye-popping photo comparisons and post-processing results that defy anything I might've dreamed possible with the best jpeg. That said, I've also been finding un-affordable software. This stuff's expensive! It almost makes more sense to rent some of it than to own it.</p>

<p>Which brings me to a questions from an amateur photographer who's hobby might include some very nice gear used primarily to shoot mediocre jpegs; gear that is far more advanced than his photographic skills. Is there a cheap bastard's guide to raw format software somewhere, i.e. which software would a cheap bastard be content with as he tests the waters of raw format? <br /><br /><br />Thanks again for all this information. Greatly appreciated.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>i.e. which software would a cheap bastard be content with as he tests the waters of raw format?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Luke,<br>

I don't know what camera do you have. Keep in mind that the results with raw converters can be extremely camera-dependant; what works like a charm on a Canon 5d mk II files can work poorly on Sony Nex 7 files for example (here I'm talking for experience).<br>

That said, there are at least two free raw converters out there that I can recommend, even more than a few commercial ones. Which one will you choose will depend mostly by which camera do you have (compare the results), which operating system are you on (Windows, Linux or Mac) and by how comfortable you are with the user interface.</p>

<p><strong>1)</strong> <strong>RawTherapee</strong> (Windows, Linux, Mac)<br>

<a href="http://rawtherapee.com/downloads"><em>http://rawtherapee.com/downloads</em></a><br>

Extremely good and powerful; the downside is that with a lot of cameras it isn't the top performer, but only the second or third best. Avoid it like the plague (or at least don't use its default demosaicing algorithm AMAZE) if you happen to have a Sony Nex 7; results are way too soft.</p>

<p><strong>2) RawPhotoProcessor</strong> (Mac only)<br>

<em><a href="http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Downloads.html">http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP/Downloads.html</a></em><br>

Few options, but this is deceiving because it is one of the program with the best output out there. With Sony Nex 7 files, for example, is one of the few that gives me zero chromatic aberration and magenta shift, and this without having to mess with anything. Also quite often the one that gives the sharpest results, at the price of a tiny bit of more noise. Technically not a freeware but a donation-ware, meaning that you can use it for free forever, but to unlock some advanced feature like the batch processing you will have to donate.</p>

<p><strong>3) UFraw</strong> (Windows, Linux, Mac)<br>

<em><a href="http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html">http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/Install.html</a></em><br>

Not in the same league with the two above mentioned, but still a really good piece of software. Quite fast to learn too. Use the stand alone version (not the Gimp plugin) if you want (and you do) 16bit output.</p>

<p><strong>4) Whichever raw conversion software came with your camera</strong><br>

This are often overlooked, but are quite good even if not the best one. Even the more despised, like the Sony Image Data Converter, are in reality quite good and useful at least as<em> training wheels</em> to learn the intricacies of raw conversion.</p>

<p>And don't get intimidated by the many options of some of this softwares. What you need is mostly set exposure, curves, and optical corrections if this is possible (chromatic aberration, distortion etc.). The rest is often best managed in Photoshop, Lightroom and the likes.<br>

Well, it is not a cheap bastard guide (many other free raw converters are missing) but at least is a beginning. I hope this will help you with your decision to switch to raw!.<br>

Happy holidays!</p>

[Garret]

<p>Thank you so much for that. It looks as though RawTherapee is compatible to my cameras.</p>

<p>I have a first generation Canon 5D and a Canon 40D with a modest assortment of glass. However . . . I'm lately considering a point & shoot with raw format for the convenience of my shirt-pocket. I was leaning toward the Canon S100 and/or Pansonic LX-series. But, given your assessment of raw software and the camera-dependent issue, I'm having second thoughts about a p&s camera shooting raw.</p>

