Test of RAW converters

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Hilton, Mar 5, 2005.

  1. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    converters and ranks them.

    Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.

    Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.

    Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    3 stars.

    Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.

    I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.

    Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
    programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
    are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
    images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
    so it's worth testing as well.

    http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf

    It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
    sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
    three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
    test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
    noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
    later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
    get the best image available from that particular converter.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Mar 5, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Hilton

    paul Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    > converters and ranks them.
    >
    > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >
    > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >
    > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    > 3 stars.
    >
    > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    >
    > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
    >
    > Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
    > programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
    > are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
    > images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
    > so it's worth testing as well.
    >
    > http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf
    >
    > It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
    > sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
    > three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
    > test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
    > noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
    > later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
    > get the best image available from that particular converter.



    ACR (and Elements?) lacks curves but otherwise performs faster than
    Capture. ACR has shadow, brightness and contrast to get most pictures
    right. Of course then you are in photoshop and can apply curves but that
    means remembering to convert to 16 bit & convert back to 8 bit after
    flattening those curves. ACR has a nicer soft sharpening & noise
    reduction than capture IMO.

    Some of those side by side comparisons look very different. I think
    getting the same settings or trying to get them to look similar would be
    more helpful. Or turn off all adjustments on all of them. I tried to do
    that with this (though it's still hard to get them comparable):
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=California/Bay-Area/San-Francisco/our-garden/more/2005-03-02-trillium-maple/more/test>

    I also uploaded some tests of various converters someone else did here:
    <http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion/crop&PG=1&PIC=8&PICS=9>
    paul, Mar 5, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bill Hilton

    DM Guest

    Readers may also be interested in where the RAW convertor's fail to get it
    right...

    http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion

    Regards

    DM

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    > converters and ranks them.
    >
    > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >
    > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >
    > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    > 3 stars.
    >
    > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    >
    > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
    >
    > Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
    > programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
    > are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
    > images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
    > so it's worth testing as well.
    >
    > http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf
    >
    > It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
    > sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
    > three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
    > test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
    > noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
    > later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
    > get the best image available from that particular converter.
    >
    > Bill
    >
    DM, Mar 5, 2005
    #3
  4. Bill Hilton

    bmoag Guest

    Is this some kind of joke posting?
    What is the difference between the Elements and CS converters?
    Since all these conversions were done via the aesthetic sense of the article
    authors they are essentially worthless as comparisons of anything but the
    aesthetic sensibilities of the authors.
    The authors come to the startling conclusion that there really is a
    difference between jpeg and raw.
    What a waste of paper and electrons.
    bmoag, Mar 6, 2005
    #4
  5. Bill Hilton

    Guest

    : http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf

    Completely content-free. Don't waste your time.

    -Cory

    *************************************************************************
    * Cory Papenfuss *
    * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
    * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
    *************************************************************************
    , Mar 6, 2005
    #5
  6. Bill Hilton

    ThomasH Guest

    DM wrote:
    >
    > Readers may also be interested in where the RAW convertor's fail to get it
    > right...
    >
    > http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion
    >
    > Regards
    >
    > DM


    This Photohsop RAW has really some serious problems, I am suprized
    considering the astononic price of Adobe's software and its
    reputation.

    >
    > "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    > > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    > > converters and ranks them.
    > >
    > > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    > > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    > >
    > > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    > >
    > > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    > > 3 stars.
    > >
    > > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.


    Its a pity, Photo SHop Pro is otherwise a low price alternative
    to Photoshop and this is what we need: At least one competitor
    to the PhotoShop.

    Thomas

    > >
    > > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    > > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
    > >
    > > Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
    > > programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
    > > are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
    > > images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
    > > so it's worth testing as well.
    > >
    > > http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf
    > >
    > > It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
    > > sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
    > > three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
    > > test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
    > > noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
    > > later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
    > > get the best image available from that particular converter.
    > >
    > > Bill
    > >
    ThomasH, Mar 6, 2005
    #6
  7. Bill Hilton

    DM Guest

    It's not just Photoshop. Look at the colour cast on the red jumper from
    C1Pro! Talked to the C1 Techs at Focus On Imaging who say the 20D needs an
    additional 'Sunset Profile' that is not currently available to deal with
    these dawn/dusk shots (as is available for the 10D).

    Why when the Canon EOS Viewer & BBPro have no similar trouble?

    Regards

    DM

    "ThomasH" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > DM wrote:
    >>
    >> Readers may also be interested in where the RAW convertor's fail to get
    >> it
    >> right...
    >>
    >> http://www.edgehill.net/1/?SC=go.php&DIR=Misc/photography/raw-conversion
    >>
    >> Regards
    >>
    >> DM

    >
    > This Photohsop RAW has really some serious problems, I am suprized
    > considering the astononic price of Adobe's software and its
    > reputation.
    >
    >>
    >> "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    >> > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    >> > converters and ranks them.
    >> >
    >> > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    >> > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >> >
    >> > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >> >
    >> > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    >> > 3 stars.
    >> >
    >> > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.

