What RAW converter do you use (long post)?

Hello everyone,

I've been evaluating three RAW converters with varying results, so I am curious to find out what other folks use. I've got a Nikon D70, which means NEF format. I used to use Nikon Capture exclusively to create a batch of TIFs from the NEFs with no adjustments, and then edit the TIFs in PS. But recently I ran into a problem photo a client wanted which could only be improved with a RAW converter before sending to PS. Long story short, I converted the same problem photo with Adobe Camera RAW, Nikon Capture, and Bibble to compare the results. This initiated a lengthy comparison among the three converters for other problem photos. I discovered that the kind of problem to solve may require a different RAW converter, not the same one every time. But so far for my NEFs Nikon Capture usually has the best color quality with the fewest adjustments, Bibble's got cool add ons like noise ninja and is fast on my Dual G5, and ACR always comes up last in color and image quality.

So, what RAW converter do you use? Do you use more than one? I know some Canon shooters who love ACR, and I wish I could, too. Any other Nikonians out there disappointed with ACR's results?

Thank you for your responses.

I'm not a Nikonian, but I can share my experiences. I use ACR primarily because it fits well with my workflow, but I will say that if I use Digital Photo Pro or DPP (the Canon RAW converter software) my images look better going into PS than when I convert using ACR. It doesn't surprise me since Canon is going to have the inside scoop to exactly what makes brings out the best in their RAW files (the best sharpening formulas, how to bring out saturation, etc). However, it doesn't really save me any time. Whether I spend spend more time tweaking in DPP and less in Photoshop, or less time in ACR and more in Photoshop, it all seems to come out in the wash, and I appreciate the integration between ACR and PS in the menu choices (such as merging to HDR for example that can be started from ACR).

So, I believe that ACR doesn't give as eye pleasing results as a manufacturer's converter, but for me the benefits of integration into Photoshop and my workflow outweigh the other choice.

I've tried a few demo converters, but didn't really spend time evaluating them. I hate to say it, but I've found a method that works for me, and although I'm generally pretty open to change, I don't want to lose time in my workflow by changing it.

I suppose this doesn't answer your questions regarding Nikon's RAW converter, but I have read similar posts in other forums. You might want to visit [url]http://thedambook.com/smf/index.php{/url] which has a forum that specifically discusses most if not all the RAW converters out there and they talk about the issues you are seeking answers too. Give that a try and good luck!

Try Capture One Pro. You can download it for a free trial period. I love the interface and it's real good at preserving highlights.

I did use only Photoshop CS2 with ACR, but now I've worked with the Adobe Lightroom Beta and I'm truly blown away.

DL and try out: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/

It is a little buggy since it clearly is beta, but you'll figure out what's going on pretty quickly. Use the "Import" to load a folder of images. Select and image and hit "develop" - then it gets really crazy with what you can do.

-JL

A year or so ago, I did the pixel-peeping comparison tests of all the converters available at the time: C1, Raw Essentials, Canon's own converters, ACR, etc...I found that ACR gave me the most fine detail, but also the most noise. I believe that's because it's much less agressive in it's noise reduction than the others. I much prefer to do my own noise reduction and sharpening outside of the converter application so I chose ACR. I recently color-calibrated ACR to my cameras and it's made a significant difference in the colors...

Today, I use ACR for all my landscape/nature/street photography. I use Capture One for my people photography--portraits, weddings, etc...C1 gets me to a final image much faster than ACR, although at some cost in detail. For people, that's actually a good thing.

I've tried Lightroom, and I like the potential, but until I can simply navigate to a folder and browse my raw files, I won't be switching to it. Importing everything, even from the original locations, simply doesn't work with my approach...that's just me though...others are finding it a terrific tool.

Good luck with your search.

Cheers,

Erik:

I too have been longing for the correct raw converter. I've looked at just about everything on the market, from ACR to Capture One, to DDP, NX, and Nikon Capture, and so on. None of them have the single perfect conversion. What I am currently doing is using Nikon Capture for import, make minor corrections, then use the right click to send directly to CS2. From CS2, I do a capture sharpen, then work the image. I then save as a DNG. This keeps all of the raw and tiff together (it results in a larger file but everything is all in one place). I no longer have to track the sidecar files.

Currenlty under evaluation are three new programs for consideration: (1) Using the above only with Nikon NX vs Capture; (2) Breeze Browser Pro; and (3) Adobe Lightroom.

NX: Downloadable as trial and now supports most file types including jpg and tiff. Not what I am used to in Nikon Capture. It has many features that were only found in CS2 until now. The menus and navigation are seriously different than Capture and I need to spend time getting use to them if I decide to go this way - not sure at this point.

Breeze Browser Pro: I have been using this for only a short time, and went this way as I was tired to holding off for Adobe and Lightroom. I certainly like what I see, and the conversion from RAW is just as good as within ACR and has super batch options. Lots of pros on the Nikon and Cannon circuit are using this. Check out the reviews on digital outback as well as Cannon shooter such as Art Morris (www.birdsasart.com) or Nikon top shooter Moose Petterson. I like the preview options and the fast load of this inexpensive program.

