RAW converters

Started by Ger, September 11, 2014, 12:12:40 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Ger

Hi all,

I'm just an amateur in processing raw images. I know there are many tools on the market (Lightroom, Bibble, Capture One, Rawtherapee). What (combination of) tool(s) are IMatch users using - and, more important, why? Final output quality, speed, ease of use, the DAM included :) ...

It's not my intention to start a war about the best raw converter (that most probably doesn't exist), but to learn what people (both professionals and amateurs) find important.

Ger

Mario

My 0.02$

Just in case you are not aware:

You get large numbers of threads discussion exactly this topic (for various camera brands) at great length at sites like dpreview Nikonians, fred miranda's. etc. Have a look, just to get a better picture (pun intended).

At the end it often boils down to: "Try several RAW processors with your images and then decide".  It all depends on camera model, lenses, shooting style, motive, whether or not you have Photoshop available for proper retouching (or no need for that) etc.
-- Mario
IMatch Developer
Forum Administrator
http://www.photools.com  -  Contact & Support - Follow me on 𝕏 - Like photools.com on Facebook

Ferdinand

It's hard not to get into a war on this topic.  DPReview is full of them.  My view is "it depends", on

.  Which camera you're using (some converters are better for some cameras)
.  How many images you're processing (some have a faster workflow for bulk images and some have quite a slow workflow)
.  What sort of image you're shooting (some are better at bringing out fine detail for landscapes)
.  Whether precise colour is important (some have multiple look profiles and some others have advanced colour manipulation tools)
.  Whether you want lens distortions corrected automatically (some do and some don't and some need to be configured)
.  Whether you shoot at high ISO (some handle this better than others)
.  How often you want to make local edits (some have good local edit tools and some have none).


Ger

Ferdinand:
QuoteIt's hard not to get into a war on this topic.  DPReview is full of them.

And this is exactly why I mentioned that. After all, the end result is also a personal preference. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems the rawconverter software is as controversial as the Canon/Nikon discussion.

Some of the questions you wrote are exactly where I was aiming for. My photography currently doesn't get the time I would like to; I'm mainly shooting during holidays and on one or two events. For example, learning that a person values product X more for images with high ISO or product Y to convert to black and white or whatever might lead to ideas to try different tools.

Ger


herman

I agree with Ferdinand.

Some other aspects you may want to consider:

  • your budget (some converters are free, others have to be paid for)
  • your workflow (some converters put you in a straightjacket, some are more flexible)
Enjoy!

Herman.

Lord_Helmchen

I think which raw converter you like really depends on your personnel preferences.

But in conjunction with IM as your DAM application you should think about the following topics for choosing a raw converter:

  • Rating, Label, Keyword etc (XMP) synchronization between IM and raw converter
  • Import of photos into another DB (e.g. Light Room)

This topics affect the workflow significantly, so you should align your workflow with your selected tools.

I currently use LR, but don't like the "need to import into DB" approach, as I don't use LR as DAM. I had a closer look at DXO, but they neither support XMP nor plan to add it. So I stayed with LR...

I hope this thoughts help you.

herman

I suspect a lot of IMatch users have gone through the raw-converter selection process at least once.

My way of selecting a suitable raw converter is to write down a set of requirements that the converter has to meet.
Only when a converter satisfies these requirements I will install a trial version to select the one(s) with the best image quality.

For what it is worth, these are the requirements I wrote down four years ago when I decided to switch my main camera:


  • Support standard Windows drag-and-drop from multiple folders (so I can select images in IMatch and drag them to the raw converter)
  • Housekeeping data / development settings / .... to be stored either in a converter database or in sidecars, but never in my out-of-camera original images
  • Support batch processing
  • Support exposure and color correction
  • Support removal of dust bunnies
  • Support straightening of horizon and perspective correction
  • Support Leica DNG images
  • Support raw output of my previous cameras (which include the almost forgotten .crw format)

As I am retired time is not always an issue, so speed of the converter is not a high priority requirement  ;)

For me this set of requirements converged to DxO Optics Pro and AfterShot Professional.
I use DxO for 95% of my images, I use ASP when I need their layer capability for some local corrections.
There are one or two other converters meeting my requirements but I either found their image quality not quite good enough or I did not like the price or licensing scheme.