    >
    > Its a pity, Photo SHop Pro is otherwise a low price alternative
    > to Photoshop and this is what we need: At least one competitor
    > to the PhotoShop.
    >
    > Thomas
    >
    >> >
    >> > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    >> > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.
    >> >
    >> > Also, the new Rawshooter Essentials is a free program by the original
    >> > programmer of the Capture One converter and it has some features that
    >> > are even more advanced than the others mentioned, I feel. For many
    >> > images I get better files with default settings than with Capture One
    >> > so it's worth testing as well.
    >> >
    >> > http://www.phaseone.com/upload/raw_converters.pdf
    >> >
    >> > It should be noted that apparently the tester used the default
    >> > sharpening and noise reduction settings. I personally like to make
    >> > three versions of each file on each converter when doing a comparative
    >> > test, one with default settings, one with the default sharpening and
    >> > noise reduction turned off (for those who prefer doing these steps
    >> > later), and one where I've made every possible correction possible to
    >> > get the best image available from that particular converter.
    >> >
    >> > Bill
    >> >
    DM, Mar 6, 2005
    #7
  8. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >bmoag writes ...
    >
    > Is this some kind of joke posting?


    No, it's an actual reprint of a magazine article.

    > What is the difference between the Elements and CS converters?


    Looks like they are recommending C1 for more experienced users and
    chose Elements over Photoshop because they are taking cost (value) into
    account for beginners. It's a consumer-oriented magazine, what do you
    expect? The Elements converter has about 95% of the functionality of
    the Photoshop one but at 10-15% the cost and it's easier to use. To
    quote from the pdf ... "For the complete beginner to RAW looking to
    dabble ... I'd recommend the Elements 3 package". They note Photoshop
    has extra features but don't feel they are worth an extra $500,
    apparently.

    > Since all these conversions were done via the aesthetic sense of the

    article
    > authors they are essentially worthless ...


    As I mentioned in my original post, anyone evaluating RAW converters
    should do so with various settings since the default sharpening and
    noise reduction settings vary widely, but the rankings these guys came
    up with are pretty much in line with what I've seen and with what
    others see as well, ie, C1 on top, CS RAW next and the various Canon
    engines (DPP, FVU, BreezeBrowser) below CS RAW. Here's a typical
    comparison from DPR for example that reaches the same conclusions for
    the 1D Mark II ...
    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page17.asp

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Mar 6, 2005
    #8
  9. Bill Hilton

    Carl Miller Guest

    On March 05 2005, "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
    > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    > converters and ranks them.
    >
    > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >
    > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >
    > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were
    > rated 3 stars.
    >
    > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    >
    > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.


    I use DxO (from www.dxo.com) and on informal testing, found I prefer
    images converted with it to Capture One or BreezeBrowser. I took a
    picture of an old wooden shed at sunset and found the details and color
    to be better on files converted with DxO, and the distortion correction
    that DxO does was increadible! I'm also one of those people who shoots
    RAW when they think RAW is the way to go, but also shoots JPG when they
    think JPG is the way to go, and DxO does its magic to JPGs as well as
    RAW files.

    --
    Carl Miller

    www.stellarphotos.com
    Carl Miller, Mar 7, 2005
    #9
  10. Bill Hilton

    Ron Krebs Guest

    "Carl Miller" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On March 05 2005, "Bill Hilton" <> wrote:
    > > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    > > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    > > converters and ranks them.
    > >
    > > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    > > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    > >
    > > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    > >
    > > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were
    > > rated 3 stars.
    > >
    > > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    > >
    > > I've tested four of these (Capture One, Photoshop CS, DPP and
    > > BreezeBrowser) and would rank them the same way.

    >
    > I use DxO (from www.dxo.com) and on informal testing, found I prefer
    > images converted with it to Capture One or BreezeBrowser. I took a
    > picture of an old wooden shed at sunset and found the details and color
    > to be better on files converted with DxO, and the distortion correction
    > that DxO does was increadible! I'm also one of those people who shoots
    > RAW when they think RAW is the way to go, but also shoots JPG when they
    > think JPG is the way to go, and DxO does its magic to JPGs as well as
    > RAW files.
    >
    > --
    > Carl Miller
    >
    > www.stellarphotos.com
    >


    Looks good. Too bad it supports only a few camera mfgs.
    Ron Krebs, Mar 7, 2005
    #10
  11. Bill Hilton

    Jim Townsend Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:

    > This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    > British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    > converters and ranks them.
    >
    > Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    > also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >
    > Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >
    > Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    > 3 stars.
    >
    > Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    >


    Stange... Nobody seems to notice or discuss Bibble Lab's RAW
    conversion software.. It's supposed to be similar in some
    respects to C1.