Lightroom: I have had this animal (the beta 4) for three weeks. I can see a huge improvement from beta 3, and it is giving BBP a run for the money, although the develop part is slower than BBP. If they improve the converter engine in the develop module, things could be great. Lightroom is has a full relational database in it's backend. This is of great value once everything is loaded.

In summary I am wasting far too much time tyring to find the best application. I need pick one and refine my workflow around it. My way out of this mess: I will likely try to determine if NX is right for me. If so, spend the time to tame the lion; if not leave it in the dust. I will then turn to BBP vs Lightroom. BBP is super fast and could be my mobile answer with Lightroom at home. I need to closely evaluate the outputs of BBP and Lightroom before I jump.

David Bostock: I had the same initial issue with beta 3. Beta 4 is much better and I now find the issue of going directly to a given folder greatly improved. If you want full relational database support, sooner or later you will end up loading everything (but not at one time).

Still confused? Me too!

Well, Lightroom Beta 4 is pretty bithen' bad on my new MacPro dual 2.66 ghz with two gigs of ram!

I'll throw out another recommendation for Lightroom. Much better control over shadow recovery and highlight control than either DPP or ACR provides, especially when doing quick processing. I have been less than impressed with the sharpening in Lightroom thus far, but I'm sure they'll have better integration when the full version comes out (and if not, then dumping it into CS2 will solve that). I use DPP for a lot of batch processing for my website recently, but I've never been impressed with the DR it provides. Shadows are always too dark and the highlight control is abysmal compared to ACR and Lightroom.

That's the problem I've always been concerned with when doing a public beta. Especially when the product is not feature complete and/or integration complete. The customers see all the bugs, lack of features, lack of integration, etc, and quickly drop it and often never come back.

I have not tried lightroom, but those of you who are discouraged by bugginess, poor performance, or lack of features, for your own sake, I suggest waiting and trying the first RC (Release Candidate). That will give you a much better idea of what the final product will be.

Personally, I think Adobe does itself a disservice by releasing beta builds to the public too early. Sometimes you are better off letting the customers get a little frustrated... but hey, there's a reason I don't do marketing for a living...

Just $.02 from a Software Quality Assurance Engineer...

I use ACR, but really don't use it much jut sto import my fole in PSCS2 and there I really work it. I might do a little exposure adjusment but that's it. PSCS2 has so many tools, so why spend money on another one ? I rather go hiking

Tomas

I am learning to lover Lightroom beta 4 with each passing day. The more I fiddle the more I like!! I'm using it on a Pentium Duo Core 3Ghz with 2GB of RAM and it's a HUGE improvement performance-wise over beta 3.

Word up from the photoshop pundits is this is the last release before going gold sometime in early 2007. There won't be any "release candidates" for Lightroom.

I was a die-hard Pixmantec RAW Shooter Premium fan prior to Lightroom. I think of Lightroom as the next evolution of RSP. It REALLY IS AWESOME the moreI use it!!

Thank you all for your replies. It seems I've got plenty of company in my search for a raw converter that balances image quality with workflow integration. I s'pose I've got other converter candidates to demo before I settle on one for the time being. Ugh, this is too much like my day job. Now I know what shooters mean when they say "Oh no! Not another RAW converter!"

RAW converter update: Sorry, Bibble, but you are out, mostly because there is no graceful way to send an adjusted file to Photoshop. I like ACR's ease of use with CS2, but it's (lack of) image quality has me using Nikon Capture instead (which really stinks because NC is soooooooo slooooooooow).

So based upon the recommendations here, I've downloaded the Lightroom Beta 4 and am mightily impressed with its image quality, ease of use, and (dare I say it) Apple-like interface. I have also been considering Aperture, but there is no demo, and apparently users report that the graphics card in my G5 is dog slow with it. Lightroom seems to be the winner today; too bad it's only a beta and expires next February, when I'll probably go through this process again. Until then!

Well, I just adjusted 107 of Peggy's India photos for an upcoming slide show, and let me tell ya, Lightroom is the way to do it! If you're a wedding photographer, or anyone who has to work tons of photos right away, Lightroom is the way to go.

If you're a total anal weenie, (i.e., everyone here and most landscape photographers I know) and want to get ONE photo looking it's BEST, BEST, BEST, then I'd say to start off in Lightroom, then tyeak the bejesus out of it in Photoshop.

Just my humble opinion of course.

So Lightroom is proving to have some powerful features the more I use it. But I had read it is kinda buggy. I discovered tonight that Lightroom processed photos sent thru CS2 and eventually converted to JPEG aren't recognized as valid by iPhoto.

I'm curious what kinds of bugs anyone else has run into?

Only annoyance I've run into is I can't get it to save pictures at full size. Assuming this is just a beta being beta. It does run miserably slow on my machine, but I've only got 512mb of ram at the moment. I've got 4 gigs on the way, but I'm crippled at the moment.