Originally posted by Breakfastographer This is a nice idea that I've also had. My concern with it is that you're going to be biasing the result towards a particular JPEG result that may have been achieved with a particular software (thus you'd have to exclude that software from that round), and some results may be easier with some pieces of software while others may be easier with others. Who is to say what's correct?
Correct. But it may be better than biasing software based on their defaults. Using a software at its defaults almost defeats the purpose of shooting RAW in the first place, and most people are using the software to make adjustments or perfect the image. But, yes, one would have to choose a program to exclude, but alternatively, one could shoot in RAW+JPG mode and use the JPG as a target. Or, one could shoot with a different camera or even a Phone. But, I don't think it is about correct, and it is about what is easier. I use 2 or 3 raw converters because under certain situations my chosen software (currently DxOPhotoLab) isn't easy all the time, but for my usage it is easy >95% of the time.
But it is useful to know, even if you are a fanboy of a software, where it shines and where it doesn't. My biggest concern is getting the exposure/histogram acceptable as easily as possible. I want a software that is good at highlight recovery, shadow recovery, curve adjustments, etc. I also like a software that allows me to easily work with white balance and color balance.
Quote: Let me give y'all an example that might help to illustrate this point. For a while, I really wanted to give Silkypix a chance. I had a copy of the full version either from a giveaway or through a discount (it mostly seems to go for $39 these days). I like the colours from Silkypix, and I had a food photography assignment for which the initial result with Silkypix was good, I just thought it needed some tweaking. So I started doing that, tried in Silkypix, couldn't get what I needed. Exported and worked on it some more in some raster graphics editor (may have been Affinity or GIMP). No dice. Put it into Capture One, started massaging it there. Tried to implement what I was learning from Capture One in Silkypix. No such luck. Eventually realised that the result I'd obtained in Capture One was near-perfect, and went with that.
But here's the catch: could I have gotten the same result from Capture One if I hadn't tried Silkypix first? Probably not. Could I have gotten as good a result from Silkypix if I hadn't worked with Capture One in parallel? Probably also no. Could I have gotten a good idea of the end result from either program if all I had seen was the default render? Absolutely yes. Even in the default render, the parts whose saturation I would battle with in Silkypix were obvious. And equally it was obvious that the initial result from Silkypix was naively quite appealing, and that Capture One gave an overall more balanced render.
So the value of a review like this is to give you a realistic idea what to expect, not to cover every possible angle.
The problem with the type of reviews provided, is that it seems the reviews are focused on the default rendering and not working with the software. Your example above is valid, and it will be for any user plugging software A and software B against each other. There are really a lot variables, and the fact that so many people swear by so many different software is proof that many of them are good. I really think the best program is the one that works best for the user. It is the user who takes the photos (and of course photos can vary by whether you shoot portraits, landscapes, astrophotography, street photography, macros, etc). It is the user who has to drive the software from open to export/end-product.
That being said, I don't want to discount the default rendering in a software. It is part of what makes me like DxO. However, where LR is somewhat lacking on its defaults, it gets made up for in straightforward tools. And when processing a lot of photos, it is really easy to copy develop settings from one image to another, or make presets, or set new defaults, etc.
As i mentioned in the previous post, there is no perfect way to make these comparisons, and it probably takes a dedicated user a year to really get to know a program.