RAW converters

I am in the process of choosing a RAW converter to use. I know this is a very debated subject, but these things move rather quickly anyway.

So, I'm comparing CaptureONE 3.7.1, Bibble 4.3 and AdobeCameraRAW 3.1.

I've just started the comparison, and since I'm on a Mac I'm using a fresh install of MacOS X 10.4.1 Tiger. I calibrated my monitor with WizyWIG.

I started by picking a test shot with lots of dynamic range, dark shadows and bright, sunlit areas, and people (ladies with nice skin tones . Then I loaded the RAW file in all three programs and converted immediatly to JPG (high) using the default configurations.
Then I showed the three JPGs to my wife (we tend to be biased by the process). Our first impressions are these:
* C1 has WAY too much contrast. The shadows are nearly black. Small detail like earings almost loose their color.
* B4 is much better, shadows show a lot more and highlights are nice, and no problems on small detail like the earings.
* ACR is a bit better than B4. Great colors and great detail.

This is preliminary and ONE picture only. Also, Bibble asks for default configurations, and I chose the middle contrast setting, not the "normal". ACR has settings (auto and manual) for "shadows" and "highlights", wich I suspect change the tone curve. C1 and B4 had nothing similar (that I could find).

I will do a lot more testing with a lot more pictures, and I ask of you RAW veterans to guide this test so it can be as acurate and helpful as it can be.

Next phase: I'll pick a few shots (high ISO, high and low key, very colorful, underexposed, superexposed, etc.) and pass them through all the converters, trying to get the "best" possible result. In the process, I'll take notes about user interface usability, special features and speed of each converter.

Help me out, please!

You're using it wrong.
The response curve is on the "Exposure" tab. My suggestion is for portraiture you select the film response curve "More Shadows". You have to spend time and do the tutorial.

Sort the WB out first, then the film response, then the basic exposure settings, then finally the curves adjustment. Then move onto the "Focus" tab.

I too compared ACR and C1, and initially thought that C1 had absolutely no benefit over ACR. But then I didn't read the manual.
Came back a few months later, with some RAW shots I just couldn't get right in ACR, this time I took the time to read the C1 manual, and now I know how to use it and am seriously considering the Pro version for its extra features

As to speed - C1 is just fine. The actual conversion may be slower (or may not), but the fact you can queue up one image and get to work immediately on the next means I can rattle through a whole memory card in absolutely no time at all. For me, I found it saved me time in conversion, and also in post-processing (often having to do none!).

Matt

Matt,

You're right, I'm using it wrong; in fact, I'm doing nothing at all! All I did was load-convert. That's no way to use something like C1 or Bibble or ACR. I just wanted to see how all three programs "default converted" a difficult picture.

I will read the manuals, of course. In fact, I have already read CaptureONE's "online" help (the application's help), that I found very basic and uninformative. I have an apparently very good tutorial on C1 that I will read, and I will surely follow your indications! That's the whole point of this thread, really. If someone is to benefit from this, it has to be done by valuing everyone's view.

As for the response curve, every program has one. I was talking about the "shadows" and "highlights" settings (that end up changing the curve, no doubt, it's just another way to do it).

As regards to speed, I was not only refering to conversion speed, but to GUI speed and responsiveness as well (when you change curves, noise cancelation, etc).

From what I have seen, C1 has by far the best user interface of them all, simple, logical, effective and snappy. Bibble's interface is slower and generally less pleasing. ACR is nice, not fantastic but nicely done.

I want to talk about other things that diferentiate the three, like for example, C1's automatic hotpixel removal, Bibble's web gallery generation and Highlight Recovery, etc. I want to see how well they fit in the workflow and if the results are that significant.

Matt, I'll be very happy to hear you (and/or any of you in this forum) say "you're wrong" again, because it means we're learning how to do things right! There's no evolution without criticism.

Oh, for all of you that still haven't tried shooting in RAW, please do. I completely agree with Matt when he says you actually spend less time post-processing.

The trials are here:

CaptureONE: http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Downloads.aspx
Bibble: http://www.bibblelabs.com/system/download_new.jsp
ACR: http://www.adobe.com/products/tryadobe/main.jsp#product=39

I use Apple's iPhoto to tweak and manage my photo archive, so I come from a great workflow experience. I'll describe my RAW workflow here so you all can comment and see if it is for you or not.

But just don't shun it without giving it a try first. You may be surprised!

I suggest getting "Real World Cammera RAW" by Bruce Frasier. It deals with Adobe Camera Raw, but it shows you the sheer power of a RAW converter.

ACR is practically an image editing program by itself, and RAW capture will catch much more data than the files converted in the camera's software.

One nice thing is that you can apply edits, crops, etc to your RAW files, along with copyright data and other metadata, and the file will open the way you want it to every time it is opened from that file. I usually convert to DNG, then do my adjustments in ACR.

