How many RAW converters is "too many"?

[nemophoto]

The past few days, I've been working on a catalog preparing approximately 270-images for the press. It made me think of how many RAW converters I use on a regular basis, and how many I actually own.

At last count, I had eight:

BreezeBrowser
Canon DPP
Bibble
RAW Shooter
Lightroom
ACR
Capture One
and a trial version I just downloaded of DxO

And the weird thing is, I use almost all of them, but most of the time use Lightroom, ACR, and Canon DPP. I find converters are almost like using different film types: each has it's own flavor -- both in workflow and end result.

For this current project, I couldn't believe I ended up using RAWShooter, which is a testament to it's ability, for me, to have a quick, easy workflow. While I like Lightroom (and by extention, ACR), I hate the workflow. I hate having to import, specifically, before I can work. It's time waster -- my images are already organized before I hit the converter. Canon DPP produces some of the best images, lowest noise, highest sharpness -- I "rediscovered" this program when I bought my Mark III. Capture One is still a good standby, but long in the tooth, and doesn't support the Mark III. (The job was shot over a period of several months, first with a 1D2n, then the Mark III, so I'll be switching coversion programs mid-stream anyway.)

Sometimes I feel like Imelda Marcos, except instead a thousand pairs of shoes, I have a thousand conversion programs. Now, if only I could figure out how to mix and match components of all the programs, THEN I'd have one super converter on my hands. . .

Nemo

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

My list almost matches yours. I haven't actually used Canon DPP, although I assume it's around here on a CD somewhere. And DxO is the one I currently use most (for RAW conversion), and I only have the trial version of Bibble. I use Breeze Browser more often than any of the others, but mostly to sort images quickly.

Yes, the different flavors of conversion do feel a lot like different films.

[nemophoto]

My list almost matches yours. I haven't actually used Canon DPP, although I assume it's around here on a CD somewhere. And DxO is the one I currently use most (for RAW conversion), and I only have the trial version of Bibble. I use Breeze Browser more often than any of the others, but mostly to sort images quickly.

Yes, the different flavors of conversion do feel a lot like different films.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144129\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

How do you like DxO? I found it slightly odd, the way it's organized. I want to like it, but miss working with leveles and curves. I actually thought I was downloading a trial of the new 5.0, which has just been released. I probably like Bibble the least. I actually never like the way the color looks -- excessively warm skin tones -- nor does it produce a very detailed file. Like you, I use BB for sorting, editing, etc. I don't think there's a faster, easier program to use. It's like "Old Faithful", the the flashiest, not the fastest, but never lets me down. Take a look at DPP. It wasn't till I worked with the Mark III and DPP was the only thing around that would convert the files for a while that I really worked with the program. I was very impressed, to the point where I use it almost as much as Lightroom.

[sojournerphoto]

How do you like DxO? I found it slightly odd, the way it's organized. I want to like it, but miss working with leveles and curves. I actually thought I was downloading a trial of the new 5.0, which has just been released. I probably like Bibble the least. I actually never like the way the color looks -- excessively warm skin tones -- nor does it produce a very detailed file. Like you, I use BB for sorting, editing, etc. I don't think there's a faster, easier program to use. It's like "Old Faithful", the the flashiest, not the fastest, but never lets me down. Take a look at DPP. It wasn't till I worked with the Mark III and DPP was the only thing around that would convert the files for a while that I really worked with the program. I was very impressed, to the point where I use it almost as much as Lightroom.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have DXo, Lightroom and ACR and DPP. I like the loghtroom wrokflow, but am at least as likely to use DXo/DPP for individual prints. I'm hoping that v5 of DXo wil add improved demosaicing as promised.

What I wish was better is the integration between DXo and Lightroom. At the moment I can't get DXo to recognise the camera when sending files from lightroom, so I might as well process to tiff in DXO and then manipulate that in CS3, finally adding to the lightroom library if I want a record in one place.

One gripe is that I can't even do that for panorama's as lightroom doesn't like th big files.

For workflow, I quite like the DXo projects approaach, which is excelent for small and disctinct projects, but for bigger things I tend to use lightroom now - so weddings and snaps are all in the LR database.