    I use it only because I'm a Linux user and Bibble's RAW
    converter is the only package out there that has a full
    native Linux version.

    I use the 'light' version and find it's an excellent package.
    It gets images noticeably sharper than the two other RAW
    converters I've used to date (Canon's EVU and DPP utilities).

    It's not perfect.. There are a couple of small bugs.. But it's
    definitley worth looking at.

    http://www.bibblelabs.com/
    Jim Townsend, Mar 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Bill Hilton

    Carl Miller Guest

    On March 07 2005, "Ron Krebs" <> wrote:
    > Looks good. Too bad it supports only a few camera mfgs.


    Gotta agree with you there. I know one Nikon CoolPix owner who would buy
    it if it supported his camera. Owners of the high-end "point-and-shoot"
    digitals could really benefit from this program and I'm sure plenty of
    them are serious enough about their pictures to snatch it up.

    But seems like their supporting new models every month.

    --
    Carl Miller

    www.stellarphotos.com
    Carl Miller, Mar 9, 2005
    #12
  13. Bill Hilton

    Doug Mitton Guest

    Jim Townsend <> wrote:

    >Bill Hilton wrote:
    >
    >> This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    >> British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    >> converters and ranks them.
    >>
    >> Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    >> also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >>
    >> Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >>
    >> Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    >> 3 stars.
    >>
    >> Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    >>

    >
    >Stange... Nobody seems to notice or discuss Bibble Lab's RAW
    >conversion software.. It's supposed to be similar in some
    >respects to C1.
    >
    >I use it only because I'm a Linux user and Bibble's RAW
    >converter is the only package out there that has a full
    >native Linux version.
    >
    >I use the 'light' version and find it's an excellent package.
    >It gets images noticeably sharper than the two other RAW
    >converters I've used to date (Canon's EVU and DPP utilities).
    >
    >It's not perfect.. There are a couple of small bugs.. But it's
    >definitley worth looking at.
    >
    >http://www.bibblelabs.com/



    Thank you so much for posting this! I have been looking for a native
    Linux GUI app to allow manipulation of RAW files. How did you ever
    find this one? Does the Lite version expire? The about dialog says I
    have 14 days left.

    --
    ------------------------------------------------
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
    SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
    ------------------------------------------------
    Doug Mitton, Mar 11, 2005
    #13
  14. Bill Hilton

    Doug Mitton Guest

    Doug Mitton <> wrote:

    >Jim Townsend <> wrote:
    >
    >>Bill Hilton wrote:
    >>
    >>> This PDF is a reprint of an article in the Feb 2005 issue of the
    >>> British magazine "Digital Photo" which tests seven different RAW
    >>> converters and ranks them.
    >>>
    >>> Capture One LE was judged the best, with 5 stars. Photoshop Elements
    >>> also got 5 stars but was recommended for lower level users.
    >>>
    >>> Nikon Capture 4.1 and Photoshop CS were rated 4 stars.
    >>>
    >>> Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) and BreezeBrowser Pro were rated
    >>> 3 stars.
    >>>
    >>> Paint Shop Pro 9 was the worst one tested and rated at 2 stars.
    >>>

    >>
    >>Stange... Nobody seems to notice or discuss Bibble Lab's RAW
    >>conversion software.. It's supposed to be similar in some
    >>respects to C1.
    >>
    >>I use it only because I'm a Linux user and Bibble's RAW
    >>converter is the only package out there that has a full
    >>native Linux version.
    >>
    >>I use the 'light' version and find it's an excellent package.
    >>It gets images noticeably sharper than the two other RAW
    >>converters I've used to date (Canon's EVU and DPP utilities).
    >>
    >>It's not perfect.. There are a couple of small bugs.. But it's
    >>definitley worth looking at.
    >>
    >>http://www.bibblelabs.com/

    >
    >
    >Thank you so much for posting this! I have been looking for a native
    >Linux GUI app to allow manipulation of RAW files. How did you ever
    >find this one? Does the Lite version expire? The about dialog says I
    >have 14 days left.



    Sorry to reply to my own post ...

    It definetly expires ... I think I read between the lines incorrectly!
    :)
    --
    ------------------------------------------------
    http://www3.sympatico.ca/dmitton
    SPAM Reduction: Remove "x." from my domain.
    ------------------------------------------------
    Doug Mitton, Mar 11, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Guest

    test test test test test test test

    Guest, Jul 2, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    894
    halfalifer
    Jul 2, 2003
  2. W Chan

    RAW converters..??

    W Chan, Jan 30, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    494
  3. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    293
    Gormless
    Oct 4, 2005
  4. bmoag

    Compare 3 raw converters yourself

    bmoag, Nov 3, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    351
    W (winhag)
    Nov 3, 2005
  5. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    Shadow information with different raw converters

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    452
    Bart van der Wolf
    Jan 18, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page