Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: wilburdl on November 24, 2007, 05:07:11 pm
-
I'm sure this has been done before but I think now that most of the popular RAW converters have been updated--it's only appropriate to do it again.
I've always used ACR to convert my 1DsII files. Lately, I'm curious as to what the other converters offer in terms of image quality. I did trials of Lightroom and C1 but didn't gleam the quality improvements I've read about on a couple of forums (maybe I needed more time to work with them). Still, I'm ready to try something different if it shows a noticeable improvement over ACR.
Let me know what you use and why
-
ACR and Lightroom are the same so you won't see any difference there. I prefer them to C1, tho' I do use the latter if I don't like the results from the former! Canon's own software is also good but a bit clunkier in my view.
Overall I love Lightroom simply because of the workflow.
Bill
I'm sure this has been done before but I think now that most of the popular RAW converters have been updated--it's only appropriate to do it again.
I've always used ACR to convert my 1DsII files. Lately, I'm curious as to what the other converters offer in terms of image quality. I did trials of Lightroom and C1 but didn't gleam the quality improvements I've read about on a couple of forums (maybe I needed more time to work with them). Still, I'm ready to try something different if it shows a noticeable improvement over ACR.
Let me know what you use and why
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Overall I love Lightroom simply because of the workflow.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155597\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Same here. However, if you're looking for differing rendering qualities, and you're on a Mac, check out Raw Developer. Lovely rendering. But no workflow <g>
-
TX, ddog, I do have a Mac (or 3!) and I'll give it a try.
Bill
Same here. However, if you're looking for differing rendering qualities, and you're on a Mac, check out Raw Developer. Lovely rendering. But no workflow <g>
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155616\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Dxo is also gathering a following at the moment, partly due to it's image lens correction ability.
It would be interesting to see a side by side comparrison between all the different converters, I for one would like to see that. Wayne
-
I'm surprised no one has spoken for C1. I assume that once the latest version finally comes out, that will all change.
-
I'm surprised no one has spoken for C1. I assume that once the latest version finally comes out, that will all change.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155640\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Everything's always perfect in the next version. Have you heard about Lightroom 2.0? How about Aperture 2.0? They both will change photography as we know it!
-
Dxo is also gathering a following at the moment, partly due to it's image lens correction ability.
It would be interesting to see a side by side comparrison between all the different converters, I for one would like to see that. Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155618\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've always preferred the output of DxO to the others (took a bit of time to get the settings correct)
Marc
-
Everything's always perfect in the next version. Have you heard about Lightroom 2.0? How about Aperture 2.0? They both will change photography as we know it!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155697\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Lol. At least that's how it's supposed to work. I mentioned the next version because it currently available in beta form. Though I'm sure Lightroom 2.0 will live up to all the hype
-
Lol. At least that's how it's supposed to work. I mentioned the next version because it currently available in beta form. Though I'm sure Lightroom 2.0 will live up to all the hype
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Try Bibble.
-
I have just carried out a comparrison between most of the better known raw converters, not under lab conditions I'll admit, but an interesting comparrison all the same.
The results (viewed on screen as I haven't a big printer here) and all used at the default/auto setting.
ACR and LR both too light but accepable, interestingly ACR was slightly lighter and slightly less red than LR.
ACDC rubbish quite frankly, it's nowhere near as sharp as the rest and the image is way too light/washed out almost.
Raw shooter darker (closer to the original scene) but not as sharp as LR/ACR
Capture one arker (closer to the original scene) but not as sharp as LR/ACR and seems to have yellowish cast (easily fixed of course)
Bibble as above seems sharper than Cap1 and raw shooter.
Dxo probably the sharpest (but not much better than LR/ACR) and also the most accurite colour and brightness.
As I say this is a personall opinion (and I'm sure others will disargee.
My overall favorite would be Dxo, closly followed by ACR or LR, theres not much in it really, and as I say this was on the auto setting, with a few tweeks I doubt you could tell the difference.
