Which RAW converter do you use?

Dani

I'm using ACR (CS2) right now.. but I'm starting to notice it injects too much red/magenta and alot of the times the preset white balances give really bad color casts. IE a shot taken in full daylight.. pick the daylight white balance in ACR and it turns the image a nice orange... :dunno

I can never seem to get decent skin tones or a nice lush green from it either... always too red/magenta or too yellow.

Eventually I get it to where it somewhat resembles the scene I remember... but it takes alot of tweaking.

I was wondering if this is an ACR problem (I've found a few posts where others have similar issues) or maybe I just suck at the post processing :cry

Andy

Dani wrote:

I'm using ACR (CS2) right now.. but I'm starting to notice it injects too much red/magenta and alot of the times the preset white balances give really bad color casts. IE a shot taken in full daylight.. pick the daylight white balance in ACR and it turns the image a nice orange...

I can never seem to get decent skin tones or a nice lush green from it either... always too red/magenta or too yellow.

Eventually I get it to where it somewhat resembles the scene I remember... but it takes alot of tweaking.

I was wondering if this is an ACR problem (I've found a few posts where others have similar issues) or maybe I just suck at the post processing :cry

There's MUCH more to ACR than meets the eye. You have to take the time to learn it. I'm finding it to be INCREDIBLY powerful, and especially more so after reading this book:

Click the image for linky to Amazon...



It may seem daunting but just a few minutes into this book and things start to crystallize.

Main message: Get off of AUTO

flyingdutchie

Dani wrote:

I'm using ACR (CS2) right now.. but I'm starting to notice it injects too much red/magenta and alot of the times the preset white balances give really bad color casts. IE a shot taken in full daylight.. pick the daylight white balance in ACR and it turns the image a nice orange...

I can never seem to get decent skin tones or a nice lush green from it either... always too red/magenta or too yellow.

Eventually I get it to where it somewhat resembles the scene I remember... but it takes alot of tweaking.

I was wondering if this is an ACR problem (I've found a few posts where others have similar issues) or maybe I just suck at the post processing :cry

For pure raw conversion i use Nikon Capture. I've been tempting to use ACR from Adobe, but calibrating ACR is just a little too much work for me right now. Check the DPReview forums and you'll see many threads about it.

Nikon Capture reads all the particular NEF parameters (especially white-balance and in-camera curves) and produces a well balanced picture (RGB) for your monitor and files. ACR does not read all the NEF parameters and you have to do more work to calibrate ACR to have the same results as Nikon Capture. But ACR is very powerful and it intergrates well with Photoshop (duh! )

This is my workflow:

For snapshots:
Open NEF in Nikon Capture. Do adjustments end sharpening. Save

For pics to be printed or ones for my portfolio:
Open NEF in Nikon Capture. Do some basic adjustment. Click on the 'Open in Photoshop' button. This opens the image in Photoshop and i'll do my more complex adjustments. Save.

mercphoto

You're using Canon equipment. Have you tried their Digital Photo Professional software?

Dani

no I havn't.... my rebel didn't come with DPP and I didn't install any of the stuff that did come with it (zoom browser, remote capture etc)

mercphoto wrote:

You're using Canon equipment. Have you tried their Digital Photo Professional software?

jfriend

Have you calibrated ACR?

Dani wrote:

I'm using ACR (CS2) right now.. but I'm starting to notice it injects too much red/magenta and alot of the times the preset white balances give really bad color casts. IE a shot taken in full daylight.. pick the daylight white balance in ACR and it turns the image a nice orange...

I can never seem to get decent skin tones or a nice lush green from it either... always too red/magenta or too yellow.

Eventually I get it to where it somewhat resembles the scene I remember... but it takes alot of tweaking.

I was wondering if this is an ACR problem (I've found a few posts where others have similar issues) or maybe I just suck at the post processing :cry

Have you calibrated ACR to match your camera in case your camera differs from the sample that Adobe used to create the camera profile for you camera? If not, that might solve your issue of seeing too much magenta. Bruce Fraser's book (that Andy recommended) describes how to do ACR calibration.

mercphoto

Dani wrote:

no I havn't.... my rebel didn't come with DPP and I didn't install any of the stuff that did come with it (zoom browser, remote capture etc)

If you install the EOS View Utility that comes with the camera, then you can download and install DPP for free. DPP does, however, look for a previously installed version of DPP or EVU before it will install. Hence the first step is required.

