raw converters?

[jorgedelfino]

Is there a “quality” difference? Between  using, Aperture, adobe Lightroom, PS CS2 or Digital photo professional. ( the one that came with my eos 1ds mk II),  I mean not just the speed or easy to use features.. but the actual photo quality?
Advice welcome!

[Tim Gray]

I think that's a tougher question than it seems.  

One problem is comparing apples to apples.  The primary function of a RAW converter is to convert the linear, essentially gray scale data from the sensor into the appropriate color space by way of the bayer matrix.  The issue is that in addition to this  function all converters also apply default sharpening, noise reduction, saturation etc. etc. - some converters do a better job than others in these areas, and some make it easier to  completely "turn off" during the conversion.  (eg in Pixmantex RSP you had to turn sharpening down to (if memory servers) to minus  50 before it was "turned off").  I'm not even sure that it's possible, in all converters, to totally turn off these secondary adjustments.  

FWIW my personal favourite was Pixmantec, and I'm reasonably happy now with Lightroom v4.1 (which has some Pixmantec now incorporated).  I always found ACR to be a bit blah, but never spent much time trying to duplicate the results I got from RSP.

I've also tried Capture 1, but ended up prefering the workflow of RSP to the extent that I never really landed on whether the RAW conversion was any better or not.

I've been with Canon digital ever since the D30, but never used their converter.

Each has their own flavour, and it's hard to say that one flavour is objectively better than another.

[dlashier]

Yes there are IQ differences, but as Tim pointed out, it's hard to quanitify unless you're talking about one particular quality and in some cases one particular image. In some aspects (eg tonal treatment) the judgment is also subjective, some preferring one treatment and others another, or one treatment favoring one image and another working better for a different image. The bottom line is that with the exception of noise and artifact handling nearly identical results can be obtained with any raw converter assuming proper adjustments are made. All that said I still favor C1 for my own use. There are many attempts on the web (including an old one by myself) to attempt to compare RC's but I'd suggest you do your own - just be aware that you need to spend a fair amount of time using a particular tool with a variety of images before making a judgment.

- DL

[BernardLanguillier]

If you are on Mac, giving a try to Raw Developper might be a good idea.

I have found the results to be excellent in terms of pixel sharpness and color.

Two other very good contenders are DxO V4 and Silkypix 3.0.

Cheers,
Bernard

[jorgedelfino]

Yes there are IQ differences, but as Tim pointed out, it's hard to quanitify unless you're talking about one particular quality and in some cases one particular image. In some aspects (eg tonal treatment) the judgment is also subjective, some preferring one treatment and others another, or one treatment favoring one image and another working better for a different image. The bottom line is that with the exception of noise and artifact handling nearly identical results can be obtained with any raw converter assuming proper adjustments are made. All that said I still favor C1 for my own use. There are many attempts on the web (including an old one by myself) to attempt to compare RC's but I'd suggest you do your own - just be aware that you need to spend a fair amount of time using a particular tool with a variety of images before making a judgment.

- DL
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83629\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

that makes a lot of sence.
thanks!

[james_elliot]

I used many different raw converters.
One of the best is, strangely, a free one: dcraw. It uses some of the best reconstruction algorithms, and is very customizable. However, it is a command line program with no fancy interfaces.

[ericstaud]

The quality also depends on your skill level with the converter, and getting to know its personality.  In my experience, the Nikon software makes a better looking conversion with the default settings than ACR or C1pro.  So if you only compare using default settings, you would likely choose the manufacturers converter.

One advantage to using converters like ACR, Lightroom, or C1 pro is that you can learn one converter very well and use it with many different cameras.

The qualitative differences span many areas as well.  Aside from the color reproduction, there are differences in sharpening, noise reduction, highlight recovery......

You may also find that one converter's default is better for garden photography, while another is better for skin tones.

This decision is really no different than shooting transparency film.  Every lab in town has a different look in their processing.  One made Provia look better.  The other made Astia look better.  One had a 2 hour turnaround, the other... 3 hours.  One charged more for a rush.  One had a pickup service.  One lab ran 1/3 stop brighter than the other.

In this aspect, digital isn't really different than film, except that you can run your one piece of film at every lab in town over and over again (and you don't have to pay any messenger fees).