Raw converters

[RichC]

Has anyone compared the raw converters that can handle R-D1 files?

I've tried Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), Epson Photo-Raw (EP) and RawShooter Pro (RSP). I prefer RSP as (1) I'm familiar with it (it was my default converter for Canon 10D files until I sold the 10D) and (2) I think the conversions look better than those from ACR and EP.

So, I'm particularly interested in Capture One and Bibble, since I haven't tried those yet.

I will download trials of Capture One and Bibble, but in the meantime I'd be interested in your thoughts on any aspect of raw conversion of R-D1 files...

 

[RichC]

Oh, and your tips/preferences for raw converter settings for R-D1 files would be handy too...

 

[ed wozniak]

I've only been shooting with an R-D1 for a few weeks now, and I've only used the Epson Raw converter on these files. What is it about the other ones that make you prefer them? I'm curious as I'd like to make my workflow a little simpler.

Thanks

 

[jlw]

Iridient's Raw Developer is worth a look, too. The interface isn't as clear as that of the Epson converter, but it offers a lot of numerical control.

I generally use Adobe's ACR just for productivity reasons -- I generally need to do "rough-cut" editing of a lot of shots in a short time, and the ability to handle cropping and exposure settings non-destructively in Bridge is a real time-saver. But it's always nice to have other options for those occasions when ACR just doesn't give you the look you want.

 

[nksyoon]

What is it about the other ones that make you prefer them? I'm curious as I'd like to make my workflow a little simpler.

A couple of things I like about Raw Shooter Premium:

1. It seems to automatically remove chromatic aberration/purple fringing (usefulness depends on lenses you use).

2. Noise reduction is pretty good - I find Adobe Camera Raw less good at handling noise, especially if you have to boost exposure.


Cheers,
Nick

 

[RichC]

What is it about the other ones that make you prefer them? I'm curious as I'd like to make my workflow a little simpler.

First, familiarity - I bought RawShooter about a year ago for my Canon 10D, so I'm used to it. I chose RSP for use with my Canon because its interface is very intuitive, and fast - a lot of raw converters, like Canon's proprietary raw converter (DPP), take an age to load thumbnails and display changes you make to an image. I also like RSP's colours.

RSP images can look a bit flat and insipid using the default settings, but minor tweaking fixes this, and images can be produced with natural-looking colour and good tonal range and contrast.

(PS: anyone want to buy the RSP Color Engine half price for use with dSLRs (legit sale!) - no longer of use to me as it's not compatible with the R-D1? PM me.)

ACR can produce similar images to RSP, but it takes more work to make them look as punchy whilst retaining good shadow and highlight detail.

Epson Photo-Raw - yukk! Admittedly, I only tried a few test images, and didn't play around with the settings much. However, I found the interface clunky and limited, and I don't like the colour, which seems oversaturated with a cyan cast (at least on the few photos I converted), and the shadows are harsh and blocked in. (NB: before anyone asks, my monitor is colour calibrated, with a Pantone Spyder)

Pls bear in mind that these observations are based on (a) the raw converters' settings not being changed much from default (I want a raw converter that can produce images I like with minimal effort!) and (b) I may well be used to the look of my Canon 10D photos, since that was all I used for 3 years!

Here are three images I converted the other day. All settings in the converters were at their defaults, i.e. no tweaking (so, they could be improved on and made to look more similar). Of these, the RSP image is closest to how I recall the actual scene looking.

Epson Photo-Raw:

ACR:

RSP:

 

[zetablues]

Rich, thanks for the very informative pics including contribution!
In all converters the auto adjustmensts are disabled? ("Default" settings possibly include a little auto tweaking?)
In all three examples the converter indicates the original camera settings?
For my taste I like EPR (apart from the color cast and a little bit too contrasty) and ACR best. RSP has a detail loss e. g. of the clouds at the horizon (a bit too bright and flat?, looks "digital"?).
Just my two cents.
Cheers

 

[teemu.laine]

I´ve used many converters from Adobe Camera Raw to Capture One´s C1 and Pixmantec´s Rawshooter Essentials & Premium. I´ll have to say, that with my Nikon D70 & D1h RAWs RSP is my only choice. With C1 and Camera Raw I got somehow really really soft results, but with RSP my final pictures look fantastic! I also like RSP´s user interface and it´s noise reduction works pretty well when I need it.

 

[zetablues]

addendum:

Rich, you are looking for the "best" "default-setting"-converter to simplify your workflow, isn't it? Yes, it's necessary to process hundreds of pics for a job within few days (if maximum quality isn't needed or the shots are mostly "perfect"). Based on your samples ACR seems to be the best compromise IMO (at least for ERF-files).
Regards

 

[Viktor]

I think that choosing your raw converter based on how its default settings are, is strange. It is like going into the darkroom and just put in a negative and sheet of paper and then blame the enlarger if it turns out the aperture and time settings are wrong. The whole idea of a raw converter is that you are free to interpret your raw image whichever way you want, and save these settings as your default. And you only need to do this once! I personally use ACR (and the DNG format for practical reasons), because I think it is the fastest and most versatile raw converter. It supports almost every raw format, it is precise (even allows you to build specific profiles for individual cameras if you want), and used with CS2 and Brigde it is a great workflow tool.

 

[brightsky]

Thanks for the comparisons. I'd like EPR w/o the blue cast best, followed by ACR.

I've gradually noticed the blue cast in EPR and have tried to adjust for it.

One thing I know for sure - I'm tired of buying several software packages to handle the process. It adds up quickly and reduces my mad money for developing or equipment.

 

[RichC]

I think that choosing your raw converter based on how its default settings are, is strange.

Not necessarily - there is some logic to this!

First, although certain aspects of a raw conversion are easily addressed if you don't like the converter's default appearance (e.g. exposure, saturation and contrast), some raw converters can create artefacts that are difficult to remove. For example, colour differences can be impossible to correct without further work in Photoshop (RSP made Canon 10D reds too pink until I bought the Color Engine add-on); and I've just tried Bibble, which has a tendency to treat "blown" areas (e.g. sunsets with very bright clouds) unsympathetically compared with RSP and ACR.

Secondly, if a raw converter gets the conversion "right" at or close to the default settings, then that means less time at the computer (not all converters allow all settings to be saved, so that an easily applied "conversion recipe" can be applied to any photo as a base from which to start conversions).

In all converters the auto adjustmensts are disabled?

Yes, all three examples are converted at their default settings with no auto-adjustment.