garethc
Established
I have Photoshop CS2 which I am using right now to work with Raw files from my R-D1 (with firware upgrade to S).
But, as I see many other people using other software I wonder if people can enlighten me a little as to the pros and cons (probably subjective I guess) of one software package over another.
Thanks in advance for the help...
But, as I see many other people using other software I wonder if people can enlighten me a little as to the pros and cons (probably subjective I guess) of one software package over another.
Thanks in advance for the help...
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
The short answer is that different raw converters produce slightly different effects with some kinds of images, such as those that contain specular reflections or tightly-patterned textures. We had a thread here a while back in which someone posted an image with bright, high-contrast edges, which produced "artifacts" in Adobe Camera Raw (the engine that handles Photoshop's raw conversion) but not in another converter.
Also, different converters have different combinations of features and strengths. For example, a lot of people especially like the way Epson's converter handles black-and-white images, but some feel that Adobe Camera Raw does a better job of handling "hot" or "dead" pixels. Another example: some photographers feel that the default automatic settings of Adobe Camera Raw do a great job on most of their images, while others prefer the extensive numeric manual controls offered by Iridient's Raw Developer.
It's worth trying several to see if one works better with your photography and preferences than another. And if you get a shot that seems tough to handle with your favorite raw-file converter, sometimes it's worth trying it with a different one.
As I said, that's the short answer. For me, the real challenge of a raw workflow is not strictly the conversion aspect, but others such as: how do you edit a selection of shots and choose the best ones? Do you store cropping, white balance, and exposure compensation settings with the raw files, or leave them untouched and save out "processed" files in another format? How do you archive the raw files and catalog them so you can later find one you want? Do you archive multiple versions in Photoshop, TIFF and/or JPEG formats for quick access, or archive just the raw files and generate other formats later as needed?
Full-featured photo management applications such as Apple's Aperture (which doesn't work with R-D 1 raw files) and the Adobe Lightroom beta (which does) are beginning to supply potential answers to these questions, but I think the software industry has a long way to go in coming up with a range of solutions for different photographers' needs and preferences.
So whatever raw-file-management solution you pick now, don't be surprised if you wind up changing to something else in a year or two, when the market becomes more evolved.
Also, different converters have different combinations of features and strengths. For example, a lot of people especially like the way Epson's converter handles black-and-white images, but some feel that Adobe Camera Raw does a better job of handling "hot" or "dead" pixels. Another example: some photographers feel that the default automatic settings of Adobe Camera Raw do a great job on most of their images, while others prefer the extensive numeric manual controls offered by Iridient's Raw Developer.
It's worth trying several to see if one works better with your photography and preferences than another. And if you get a shot that seems tough to handle with your favorite raw-file converter, sometimes it's worth trying it with a different one.
As I said, that's the short answer. For me, the real challenge of a raw workflow is not strictly the conversion aspect, but others such as: how do you edit a selection of shots and choose the best ones? Do you store cropping, white balance, and exposure compensation settings with the raw files, or leave them untouched and save out "processed" files in another format? How do you archive the raw files and catalog them so you can later find one you want? Do you archive multiple versions in Photoshop, TIFF and/or JPEG formats for quick access, or archive just the raw files and generate other formats later as needed?
Full-featured photo management applications such as Apple's Aperture (which doesn't work with R-D 1 raw files) and the Adobe Lightroom beta (which does) are beginning to supply potential answers to these questions, but I think the software industry has a long way to go in coming up with a range of solutions for different photographers' needs and preferences.
So whatever raw-file-management solution you pick now, don't be surprised if you wind up changing to something else in a year or two, when the market becomes more evolved.
wintoid
Back to film
I cannot give an objective answer because I've been using Capture One for nearly 3 years now (on Canon SLRs as well as the RD1) and it feels like an old boot, comfortable and familiar. I own a few converters (Capture One, Photoshop, Rawshooter Premium, Breezebrowser - not for RD1), and have tried a few others Bibble, DCRaw+Gimp.
My brief opinions:
Adobe Camera RAW - very powerful if you know it well. I don't. Seems complicated and I get bad results.
Rawshooter Premium - quick, reasonable interface, I'd use this if I didn't like Capture One so much.
Breezebrowser - old and clunky, or at least my copy is.
DCRaw + Gimp - can't really see what you're doing
Bibble - really quick, very configurable interface, don't really like it
Capture One - seamless workflow, nice conversion to BW, small interface but surprisingly powerful, lovely sharpening.
