Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2012 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag
  
 
dave chilvers
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #1 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


Posted here because I use Canon and can only express my views on that make.

The Amateur Photographer Mag put various raw converters against each other this week

ACR in CS and LR
Phase One Express/pro
DXO optics pro 7 Standard/pro
Aperture 3
Corel Aftershot pro
Silkypix
ACDSee pro2 mac/pro5 pc

(they never include Breeze Browser which is an excellent program )

Anyway they found that given time most will create a decent J peg, I can`t copy out the whole article but here is the verdict.

"Based solely on the tests of sharpness and noise reduction it is difficult to decide which of these raw converters is best. Looking at the sharpened images the main contenders are Phase One Capture One, ACRin cs and LR. DXO optics with ACDSee not far behind.

I won`t copy it all for fear of copyright but the final in the end he comes down on the side of LR powered by camera raw as probably the best all round taking all into consideration,(which I suppose means ACR as well although cost might be something to consider because you need CS to start with.)

Having tried all of these myself and found in general the above to be more or less my findings (as well as BB) I must say that for ease of use and speed where a fair amount of tweaking needs doing ACR 7.1 wants some beating but where minimal tweaks are required then BB does as good a job as any. Even the quick proof option in BB can produce results indistinguishable from ACR provided things are near the mark.

AP is out Tuesday in the UK so well worth a read.

Dave



Aug 26, 2012 at 09:30 AM
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


Dave, thanks for the post, just looked at Breeze Browser and it looks to have some nice features, I like the remote tethering options quite a bit!

Jerry



Aug 26, 2012 at 10:04 AM
dave chilvers
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #3 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


StillFingerz wrote:
Dave, thanks for the post, just looked at Breeze Browser and it looks to have some nice features, I like the remote tethering options quite a bit!

Jerry


Hi Jerry

Yeh, There are more adjustments in ACR but as I said if you have a reasonable image then I find BB works a treat. I like the slideshow view when I`ve just come in from a shoot with a cuppa tea.

Dave



Aug 26, 2012 at 10:09 AM
parsons
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


i originally went the other way, from ACR to C1. there was a comparison a while ago now that made me change, and i can say is that i am glad i did. the files that it renders from my 1dsmk2 is now fantastic and combined with some great CY lenses i am a happy camper.
for me the main change was seen in the capture sharpening and the easy use of the colour wheel disc for editing colours, somehing which i still struggle with in ACR due to precise control over the colours i am after. but perhaps i am missing a trick somewhere.

But again, thats me and i know that evreryone will have achoice. thanks for the heads up on the mag, i might buy it for a change. onnce or twice in 8yrs isnt so bad

s



Aug 26, 2012 at 01:17 PM
uz2work
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #5 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


I've been using (Phase One) Capture One for almost 9 years. I periodically take a file and try converting it with Capture One, ACR, and DPP, and, after comparing the results, I always decide to stick with Capture One based on what appears to me to be better quality in the converted file. I think, though, that there is probably a correlation between the quality of the conversion and how accustomed the user is to the converter being used, and I'm guessing that, if I had as much experience using ACR or DPP as I do with Capture One, the quality of the results would be closer. After having used Capture One for so long, without much thinking, I know what adjustments to make to get the results that I want. Further, the Capture One interface seems to be a better fit for my workflow.

Around the time I started using Capture One, I think it was much more popular than it is today. I'm not sure why they might have lost a good number of users, but I suspect it had something to do with cost. Since DPP is free and ACR comes with PS at no extra cost, I would guess that is why many use one or the other. While the Capture One Pro is fairly expensive, after using it for a number of years, I found that the basic Capture One (Express) actually meets my needs quite well, and I think its cost is reasonable. With discounts that are regularly available, it can be had for around $100.

Les



Aug 26, 2012 at 01:53 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



Photon
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


uz2work wrote:
...
Around the time I started using Capture One, I think it was much more popular than it is today. I'm not sure why they might have lost a good number of users, but I suspect it had something to do with cost...
Les

I used C1 beginning around 2001, shortly after I started shooting raw. I had some trouble with color management on my Windows system (my problem, not intending any OS OT discussions), and when I switched to Mac in 2003 I found that Capture One was much harder to work with in its Mac version. Meanwhile, Adobe kept improving Camera Raw, and as I was a constant PS user then, I went with that. By the time Lightroom reached version 3, I found its raw conversions did almost everything I wanted, and my PS use diminished exponentially. The cataloguing and file management is an important part of my workflow too, so now I mostly live in LR 4, and pay little attention to announcements of improved raw processing in DXO, C1, etc. I know how to get what I want, so I'm happy.

I know the preceding is a long winded, partly OT screed. The main point:
A careful comparison of raw converter results is nice, but for many of us the final choice comes down to all the factors in our personal work and workflow. All of the software has improved, as have cameras, so while there are still IQ differences, they are usually subtle compared to the effect of our shooting and processing technique.



Aug 26, 2012 at 04:16 PM
gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


We seem to have a fetish about declaring some thing to be the "best," with the consequence being the idea that all things other than the one labelled "best" are "not as good." However, there is not Olympic "Raw Converter Sprint" event, and the whole thing has unavoidable elements of subjectivity.

In a lot of ways, it pays to not over-think something like this. Basically all RAW converters do the same fundamental thing and, for users who understand how the process and the program interface work, the results can be essentially the same.

The differences that are more likely significant have more to do with the stuff "surrounding" the actual conversion - how well the program and the files it creates integrate into your workflow, how well it handles file management issues, and so forth.

Dan

dave chilvers wrote:
Posted here because I use Canon and can only express my views on that make.

The Amateur Photographer Mag put various raw converters against each other this week

ACR in CS and LR
Phase One Express/pro
DXO optics pro 7 Standard/pro
Aperture 3
Corel Aftershot pro
Silkypix
ACDSee pro2 mac/pro5 pc

(they never include Breeze Browser which is an excellent program )

Anyway they found that given time most will create a decent J peg, I can`t copy out the whole article but here is the verdict.

"Based solely on the tests of sharpness and noise reduction it is difficult to decide which of these raw converters is best. Looking
...Show more



Aug 26, 2012 at 04:24 PM
Ralph Conway
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


Am I a bad photographer when in raw conversion I trust upon LR?

Ralph



Aug 26, 2012 at 04:27 PM
Monito
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #9 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


They seem to have purposely overlooked Canon DPP (and Nikon equivalent), perhaps because they restricted it to non-manufacturer converters.

Canon DPP is excellent. I use it all the time, except when I want highlight recovery and then I go to Adobe Camera Raw in Photoshop / Bridge.

DPP needs keywording badly, and good keywording too. I'm considering switching to Lightroom for the standard conversion I do, even though I dislike the extra sidecar files. If DPP had keywording it could keep it all together.



Aug 26, 2012 at 06:06 PM
StillFingerz
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · Comparison between Raw converters in AP mag


Ralph Conway wrote:
Am I a bad photographer when in raw conversion I trust upon LR?

Ralph


NO!
I'm using LR v3.6, moving to v4x next yr, just picked up CS6...we'll see how it does, I'll PM you Ralph
Whatever works, floats your boat...Adobe seems to be pretty good at getting things right...IMO!
Jerry



Aug 26, 2012 at 06:24 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Retrive password