<p>There are some conveniently cataloged raw image comparisons between cameras at <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/12">http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons100/12</a> . The obvious lesson from this site is that all cameras do not shoot raw format to the same degree of quality/detail. And, it would seem that attempting to post-process some of that stuff would be an exercise in futility. Since raw images from a point & shoot camera will generally be inferior to those from a DSLR does it even make sense to own a p&s that shoots raw? It would seem that lens quality and sensor size/performance are both critical to achieving a quality raw image even worthy of post processing. (?) And, yet....I see some not-so-bad images come from those p&s cameras after post-processing. Your opinion would be appreciated.</p>

<p>Thank you again.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>But, given your assessment of raw software and the camera-dependent issue, I'm having second thoughts about a p&s camera shooting raw.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not a matter of <em>issues</em>. But each raw converter gives the best possible results with a few sensors / cameras, average results with the bulk of them, and not so good (that does not mean unusable by any means!) results with a few others.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It would seem that lens quality and sensor size/performance are both critical to achieving a quality raw image even worthy of post processing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lens definitely, sensor yes and no. Meaning that a smaller but newer generation sensor will give you the same results of a bigger but older one. Think how amazingly good have become the Olympus m4/3 (an excellent choice for you, BTW).</p>

<p>Now, I don't know how small a camera do you need, but I can share my experience in the search for a pocketable one. After many many failed attempts (cameras that I ended up selling as fast as I could or sending straight back to the seller) I liked very much the Fuji X100 and the Sony Nex3.</p>

<p>This last one, in particular, in its latest incarnation is the same size of a Panasonic LX, with maybe a couple of mm more depth if you choose a zoom lens, but delivers quality in spades. I've seen it go just the day before yesterday for 320 euro with a 16mm lens, new, in a brick and mortar store in my city. If you are comfortable in buying one used you can have it - and try it for yourself - for much less.</p>

<p>As for myself I'm now selling the big and heavy Canon 5d mark II after having bought a Sony Nex 7 (not A7). The quality is actually higher with the Sony (more recent sensor), even if it is an APS-c, and it covers all the bases: tripod / landscape camera & events / travels one. And yes, I tested it one agains the other by myself, because I could not believe the review found on the web; but they were definitely right.</p>

<p>YMMV, but for me sacrificing a few mm for more compactness is not worth the price paid in image quality loss and the usual lack of "speed" and responsiveness of the classic compact cameras.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>given your assessment of raw software and the camera-dependent issue</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi again Luke, <br>

I thought you may be interested in seeing with your own eyes how much difference the right raw converter can make:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/12/22/the-importance-of-choosing-the-right-raw-converter/">http://www.addicted2light.com/2013/12/22/the-importance-of-choosing-the-right-raw-converter/</a></p>

<p>Happy Holidays!</p>

[Garret]

<p>This is good stuff for me to read right now. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> <br>

. . .Meaning that a smaller but newer generation sensor will give you the same results of a bigger but older one. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> I hadn't even thought about that.. To consider a full frame CMOS sensor to be less acute than <em>any</em> APS would've been an unconscionable thought...heresy even. I remain a willing victim of stagnant advertising without independent research....which you've helped with tremendously.<br>

<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>YMMV, but for me sacrificing a few mm for more compactness is not worth the price paid in image quality loss and the usual lack of "speed" and responsiveness of the classic compact cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That makes perfect sense as well. I've tried to avoid the additional cost of a 4/3 system but it looks as though I'll have to revisit that option. And, I'll be looking again at the LX-series with different eyes. Even though I don't much care for FujiFilm customer service, I'll take another look at the x100. The NEX3 will be a newer assessment.<br>

<br>

And, your demonstration in choosing the right converter.... That's really amazing! There is no way I would have considered what might be an optimum converter software for a specific camera without seeing the dichotomy. Good stuff.<br>

________________________</p>

<p>Thank you again for sharing the benefits of your efforts here. I learned something today.</p>

[addicted2light]

<blockquote>

<p>Thank you again for sharing the benefits of your efforts here</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Many thanks to you; half of the fun, in photography, is really learning new "tricks" and sharing them!</p>