Hope this helps,
Enjoy!

Herman.

Ferdinand

#7
Lightroom - fast workflow, good high ISO, good local editing tools, average fine detail recovery & primitive sharpening, good highlight recovery, good film simulations, problematic for some cameras (e.g. Fuji), good set of auto lens corrections.  The "Adobe LR look" is very common as it's so widely used.  Can be a bit slow.

Aftershot - I used to use this all the time but I don't use it much any more as it doesn't support Fuji X.  It has good workflow and good plugins but I don't like the colours any more and it has limited support from Corel and the NR in the latest version is poor.  Bugs remain unfixed for years.  It's a good option if it supports your camera and you like the colours as it doesn't require you to use a database and it is fast.  But don't expect fast development or fast camera updates.

Photoninja - this has a cult following because of its ability to recover fine detail (esp on Fuji) so it's the converter of choice for landscape photographers, but I find its workflow slow and cumbersome.  A wedding photographer with thousands of images would go crazy trying to use this program.  Some people love its colours, although I am not wild about them in all cases and you don't get a wide range of look profiles.  No included lens correction profiles - you have to calculate your own.  I used to find it poor at high ISO but the later versions are better.  There is a major upgrade coming soon, supposedly.

Capture One Pro 7 - This a good alround program that matches LR, but it's expensive. There are 30% off deals sometimes, but you have to be quick.  It ticks most of the boxes, although it doesn't come with a lot of look profiles, and I find its colours under artificial light a bit unconvincing.  It has a LOT of colour correction options, so pros love it.  One thing I hate is that it makes a mess of your file system by creating a labyrinth of sub-folders with buddy files for every folder with images that it scans.  Updates can be slow for new cameras.  I'm using it a lot at the moment.

RawTherapee - I've only recently looked at it again for the first time in years.  It's getting a good reputation for its ability to recover detail, partly because it has so many demosaicing options.  There are so many options in this program you could spend years playing around with just one image.  For this reason I wonder about whether I could get an efficient workflow with it.  I'm not convinced about its colours and highlight recovery and there aren't any local editing tools.  It is under continuous development.   It has potential but I'm undecided.  It's FREE!

sinus

I use Lightroom, but sometimes also simply the RAW-converter of Photoshop CS6.

Simply because it is very good "compatible" with Photoshop (Adobe) and I find LR quite intuitiv and good.
And it is quite quickly.

I use LR only for converting, all DAM I do inside IMatch.
Best wishes from Switzerland! :-)
Markus

cytochrome

I tried most converters (they all have usable demo versions) and always fall back to the same trio:

mostly ASP for speed, astute plugins, working layers and  the colors, especially for my Panasonic, DXO when I want "exact" colors and good optic corrections and for the excellent high ISO Prime treatment, and ViewNx2 for its neutrality with the D7000 Nef.

They all integrate well with my workflow in IMatch. There are certainly better ones for this or that, but I am an amateur and satisfied with what I get with these.

Francis

Menace

Capture One Pro 7:

My (!) personal reasons:

  • I love the "Q"uick-Menu;
  • I'm used to work with;
  • Very fast for me;
  • I like the look of the pictures;
  • I (!!) get better results in Capture One Pro 7 (probably, because I'm used to work with)
  • Adobe already get enough money from me; so I try to spread (?) the money through different vendors

jch2103

DxO user here. As others have noted, in addition to other strengths, it integrates very well with IMatch (and vice versa).
John

Ferdinand

If you tell us what you shoot Ger, we can make additional comments.