Mike

[oakvilleonca]

The past few days, I've been working on a catalog preparing approximately 270-images for the press. It made me think of how many RAW converters I use on a regular basis, and how many I actually own.

At last count, I had eight:

BreezeBrowser
Canon DPP
Bibble
RAW Shooter
Lightroom
ACR
Capture One
and a trial version I just downloaded of DxO

And the weird thing is, I use almost all of them, but most of the time use Lightroom, ACR, and Canon DPP. I find converters are almost like using different film types: each has it's own flavor -- both in workflow and end result.

For this current project, I couldn't believe I ended up using RAWShooter, which is a testament to it's ability, for me, to have a quick, easy workflow. While I like Lightroom (and by extention, ACR), I hate the workflow. I hate having to import, specifically, before I can work. It's time waster -- my images are already organized before I hit the converter. Canon DPP produces some of the best images, lowest noise, highest sharpness -- I "rediscovered" this program when I bought my Mark III. Capture One is still a good standby, but long in the tooth, and doesn't support the Mark III. (The job was shot over a period of several months, first with a 1D2n, then the Mark III, so I'll be switching coversion programs mid-stream anyway.)

Sometimes I feel like Imelda Marcos, except instead a thousand pairs of shoes, I have a thousand conversion programs. Now, if only I could figure out how to mix and match components of all the programs, THEN I'd have one super converter on my hands. . .

Nemo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[oakvilleonca]

The past few days, I've been working on a catalog preparing approximately 270-images for the press. It made me think of how many RAW converters I use on a regular basis, and how many I actually own.

At last count, I had eight:

BreezeBrowser
Canon DPP
Bibble
RAW Shooter
Lightroom
ACR
Capture One
and a trial version I just downloaded of DxO

And the weird thing is, I use almost all of them, but most of the time use Lightroom, ACR, and Canon DPP. I find converters are almost like using different film types: each has it's own flavor -- both in workflow and end result.

For this current project, I couldn't believe I ended up using RAWShooter, which is a testament to it's ability, for me, to have a quick, easy workflow. While I like Lightroom (and by extention, ACR), I hate the workflow. I hate having to import, specifically, before I can work. It's time waster -- my images are already organized before I hit the converter. Canon DPP produces some of the best images, lowest noise, highest sharpness -- I "rediscovered" this program when I bought my Mark III. Capture One is still a good standby, but long in the tooth, and doesn't support the Mark III. (The job was shot over a period of several months, first with a 1D2n, then the Mark III, so I'll be switching coversion programs mid-stream anyway.)

Sometimes I feel like Imelda Marcos, except instead a thousand pairs of shoes, I have a thousand conversion programs. Now, if only I could figure out how to mix and match components of all the programs, THEN I'd have one super converter on my hands. . .

Nemo
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[oakvilleonca]

I laughed when I read your posting in that I have 10 converters. I am constantly comparing the results with different type of shots. I guess that I should really get a life.

Which one is the best? Can't say in that they are all different. Just when I think that I have it all sorted along comes another RAW converter and I am off again.

My recent postings on my photoblogs have used the beta version of Capture One or Bibble with the B & W plugins. I am doomed in my quest for the holy grail.

[Chris_T]

In another thread, I wrote:

"...the film photo technology took 175 years to mature, and the digital photo technology is only a couple of decades old. I expect there is a long way to go before all the digital kinks are worked out, and many current "established" techniques will be dramatically different (for the better). At this stage, we are all guinea pigs. This guy tells his story in his aptly titled article "The Hamster Wheel of Progress":

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/"

Like him, I have concluded chasing every new tool/technique is beyond my budget and time. Using what I already have and know is sufficient for most of my work, and I would much prefer to focus on photographing. I do peek at what's new, but would only pursue them if they can make a difference in my work noticeable not only by me, but by others as well.

Once in awhile, someone would take the time to evaluate and compare tools/techniques, and publish them. They can be very helpful. 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.

[sojournerphoto]

In another thread, I wrote:

"...the film photo technology took 175 years to mature, and the digital photo technology is only a couple of decades old. I expect there is a long way to go before all the digital kinks are worked out, and many current "established" techniques will be dramatically different (for the better). At this stage, we are all guinea pigs. This guy tells his story in his aptly titled article "The Hamster Wheel of Progress":

http://www.huntingtonwitherill.com/"

Like him, I have concluded chasing every new tool/technique is beyond my budget and time. Using what I already have and know is sufficient for most of my work, and I would much prefer to focus on photographing. I do peek at what's new, but would only pursue them if they can make a difference in my work noticeable not only by me, but by others as well.

