Raw Converter Showdown: Capture One Pro 7, DxO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4

I use Capture NX most of the time. Only app which recognizes Active D-Lighting, allows multiple adjustments and gives me almost all I want when used with NIK Color Efex. For most specific tasks I use ACR and CS. Lightroom = good photo manager tool.
Nikon ought invest in version 3.

So for most things I use LR4 (CS5.5 if I need more layering job). For my best portrait I have to go into View or Capture NX and export the 90mb tiff file then add it to lightroom since LR4 features are the best (faster then going into photoshop too). I still hoping Nikon release capture NX 3 with improvement so I don't have to use LR, but since google bought Nik I doubt it will be anything great. Either Nikon share its nef code or have an option to save in dng like pentax, and a few others, so I can just use LR4 straight up.

I will also look into the DxOmark and the other software mention here too.

I too own licences for all three. They all have their strengths and annoyances.
I use DOP for Nikon DSLR, I like the image quality. I run batches to convert all images, exporting to DNG which I catalogue in MS Expression Media (MSEM). But RW2 files are incompatible, and is it seems ver 8 is very slow in comparison with ver 6 & 7?
I use LR4 for our collection of Panasonic compacts. LR4 has better workflow, but I have switched off all default image corrections because I do not like the results. So I use LR4 to catalogue RW2 files, and print contact sheets. (MSEM struggles with RW2).
Capture One purchased Expression Media from MS. Initially I was happy, but then realised that my long-time cataloguing program had taken several steps backwards. I could no longer catalogue DNG files (from DOP) or RW2 files from Panasonic. All my old catalogues had become useless in COP, so I reverted to MSEM. . I might use COP7 for one-off raw conversions such as portraits, and not for cataloguing.

Interesting article, but a moot point. Workflows are not portable between tools. So after about 5 years on Lr, and 30K images in the catalog there is no way I can even consider C1 - and arrive to a situation of maintaining two licenses for two separate catalogs.

This is a very unfortunate situation in the industry, which allows big players to skip on quality and hurts smaller players. The pain will go on until smaller players get together and create an exchange format or some other solution.

A very useful article. Here is what would have made it better:

1. Discuss any differences in how Photoshop Bridge w Raw Processor works and differs from Lightroom.

3. Discuss the cons of the database management in Lightroom etc. For example how the whole thing breaks down when backup to a new device or decide to re-organize your files, without fully understanding how the database in Lightroom works.

2. Have a detailed evaluation of batch file naming and renaming in each of the programs.

3. A Summary Table would have been nice showing how each program was ranked with each of the task evaluations.

Error in text: Additional Features page you state that Capture One focus Mask tool is highlighted in red, when in fact the illustration shows green highlights.

In summary a very nice job. We need more comparisons like this.

Thanks

Dan

Nice to know that DXO did very well in this review from DPreview especially next to Lightroom. Most wedding photographers I talk to, use Adobe Lightroom and I have been using DXO for 4 years.
For image quality DXO Pro 8 according to this review had the winners in certain image quality categories or tied.
1. TWO-WAY TIE: Capture One Pro 7 and DxO Optics Pro 8 consistently provide natural, pleasing skin tones (from Portrait tests, may depend on camera though)
2. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings.
3. WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 offers crisp default settings and superior results in the image corners. (default sharpening test, with lens / camera modules)
4.WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8, with some manual adjustments produces very good high ISO detail while retaining more color data than the competition. (noise reduction test)
Lightroom certainly did better in some tests as did Capture One, but I really like my DXO and its smart interface.

Great article could you please review other raw converters and photographic software in a similar way

Took a look on AfterShot. Still does not support D600 or Sony RX100!?
I could not agree that the workflow in LR is great. Maybe if your workflow fits in LRs workflow. But the only thing you can customize is the logo in the top left. Far too little list of shortcuts and you can not change anything. Version 4 now supports color management but it is far from intuitive.
C1 shines bright but with a lot of shadow. You can customize everything even the adjusting for exposure, whitebalance, lights and shadows can get their own shortcuts. Workspaces and panels can be customized in every way you can think and the integration of color management is exemplary. I used it for a view month with enthusiasm. Sadly the retouching tools are a joke, the file management even in version 7 is horrible with many thousand images it is boring slow and far from stable.
I went back to Aperture. But the problem with Apple is you never know what the future brings. :\

I recently tested these 3 products for myself and came to the following conclusions:

C17 gives the best overall image quality almost without exception. Greatest detail and lowest noise. I did run into a software bug, but tech support is very good.

DxO8 is close behind C17 when it supports your camera/lens combination. If your camera lens combo is not supported it is best not to use DxO for RAW processing.

LR4 is not too far behind, but is a definite 3rd given the above. However, I do have some older RAW files not supported by C1 or DxO and still value Adobe Camera Raw (whatever form) for doing a decent job with these files.

