[Breakfastographer]

I appreciate the effort made here. But the premise that someone wishing to develop their images will just leave it up to an Auto or "no adjustment" function in their raw converter/editor for the final image is not valid, imo. If you are going to develop raw images, then you must put in the effort to get the most out of every image. Presets and styles get you close but there will still be tweaks needed for each image.

There is no such premise. In fact, the premise is exactly what you say in your last sentence. The default rendering should give you something you can work with. So my contribution should enable you to rule out programs whose default rendering is pish in your eyes. And how many places can you do that for 23 programs in one go?

[jbinpg]

But a baseline may not have much to do with how you can manipulate the tools available in your editor of choice. It is the end result that matters not the base image in raw development.

[BigMackCam]

I appreciate the effort made here. But the premise that someone wishing to develop their images will just leave it up to an Auto or "no adjustment" function in their raw converter/editor for the final image is not valid, imo. If you are going to develop raw images, then you must put in the effort to get the most out of every image. Presets and styles get you close but there will still be tweaks needed for each image.

There is no such premise. In fact, the premise is exactly what you say in your last sentence. The default rendering should give you something you can work with. So my contribution should enable you to rule out programs whose default rendering is pish in your eyes. And how many places can you do that for 23 programs in one go?

But a baseline may not have much to do with how you can manipulate the tools available in your editor of choice. It is the end result that matters not the base image in raw development.

I also appreciate the effort that has gone into the article... I applaud you for it; and I don't believe @jpinpg was being critical of you. What I think he was alluding to, and what I also believe, is this:

The starting point for files loaded into these different raw developers doesn't represent the possible end point when each piece of software is used by someone with good post-processing skills, specific to the software in use.

I used Lightroom 6 for some time before I realised that it carries out a certain amount of processing by default, over and above application of colour profiles and tone curve, and even if you set all the sliders to have zero effect. When I first trialled Darktable as a possible replacement, I was horrified by how noisy my photos looked by comparison. But that was just the starting point. After a year of using Darktable, I can automatically apply adjustments that give me a very similar result to Lightroom's starting point. Not only that, but I personally prefer the tools on offer and believe I can now get better final results from Darktable in many (but not all) respects than I could from Lightroom. Yet there's more work required to get those results. So, in the end, which is better? Well, it's subjective. It's based on the types of shots I process, how much I want done for me automatically, how much effort I'm prepared to put into processing each photo individually, and a whole bunch of other factors.

To realistically compare each raw developer, you'd need to have equivalent, comprehensive skills in each one in order to show the end point possibilities rather than how things look with default processing (or given merely basic knowledge of a few tools and sliders) Arguably, you'd also need to understand the priorities of a wide range of users. That's some undertaking. Even so, the comparison you've done is still interesting and definitely has some value

[stevebrot]

I thought there would be more diversity out there.

OK, here you go...I have several tools that are capable of RAW processing and a few others that I have tried, but primarily use Adobe Lightroom in part because of the capabilities of the package as a whole and because the other tools I have tried either were not ready for prime time or they simply suck. Here is the rundown...

• Adobe Lightroom -- powerful, flexible, complete with full and uncomplicated support for a color-managed workflow and color profiling, easy pass-through to raster-editors, etc., etc, etc. (I am a modest power-user and leverage most of LR's features. I also am on v6.x and not interested in moving to CC.)
• Affinity Photo (v165.123) -- RAW converter is painfully slow and painful to actually use
• Corel Paintshop Pro X6 -- RAW converter simply sucks, enough so that I have not even looked at Aftershot Pro
• On 1 Photo Raw -- I demo'ed about six months after launch and felt that the product was definitely not ready for prime time on multiple counts. That, the capabilities of the product, and the pricing/update model were enough to give me pause for another year or so, minimum
• dcraw -- there is a reason why Dave Coffin's tool or extensions thereof is used by many Open Source photo imaging projects. It works well despite being quite basic and has sufficient hooks to be quite useful.

In practice, I use Lightroom for the bulk of my RAW processing tasks and dcraw for forensics and low level testing (e.g. evaluating some of the wild claims by users on this site). I use Affinity Photo for raster editing, usually as a pass-through ("edit in") from Lightroom. PaintShop Pro, I use for general image creation/editing even though I really should get a real drawing program.