For the test I used RAW images from a Nikon D2X then converted to jpeg best quality (as thats what a lot of people will do) Ducks head to avoid flak! Wayne
-
The results (viewed on screen as I haven't a big printer here) and all used at the default/auto setting.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155831\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's the killer line - "on the auto/default setting". It's not really (as I'm sure you know) a meaningful comparison if you do that!
Most RAW converters will be able to produce similar results to each other, provided you know how to drive them. At the end of the day it comes down to which one you find easiest to achieve the results YOU like.
Yes, there are some features in some but not others - e.g. Bibble's built-in NoiseNinja and PTlens plugins, DXO's lens correction, the DAM aspects of Aperture, split-toning bits of LR - but, ultimately you have to decide what's important to you.
Personally I have a few raw converters on hand - I find different ones work better with different kinds of images/tonalities. RAW Developer for example, is without doubt my favourite for B&W work, but I generally use LR, despite preferring Aperture's DAM abilities by a long way. If I can't get quite the result I envisaged when I took the shot in LR, then I'll try C1, NX or RAW Developer or occasionally Bibble with its ugly as sin interface. (Bibble seems to have all the functionality, but very little of the ease of use, or least that's how it feels to me)
-
The idea was to see how well the programs could handle a raw file without any real input, as you say with time you could probably get them all to look the same, but that wasn't the idea.
The real test would be printing them.
Still an interesting test. lol Wayne
-
This exercise is completely pointless unless you recalibrate the Auto defaults in each converter to respect the same parameters, and then see how well they perform comparatively doing what is supposed to be the same thing on the same image.
-
This exercise is completely pointless unless you recalibrate the Auto defaults in each converter to respect the same parameters, and then see how well they perform comparatively doing what is supposed to be the same thing on the same image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155863\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yup. Default rendering isn't all that useful by itself in deciding the qualities of a converter. Getting the same Raw to appear as close as possible (not easy) THEN viewing the qualities of the rendering tells you a lot more.
-
I'm a people shooter and I rarely ever bother with setting a neutral color as I'm always messing with the color temp. I'm mostly concerned with color noise and sharpness. (I'd also like to be able to bring all my images into ACR in chronological order).
Basically, I'm always tweaking everything (sometimes every shot). I like when people test stuff--but all I ask is that you process that image to the best of your abilities (I don't care about uniformity in parameters myself) in each software and then give the results.
When I look at test I'm looking for which was fastest, easiest to use, features and ultimately results.
-
Sadly you can't claibrate the auto defaults on some of the programs. That was part of the idea behind the test, as some people will use auto for a quick fix, and I wanted to see how each one rendered the same raw image.
It was interesting to see the difference between the softwares, ACR and LR should have been the same, but there was a noticable difference between the two.
As I said it was a personal viewpoint, I saw little point in making all the images look the same, thats more a test of my skill than the software. What I was looking for was ease of use for quickly and efficently converting my raw images to something else. Wayne
-
I think both points are valid but in the end I would like to see (know) which produces the highest image quality. So I guess a test with the parameters tweaked to an optimum setting would be a valuable test.
Marc
-
In general, under most circumstances, I use Nikon Capture for my Nikon nef files and ACR 4.2 for my Pentax pef files.
I seem to be able to get better colors more easily with Nikon Capture than with ACR.
I prefer the Nikon Capture interface to that of Capture NX, but the conversion results are almost identical with Capture and NX.
When I have a difficult file with a lot of detail and maybe some noise, I often use Raw Magick Lite. I wouldn't recommend it for the workflow, but the image resulting from the raw conversion can be incredible. You might want to give it a try. Supposedly, the developers of Raw Magick Lite are going to come out with an update soon and they are working on an advanced version "Raw Magick Extreme."
-
Sadly you can't claibrate the auto defaults on some of the programs. That was part of the idea behind the test, as some people will use auto for a quick fix, and I wanted to see how each one rendered the same raw image.