I make and sell prints of my work for a living and come from a large format background. I've owned/used C1, DxO, and Adobe CR for several/many years. C16 was a step behind in image quality, but C17 is the real deal

Image variables such as color rendering, etc. are too difficult to judge using default settings and all 3 programs have good adjustment tools

I know those three RAW converters tested are the most popular, however IMHO the Silkypix Pro 5 is at a similar/slightly better level to/than DXO Pro 8 and Capture One Pro 7 and better than Lightroom 4 (ACR) in image conversion ( general tools , noise control and colors ). I use Silkypix for over 5 years and got very much used to its UI, the latest Pro 5 version has some excellent new tools, mainly the new NR engine. I've tested the 3 last versions of LR and DXO and COne v.P7 and they just can't replace Silkypix Pro 5 for me. It doesn't have a file management system ( I have my own ), though using a conventional, straightforward file browser and open/save similar to Photoshop, which's been my main PP software for over 10 years. I suggest you folks at DPR to take a good look at it!

Taken for what it is, this is great work.

BUT

I think the omission of Aperture is a big shame and renders the test only partially interesting.

Apple's entry is the missing member here. It's absence DOES make a difference.

Apple has a massive user base and Aperture is their proprietary offering. It is not the same as the other offerings also missed from the test.

DP-REVIEW, thank you for that great and detailed review.

It's ridiculous that some people here criticize the review because it has not considered their favorite software.

The comparison is appreciated but I do wonder about the image quality comparison. It seems meaningless to compare default color, skin tone, and sharpening settings - the entire point of these tools is to adjust the image to your liking with the defaults simply being a starting point. Further most applications allow you to adjust what those defaults are making the whole exercise moot.

A better comparison could be gained by having a user skilled in all three applications try to tweak a set of images to their optimal look. Say a monochrome image, a high contrast saturated landscape, a finally a portrait. The comparison will always be subjective but at least then the comparison would be over the output of the programs and not just the image's initial state.

I appreciate seeing these laid out side by side, but am puzzled why Aftershot Pro wasn't considered worthy of competing in this event. It sports a competitive feature set, so the output quality and speed comparison would be particularly useful.

I am a former user of all three of these programs who has moved up to Photo Ninja, so I have no particular axe to grind. But having studied all of the image samples, it seems to me that DPReview has been exceptionally generous to ACR. In particular, they have failed to comment on the lack of skin texture and the weak facial contours in all of the ACR portraits. This is consistent with my own personal experience with the program. It takes a great deal of effort to produce satisfactory portraits. ACR also has a tendency to blur foliage into green and yellow blobs. I'm not sure if that effect is visible in the current samples, but I have seen it often enough in my own work to know that it is a genuine problem. Of the three programs tested, Capture One is the easy choice, IMO, but Photo Ninja is the new king of raw convertors.

Interesting article, not a real review covering all of the available software, but mostly of interest to pixel peepers. In the real world, buyers of wall art, for the most part, don't have a clue about film or digital formats, print processes or print media, much less post processing. They just care if the image does something for them emotionally.

As for Capture One, it's been of interest to me except the company refuses to support competitive digital medium format systems, in my case the Pentax 645d. So, I'll stick with LR.

And as an owner and user of both Macs and PCs (64bit), anyone who claims PCs aren't up to Apple standards of performance is simply a fanboy to be ignored.

enjoyable and informative as ever..

Have you ever noticed in life,
no matter how impartial and helpful you try to be, there's always someone whining and complaining about your efforts?

Please take little notice of them. For me, as an amateur who doesn't 'know-it-all' your reviews are invaluable.

Great article.

Thank you.

Capture one does a much better job handling CA and overall the IQ is significantly better on files from their own digital backs. You can see this in areas of detail near transition from light to dark.

LR4 has better print output than C1. I will often render in C1 with a fine sharpening radius for capture, then use the detail slider in LR4 as a second sharpening pass before printing.

I haven't tried doing LCC with lightroom, but this is an area that C1 handles very well. Not much of an issue with DSLR's but very important for many types of critical work.

Interesting article. But like some other readers, I wish the article had included Aperture (even if it is Mac-specific only). Also, like some other readers reported, I have really gotten great results from Photo Ninja. And I find its interface to be easy to use.

I use RawTherepee. I'm not converting raw files in any large volume, but when I do have a few to process, this program does everything I ask of it. I'm very happy with the results I get. Makes me wonder why I even fool around with JPEGs anymore.

As some others here, I find the exclusion of Corel Aftershot Pro (fka Bilbble) puzzling. The current build of Aftershot is a capable, if not entirely perfect, RAW conversion and asset management platform with some unique features the other offerings here do not have. It is cross-platform, has been around I believe longer than the three products that were tested, and can be had for practically shareware prices.

Aftershot needs some investment for some cameras in its color profiles, and its asset management features are not as mature as these other products. It has superior speed, especially with multicore AMD support. I also believe that it renders, for many camera systems, with better acutance without added sharpening.

While many here have also argued that Aperture should have been included, it is unfortunately falling behind the other offerings. Somewhere along the way the vision and spirit of earlier versions of Aperture have been lost, and I worry for its future.

