[chrisrussell]

Hi

I have 2 questions and I'd appreciate your opinions.

1) Besides GUI, is there a difference in quality between different RAW processing applications?

2) In your opinion, what would you recommend to be the best overall RAW processing application?

Many thanks - look forward to your responses.

Cheers

Chris

[Peter Zack]

Welcome to the forums. I am by no means a guru when it comes to software but there are differences. You'll see colour shifts and a number of other issues between platforms. As an example, I used the raw loader in Paint.net for awhile and it added a yellow tint to every shot. I fine ACR in Photoshop to be excellent and also the Silkypix provided by Pentax to be very good (although slow).

[tybeck]

Yes, the output is different. You should find several threads on this forum on that topic. Opinions differed about which program is "the best." Which one is best for you is going to depend on your own tastes. All of the decent programs I know of have demo versions that you can try out for at least a few weeks and a few are free. I'd pick a set photos that represent a range in your photography and process them using several programs. See which results you like. There are also reviews all over the Internet covering the programs. Sometimes reading someone else's opinion can help you make a decision.

[Marc Sabatella]

In my opinion, th differecnes in output exist but are *miniscule* in important compared to the difference in the amount of control they provide and the degree of flexibility they offer. It goes way beyond just a difference in GUI, which implies they just label their buttons differently or something trivial like that.

[mysticcowboy]

In my opinion, th differecnes in output exist but are *miniscule* in important compared to the difference in the amount of control they provide and the degree of flexibility they offer. It goes way beyond just a difference in GUI, which implies they just label their buttons differently or something trivial like that.

I beg to differ, Marc. Interface can vary vastly and make a real difference in workflow. I find that definitely non-trivial. Yes, it's possible to get the final output from raw files to look virtually identical with different programs but the effort involved can make post processing either a joy or a trial.

As a long time Mac user I was predisposed to love Aperture. I've spent a month each with all three versions and found myself continually frustrated with the program. I know it's a perfectly fine program. Others love it. I find it a chore to use. I had a similar experience with Bibble. I know it's also a fine program, and I really don't like the workflow or the default raw conversion it produces. I do like Capture One but am not willing to pay for it. So I use ACR.

Do my photos look better because I use it over another converter. I doubt it. Am I much happier because its buttons and sliders work in an intuitive way for me? Absolutely.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

[Parallax]

I think ACR, a component of Photoshop and Lightroom is as good as it gets.

[jeffkrol]

Hi

I have 2 questions and I'd appreciate your opinions.

1) Besides GUI, is there a difference in quality between different RAW processing applications?

Technically yes. They can have different "demosiac" algorithms, different default tone curves, different sharpening methods, ect.
Many are tweaked versions of common backbones..
The best are said to use "floating point" math instead of the usual integer calculations.. arguable point but floating point slows things down quite a bit...
As a small point of reference;
Demosaicing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Technically it comes down to the one "you like"..... as to all factors.

2) In your opinion, what would you recommend to be the best overall RAW processing application?
There all "good"....

Chris

It depends on needs.. speed, accuracy... volume.. color fidelity.. what you want to do "after conversion"..... bells and whistles..ect.
Hasn't been built yet.....
http://www.libraw.org/about

[rhodopsin]

DCRaw works very well on the command-line; learning curve is steep but short.

Camera manufacturer software works well in many cases.

Photoshop (and Elements) RAW converter works well.

[newmikey]

DCRaw works very well on the command-line; learning curve is steep but short.

Camera manufacturer software works well in many cases.

Photoshop (and Elements) RAW converter works well.

I would like to echo that sentiment although I use UFRaw, which basically is DCRaw with a GUI slapped onto it. (and some other stuff like curves, blackpoint etc.)

Both DCRaw and UFRaw are raw developers in their most basic and natural form - they "develop" the raw negative and assume you'd want to use your favorite pixel editor to actually make other changes. Other, some say more "sophisticated", raw editors merely mix the function of raw development with bits and pieces from image editing- and cataloging software. They may dazzle you with features, but the core will be very similar to identical.

