RAW Therapee vs ACR 3.7

ziggy53

I finally took the time to compare RAW Therapee with ACR 3.7 (with PS CS2, I still have not upgraded to CS3 and ACR 4.4).

The method I used was the same Canon 40D, RAW file as previous to the "Raw Therapee"* thread, opened directly in RAW Therapee and converted first to a DNG and then opened in ACR. I used the default and then null settings for both converters and then saved to 16 bit TIFF, uncompressed.

*http://www.dgrin.com/showpost.php?p=773553&postcount=12

I brought both TIFF files, from each RAW converter, into PS CS2 and overlayed one on to of the other and took a lower crop from each and cerefully saved the results as a new cropped file. The reason for the crop was to eliminate the upper half which had incandescent lights showing and because I only wanted the lower half for the extreme processing test and I wanted both images to show at the same time so I could do similar visible processing on each while viewing the other.

I have to say that the ultimate results I was able to create from each RAW conversion wound up strikingly similar, which just means both ACR and RAW Therapee are doing commendable, and roughly equivalent work.

The overall synopsis is that ACR did a much better job with high-frequency noise in that the HF noise wound up in considerable quantity, but was more evenly distributed in color, more random colors. RAW Therapee was more inclined to produce almost spectral dots by comparison, with little color. Mid-frequency and low-frequency noise was very similar between the two. Ultimately, the same noise reduction settings worked well on both images, which I applied in this case at the end of processing. CS2 did leave more of a reddish tint in the deep shadow areas, but it could have been corrected manually.

Here is a small 1:1 crop showing a comparison of the two treatments, RAW Therapee on top and ACR on bottom:

dogwood

ziggy53 wrote:

I have to say that the ultimate results I was able to create from each RAW conversion wound up strikingly similar, which just means both ACR and RAW Therapee are doing commendable, and roughly equivalent work.

Just my two-cents of course, but the CS3 ACR is much, much, much better than CS2's ACR.

Honestly-- I used to use Canon's DPP to raw process when I used CS2 'cause CS2, well, sucked when it came to raw conversions. I noticed a HUGE difference between DPP and CS2 raw conversions.

But with CS3, that all changed. ACR in CS3 produces files on par with DPP.

That's all a very long way of saying I personally think you're cheating yourself by using CS2 and your results may have been different with CS3. Again, just my opinion, but I think ACR in CS3 makes third party raw converters obsolete. I know others won't agree but as a Canon shooter, I get awesome results.

ziggy53

dogwood wrote:

... I personally think you're cheating yourself by using CS2 and your results may have been different with CS3. Again, just my opinion, but I think ACR in CS3 makes third party raw converters obsolete. I know others won't agree but as a Canon shooter, I get awesome results.

Thanks Pete. I kept the files so I'll do another test when I do get CS3/ACR 4.4.

BigAl

Ziggy, there seems to be a bit more green noise in the ACR image (or am I dreaming)?

ziggy53

BigAl wrote:

Ziggy, there seems to be a bit more green noise in the ACR image (or am I dreaming)?

Hi Al.

Surely could be. That could probably be reduced with the Hue/Saturation. I didn't try to take this quite as far as I did with Raw Therapee alone in the other thread.