I think one of the most important things you can do with a RAW converter is to explore it in depth.  You don't really know what a converter is capable of until you've used it for a while on a range of images.  A lot of comparisons are meaningless, because the defaults are so different, and the way you need to use them to edit an image varies so much.  Often you will find that you can (eventually) get to the same result in different converters, but it's easier to get where you want in some than others.  Sometimes if I'm having trouble with an image I will open it in another converter to see if there are alternative interpretations.

Gerd

Hi,

in my opinion it's more a question of:"How do I find the best ... ". It doen't matter what. It is one of or "problems of this time-periode". A lot of people are spending very much time and secondary costs (e.g. gas ...) to find the "best".

If you use raw-conv. A and you learn how to use it, you will get very good results. If you now use raw-conv. B and learn also, how to use it, you also get very good results. Only if you compare the results of both at pixel-size you will find some (discutable) differences. At the end, for what is it? Do you earn your mony with "creating the best results with the best raw-conv." ???

How many pics do you have, that are worth to be edited as final version in a raw-conv.?

How many programs are available to organize pics? Do you check, if there is a "better and easier" one than IM?

I make it easy: I love to make photo's, I like to organize them. Some of them ( 1% or may be less) are worth to be marked as "very good". I'm using Adobe, because here I get the most help/info's. I'm using IM, because it was the best (in my opinion) pic-organizer years ago and as long as it keeps this way-of-organizing, I will not change. I made some trials with LR, but stopped very quick with it. It costs too much time to chage the workflow.

My advice: use the raw-converter you feel comfortable to work with and be happy!

... only my 2C
_______
Regards
Gerd

cytochrome

One thing for sure: there is nothing like a "bad" converter. I can look at photos in galeries, on the web, or even my own, untill my eyes bleed, there is no way to tell this is from DxO and that one from ASP (that's why Include the info in the JPG name like DSC_001234_ASP.jpg or DSC_001234_DXO.jpg). Its is much easier to spot some lenses like the Tokina 12-24 very warm colors, or the 50/1.8 quite cold. But converter no.

And like Gerd I don't think most of my pix profit that much from my conversion efforts. Some time I shoot raw + jpg and am surprised how close the in camera jpg is from what I brew with DxO, ViewNx2 or ASP. Of course if I want high or low-key, channel mixing, w&b etc... the converters are a must, but this is not so often.

Francis

Gerd

Hi Francis,

and because of this, that not much photo's have a profit of hours moving sliders for and back, it doesn't matter, which converter/program. The only point is, that you can say to yourself: Yes! Now I like the photo! And therefore I do not spend so much time on editing my photo's.

Has someone ever compared a photo on his monitor, when it is displayed in the morning, at lunch-time, in the late afternoon and in the evening (with lights on)?

To make clear, this is only, if it is hobby, for professional work there are other rules counting.
_______
Regards
Gerd

cytochrome

Well Gerd, I agree. As others already said, it is merely a question of ease of use and of mastering the programs. When one wants something different from the camera jpg, like a low-key or HDR, some converters are (to me of course) easier to use. I do 90% with ASP because it is so fast and overall easy to use. There are some very good plugins (one from Ferdinand) and the overall quality is OK for me.

Anyway I find the "numeric" look of so many pictures boring, over sharpened, saturated colors, depth of field from 10 cm to infinite, etc, they look like fast-food advertising. I am sure we are silently  brainwashed (eyewashed?) by being fed day after day vulgar advertisement in magazines and TV. Just my 2 c...

Francis

Menace

Another 2 ct.

After I has started to use "Wallpaper Slideshow", which change in my case every 2 minutes the desktop-Background with one of my photos (two different, because of two monitors), I'm often be suprised of photos, which are old and more an accident, but now (maybe after 1, 2 years) I like them much more. Sometimes is just a mood-stuff, how I convert my photos.

