What's your best RAW converter?

[SlimPaul]

I use Aperture 2. Great editing software!

 

[icassell]

I have Canon DPP, Adobe, and Phase One. I essentially always use Adobe, because it is so seamless with Bridge and CS2. I don't know if it's any better or not.

Ian

 

[usayit]

Both aperture and LR2 have options to download for a free trial. The best review is one that you perform yourself.

I found that there will be more responses regarding LR2 over Aperture. Not necessarily because LR2 is better but because LR2 has wider support (Mac and Windows) as well as the "Adobe" packaging name which brings over lots of loyal Photoshop users.

I use mainly LR2 and I love it. I on occasion use Capture One.

 

[Joves]

I use both Adobe and Capture NX. Any that Im working on in CS I convert to DNG first then work with it. Nikon still needs to work on NX to make it less of a resource hog.

 

[Ls3D]

There is a funny story about Thomas Knoll cracking Canon's RAW code over a weekend, after having asked Canon for it.

So what are your typical adjustments in the raw importer?

I like to start with a 'exposed to the right' image, AKA a bit hot in the exposure dept - then I slide the Blacks up a touch, and the Exposure down. Then I go to the tone curves and I turn up the Lights to bring the exposure back up a bit.

Then I do any sharpening if needed or desired and send it off to photoshop.

This produces a nice contrast image without blowing the saturation too much. I typically do a few curves and levels once in photoshop just to explore the image range and the more familiar workflow in PS. Desaturation, and/or luminosity only edit layers* are typical on more valued shots.

* picked up that tip right here! Thanks guy from other thread. :thumbup:

Sometimes I just look at the shot and pass it to PS 'as shot' - rare, but it happens.

Another tip: if you can open your jpgs in RAW, the controls are still pretty good, even while lacking the 14bit pixel depth of a true raw format. I don't have raw for the 5Dmii and this is working out pretty good for now.

BTW the cheaper upgrade path for Lightroom is another consideration - as I discovered while probing my own options here.

-Shea

 

[kundalini]

another vote for LR2.

 

[JerryPH]

I like to start with a 'exposed to the right' image, AKA a bit hot in the exposure dept - then I slide the Blacks up a touch, and the Exposure down. Then I go to the tone curves and I turn up the Lights to bring the exposure back up a bit.

Exposing to the right can often lead to blown out highlights and once blown, that is detail forever gone. In digital, it is more difficult/impossible to recover lost detail than it is to raise exposure to recover detail in the shadows (which under some circumstances increases noise in the shadowed areas).

The better methodology for digital photography is to PROPERLY expose for the mid-tones and in post, becuase this is a compromise, should be able to recover both the highlights and shadows successfully.

I've been in some nice discussions with a few local pros that use Nikon D700s and they are often commenting on things like easily exceeding 9 stops of data in a single picture. That's kind of interesting considering that even a D700 has for all intents a practical limit of 9 stops (and that is only between ISO 100-400, it drops once above that). This is what happens when you combine understanding with good technology along with strong technique and post processing skills.

 

[ksmattfish]

Exposing to the right can often lead to blown out highlights and once blown, that is detail forever gone.

That is overexposure, not exposing to the right. Read any of the many articles on the technique; none of them advocate overexposure to the point of blowing the highlights. Exposing to the right means making an exposure/file with the maximum amount of useful information possible for the given scene, lighting, and camera. Tones placed above 255 are not useful information.

When it comes to raw converters I've tried a few including Capture One and DPP. I couldn't see a significant, consistent difference in the quality of the processing. With one photo I'd get slightly less noise, slightly better color, etc... with one raw converter, and then a different photo would get slightly better results using a different raw converter. In the end I went with the one that I liked the interface the best which was Adobe Camera Raw (CS2). I recently upgraded to CS4 and LR2, and I really like them. Although Camera Raw and LR2 are pretty much the same, I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock!

 

[xposurepro]

I do everything in PS & Bridge CS3

 

[JerryPH]

That is overexposure, not exposing to the right.

Technically, but the resultant effect is that you decide on purpose to expose at a higher level than what is optimal, and then try to bring it back in post.

While this is good on film, this technique *will* cause more blown out areas and more loss of details. What you are doing is hoping that the dynamic range contains enough leeway to help pull back the details from the areas close to or yes, blown out areas. That is the issue here... treating digital as if it responded the same way as film... which it is far from capable of doing.

Read any of the many articles on the technique

Sincerely, I have. For film it is a valid technique. For digital, its less effective simply becuase there is less dynamic range in a digital camera vs film (~11.5 for film vs some of the better cameras on the market like the D3 or D700's greatly less 9 stop range). So doing this is counter productive to an optimal and "properly exposed" shot in the digital world.

Now, let's set something in concrete here. BOTH methods are going to give you a printable final results... but which will give you the THEORETICAL best? The picture with the PROPERLY exposed settings vs the one where you push things in camera and then hope you can bring it back in post process? Obviously, if it is done right IN CAMERA... is right and less manipulation is needed. I'm not talking sharpness or bokeh or saturation/contrast, just straight exposure. It is *always* going to be easier and *less* chance of any losses in the overall picture's detail level to bring out detail from the shadows over lowering the luminance of a purposefully exposed picture that is exposed HIGHER than optimal.

Exposing to the right means making an exposure/file with the maximum amount of useful information possible for the given scene, lighting, and camera. Tones placed above 255 are not useful information.