It was interesting to see the difference between the softwares, ACR and LR should have been the same, but there was a noticable difference between the two.
As I said it was a personal viewpoint, I saw little point in making all the images look the same, thats more a test of my skill than the software. What I was looking for was ease of use for quickly and efficently converting my raw images to something else. Wayne
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155881\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wayne, I wasn't getting at making the image look the same - I was getting at moving the Auto defaults of the various converters to a common playing field (for example all of them would have a linear tone curve or an S-Curve with the same shape set as the auto default), and then seeing which does the best job on a variety of image types. If the raw converter doesn't allow you to create a preset and save it as the new auto default, it isn't worth very much within the scope of the test you have in mind, because then the photographer is totally reliant on the taste of the program developer, which may well be different. In other words, such a converter would kind of fail before it starts for your purpose!
-
As we are already reliant on the program developers taste for the interface, his choice of conversion algorithm, and everything else in the program, why not compare the auto function?
You say in your post "If the raw converter doesn't allow you to create a preset and save it as the new auto default, it isn't worth very much within the scope of the test " The fact that most of these programs don't allow you to preset the auto (or ajust it) could be argued that the auto isn't worth much use at all in the real world. Why have auto if you have to ajust it every time? errr thats manual isn't it?
I wanted to see how well they worked "out of the box" so to speak, I know I can produce a lovely 20x30 from almost any of them, but wanted to see which would produce the best jpeg for a quick viewing. Wayne
-
Wayne, sure - you can compare the auto function of each application "as is", but all you're doing is comparing the taste of one guy versus another. The end result is that you see whose taste is closest to your own. I don't know what it says about the applications per se that would be of general interest. What would be of general interest is to test for how well these applications perform given a uniform set of parameters for making the conversions, and a set of criteria for deciding the "how well". One would need to create one set of parameters and run a number of different image types through them to see whether a general statement can be made about which application performs the best for the greatest range of conditions precisely to avoid the trap you mention of converting an auto test into another kind of manual test.
-
Wayne, sure - you can compare the auto function of each application "as is", but all you're doing is comparing the taste of one guy versus another. The end result is that you see whose taste is closest to your own. I don't know what it says about the applications per se that would be of general interest. What would be of general interest is to test for how well these applications perform given a uniform set of parameters for making the conversions, and a set of criteria for deciding the "how well". One would need to create one set of parameters and run a number of different image types through them to see whether a general statement can be made about which application performs the best for the greatest range of conditions precisely to avoid the trap you mention of converting an auto test into another kind of manual test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I tested ACR3.6 against DXo (4.1?) some time ago and DXo was far better at extracting image detail and sharpness. When I moved to LR 1.1 and now 1.2 the raw conversion is much much better than ACR 3.6, and this together with the workflow (including handoff to CS3) makes it my most used tool now. I would like the ability to hand a DNG file to DXo for lens correction and/or rendering, but that isn't yet there. As a result this area of workflow is compromised, but I labour on with DXo being available as a speicalist app when I need it. (I know I could also run everything through DXo and import to LR as a 'linear DNG', but that seem to miss the point at present.
By way of illustration I've just finished a wedding album using LR, and I am actually pleased with the the results. I found out early on though that I wasn't able to get a print (on matt rag paper) I was happy with without going to CS3 for soft proofing and output sharpening.
Mike
-
l". One would need to create one set of parameters and run a number of different image types through them to see whether a general statement can be made about which application performs the best for the greatest range of conditions precisely to avoid the trap you mention of converting an auto test into another kind of manual test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Feel free to do it then! Wayne
-
Thanks Wayne - too much else to do for the time being!
Cheers,
Mark
-
I can wait. Wayne
-
I'm sure this has been done before but I think now that most of the popular RAW converters have been updated--it's only appropriate to do it again.