I don't use RAW a lot but I like DPP quite a bit. It is slow, but otherwise I like the interface, the adjustments, the color, and how it batches. Many of the reviews in magazines about RAW converters seem to draw the same conclusions: the camera manufacture RAW converters do the best job on color but are usually the slowest in the bunch. Third party does the job faster but usually at the expense of color or quality. Exceptions exist, of course. But DPP is worth a try.

mrcoons

I am currently using a 30-day trial copy of ACDSee Pro Photo Manager to process my RAW images and I was using RawShooter Premium. So far I like the results of ACDSee Pro much more than RSP, but it is a little slow. I have newer conversion images to post to this album but here is what I have so far: http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/gallery/1127416/1/52489802

jfriend

Hard to compare RAW processors

mrcoons wrote:

I am currently using a 30-day trial copy of ACDSee Pro Photo Manager to process my RAW images and I was using RawShooter Premium. So far I like the results of ACDSee Pro much more than RSP, but it is a little slow. I have newer conversion images to post to this album but here is what I have so far: http://mrcoons.smugmug.com/gallery/1127416/1/52489802

I checked out your gallieries and I'd agree that the ACDSee-processed images look better than the RSP-processed images. But, here's the rub with comparing RAW processors. The RSP-processed images appear to have signifincatly different settings (brighter exposure, less contrast, etc...). Are you saying that these images are processed at "default", untweaked settings? Or the best you can make them look in both RAW processors? Or?

The reason I ask is that I would expect that the RSP images could be made to look a lot better with some tweaks in RSP.

As a disclaimer, I don't use either of these RAW processors (while I've tried RSP, I currently use ACR).

silica

Dani wrote:

I'm using ACR (CS2) right now.. but I'm starting to notice it injects too much red/magenta and alot of the times the preset white balances give really bad color casts. IE a shot taken in full daylight.. pick the daylight white balance in ACR and it turns the image a nice orange...
QUOTE]

Do what Andy suggests and learn to use ACR. It's wonderful. It will do anything you can reasonably expect of a RAW converter and then some. If you are not happy with the presets, you can modify the settings to suit your preference.

I would also suggest you try out Adobe's Lightroom beta. While Lightroom is not positioned as a RAW converter primarily, it's clear that it's RAW conversion abilities will satisfy a lot of photographers. Lightroom will wind up being the only conversion software for many photographers.

mrcoons

jfriend wrote:

I checked out your gallieries and I'd agree that the ACDSee-processed images look better than the RSP-processed images. But, here's the rub with comparing RAW processors. The RSP-processed images appear to have signifincatly different settings (brighter exposure, less contrast, etc...). Are you saying that these images are processed at "default", untweaked settings? Or the best you can make them look in both RAW processors? Or?

The reason I ask is that I would expect that the RSP images could be made to look a lot better with some tweaks in RSP.

As a disclaimer, I don't use either of these RAW processors (while I've tried RSP, I currently use ACR).

:uhoh I meant to add that and got a phone call (those darn customers are always wanting something) and forgot. Yes - I was using the default settings as a starting point. Which is what the posted images are of. Then I tweaked things to produce the best possible image (and I have not posted those pictures yet) in both processors. I'll see about getting them posted tonight!

Andy

jfriend wrote:

But, here's the rub with comparing RAW processors.

Flyinggina

I have the 20D and am now taking exclusively in RAW after months of taking in both RAW and JPEG (it seemed like a sensible idea at the time) and before that resisting RAW except in special circumstances (why I can't imagine). I use PhotoPaint 12 (part of the CorelDraw Graphics Suite) for post work and it does not have a built in raw converter.

