What's your best RAW converter?

[dEARlEADER]

Cool, this is turning a little off topic, but into a VERY interesting conversation.




I also suggest to you that you are NOT showing an example of "exposing to the right". On a histogram, exposure "amounts" are not displayed right to left, but top to bottom.

The term exposing to the right came out looooooooong before digital histograms ever existed and this was where you increased the overall exposure of the entire pic and relied on film's ability to not lose detail due to the higher dynamic range of the picture.

Now, if in some cases digital photographers are now calling moving that little mountain in their histogram so that it is more on the right than the left, this is SO not the same technique that it really should not be called this. Technically it is not the same thing.

In film, we are moving those up past the "255 level" because we can, and in post process, bringing it back down. In digital, you are just always hopefully staying within the boundaries of the dynamic range of the media... but increasing the exposure a little, becuase once you are above that 255 area, there is no coming back... like you could in film. That is the entire reasoning for the existence of "exposing to the right".

Jerry, what in gods name are you talking about? Exposing to the right is "moving the little mountain so it's more on the right". There is more tonal value available on the right side of the histogram. This is why you push your image to there... to preserve MORE detail. You then bring the image back to center in post.

Exposing to the right is a perfectly acceptable practice shooting digitally. Done properly it provides a advantage to the user. To argue about is to argue about math.

 

[dtornabene1]

Thanks again everyone! I want to get this back on topic, so I am going to try to recap a bit. Please correct me if you feel I am in error.

Best ways to go would be Lightroom (including any Adobe product) or Aperture. I have seen some positive responses for Phase One, but not overwhelming. For get bibble or other software.

Think I have the pulse of the crowd. Two last questions, ksmattfish posted ...I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock! ... Is this different than in Photoshop? Lastly, is the above paragraph fairly on the money?

Thanks floks!

-Nick

 

[MikeBcos]

Two last questions, ksmattfish posted ...I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock! ... Is this different than in Photoshop? Lastly, is the above paragraph fairly on the money?

Thanks floks!

-Nick

The graduated filter and adjustment brush both exist in Photoshop CS4's Camera Raw.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Lastly, is the above paragraph fairly on the money?

-Nick

Hey Nick FWIW I forgot to mention LR2 for me as well..

If the above paragraph you were referring to is regarding my statement re expose right than hopefully someone will back me up...

The 4096 tonal variations on a 12 bit image are not equally divided across the histogram. The first stop (highlights) contain half of the tonal data and subsequent stops diminish by half all the way down to the bottom. The left side of the histogram contains the fewest tonal variations, this is why they posterize when you try to bring them up. You can record more tonal information by pushing the image to the right where the action is.

 

[Ls3D]

hopefully someone will back me up...

Well since it is in essence my back you are covering, I've got a nine in my right back pocket, the chamber is clear but the safety is off :thumbup:, so be sure to take two quick exposures, to the right of my head

Experience has shown me that if you try to recover shadow detail in a typical exposure you get way more noise than if you shot a bit hot and adjust down. The physics, math & history are interesting, but I'm a simple shooter looking for that special feeling when a shot looks good and then a few seconds latter looks great. The data in the hot image is much nicer to work with, if as was pointed out, it is not blown. Of course I don't always shoot and apply this technique.

OP - Get LR for a cheaper upgrade path, or PS if you are inclined to edit and utilize the broader toolset.

-Shea

 

[tsaraleksi]

Thanks again everyone! I want to get this back on topic, so I am going to try to recap a bit. Please correct me if you feel I am in error.

Best ways to go would be Lightroom (including any Adobe product) or Aperture. I have seen some positive responses for Phase One, but not overwhelming.

-Nick

I would say that you ought to try out trials of these programs (most, if not all, are available as free trials) and decide for yourself, rather than relying on the opinions of random people on the internet. Most of these programs work fairly well, it's more about what you prefer in a piece of software that should dictate what you use.

 

[dtornabene1]

Hey Nick FWIW I forgot to mention LR2 for me as well..

If the above paragraph you were referring to is regarding my statement re expose right than hopefully someone will back me up...

For the most part. Today's cameras handle noise better than ever. Even with that said, you are absolutely fundamentally correct. With any digital sensor you want to favor the right of the histogram. Back down in pp and remove lots of noise and improve contrast.

