Epson Raw 1.2 > LR. But does it work on Intel Macs?

[mani]

Last night I tried a v quick comparison between Epson Raw Processor 1.2 (which I'd actually only briefly looked at before, and rejected because it seemed kinda old and clunky-feeling), and the latest version of Lightroom (which I really like and which feels really new and smooth). I first posted here - but that's a wedding thread.

To my shock the Epson results were much better - I post a stupid screenshot here again because I'm away from my home computer and will try to post an area that's in-focus and detailed later - this oof area just happened to be where the screen-grab was.

But even in this area the colors were better - but most of all, the Epson preserves differentiation and grain where the Lightroom version posterizes large areas into undifferentiated mush.

These were straight through images at default settings - and now I realize I should zero Lightroom's default Reduce Noise setting to see if it helps - but the image overall just looks much better in the Epson Raw version! (even better than this png screengrab compressed as jpeg would suggest).

3 questions:

1. I'd like people's views on the different Raw processors (including Capture One and Aperture)

2. Since I was thinking about buying an Intel MacBook Pro soon, I now need to know if Epson Raw works on Intel Macs (I doubt this) 🙁

3. Is there a later version than 1.2 of the Epson Raw processor - I saw someone mentioned 1.3 on this forum - I haven't found it.

Many thanks!!

 

[mani]

Oh - it appears you can't attach the same image in two different post - so here's a link to the image I'm discussing above.

 

[LCT]

I've only used the Epson raw converters and plug-ins so far so i can be of little help sorry.
Here's the link to EPSON PhotoRAW Utility v1.30A:
http://epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/supp...9164277&infoType=Downloads&platform=Macintosh
Edit: According to the Epson site, EPSON PhotoRAW Utility v1.30A works with 'Intel-based Macs with OS X (v10.4.4 - 10.4.9)'.
Works fine with OS 10.4.11 on my G5 and PB G4 BTW.

 

[yanidel]

fully agree with you. Epson raw produces much better pictures than Lightroom in raw as the shooting settings are incorporated. The problem is nevertheless that the raw file loses some of its special look when converted to JPG in Epsonraw. I would love to be able to print directly out of Epson Raw in the raw format, but this is not possible. So in the end I shoot in Raw + JPG and if white balance is ok, I just process the JPG in lightroom as the Epson Raw conversion will basically be the same as the in-camera engine.

 

[ChristianW]

You should try it with a third program. A possible scenario is that the Epson software enhances the colors and do some sharpening and that Lightroom does nothing.

Edit: About the look of exported JPGs, do you use the right color profile? sRGB should normaly be used for normal viewing.

 

[mani]

Many thanks LCT! I did some exhaustive Googling for these keywords and didn't find this page... 😕

Thanks to the Christian and Yanide too!
I agree I need to do some more thorough testing - but I don't have Aperture and I think my Capture One trial will have expired by now. So if anyone else has these converters and is able to do some comparisons I'd really appreciate it.

The images looked very different even when I simply placed the preview windows from Lightroom and Epson Raw beside each other on my screen: the Epson preview showed nice granular detail and rich color (almost a more 3-dimensional effect in the image), while the Lightroom image in comparison looked brown, flat and blocked in areas of fine detail.

I'm extremely confused now - the images were very good before, I thought. But they are even better from Epson Raw. And even the black&white conversion looked very, very good in Epson Raw.

But I intended to upgrade my G4 laptop to an Intel machine soon - in part to deal with the demands of raw photo-processing. Darnit. 🙁

Anyways, as for exporting - I always export to Photoshop as 16bit tiffs and prepare for printing or web output from there - so the jpeg output isn't a problem.

 

[mani]

LCT - I just re-read your entry after the edit - great news that epson Raw works with Intel Macs anyway! Thanks!

I'll maybe drop Epson a line and see if they have any views on OSX 10.5 (Leopard). The new macs come with this installed.

The trials of choosing a somewhat marginalized camera... 🙄

 

[MCTuomey]

New R-D1 owner here, marking interest because I don't have the Epson converter and am looking for options. I have ACR and DPP, will look into Iridient Digital's.