This is especially useful if you're required to submit your material in RAW format. Apparently, National Geographic in the States does that (I should be so lucky as to need to submit to them).

Flink,
Glad you took it in the right way Actually I used C1 the first time, and commented that I didn't get better results than ACR. A pro (who used Hasselblad+Imacon and Canon 1Ds) said exactly the same "You're using it wrong." At the time I thought "Yeah, right, what does he know!"
Now I know he was right!!
Matt

I have ACR and have tried the evaluation copy of C1 LE and then Pro so I got 45 days to trial it. Initially, I thought that C1 knocked spots of ACR in that I could produce much sharper results without creating colour noise. But now the trial has run out and I am back with ACR, I have realised I was not getting the best from it and I now think it is just as good.

If you have lots to do then C1 is probably faster and easier to use but otherwise I, at the moment don’t think there is much between them. Sorry, have not tried Bibble yet.

Flink, I think you have a lot to do to get the best from all three and a lot of reading to do. The annoying thing is that the “values” that you can set are not equivalent and without trial and error you have no idea what to set. In ACR you need to increase luminance smoothing as you start to use large amounts of sharpness whereas in C1, I guess it does this automatically. Also in ACR, colour noise reduction seems to default to 25 (from camera setting?) where in most of my shots I am happy with virtually none at 100ASA.

Also, I think ACR does hot spot removal automatically it certainly removed them on the long exposure test shots I tried.

I think C1 provides more adjustments that are automatically adjusted in ACR.

Can’t wait to read more on this one, you have got a lot of hard work to do.

Regards,
Dave.

New here but just wanted to mention, in addition to the other RAW converters, there's "RawShooter essentials"... they are working on developing a paid "premium" version but the "essential" version is free. I've used it exclusively for the past few months with good results. Only works under Windows, I believe.

http://pixmantec.com

FYI, there's a very long thread on the subject:
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1598
(I covered Rawshooter Essentials there).

One other thing while I'm at it - it's almost always best to do no sharpening, or very little, within the RAW convertor, but apply this further down the line, in Photoshop.

I got a little over zealous in using the C1 sharpening (which is great for saving time), but was finding there were some artifacts appearing which were becoming too obvious in large format hi res images (upsizing to around 30 mega pixels). After a little experimentation I found I could get better results with advanced sharpening techniques in PS (won't cover them here). Just so you know

Matt

Always sharpen as the last step before sending the photo to your output device. Always!!!!

Not always Arthur... but most definitely in general

There's a very interesting argument for applying "Presharpening" at the beginning of a RAW workflow - to "undo" the softening of the RAW conversion. As far as I can remember it is the process of applying subtle sharpening first.

I'll dig out the links and reading matter and get back....
In the meantime, here's an interesting link:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/dp_essentials/dp_essentials_05/essay.html
Which raises further questions about whether all RAW convertors are the same or not... methinks I have some experimentation to do...

Here's another related link:
http://photography.about.com/od/digital/a/a111904.htm
(It's not the one I remember reading, but the principles are very similar)

Matt

I suspect "depth" may have a lot to do with saturation and possible the "feel" of the sharpness. I have ambliopia (cannot see out of both eyes at the same time, one eye is only good for a little peripheral vision), and I still see some quality that might be what you're calling "depth" in some photos.

I can't perceive actual "depth". so it'd be interresting to see exactly what folks mean by the term! Have fun and expriment away, at least you don't have to pay for film and processing to do this!!

Here's the link to the article I remembered:
http://www.creativepro.com/printerfriendly/story/20357.html

Now, what's interesting is that I've been combining the information on some of these articles, and I think I have a really good general technique for sharpening *ist-D images that gives natural results. I need a few days to play around with some more ideas before I write this technique up, but my initial findings are wholly positive.

So, to update what I said above:
1. Use Capture One
2. Don't sharpen from Capture One
3. Apply a modest amount of "Capture Sharpening" to restore lost detail in Photoshop
4. Do all the creative stuff - local curves, colour adjustments, localised sharpening (e.g. around the eyes for portraits)
5. Save the layered file (you did use non-destructive layers didn't you?!)
6. Flatten, resize and sharpen for the specific output device and save as a different file name.

It's the sharpening in step (3) that I'm concentrating on...
I'll let you know
Matt

Matt,

You've no doubt posted this before somewhere, but I can't find it. What, in your view, is the best place to find instructions/advice, etc., on using Capture One LE?

I am convinced of its superiority to other RAW convertors, but am aware that the way I am using it is by no means the best. Indeed, much of it I don't understand at all!

You know, of course, that the tutorial/help/knowledge base provided by P1C1 is pretty poor.

Many thanks

G

George,
Yes, I've commented on C1 many times But I can't remember where I put it all...
I've stuck a new topic: https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=8233#8233

(May need some reformatting... should be stable now.)

Matt