Steve

[stevebrot]

BTW...Your note regarding supported color spaces for Affinity Photo is in error. Affinity has extensive colorspace support limited only by what is exposed by the operating system. I generally work in the so-called Melissa variant of ProPhoto RGB as a pass-through from Lightroom allowing similar rendering in both tools (Melissa is used by the Develop module). Sandy McGuffog, developer of the dcpTool utility, has made a small collection of common icc profiles available for free download from his Chromasoft site.

ICM Profiles - chromasoft
(link to zip file a little way down the page)

Steve

(...no relation to McGuffog or Chromasoft...)

[Breakfastographer]

You install Adobe's creative cloud apps locally.

The last time I looked into this, CC needed to phone home at least every... 30 days? 90 days? Has anything changed in that regard?

Thanks.

[clackers]

The last time I looked into this, CC needed to phone home at least every... 30 days? 90 days? Has anything changed in that regard?

Thanks.

Nice idea, but in this modern day age of the Internet, I think a review that doesn't consider the important RAW converters on the market is unrealistic and flawed, Breakfastographer.

I mean, to even read your blog one must be online, there's a contradiction there.

[Breakfastographer]

Nice idea, but in this modern day age of the Internet, I think a review that doesn't consider the important RAW converters on the market is unrealistic and flawed, Breakfastographer.

I mean, to even read your blog one must be online, there's a contradiction there.

I suppose I was expecting to get heat for all sorts of reasons. Did I mention you can only read my blog for 30 days? Better hurry.

[clackers]

. Did I mention you can only read my blog for 30 days? Better hurry.

You can mock my opinion, Breakfastographer, but it would be shared by most.

For instance, you submit that article to thirty photography magazines, and you'll get thirty rejections.

If you actually review what people use or are thinking of using, you'd suddenly be back in some editor's consideration.

[kaseki]

I would recommend that column headings be double or triple row to fit the length of the data in their respective columns, and another column be added (or the first column extended) listing all the OS'es that can run some version of the software.

[Larrymc]

There is no such premise. In fact, the premise is exactly what you say in your last sentence. The default rendering should give you something you can work with. So my contribution should enable you to rule out programs whose default rendering is pish in your eyes. And how many places can you do that for 23 programs in one go?

I'm curious if you used the correct DXO Optics Module for your PhotoLab2 evaluation? If not, the non corrected RAW file will not visually be correct and definitely will not be as sharp as it should be.

[Edit] Looking at the photos you have posted its rather obvious that C1 adds a certain degree of "default" sharpening which the other RAW editors possibly don't do.

[Breakfastographer]

I'm curious if you used the correct DXO Optics Module for your PhotoLab2 evaluation? If not, the non corrected RAW file will not visually be correct and definitely will not be as sharp as it should be.

[Edit] Looking at the photos you have posted its rather obvious that C1 adds a certain degree of "default" sharpening which the other RAW editors possibly don't do.

That may be so, but I haven't spotted any haloes.

If I could make a design suggestion to DxO (and Corel, for that matter), it would be to include everything that should be included and not rely on downloading additional stuff from the web. In my mind, the latter approach is not compatible with how photographers may work in the field, but obviously opinions vary on that point - some seem to think that photographers should always be online, and we're asking on an internet forum, so of course answers will be biased.

[UncleVanya]

That may be so, but I haven't spotted any haloes.

If I could make a design suggestion to DxO (and Corel, for that matter), it would be to include everything that should be included and not rely on downloading additional stuff from the web. In my mind, the latter approach is not compatible with how photographers may work in the field, but obviously opinions vary on that point - some seem to think that photographers should always be online, and we're asking on an internet forum, so of course answers will be biased.

You are able to do that. Once the modules are downloaded no call back is needed. I think the trial does a phone home purely to avoid piracy. The modukes can be manually downloaded in Photolab 1 but they are easier to deal with through the automatic recognition for most people.

[Breakfastographer]

[...] The modukes can be manually downloaded in Photolab 1 [...]

And I believe the place where they used to live has been scrubbed from the web, so no dice there.

[UncleVanya]

And I believe the place where they used to live has been scrubbed from the web, so no dice there.

My Photolab 1 isn't crippled and continues downloading new combinations. I'm not certain what you mean. Sorry it is probably obvious but not clicking with me.