I've always used ACR to convert my 1DsII files. Lately, I'm curious as to what the other converters offer in terms of image quality. I did trials of Lightroom and C1 but didn't gleam the quality improvements I've read about on a couple of forums (maybe I needed more time to work with them). Still, I'm ready to try something different if it shows a noticeable improvement over ACR.
Let me know what you use and why :D
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=155594\")
Two years ago I realized that just can't stand all existing converters any longer for many different reasons - soapy look, killed details, overblown, dead shadows, weird noise, wrong colors, inability to make right white balance and so on.
Ended up writing my own (Mac only) :)
Check it out -
[a href=\"http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP]http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP[/url]
-
Two years ago I realized that just can't stand all existing converters any longer for many different reasons - soapy look, killed details, overblown, dead shadows, weird noise, wrong colors, inability to make right white balance and so on.
Ended up writing my own (Mac only)
Check it out -
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm going to give it an honest try.
-
Two years ago I realized that just can't stand all existing converters any longer for many different reasons - soapy look, killed details, overblown, dead shadows, weird noise, wrong colors, inability to make right white balance and so on.
Ended up writing my own (Mac only)
Check it out -
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrey,
Why don't you make a new thread for this? This is going to get buried.
I downloaded and tried your Raw processor last night. I liked the initial rendering i got from "Auto" and then a few tweaks a later I was thrilled, really. Nice crisp look from the film button and in general. I agree with you about the "soapy" look of a lot of processors.
As you state in the documentation, you are aware of all the Beta-ness of your software..speed, klunky apply button..etc..I wont say anything more about those...the only thing I had trouble with was the color space which uses d50 in that Beta space from Lindblom. I downloaded the color space from his website, installed it,but couldn't get a rendering that opened without a huge color shift in Photoshop..you might want to let people know how to get there before they fail when they try to open an image in PS.
Looking forward to progress on this but you really should start a new thread here.
-
Andrey,
Why don't you make a new thread for this? This is going to get buried.
I did couple of times before when released new versions - not much of a response. I guess people don't expect anything good from things without price tag attached. :)
As you state in the documentation, you are aware of all the Beta-ness of your software..speed, klunky apply button..etc..I wont say anything more about those...the only thing I had trouble with was the color space which uses d50 in that Beta space from Lindblom. I downloaded the color space from his website, installed it,but couldn't get a rendering that opened without a huge color shift in Photoshop..you might want to let people know how to get there before they fail when they try to open an image in PS.
Looking forward to progress on this but you really should start a new thread here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156401\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All images produced by RPP are properly tagged, so you don't need to install anything to see them correctly. If you open them in Mac OS Preview or in Photoshop they should look the same. PS may ask what you want to do with the color space and as long as you pick "use this one" or "convert to some other" it will be fine. If you pick "don't color manage" it will look wrong.
You'll need to install BetaRGB though if you want to use it as a default working space.
-
Two years ago I realized that just can't stand all existing converters any longer for many different reasons - soapy look, killed details, overblown, dead shadows, weird noise, wrong colors, inability to make right white balance and so on.
Ended up writing my own (Mac only)
Check it out -
http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP (http://www.raw-photo-processor.com/RPP)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tease... I get to the site and see my camera isn't supported...
Jim (a Sigma SD14 shooter)
-
Tease... I get to the site and see my camera isn't supported...
;)
Jim (a Sigma SD14 shooter)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156489\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep, sorry. Too different :)
-
Andrey,
Thank you, your response to the PM questions i sent you was valuable and may clear some things up for people who are testing this. I'm going to post that response here if you don't mind...
"Pete,
I've answered to you in the thread, but after reading this message I think I know what's wrong in your case - make sure you don't have mark 'Raw' selected. This one is special and means "don't color manage" and some other don'ts. We need it only sometimes to see what camera actually produces and in general you never need it for normal processing. So just unmark it and click Apply while holding Opt key - it will reset all settings to recommended defaults.