Once in awhile, someone would take the time to evaluate and compare tools/techniques, and publish them. They can be very helpful. 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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144197\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's true I'm afraid - I don't have time to do proper comparisons etc. I also really like Rawshooter essentials, but seem to have lost the code during a computer rebuild.

Mike

[Schewe]

At last count, I had eight:

BreezeBrowser
Canon DPP
Bibble
RAW Shooter
Lightroom
ACR
Capture One
and a trial version I just downloaded of DxO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144107\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This reminds me of the proverb (perhaps Chinese-Don't know)

Man with many knives, none of them sharp...

Unless all you do is test various processors, there's no way you'll ever become truly proficient with more than one to two. You choose other processors more likely because it's "easier" to get what you want based upon that particular processor's starting point for a given image.

DxO is one that the others don't come close to matching for its lens correction, but alas, the pure raw processing is probably the weakest. Camera Raw/Lightroom share the exact same processing pipeline but with different usabilities. But, when I see people constantly using different and various processors, I tend to thing they either don't know what they want or they don't know how to get what they want and thus try "everything". That doesn't seem very efficient to me...

[nchopp]

This reminds me of the proverb (perhaps Chinese-Don't know)

Man with many knives, none of them sharp...

Unless all you do is test various processors, there's no way you'll ever become truly proficient with more than one to two. You choose other processors more likely because it's "easier" to get what you want based upon that particular processor's starting point for a given image.

DxO is one that the others don't come close to matching for its lens correction, but alas, the pure raw processing is probably the weakest. Camera Raw/Lightroom share the exact same processing pipeline but with different usabilities. But, when I see people constantly using different and various processors, I tend to thing they either don't know what they want or they don't know how to get what they want and thus try "everything". That doesn't seem very efficient to me...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd say just the opposite. Everyone posted why it is they use different programs - some are better at organization, some at image quality, some at lens correction. Personally, I use Breezebrowser, ACR, Capture One, and am looking forward to trying DxO, for all the reasons some of the above posters have mentioned.

[sojournerphoto]

Unless all you do is test various processors, there's no way you'll ever become truly proficient with more than one to two. You choose other processors more likely because it's "easier" to get what you want based upon that particular processor's starting point for a given image.

DxO is one that the others don't come close to matching for its lens correction, but alas, the pure raw processing is probably the weakest. Camera Raw/Lightroom share the exact same processing pipeline but with different usabilities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm sure that you're right - I've certainly become more effciient and able to get what I want with LR/ACR fairly rapidly (probably means the interface is good).

In the past I've also done comparisons between ACR3.6 (i think) and DXo 4.5 and found that on my test image DXo did a better job. However ACR4.2/LR1.2 is, to my eyes, way ahead of the 3.x versions, and DXo really does need to improve it's demosaicing tech - hopefully v5 will help. My major gripe at present is that the DXo LR integration is not good - specifically I would like DXo to appply it's lens correction to the raw, return a non-demosaiced DNG to LR to do the demosaicing etc. This isn't yet possible as far as I can work out. Hence LR is getting more and more use and DXo is used where lens correction or it's other parts work particularly well.

Actually, I'd prefer to have only one tool to learn and use:)

Mike

[Jonathan Wienke]

RAW converters are like Spuddies*; enough just isn't enough, unless you have limited time to deal with your files, in which case choosing one knife and sharpening it well is probably much wiser. A possibly-slightly-less-than-perfect tool that one knows intimately and can take to the limits of its ability will outperform a theoretically better tool that one is less familiar with in most cases.

*Gratuitous Over The Hedge in-joke. Watch the movie for enlightenment.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

The one that gets the best results for me is always the one I'm most familiar with at the time. I never liked the early versions of ACR, because I was used to Capture One.

BreezeBrowser remains my favorite image organizing tool (yes, I have tried it a couple of times as a Raw converter, but only out of curiosity). I went to DxO for the lens corrections, and I have finally gotten so used to its quirks that I have a very effective workflow that works for me.

