[quantum]

Until recently iIused ufraw but I accidentally stumbled upon dxo optics, and so far I like because:
- it seems to improve the amount of detail without any sharpening techniques
- the high iso noise transforms into fine grain
- it does a pretty good job to correct CA and lens distortions
- I really like the fact it can simulate the color rendering of most films and cameras
It may be a short list but as far as raw conversion i really couldn't ask for more.
The downside is it seems to have some kind of auto settings and I always have to deactivate luminance noise reduction and it's auto lightning in most of the cases.
I won't post any images since I can't handle all the aspects in a single post but if someone is interested in any particular area I'll be happy to illustrate using one of my pictures or any dng or pef if you provide a link to it (as long as it's not from the K7 wich isn't supported right yet).
The problem is I don't own it yet (but my brother do) and since I'm set on getting a raw conversion software I'm really interested in what raw software you like and why.

[Canada_Rockies]

I love my DxO as well. My three DA lenses and K10D are fully covered. The body alone even picks up a few tweaks that I like for colour and noise when attached to my other lenses. It is as slow as can be, but I just turn it on and leave it do its thing.

[mithrandir]

I love the simplicity of Lightroom 2.4.

[quantum]

It is as slow as can be, but I just turn it on and leave it do its thing.

I agree, but since I only process pictures I really like it's not really a big deal.

[brecklundin]

I love my DxO as well. My three DA lenses and K10D are fully covered. The body alone even picks up a few tweaks that I like for colour and noise when attached to my other lenses. It is as slow as can be, but I just turn it on and leave it do its thing.

I have never tried DxO but read a lot of folks love it. When I jumped fully into digital I opted for PS CS3 and LR1.4. Now I am still CS3 but LR2.4 and love LR2.4 but still I am interested in how DxO compares. If it is more accurate than LR for the shots I really enjoy enough to want the best process I can apply, then who cares if it is slow. For bulk processing I still am thrilled with LR2.x and it will be there for a long time.

So, have you tried LR2.x side by side with DxO? Of course I understand that even LR2.x is reaching a level of complexity if you want to do more than the basics, that one needs to study it like religion or porn, making it difficult to give a definitive comparison. But I always appreciate your opinions and would love any input you might have in that area.

[quantum]

I don't knor about LR but DxO is very acurate in replicating the colors found in the camera jpeg.

[brecklundin]

I don't knor about LR but DxO is very acurate in replicating the colors found in the camera jpeg.

Thanks....I'll look at it but I shoot RAW for the flexibility in case I goof too much on the shot.

[quantum]

I mean it's really acurate in making the raw file output match the incamera jpeg (I need to learn english better). As far as I know it's only meant to process raw files.

[brecklundin]

I mean it's really acurate in making the raw file output match the incamera jpeg (I need to learn english better). As far as I know it's only meant to process raw files.

I was just coming back to say I misread what you wrote. (Your english is FINE....better than people here in the US who supposedly 'know what to speak good' (that was sarcasm btw...we have more poorly educated people that the government cares to admit...here in California the schools are just abysmal).

I spent some time reading about DxO and reading a couple other forums discussing RAW converters and from what I can see, there is nothing compelling for me in DxO worth the $170-$200. As far as I can tell, it's fine if you have no other RAW converter plus shoot Canon or Nikon. It supports, according to the matrix on the "BUY" page, a total of 8 Pentax lenses, all of them DA's. So, one of the primary features, built in compensation for camera-lens combinations is not of much use. Of course I might have missed the info somewhere.

It looks like a nice and obviously solid performer with it's strengths and weaknesses, but I already have LR2.4, PS CS3 Extended, Canon DPP, and the software that came with my K20D...if I cannot correct it with that assortment of software or a plug-in for LR or PS then I really screwed up the shot. So, for me it does not seem worth it, but for others with needs the software specifically addresses better than other options then it is a nice price on some good software.

Perhaps it would be nice to start a thread to compare RAW conversions. Only RAW conversions no JPG or Photoshop editing...just open the shot in LR, DxO or whatever so people can see the differences. I would find it interesting. I suggest this because asking which software a person uses and why is always going to return rather subjective responses from people who often have never really taken the time to try other packages. Heck even post a link to a couple RAW files for download then let folks use the same image for RAW processing and post a screen shot of the before and after RAW processing in whatever app.

Or instead of posting one or two RAW shots to work on, everyone who posts should also post a link to the original RAW file for the shot they chose so others can see what it looks like in their RAW converter and compare to what someone who knows a different app can achieve.

Anyway, just a suggestion to shed some light on the whole issue of evaluating the options.

Did that make any sense?

I best get moving to pull weeds as I apparently have started a forest in my back yard...if I don't return the native cannibals hiding in there are "having me over" for dinner...

[infosyn]

What RAW capture software do you like?

I've used both Adobe CS2+CameraRaw, and Lightroom 1.x, quite extensively; was continually irritated by Adobe's way of doing things. Also irritated by the 50MB download of Lightroom updates!

I now use Iridient's RAW Developer 1.8.4. (RAW Developer is Mac-only, so if you're stuck using a Windows machine you're out of luck.) You can download a trial version for free from Iridient Digital ; a license is $125. And yes, RAWD 1.8.4, released just a week or so ago, can supposedly read PEFs from a K-7 (although I will have no way to test that claim until next month!

RAW Developer is much easier to use than CameraRaw or Lightroom, and lots faster to load 3-500 DNG or PEF raws because there is no time wasted on creating Lightroom's converted version of each image. RAWD always stores each image's settings in a separate file (I believe this is an option with Lightroom, too, but the settings file extension is different.)

I've found RAWD's output to be simply superior to CameraRaw/Lightroom too, particularly the Sharpening and Noise Reduction, although to be honest that may be more because I just didn't have the patience to struggle with Lightroom ad nauseam. Still, there are sliders in Lightroom you won't find in RAWD, for example the Clarity and Vibrance settings. If you typically use, and understand, ALL of Lightroom's sliders, you'll probably be dissatisfied with RAWD.

RAWD has lots of time-saving features, such as batch processing, view at 100% toggle, Copy and Paste of all settings or just a subset, and crop to dimensions and quality while exporting.

In fact the biggest gripe I have with RAWD is that it only reads raw files -- you can't use it to create JPGs from other JPGs -- so you may still need to drag out Photoshop for post-post-processing like that.

You really ought to give it a try. You can use it to process the same RAW files that you've imported into Lightroom; the two apps can non-destructively share a folder of raws.

[MrApollinax]

For all my needs I use LightZone. The interface is simple to understand and very intuitive.

LightZone lightcrafts

[ddhytz]

PPL and capture One Pro.

[benjikan]

I always use Adobe RAW capture. Probably because I have yet to try anything else and I like how it is integrated in to the who processing package of PS.

Ben

[Rodney9]

Raw Therapee

[quantum]

As brecklundin said, it'd be great to compare all the raw converters using a few raw files, like a kind of mass mini review. I could showcase DxO, ufraw and the Adobe raw capture.