Actually, not really. It means what it says... taking the picture some amount ABOVE the optimal settings for the reasons of increasing tonal details in the darker or shadow areas... and then HOPE you can bring the brighter parts of the picture back in post process. An inappropriate technique for the digital world becuase we don't have anywhere near the same dynamic range as a buffer that film does, but this TOTALLY is acceptable for film.

Once you hit the top of the limit, info is forever gone, there is nothing to recover. In film, this was not the case. First we are dealing with analog, and there was a huge gap over and above where we *could* pull things back in post (well technically, in development, while in the tank... lol).

Also, let's look at this. Your histogram shows that you are properly exposed... at some point along the mid areas, it is peaking right close to that 255 zone (in an 8-bit file), but our technique is to "expose to the right"... so we push it... what happens? We blow out detail from the mid tones! That is not recoverable, it is forever lost. Ah, so what if our mid-tones are not peaked? That is simply a BAD exposure... so if in this case you want to expose to the right... you are not doing that, you are just coming closer to optimal exposure. Now... do NOT forget to not just look at the luminance level... but how many people here are looking at the RGB histogram results? How many times are people "pushing to the right" without even looking at THESE parts of their pictures? I do not think it is far from the truth to say... the vast majority. If they were, they would soon find out that they are pushing either one, two or more of their RGB histograms WAY past that limit and blowing out more parts of their pics over and above just the lighter areas. There are *many* ways to blow out a pic and it is not just at the pure white end of a histogram, but from camera speak... ANY level that hits 255 anywhere between pure white to pure black is technically considered "blown out". We refer to the white end because it shows on the pic as no colour placed by the printer on that part of the paper, but really... we do not want any colour up there. It means lost detail.

Also, that 255 tone refers only to an 8-bit file and that *is* the limit. If it is hitting 255, that *is* blown out useless info (pure white if all the way to the right on the histogram, pure black if on the left). If dealing with RAW files as you mentioned, its 4095 for 12-bit and 16383 for 14-bit files. Hopefully, if you are working with RAW files, its NOT at the 8-bit level, given a choice!

When it comes to raw converters I've tried a few including Capture One and DPP. I couldn't see a significant, consistent difference in the quality of the processing. With one photo I'd get slightly less noise, slightly better color, etc... with one raw converter, and then a different photo would get slightly better results using a different raw converter. In the end I went with the one that I liked the interface the best which was Adobe Camera Raw (CS2).

I cannot speak for the Canon people, but the words "the best" to Nikon users can mean many things to many people. If "the best" to you means being able to access and manipulate the RAW data from your camera in ways that no other software can, then Capture NX2 is "the best" for Nikon people, because it can access data that no other non-Nikon software can, such as Active-D lighting, camera saturation, sharpness presets and a few others.

My definition of "the best" goes closely along your lines. CS3/4 as it is a less clunky and more intuitive software over NX2, that can further manipulate the imported file in more ways than Nikon's software, so for me, though it is not "the best" in all ways, it is the better choice compared to the alternatives, based on my needs.

I recently upgraded to CS4 and LR2, and I really like them. Although Camera Raw and LR2 are pretty much the same, I tend to use LR2 because the adjustment brush and graduated filter rock!

I'm still using it, I'm still learning it... but try as I may, I just cannot get into LR2's swing. :er:

I always seem to fall back to straight file/directory manipulation with Bridge/CS3 and do better and faster using my tried and true established and tested and perfected ways using my own methods of cataloging, tagging and post processing.

At least I am trying out the LR2 route and giving it a more than fair shake (using it for 4-5 months now), but not all users will have the same answer to their needs, and LR2 just may not be the best toy for my needs or way or working.

 

[dEARlEADER]

^ this whole argument assumes the user will accept clipping highlights when exposing to the right

if the shooter is in control and is mindful of tonal and RGB histogram than exposing to the right will produce better shadow detail.... this at the sacrifice of nothing because no highlights were blown...

 

[Ls3D]

Yeah, to the right - not blown. This is an unusual example since it is 2:30am. Please ignore the rear element dust bunny!
I brought up the Blacks a bit as shadow detail is not as important in this shot IMO.

I'm tempted to share my observations on high-ish ISO vs length of exposure as I worked these shots, but the conditions had too many variables in terms of sensor temps and my liberal exposure compensations to be of value. Basically I could push ISO to 3200 and drop from 30 to 10 second exposures until things heated up (5dmii).

With the dessert winds blowing offshore in I would go from full leather jacket, to T-shirt & back. Surreal night.

-Shea

 

[JerryPH]

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

Ls3D, answer me a couple questions:

- what is the main subject of that picture?
- what are the RGB histograms showing before and after?
- what are your focus points?

If you are telling me that your lifeguard tower were the main subjects, I will suggest to you that you should have metered for it and not the background in the first place. The details would be initially as your 2nd pic was, if not even a little brighter, depending on your exposure mode (matrix, center, spot, etc...). I would say that your top picture is a little underexposed, not exposed properly.

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".

 

[weddingguy]

Got one of the first Lightroom copies to come out . . have loved it! Just bought Lightroom 2 but haven't installed it yet. Hearing great things about the upgrade, so excited about getting at it! Apparently it leaves not a lot to do in PS afterwards.:thumbup:

 

[Ls3D]

Whatever it is Jerry, it's working for me! :thumbup: Just showing what I often do inside the RAW converter taking the 'what platform' conversation to some meaningful user experience, especially the context of 'it is the same engine' in LR or PS. I'll ignore your questions this time so as not to derail the thread, hope you understand.

-Shea