There is zoom option - unmark 'zoom to fit' to see image in half resolution 1:1. For final image make sure you pick AHD - RPP has default to Half resolution mode (for speed and accurate previews).
Rest of the problems with sliders should go away as soon as you disable Raw mode.
Regarding Apply button - there is shortcut Cmd-R to apply really quick. I can't eliminate the button completely now because quality is the only thing I can't sacrifice and this means slower processing and no real time adjustments."----
I just worked on an image that I've been frustrated with while working in ACR and I can't believe the results I'm getting here in your RPP. I love the film curve feature. The result is edgy and not "soapy" like in ACR. this applies to the gamma setting as well, much better color control with the channel sliders, contrast via contrast and local contrast, excellent. Great reds right our of the box..not pinky like in ACR-out of the box uncalibrated. I find this program to be very flexible once you get to know what's what.
The results are also sharper than ACR..I think it's more a matter of apparent sharpness, due to the film curve and the local contrast feature, which is a great thing to have. I'm going to go and mess with a few more and see how things compare.
Also, thrilled to notice in the documentation that you have a modest selection tool in this processor. I haven't tried it yet.
Two things:
As I was scrolling through the Black and White conversions I noticed that when I went back to the "color" setting, I lost the histogram..it compressed and moved over to the right side of scale and appeared as a narrow spike. It wouldn't respond after that.
Second, the VNG conversion/interpolation scheme did not do very well with an image that had telephone and electrical wires and small tree branches..gave it a candy cane stripe at all viewing percentages on my monitor, I'm pretty sure this imparted into the actual file. The AHD, as you suggested, was spot on for that small linear and diagonal detail.
You should make a new thread..
Thanks, Andrey, this looks pretty cool.
-
There was a recent thread on the same topic:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=raw+converters (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=20085&hl=raw+converters)
There I recommended a book:
If you have not done so already, check out "The Art of Raw Conversion" by Uwe Steinmueller and Jurgen Gulbins. The authors compared several popular raw converters, and pointed out how Raw Shooter's different algorithm and special feature make it stand out. No wonder Adobe quickly killed it in its bud. Published in 2006, the book is already dated. But that's the nature of the beast.
I'm sure this has been done before but I think now that most of the popular RAW converters have been updated--it's only appropriate to do it again.
I've always used ACR to convert my 1DsII files. Lately, I'm curious as to what the other converters offer in terms of image quality. I did trials of Lightroom and C1 but didn't gleam the quality improvements I've read about on a couple of forums (maybe I needed more time to work with them). Still, I'm ready to try something different if it shows a noticeable improvement over ACR.
Let me know what you use and why
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=155594\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
For best results, different image types, resolutions and sizes call for different parameter settings in each tool. In the past, I suggested that a SET OF TEST IMAGES is needed when comparing different vendors' tools of a certain catagory, whether they are sharpeners, stitchers or raw converters, etc.
For those working with a particular image type, resolution and size, one tool may stand out over another. And that's all that user needs. Most users are probably more interested in how well a tool works for their types or images, instead of ALL types of images.
Without such "standardized" sets of test images, comparing these digital tools here is like blind men feeling out an elephant. If a vendor indeed has faith that his tool is superior for every type of images, he would come up with a set of test images for demo or comparison. But all you will find from them are selective images that his tool (or default settings) is good at. They are more interested in marketing their tools as best for every image type.
Wayne, sure - you can compare the auto function of each application "as is", but all you're doing is comparing the taste of one guy versus another. The end result is that you see whose taste is closest to your own. I don't know what it says about the applications per se that would be of general interest. What would be of general interest is to test for how well these applications perform given a uniform set of parameters for making the conversions, and a set of criteria for deciding the "how well". One would need to create one set of parameters and run a number of different image types through them to see whether a general statement can be made about which application performs the best for the greatest range of conditions precisely to avoid the trap you mention of converting an auto test into another kind of manual test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]