I have Raw Shooter Premium 2006, but find that for the most part I use Canon's Digital Photo Pro to convert my files to 16 bit tiffs. (DPP does not work with 5D RAW files. RSP does.) I make very few changes at the conversion stage - mostly to the white balance if I end up with an unpleasing color cast for some reason - or I wish to change it for "artistic" reasons. (I love being able to set the color temperature.) This can save me loads of time later. I do adjust the brightness at this point if the photo clearly is not going to need much if any work in post, but usually I leave brightness and everything else except WB "as is" and deal with it in post. For the vast majority of my photos, this is the fastest way for me to get to a good place from which to begin post-processing.

Virginia

Dani

I went and downloaded DPP....

heres a comparison

DPP



ACR



notice how adobe has that odd redish golden tint while the DPP image is more neutral and more representative of the scene. The DPP file has nothing else done other than the raw conversion, resize and sharpen... the ACR file took quite a bit of fiddling with the RAW settings to get close and then even more fiddling in pshop... I'm generally not very happy with alot of photos cause of this.

DPP is nice... but it won't transfer images to pshop! It'll open pshop, send the image there and then close pshop... if I already have pshop open it'll just close it. I just can't win!


can someone give me the instructions for calibrating ACR to match my camera?? I don't gots no money to buy the book

mrcoons

Andy wrote:

I agree Andy but how do I know which one to use if I don't compare one to the other? The bottom line for me is what gives me the final image I want the easiest/fastest way possible. Or am I missing the point completely?:uhoh

David_S85

Flyinggina wrote:

I have Raw Shooter Premium 2006, but find that for the most part I use Canon's Digital Photo Pro to convert my files to 16 bit tiffs. (DPP does not work with 5D RAW files. RSP does.)

DPP does work with 5D, or so it says. 1.6 and 1.8 didn't. You have to upgrade to the 2.0.3 version for 5D compatability, which is a free 44MB download.

John Mueller

David_S85 wrote:

DPP does work with 5D, or so it says. 1.6 and 1.8 didn't. You have to upgrade to the 2.0.3 version for 5D compatability, which is a free 44MB download.

I have 4 that I use.DPP,ACR,RSPw/CE and C1LE.
Lately Im finding C1LE to be my favorite.Little on the slow side though.Ill run a series of images(200-400) through all 4 till I like what I see.
Time consuming

Flyinggina

Dani wrote:

I went and downloaded DPP....




DPP is nice... but it won't transfer images to pshop! It'll open pshop, send the image there and then close pshop... if I already have pshop open it'll just close it. I just can't win!

I'm confused by this, Dani. I chose convert and save from the file drop down menu in DPP and save the file as a tiff in whatever folder I want to put it in (usually the folder with the original RAW). I then go to PP (or PS Elements or any other photo viewing software) and open the tiff file. Voila. Maybe they changed things in the latest version. I do have RSP set to open the converted files in PP, but I could just as easily change that to PS or whatever.

Virginia

Flyinggina

David_S85 wrote:

DPP does work with 5D, or so it says. 1.6 and 1.8 didn't. You have to upgrade to the 2.0.3 version for 5D compatability, which is a free 44MB download.

Thanks, David. I'll check it out. I am running 1.6.1. Of couse, to really need the 5D conversion capability, I'll have to go ahead and buy the 5D instead of just borrowing a friends from time to time!

Virginia

jfriend

True capabilities vs. Your ability to harness

mrcoons wrote:

I agree Andy but how do I know which one to use if I don't compare one to the other? The bottom line for me is what gives me the final image I want the easiest/fastest way possible. Or am I missing the point completely?:uhoh

It's fine to compare. But, if you are sharing the results of your comparison with others, you need to state clearly whether you are comparing default processing without any tweaking, your simple tweaking in both or representing that this is the best that expert tweaking in each RAW converter can do. There's a huge difference between the three cases. Please share, but make sure you say which case you are writing about.

I'd represent that the camera company's own RAW processors are pretty much always going to do better at default processing because they use proprietary camera info in the RAW file to their advantage.

I'd represent that which RAW processor produces the best image with simple changes depends more on the product knowledge of the user making those changes than it does on the limitations or capabilities of the product because all the major products have capabilities that exceed what many users are capable of using to their advantage.

