Raw processors compared

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by Amin Sabet, Aug 30, 2015.

  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Jul 3, 2010
    • Like Like x 1
  2. lenshacker

    lenshacker SC Regular

    Nov 21, 2014
    It will make it easier for me to Dump LR if it ever goes "Cloud Only" rather than stand-alone upgrades.

    I suspect a lot of variation can come in depending on the camera/raw format. Most Raw developers fail with some formats such as linear-DNG. Some, like Apple's failed with disastrous results.
  3. Covey22

    Covey22 SC Top Veteran

    Feb 3, 2012
    Hmm. Food for thought.

    But honestly, if half his stable are Nikons that are older than 2010, he's missing the boat on Nikon Capture NX2. Pound for pound, when it comes to clean Nikon NEF conversions, nothing comes close. And CNX2 still has Nik U-Point integrated into it. So it's a slice in time of one the best RAW converters and PP editors that existed. It will still run on Windows 8, so it's aging gracefully.
  4. Garylh

    Garylh SC Veteran

    One thing I noticed was in Aperture, there is a raw preprocessing that can be added to processing pipeline. There is additional fine tuning for sharpening that u can do. He used the normal sharpening tools, which I guess he did to keep everything uniform in terms of the testing procedure.

    I find I can pull more details from the raw files using the raw preprocessor step. But since Apple has abandoned Aperture, I looking for a raw processor myself. This was an interesting article.

    One thing I am interested in... Does anyone know if dxo or c1p does batch raw processing? I was thinking I can extend the usage of Aperture as my base photo sw by converting the raw to tiff in a batch process and importing into Aperture.

  5. Lawrence A.

    Lawrence A. SC All-Pro

    Nov 8, 2012
    New Mexico
    Real Name:
    His stated preferences are just the opposite of mine. I don't really care about noise except color noise, and crunchy is just fine with me if it allows me to hold detail that noise reduction would otherwise obliterate. With film, I usually preferred a high acutance developer that incidentally accentuated grain - HC110 at the standard dilution B - at least with medium format and larger. Looking at what is happening at 100% gives one a bit of useful information about what is happening at pixel level, but my personal standard for processing is how something looks at 50%. I typically use Lightroom to develop a 16 bit tiff that holds all the information I need (like developing a negative in the old days) and then do the final "print" adjustments in Photoshop, including a judicious high pass sharpening quite often. I'm not advocated for that work-flow. It is how I prefer to work, separating the development of the source (film or file) from the work on the final "print".

    I almost never use luminance NR. If -- and it is rare -- I need a bit more NR when the file is finished, I'll throw it into NeatImage for some typically minor adustments. Like I said, noise as grit or crunch doesn't bother me, certainly not at 100%, where worrying too much about it is neurotic, I think.

    To his remarks about Photo Ninja I'd add that for PC users it does about the best job for X-Trans raw files. I find Lightroom simply unacceptable for the Fuji files, losing huge amounts of information in complex areas, like soil, of very fine detail. I happily use it with my ORF files, though.