I also am very cautious to change the style of a photo. That's why I'm using film-styles for C1 (which I get free, two years ago; now they cost something), just to get encouraged to try something new. One of my favorite photo I made, was made with an old Ricoh XR-2 and Kodak Dia-Positiv. The picture of a lady beetle: unsharp, strange green color of the flower and a lot of contrast.

Ger

Hi all,

Thanks for all responses. I'm sorry to not respond earlier, but family-related worries prevailed (and will prevail for some time).

I scanned the reactions and they give some great explanations. As stated several times, there's not a best solution. I sometimes compare it with cars. If you have to drive from Paris to Rome, you can do that with a small Volkswagen Up (cheap), Alfa Romeo convertable (fun) or Rolls-Royce (luxurious). In all cases it's no problem to achieve your goal, but the cars will give you a different experience.

I am a pure amateur, shooting most images during my vacation weeks: wildlife in the Kalahari. The images serve a few objectives: having fun taking them and hoping for that one nice shot. Some pictures end up taking space on a disk and being catalogued by IMatch, a subset serves as slide show and/or screen saver; some end up on a (private) website and a few exceptions end up in print and decorate some walls. A few other images are used in (local) brochures and publications.

I currently use Lightroom and my question was related to curiosity on the reasons every user has for a specific tool, like (eg) Ferdinand wrote. I will read all comments more carefully later. Thanks!

Ger

sinus

Quote from: Ger on September 16, 2014, 03:42:22 PM

If you have to drive from Paris to Rome, you can do that with a small Volkswagen Up (cheap), Alfa Romeo convertable (fun) or Rolls-Royce (luxurious). In all cases it's no problem to achieve your goal, but the cars will give you a different experience.
Ger

That is not that clear! I bought an Alfa Romeo and after 2 month the motor gone dead.  :( So I had never reached my goal.  ;D
It was - said my car-compagny - surely a "monday-car".  8)
Best wishes from Switzerland! :-)
Markus

photoken

RawTherapee
The main reason I gave it a good, hard look is that it's free. 

First a little about my requirements, which are a little more difficult than most:  My camera is a Panasonic LF1.  Although its image sensor is large for a compact camera, it's still a small sensor, so my RAW processing app has to be able to extract the utmost detail and quality from the images.

I was very pleased to find that RT does that magnificently, due to the millions of available adjustments.  I shoot using the "classic" 3:2 aspect ratio, so my images are about 4Kpixels x 2.6Kpixels.  I would not hesitate to print the RT output as a "full frame" A4 print.  That is all I would want/expect to do with a small sensor.  (If you ever used a half-frame camera back in the day of film, you'll know what I'm talking about -- if you could accept a maximum print size of 8x10in, the results would be very good.)

RT also has a few other points going for it:  its developers are passionate about photography, and passionate about improving the code.  RT is updated very frequently.

I use PhotoLine for image editing; and because it's so powerful, I don't need RT to have features like multiple gradients or selections.  I simply export the best quality image out of RT as a TIF image and have at it in PhotoLine, if necessary.
Ken
Yes, I think it can be eeeeeasily done....
Just take everything out on Highway 61.

Erik

The problem I find with RAW converters is that it is easy to get rutted in them.

I started with Silkypix.  I think it was one of the best out there (still might be).  It offered corrections for lens distortion, etc before anyone else did.  At the time, you had to make those corrections manually.  LR didn't even have it yet (LR2), and DxO was way too expensive for me.

With LR3, they added the lens distortion corrections AND they had spot healing capabilities.  It was cheaper, and on a test it was quicker and easy to pick up.  The only challenge was its database and integrating it with IM3+.  Thanks to some users here, like Ferdinand and a few other's and their scripts I made it work and stuck with it.