It is a valid conclusion for anyone to decide that one product is easier to get proficient with and use and that can have as much to do with which product you get the best results from. But, it isn't necessarily an indicator that one RAW processor is actually "better" than the other, only that you've figured out how to use it better or faster or easier. But, it's a valid personal reason to choose one.

Putting it another way, it's a very different thing to read about:

1. Which RAW processor makes the best default conversions with no tweaking.
2. Which RAW processor makes the best conversions with a few hours of learning and experience using them.
3. Which RAW processor makes the best conversions when done by someone deeply familiar with the converter and using all of it's tools to best advantage.

Bob Bell

I still have pscs (no plans for cs2 upgrade yet) anyway, I have ACR 2.4 installed and I think it does a good job with CR2's. I use the adjust and lens tabs as needed and avoid most of the other options. Maybe its a skill thing but im only comfy fixing white balance and exposure. I have heard good things about fixing CA but I stay away from shooting trees in the wintertime against the sun.

I think ACR allows you to fix a lot more things than EOS Raw Converter which is cool.

jfriend interesting set of questions. I havent used enough programs to answer so i will be interested to hear from those with big software budgets

David_S85

I just began shooting RAW a couple weeks ago. My main editing is in PSP and not PS CS2. Currently, I'm using DPP 2.0.3.7. It is a free upgrade for anyone with Canon supplied software that came bundled with a camera, including non-dSLR shooters. The current version also adds styles, which is a non-descript name for cooking an image with pre designed tone curves. I happen to think those styles are next to worthless, but since the program offers batch capability, if one wished to output 1000 images all in basic B&W or desaturated the exact same way, it can do that with, um, style!

My requirements for RAW software is minimal, as I'm only looking for the conversion to accomplish any white balance tweaks and exposure comp if I didn't nail the shot (which I usually don't). I then output a .TIF for further work in post. I do NOT wish to sharpen an image in DPP, as available options in my main editor have much more control for that.

For those who don't know, DPP can also handle native .JPG and .TIF files -- loading a RAW file isn't mandatory -- though DPP is a bare bones app and can't really perform advanced editing. But it seems to do a good job at what it's designed to do. And it is lightning fast as a bonus. Previews are just about instantaneous. .TIF output is optionally 8 or 16 bit.

Dani

under the 'tools' menu it has 'transfer to photoshop' I like to do my RAW conversion and then take the image or images straight to photoshop and finish them. I don't like to convert the RAW file and then save it and go back later... or save them all then open another program and reopen them... Its easier to just transfer them directly into pshop....

apperantly this feature does not work on my program though... or there is a setting with my computer or with photoshop that prevents it... because it opens photoshop (if its not already open) and transfers the image into photoshop and then a split second later shuts it all down.

Flyinggina wrote:

I'm confused by this, Dani. I chose convert and save from the file drop down menu in DPP and save the file as a tiff in whatever folder I want to put it in (usually the folder with the original RAW). I then go to PP (or PS Elements or any other photo viewing software) and open the tiff file. Voila. Maybe they changed things in the latest version. I do have RSP set to open the converted files in PP, but I could just as easily change that to PS or whatever.

Virginia

Rohirrim

Hi Dani,

I've used Capture One, ACR and now use Raw Shooter Premium (http://pixmantec.com/index.asp) . As has already said I think that most RAW converters will give you excellent images, it just depends on the user.

I ended up with RSP because it was faster on my machine and I like the workflow better than ACR.

There is a free versioin Raw Shooter Essentials that you might consider trying. There is some good instructions on its use here:

• Video quick start tutorial - http://pictureflow.fileburst.com/_Tutorials/RawShooter/index.html
• Review and tutorial - http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_18/essay.html

I would recommend trying all the converters you can and stick with the one that works best for you.

wxwax

mercphoto wrote:

You're using Canon equipment. Have you tried their Digital Photo Professional software?

DPP unfailingly shows my RAW shots as being much, much warmer than does PS.

So much so that I no longer trust it.