Finally, yes I can use the software and try myself. Even owning software, it is unlikely I would find all the nuances which makes one software better than another. This is why I ask for everyone's opinion.

Thank you all again. I think I have enough. On to my next thread...

-Nick

 

[JerryPH]

Whatever it is Jerry, it's working for me!

:thumbup: Heck yes. Final results are all that matter, no matter if you call it exposing to the right or adding softener to the rinse cycle... lol

I'll ignore your questions this time so as not to derail the thread, hope you understand.

Sure, no prob. I did pull it off topic, sorry.


Also just to get back a little on topic, ACR for PS CS3 is of a lower and incompatible version than for PS CS4. LR, when updated to the latest (as of this post), uses ACR v.5.2 which is the higher version that comes with PS CS4.

 

[Ls3D]

Also just to get back a little on topic...

Good to know, I can't cheat forever.

-S

 

[MikeBcos]

Also just to get back a little on topic, ACR for PS CS3 is of a lower and incompatible version than for PS CS4. LR, when updated to the latest (as of this post), uses ACR v.5.2 which is the higher version that comes with PS CS4.

And to add to this, ACR for PS CS3 cannot be updated to the latest version, CS3 will always be missing some tools, including the graduated filter and adjustment brush.

I have come to the conclusion that those two tools alone make the upgrade to CS4 worth it.

 

[Ls3D]

If some 'upgraded' CSC opened my 5Dm2 RAW files I would not miss those tools you like so much. I tried some updated codec that mentioned my camera, but no luck.

Is there some incremental upgrade or patch to CS3 that you are referring too? Test file HERE, after the upload.

-Shea

 

[vendorinquiries]

If you are considering raw conversion only- then the best is DxO Optics Pro (now at 5.3). Hands down they do the best demosaicing of most raw files.

If you're a Nikon user Capture NX2 will give the best overall results right out of the processing engine because they have access to proprietary information about the NEF file that other converters cannot access.

But for pure raw conversion DxO has the best demosaicing algorithm and produces the cleanest files with the least artifacts. All raw converters basically have all the adjustments (shadow/highlight recovery, noise reduction, white balance, exposure, etc) and are able to fine tune an image. Some are better than others but most all popular programs are competent at it. Raw conversion is a completely different story. It is wholly dependent on the mathematical algorithm written into the code of the software program. Whoever produces the least artifacts gets the best picture because artifacts cannot be "adjusted" out of an image.

But "best" is subjective. Most everyone is willing to sacrifice some image quality for effect or workflow advantage in order to get what is best for THEM. I use Lightroom for workflow but would never use Adobe's raw conversion. Check out...

DxO Optics Pro: A RAW converter that breaks the rules

Digital Camera RAW Converter Comparisons with Canon 1Ds Mark II & 20D Images

Comparison of various RAW demosaicing methods

Hope this is helpful.

 

[AUZambo]

Depends on the brand, however my personal fav is PS CS3 (soon CS4).

Agreed. My sony came with something that worked okay, but was very limited in it's capabilities. Basically all it was good for was making adjustments to white balance, exposure compensation, and curves.

CS3 does so much more.

 

[Mystwalker]

Currently, Canon's DPP - FREE.

Would like to learn (move to) Lightroom, but have not found time to sufficiently "test drive it" - limited time I did have to play with it (trial period) left me confused and running back to DPP.

 

[ksmattfish]

With film people had their favorite film/developer combos, and some folks were always trying new things looking for some magic combo (I did it too). In the end I found that the best results came from picking one combo, and using it until I really knew how it was going to turn out. It mattered less what the label said, and more what my experience level with the materials was.

With Raw software I find it the same. I hear this program or that program is better, but when I compare a raw processor I know vs one I don't I always get better results from the one I'm familiar with. When (if ever) I catch up on work I really want to spend some time learning some other programs so I can do an accurate personal assessment. Until then I'm sticking with ACR.

I've seen a few software comparisons (resizing, noise reduction, processing, sharpening, etc...) by folks who I think know what they are doing. Often times it seems like in the end they say that program A works better with this sort of photo/situation, while program C works better with a different photo/situation. When I did my own comparisons of Neat Image, Noise Ninja, and Noiseware I found that they all worked pretty good, but on some photos one worked better than the others, but it wasn't always the same one. In the end I chose to purchase Noiseware because I liked the interface.