RAW Converters?

[gcha]

I am interested in learning what the differences are among RAW Converter programs. I am interested in achieving the best IQ/Low Noise combination in the conversion! I presently have a Leica D Lux 4 and use Capture One for that RAW conversion. I just obtained a Sony a850 and want the best RAW Converter for that platform... I can upgrade the C1 to allow the a850 conversion, use the Sony Converter, or upgrade my PWP 3.5 to Version 5 which will offer support for both cameras. So what to do? I almost never shoot at ISO's above base ISO. Never print or go to web from the RAW converter. Usually, I just make some Levels and Curves adjustments, and some minimal sharpening! The rest is done in the PWP 3.5 program. Some Forums have suggested that LR3 is the best! Others like C1Pro... So what and why the differences?
Anyone have an opinion here?
Thanks,
Gary

[keithrj]

I have been using RAW for many years now and first used CaptureOne, this was before LightRoom and many others. I have since moved to LightRoom for the simple reason it is very easy to get great results quickly and there are very frequent updates to support new cameras. For things I can't do in LightRoom I turn to PWP. PWP's raw conversion gives basic conversion from RAW and allows you to use its many other features to do the final tweaking.

As far as noise reduction goes, it looks like LR3 is to have some absolutely stunning noise reduction. You can download a trial from Adobe. If you are only using base ISO then I am not sure you will be needing too much noise reduction anyway. I do stand open to correction though!

I want good results as quickly and as easily as possible. For more detailed work I then turn to PWP after using LR. I guess you need to go with what works for you and what gives you the most pleasing results in the timeframes you want.

There are differences between all the converters and I don't think any one is better than the others, it is the results which will be slightly different and which result are best depends on the eye of the beholder.

[den]

Perhaps misplaced... ...but I tend to believe that a manufacturer's supplied/recommended RAW conversion software may be best for their cameras because of their vested interest and internal access to proprietary information that other conversion software may not be privileged to have...

...also for me, the supplied conversion software [when kept up tp date] provides:
(1) access to the in-camera processor settings for changes/corrections during conversion
(2) smooth sensor de-mosaicing, fine 'capture sharpening' and good colors
(3) incorporates a RGB curves editor that one can coordinate with the RAW conversion parameters
(4) simplifies lens aberration corrections for supported camera/lens combinations

That being said, PWP5's converter provides in many cases sharper image details, HSV or HSL editing, and has an unique Highlight Recovery feature.

For serious landscape image editing, I may produce multiple RAW conversions, using the manufacturer's software and PWP's... then align and preferentially image area blend them using PWP's StackImages and/or 'One-to-One cloning' with further preferential PWP transform enhancement...

As you can see, I tend to 'dawdle', prefering to extract the most from an image's captured data rather than 'batch processing'.

[gonzuller]

I used to use Nikon's free ViewNX to manage my photos and then send them to CaptureNX for processing. Minor adjustments to be made in PWP when necessary. Printing in Qimage. Slideshows in Pictures-to-Exe. Now I use Lightroom and it does the cataloging (excellent), Raw conversion (very good), printing, and slideshows all in one package. Sometimes I used to move between six different programs to do different things. Now I do it all in one. I also continue to use PWP for minor adjustments since it is superior to Photoshop for what I need to do.

Finally, the new version of Lightroom is also supposed to have improved RAW conversion for detail in addition to the improved noise reduction.

[mjdl]

The camera manufacturer RAW converters tend to imitate the default in-camera JPEG conversions, at least if the default manufacturer RAW settings are maintained. (This observation is based only on the two I have at hand, Olympus "Master" and Canon "Raw Image Task".) This means that often PWP's raw conversion has a distinct advantage, since variable amounts of highlight recovery, noise reduction, etc., can be used to obtain the best possible conversion depending on image data and preference. And PWP does have a batch facility to speed things up, if the same raw conversion parameters can be used on several images: as always, there's a speed/quality tradeoff.

[tonygamble]

I must have been using Bibble for four or five years now. I don't have any problems with it.

Looking at DPReview just now I was staggered to see that Bibble logs in with 1.6% of the user survey and Lightroom is showing 33.1%

Is there anyone around here who has tried both and can tell me what I might be missing?

Tony

[bobsofpa]

Tony,

There is a thread on Bibble vs Lightroom that has just been started on dpReview in their Software/Retouching Forum (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read. ... e=31024098). That may provide some answers for you.

Bob Sheldon

[bobsofpa]

Tony,

Oops, I just noticed that it way you that revived that thread on dpReview.

[Staylor2]

I recently had an occasion to do a comparison of a RAW conversion of a file from an Olympus E-3. The first conversion was in PWP using AHD. When enlarged to see fine detail there was a pronounced maze like pattern in the pixels. I did further conversions using PWP with the VNG algorithm, Bibble, and Raw Therapee. Here are approximately the same areas enlarged and croped.

PWP AHD.jpg (6.06 KiB) Viewed 6564 times

PWP VNG.jpg (5.9 KiB) Viewed 6562 times

Bibble.jpg (5.99 KiB) Viewed 6563 times

The differences are not readily apparent in these small jpgs but are quite apparent in full resolution tifs.

I am not certain but I believe PWP uses the DCRAW routines for it's conversion, just as many other programs such as Lightroom. Bibble uses their own conversion algorithm as does Raw Therapee. My experience is that which is better, in this case Raw Therapee, depends on the camera and the subject matter. Raw Therapee is a free program well worth having around to try for particular images. Most of the time, I just use the PWP built-in routines, but occasionally, on particular images, I will try Bibble or Raw Therapee to see if they do a better job.

[Staylor2]

I could only have three attachements, so here is the last picture.

Raw Therapee.jpg (11.77 KiB) Viewed 6563 times