Rawtherapee has been one that I've used off and on over the years.  It's been a backup software for me.  It's pretty good, but the workflow has never come to me.  I've tried it again recently.  I think it is better with lens corrections and detail but it's noise reduction isn't great.  Color adjustments are not as easy as in others.  Noise Reduction is not what I'm used to (but that probably goes with the better detail).  However, I end up needing Photoshop and other software the most with RAW Therapee because of some of these things and the lack of any type of spot healing abilities.

More recently, I began looking again for software that might rid me of a second database, simplify my workflow, and perhaps outperform LR. 

I tried Capture One Pro.  I couldn't wrap my head around it's workflow and file organization.  I thought it might make integration with IM easier, but I gave up on it.  In its defense, I think the output was pretty good. 

Silkypix 6.  It doesn't have a DB, or it's really primitive.  It now has all the features LR has that I like, but it isn't as easy to use.  It's very expensive.

DxO.  I'm liking this one the best.  I'm doing less work and getting pretty good results.  If anything, it's saving me from overprocessing my images.  They look more real.  I've been blindly editing photos here and there with my 5 recent tools and finding that DxO is providing some of the best results.

LR 5.6 is doing OK still, especially if I shoot for color rendering like DXO.  I still feel better with LR because I know it.  LR also has an advantage with all the plugins out there that essentially compensate for its limitations.  I use the NIK software suite a lot and that pretty much makes up for everything.

However, I have purchased a license for DxO and will likely make more use of it.  I like that I can pretty much run any photo I want from IM into it and bypass LR.  I'm struggling with trying to get black and white's out of it, but we'll see.

The only other thing that I still like with LR is the ease of synchronizing edits across photos.  No other software makes it quite that easy that I've seen.  Capture One might, but I didn't get far enough along to see it in action. 

With all this, you can see that trying it all out doesn't necessarily solve anything.  You get some benefits here and other benefits there.  I'm not even sure what's best for me let alone for everyone else.

Mario

Well ;) at least you can always rely on your favorite DAM to work with whatever RAW or image editor you choose.
-- Mario
IMatch Developer
Forum Administrator
http://www.photools.com  -  Contact & Support - Follow me on 𝕏 - Like photools.com on Facebook

Ferdinand

I agree with Erik.  You can go crazy and waste a lot of time trying to compare converters.  Better to choose one and learn it well.  I've done several rounds of this recently only because Fuji RAF does present some specific issues.

To those who say that their converter needs are limited because they make limited edits:  what edits to you typically make? 

ChasS

Yes an old topic, but maybe better keeping as one instead of splitting. I use / used Nikon Capture NX2 as it was relatively quick, gave good results and with its ability to use control points could bring out detail in specific areas needing it. Has a healing brush which eliminated dust bunnies often better than cloaning tools. Can batch process or individual and seldom needed to do anything in PS after.

For me another advantage was that corrections were stored directly in NEF files not as sidecar files. Other raw processors could still work with the NEF files just ignoring the NX2 data, kept disk space tidier and easier to maintain, never had a problem with incompatibility. I think can be set to store separate if wanted.  But ...

I have added a Nikon D810 to my kit and Capture NX2 doesn't support it so in the process of evaluating other raw processors. I do a fairly wide mix of subject matter from underwater, lots of people but also landscape and architecture.

I was turned off DxO by their incessant spamming of my email from a previous trial, their model of yearly fees. Don't want a raw processor which also wants to add in a DAM function or maintain where I store photos, I have that sorted with something talked a lot about here  8) .  Going to give  Rawtherapee a try for a while to see if I can learn to get good results quickly from it and maybe link to GIMP now that it handles 16bit and has evolved a lot on the user interface.

Carlo Didier

Quote from: Ferdinand on September 11, 2014, 04:54:12 PMCapture One Pro 7 - ... One thing I hate is that it makes a mess of your file system by creating a labyrinth of sub-folders with buddy files for every folder with images that it scans.  ...

Hehe, EXACTLY why I very quickly abandoned it ... Otherwise, it gave really good quality results.