 

[Gid]

I can't offer any help with alternatives to Epson Raw or Lightroom, but I can say that I agree the output from Epson Raw is superior to Lightroom in all respects, but particularly black & white.

 

[mani]

Thanks guys for the input! I'll take a look at Iridient imants - what particularly do you like about the output?

I must say, as a sidenote - naturally a lot of the judgement about different RAW converter 'looks' is subjective. For instance, maybe the Epson converter does sharpen and enhance the saturation of images. But what bothered me in the comparison was that suddenly I could see more nuances of detail and color that Lightroom appeared to have lost from the image entirely.

As RAW is supposed to be the equivalent of a 'negative', that really bothers me.

Thanks again for all the input so far.

 

[sonwolf]

I have converted R-D1 raw files with Epson Raw, Adobe Camera Raw CS3, Capture One 4, and Bibble. For my eyes, Capture One 4 displays the best color profile for the R-D1. I also like how the Film Curves produce a more “film” like tonality. The one down side is no vignetting correction. If I need to deal with the vignetting, I make the correction with Photoshop’s vignetting control. Since my lenses produce only light vignetting, I usually just ignore the issue.

 

[Tuolumne]

But has anyone noticed how slow Epson Raw is? It even scrolls through file list slowly. Anyone know why?

/T

 

[LCT]

But has anyone noticed how slow Epson Raw is? It even scrolls through file list slowly...

No, which version do you use?

 

[Tuolumne]

I've only used the Epson raw converters and plug-ins so far so i can be of little help sorry.
Here's the link to EPSON PhotoRAW Utility v1.30A:
http://epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supDetail.jsp?BV_UseBVCookie=yes&oid=48361&prodoid=49164277&infoType=Downloads&platform=Macintosh
Edit: According to the Epson site, EPSON PhotoRAW Utility v1.30A works with 'Intel-based Macs with OS X (v10.4.4 - 10.4.9)'.
Works fine with OS 10.4.11 on my G5 and PB G4 BTW.

Is there a new version available for Windows? My Windows version is 1.21.

/T

 

[LCT]

Is there a new version available for Windows? My Windows version is 1.21.

Don't use PCs sorry but the last version for Windows seems to be your #1.21 according to the Rich Cutler's site. I wonder if the latter has been updated though as it does not refer to the #1.30 Mac version.

 

[Tuolumne]

Don't use PCs sorry but the last version for Windows seems to be your #1.21 according to the Rich Cutler's site. I wonder if the latter has been updated though as it does not refer to the #1.30 Mac version.

Too bad if it hasn't been updated. This version is so slow that I only use it when I really have no other choice.

/T

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hmm, interesting. No "this is the beginning of the end for Epson" posts 😱

Does the DNG converter support Epson RAW files?

 

[Tuolumne]

Don't use PCs sorry but the last version for Windows seems to be your #1.21 according to the Rich Cutler's site. I wonder if the latter has been updated though as it does not refer to the #1.30 Mac version.

Rich stopped updating his site some time ago. Moved on to other things. I don't think he visits here any more.

/T

 

[mani]

I feel that it's treatment of the mid tones as well as the shadows is superior. More flexability in colour rendering. If I have a chance I'll post 3 versions of the same image tonight

Thanks imants! And everyone else too!

I had to do some extra work tonight, so haven't had time to do the comparisons thoroughly yet - but I quickly opened a portrait in Epson, and somehow the skintones looked a little harsh. But it was difficult, mixed lighting - so hard to say.

Even so, the image next to the Lightroom version seriously looked like 2 totally different photographs.

Incidentally, turning all noise suppression to zero in LR still didn't bring back all the detail I see in Epson Raw - that's really frustrating and disappointing frankly. 🙁

 

[LCT]

Direct from raw converters.
Pics 1 & 2: IRIDIENT's RAW Developer 1.7.2
Pics 3 & 4: EPSON PhotoRAW Utility v1.30A
Real colors were like Epson's minus about 5% red lightness.
(R-D1, 200 iso, Summilux 50/1.4 asph, f/11)