Best RAW converter for...

[sniper]

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

[Mark D Segal]

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.

[sojournerphoto]

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

[sniper]

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

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Wayne - too much else to do for the time being!

Cheers,

Mark

[sniper]

I can wait.  Wayne

[hardloaf]

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]

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]

[wilburdl]

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
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm going to give it an honest try.

[Pete JF]

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
[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.

[hardloaf]

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.

[JLK]

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
[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)

[hardloaf]

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 :)

[Pete JF]

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.

[Chris_T]

There was a recent thread on the same topic:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....=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]

[Chris_T]

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]