So DxO is currrently my "sharpest knife" (and I save the image sharpening for PKS     ). I know other people love the current ACR and LR, but the few times I've tried them I've ended up with strange results -- very much like expecting Kodachrome and finding out I've been shooting Velvia.

Some of the features of ACR and LR are very tempting. But do I want to invest the time and effort into learning how to get them to do what I want? That's the issue for me.

[Victor Meldrew]

That's true I'm afraid - I don't have time to do proper comparisons etc. I also really like Rawshooter essentials, but seem to have lost the code during a computer rebuild.

Believe it or not you can still download it for free from http://www.download.com/RawShooter-Essenti...4-10518796.html

[jjj]

This reminds me of the proverb (perhaps Chinese-Don't know)

Man with many knives, none of them sharp...

Unless all you do is test various processors, there's no way you'll ever become truly proficient with more than one to two. You choose other processors more likely because it's "easier" to get what you want based upon that particular processor's starting point for a given image.

DxO is one that the others don't come close to matching for its lens correction, but alas, the pure raw processing is probably the weakest. Camera Raw/Lightroom share the exact same processing pipeline but with different usabilities. But, when I see people constantly using different and various processors, I tend to thing they either don't know what they want or they don't know how to get what they want and thus try "everything". That doesn't seem very efficient to me...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Maybe if the individual programmes were in themselves more efficient or less buggy , then maybe less software would be needed by some users.
I agree that one programme learnt well may be the most efficient, but the most efficient, time wise may not be as high a priority as best quality, pixel wise or best organised, DAM wise with some people.

[Chris_T]

A possibly-slightly-less-than-perfect tool that one knows intimately and can take to the limits of its ability will outperform a theoretically better tool that one is less familiar with in most cases.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144266\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right on!

I shoot with one camera body,  a couple of lenses, one film type, and one metering method. That let me concentrate on the images and not fumbling with all the knobs, etc. I scan with one scanner with one scanning workflow, and print with one printer, one printing media, and one profile. I wish I could use only one PS editing workflow, but have to vary it for different images. I choose each tool/technique based on reviews and experiments, and stick with one after becoming proficient. That by itself takes plenty of my time and effort. I only vary one of these if something new should surface and can significantly improve my work or workflow, or if I need to produce a different kind of work.

I thank the generous people who did the testings and reviews, but I can't help but wonder how did they find time to shoot for themselves. Or did they? The last time I check, we all only have 24 hours a day.

[nemophoto]

This reminds me of the proverb (perhaps Chinese-Don't know)

Man with many knives, none of them sharp...

Unless all you do is test various processors, there's no way you'll ever become truly proficient with more than one to two. You choose other processors more likely because it's "easier" to get what you want based upon that particular processor's starting point for a given image.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=144238\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

On the surface, this is true. However, I've worked hard to get the most out of each RAW processor and learn what makes them useful, if not special. Each one seems to have it's strengths (and of course, weakness) -- whether final image quality, workflow, etc. For a long time, I exclusively used Capture One. Now, long in the tooth by comparison, it still yields superlative images, but is overdue for camera support and lacks "Fill Light" capacity. I actually love Lightroom, but have to say, it does not produce either the most detailed nor lowest noise images. As I said before, I hate having to "import" specific images to work on, though it has some of the best skin tones. I wish Lightroom produced as clean and sharp files as DPP, but as you said in another post somewhere, Canon can specialize on their own RAW files, while Adobe must work to provide support for an ever growing list of RAW files, and be everything to everyone.

[Jonathan Wienke]

I use ACR. I don't use the sharpening or noise reduction features; I use Focus Magic for capture sharpening and Neat Image for noise reduction, so all I care about is good color rendition and global gontrast and tonal control, which ACR does very well. I've tried other RAW converters, and when looking at workflow as a whole instead of just RAW conversion by itself, I haven't found any compelling reason to change. I can do large jobs like weddings (1000+ images) and have each web gallery image custom white balanced with color I'm not ashamed to put in front of demanding clients without spending a lot of time doing so. And I'm not compromising the quality of the final image for that convenience.

[DarkPenguin]

1.

The cameras should detect whether I have a frown on my face when I'm chimping and continually change the image parameters until I smile.