98% of the time I don't even open Photoshop. Capture One does it all for me. Please bear in mind I'm very biased.
My brief opinions:
Adobe Camera RAW - very powerful if you know it well. I don't. Seems complicated and I get bad results.
Rawshooter Premium - quick, reasonable interface, I'd use this if I didn't like Capture One so much.
Breezebrowser - old and clunky, or at least my copy is.
DCRaw + Gimp - can't really see what you're doing
Bibble - really quick, very configurable interface, don't really like it
Capture One - seamless workflow, nice conversion to BW, small interface but surprisingly powerful, lovely sharpening.
98% of the time I don't even open Photoshop. Capture One does it all for me. Please bear in mind I'm very biased.
pab
Established
I like the Epson RAW program that comes with the R-D1- there is an updated version available on th Epson Europe web site which includes a rudimentary curves tool. With Epson RAW it takes very little work to get the output that you want whereasI never seem to get such good colours, especially skintones, with Photoshop. You may however find that 3rd party sharpening programs do a bit better than the Epson RAW sharpening routine.
kaiyen
local man of mystery
Having played quite a bit now the last 2 weeks with Apeture and Lightroom, I will say that both are potentially big players in exactly this area. Apeture needs to be more aggressive in picking up support for different RAW formats (like the RD1), but overall it's a great product, and right now far more polished than Lightroom (I know, I know. beta).
I am blown away with working with RAW files as if they are jpegs. The speed is quite impressive. And knowing that there is an untouched master is also wonderful.
There is never going to be a tool for everyone, but perhaps someone will make a tool that is good enough to force users to use it, to learn it. Apeture is already close. Lightroom is getting there.
allan
I am blown away with working with RAW files as if they are jpegs. The speed is quite impressive. And knowing that there is an untouched master is also wonderful.
There is never going to be a tool for everyone, but perhaps someone will make a tool that is good enough to force users to use it, to learn it. Apeture is already close. Lightroom is getting there.
allan
Peter Klein
Well-known
I don't have specific experience with the Epson RAW converter, but here's a general comment:
Usually the camera manufacturer's RAW converter gets the best out of the files, but has a slow, clunky user interface. The third-party converters like Bibble and Capture One have really nice, streamlined workflows, but may treat the RAW files more generically. So you may not get the unique qualities of your camera in areas like skin tones, color balance, or maximum detail.
I've been fence sitting with RAW converters, because I don't know what digital camera I'm going to end up with. So I'm reluctant to spend $100 for Capture One LE just yet--that's the one I'd probably choose based on what I know so far.
So for my Olympus E-1, I suffer with the excruciatingly slow Viewer program that came with it. Then I fine-tune results in Picture Window Pro from a TIFF or (often) a JPG if I can get away with it. I have Raw Shooter Essentials, so I'll occasionally use that if I need to do something quickly. Or when fooling with somebody else's DSLR in the never-ending quest for the greener grass on the other side of the fence.
--Peter
Usually the camera manufacturer's RAW converter gets the best out of the files, but has a slow, clunky user interface. The third-party converters like Bibble and Capture One have really nice, streamlined workflows, but may treat the RAW files more generically. So you may not get the unique qualities of your camera in areas like skin tones, color balance, or maximum detail.
I've been fence sitting with RAW converters, because I don't know what digital camera I'm going to end up with. So I'm reluctant to spend $100 for Capture One LE just yet--that's the one I'd probably choose based on what I know so far.
So for my Olympus E-1, I suffer with the excruciatingly slow Viewer program that came with it. Then I fine-tune results in Picture Window Pro from a TIFF or (often) a JPG if I can get away with it. I have Raw Shooter Essentials, so I'll occasionally use that if I need to do something quickly. Or when fooling with somebody else's DSLR in the never-ending quest for the greener grass on the other side of the fence.
--Peter
Hibbs
R.I.P. Charlie
Its gonna be interesting to see how things shape up now that Pimantec is in the Adobe stable.
http://www.pixmantec.com/
~hibbs
http://www.pixmantec.com/
~hibbs
Aurelius
Well-known
Peter Klein said:
I think the PS RAW converting processes is quite nice to use with .ORF files (E-1). The Olympus Studio software is IMHO clumsy and not so fast.
But the R-D1s RAW Plug-in is the slowest of them all ... The result is nice though.
sf
Veteran
I can't imagine a better program to use for working with RAW files than CS2. My vote would be to stick with what you've got - especially given its pricetag.