In the end, the problem is more often between chair and keyboard than with your choice of software. A fine touch and knowledge of your software (coming from reading up and pushing it to its limits) will deliver a good image regardless of the type of software. I know people than can make Photoshop or Adobe programs that cost a bundle do things that make your eyes hurt and your mind go blank! I also know people that can make any image editing software sing, dance and make coffee all at the same time, regardless of the type of software, choice of OS or language version.

Mike

[patrickw]

I beg to differ, Marc. Interface can vary vastly and make a real difference in workflow. I find that definitely non-trivial. Yes, it's possible to get the final output from raw files to look virtually identical with different programs but the effort involved can make post processing either a joy or a trial.

As a long time Mac user I was predisposed to love Aperture. I've spent a month each with all three versions and found myself continually frustrated with the program. I know it's a perfectly fine program. Others love it. I find it a chore to use.

That was pretty much my experience with Aperture as well: predisposed to love it, couldn't come to terms with the interface/ergonomics of the program.

I ended up with Lightroom, which conversely I took to like a fish in water.

[patrickw]

1) Besides GUI, is there a difference in quality between different RAW processing applications?

2) In your opinion, what would you recommend to be the best overall RAW processing application?

Chris, incidentally I posted a couple of days ago some RAW images developed in both Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2 in the thread in this forum about "Pentax skies seem too green" (or something along those lines...). If you look at those pictures, that will give you some idea of how two different pieces of software can indeed render the same RAW file in slightly different ways... and maybe it will give you some idea which one you like the looks of better, or even if you care about those sorts of relatively small differences.

[mysticcowboy]

Chris, incidentally I posted a couple of days ago some RAW images developed in both Aperture 2 and Lightroom 2 in the thread in this forum about "Pentax skies seem too green" (or something along those lines...). If you look at those pictures, that will give you some idea of how two different pieces of software can indeed render the same RAW file in slightly different ways... and maybe it will give you some idea which one you like the looks of better, or even if you care about those sorts of relatively small differences.

I've been following that other thread and have been looking into raw conversion a bit. You'll get the most accurate conversion with a custom profile. Adobe Camera Raw, Apertute, Bibble and CameraOne all allow you to create one. Once you do that, including white balance, the color results should be close to identical.

The problem is that no generic profile will fit each camera. Even two models of the same camera may have slightly different color curves. So my K20D may be slightly different from yours. Lenses definitely introduce white balance differences too. My 18-200 is slightly warmer than my 100 mm macro. My 50 mm 1.7 registers between them in temperature. Also each camera model will react to different light sources differently. In daylight my camera shifts blue slightly towards green. Under incandescent lights it doesn't. (Thanks for the pointer, Phil).

Then there's contrast. Aperture's converter introduces slightly more contrast to my PEFs than ACR. The Pentax software looks more like Aperture, but I don't like the workflow for either.

I've been practicing with creating custom conversion profiles for ACR/Lightroom, which gives me a more pleasing conversion than the default one. From what I've been reading, the best profile will come from setting up a custom profile from a calibrated color chart, like you see in dpreview.com. I've ordered one and will see how much that improves my conversions.

michael mckee
My Port Townsend – A City in Photographs – 365

[Marc Sabatella]

I beg to differ, Marc. Interface can vary vastly and make a real difference in workflow. I find that definitely non-trivial.

OK, it's possible for that to be the case, but I am not sure you're really talking about just the "GUI" - I think you're talking about the same sorts of things I am talking about: the actual features of the program and how they work. In particular, when you mention the term "workflow", that puts you squarely in agreement with me: that's what I'd claim it's all about. And this in stark contrast to how the OP seemed to be characterizing interfaces differences - by using the word "GUI",
it seems he is *not* talking about workflow at all but mere details of how the menus and buttons are labeled. Granted, that *can* make a difference, but I think we both would agree it's not about labeling - it's about workflow.