Please DPREVIEW privide all RAW files in this showdown !!!

Without a clear workflow or output quality winner, I'll go with the application and company that I think will still be around and independent 10 years from now, and who is most likely to give my library and adjustments an upgrade path - Adobe.

I love the features and workflow of Adobe software but I get better image quality with DXO Pro Elite .... their Lens Modules recognize the exact lens that was used and apply specific corrections that provide a sharper image. In my mind that is the primary value of DXO.

But sure when I need to process hundreds of RAW photos I prefer Adobe.

I liked the review, and having both C1 Pro, and Lr4, and having occasionally tested DxO, I cannot disagree with the conclusions.

I'd add one thing: the default rendering of Lr, which is indeed quite flat, can usually be made much more pleasing by selecting camera maker profiles, when they exist. You can also tweak the look and profiles to your liking, and define them as the new default settings to apply to that camera on later imports.

What is interesting, is how close these three programs are getting. 6y ago, Lr, C1 and DxO were much more different software that they are today.

Finally, RawTherapee is a great converter with leading edge demosaicking algorithms. It is however not as features rich as the above software: it is still primarily a raw converter (even if the compatibility with Adobe's DNG color profiles and lens profiles extends its usefulness). And more importantly, it is still a beta product that has some serious stability and memory management issues.

World of RAW converters is much broader than only those three. One of the reasons “the big three” is so big is that dpreview and similar sites hardly ever mention alternatives. How about

-Photo Ninja product of the creator of highly regarded Noise Ninja plug-in
-Raw Therapee – one of the best open source Raw converters with hard to beat price of £0.0

I would like to see the test of RawTherapee

Did I miss something? Where is the analysis of image quality under image quality? I mean slightly different colors or contrast can be adjusted, but which of these programs can produce, for example, the best looking output from a high ISO RAW in terms of resolution and noise?

How interesting! A six-page review that ultimately doesn't even reach a conclusion. What will DPreview waste our time with next?

I think this article concentrates too much on how the "default" output looks like. The fact is, that (at least in LR) you can customize the default processing per camera, save it, and then use that setting as the default.
I have also tried C1 and Dx0. With the cameras I have (Canon and Panasonic) I find that Dx0 creates mush where LR renders detail, so I'm sticking with LR for speed and for "compare" function

Too short and way too amateur.

Today, photographers spend much more time in front of those stupid softwares than in front of the finder. Dpreview must understand it.

Availability and thoroughness of documentation and training materials is one area that I did not see covered in the review. Each of these products is difficult to master. I have used C1 for years and have always become frustrated because of the weakness or lack of detailed documentation. Each new release has changes that I frustrate myself trying to learn. DxO I purchased and was even more frustrated with its lack of documentation and training materials. Simple things like if you open a RAW file in another program first like LR or C1, the RAW file will not show up in the DxO browser -- this took me two weeks of slow emails with Dx0 to figure out. With LR you have books and tutorials from Adobe and third parties. So why do I use three products -- because not all cameras are supported or supported equally by each product. An example of this is the Fuji X-trans sensor.

Partial defishing is where DxO8 shines, with Canon full frames and the Canon 15mm f2.8 fisheye. LR4's tool is better than it was but still doesn't come close, sadly. In DxO untick the ratio box, and use a setting of 65-85, and WOW.

DxO's Smart Lighting is also really good, a realistic pseudo HDR that isn't easy to reproduce quickly. However I often find DxO is too bold with tricky images, things blow out or get ugly quickly; LR4 is far more subtle, gives more latitude and doesn't lose it. DxO's output never seems to look like on the screen; LR4 does, exactly.

In LR use Masking to get better high ISO results than in the article. I haven't tried C1.

Pg 4, Tool Adjustments
"Both Capture One Pro 7 and Lightroom 4 provide smooth real-time updates to the image preview as you drag a slider."...

I think this is a very important consideration, particularly for those using raw converters a image editing apps (instead of PS, or with highly diverse raw files so that batch isn't a good option).
But I couldn't agree the real-time updates in LR4 are "smooth". Probably due to my slightly aged computer. But Picasa for instance is way smoother (I wouldn't consider it a serious raw converter but it does read raw files, and the few controls it has do work much more smoothly).
Any difference in the "smoothness" between LR4 and C17?

The conclusions are a bit confounding. Why suggest equivalency when there are clear differences?

Of course each product has value and has its own strong points. But it doesn't take much effort to see that Capture 1 is pulling out amazing results that the others can't achieve. DXO is second, and LR is far behind. C1 is taking the exact same image and giving it better color, impact, and detail! This isn't surprising, as it aligns with other comparison reviews on the web.

LR has clear advantages in 3rd party support and list price, but let's not pretend its fundamental image processing abilities are equivalent!

So... just a question. Bibble aka Corel AfterShot is no longer cool, or something?

This test finally shows that LR sucks as RAW converter.
Still 95% of its userbase will be pleased with its crappy results.

Too bad people fall for the 'Adobe' branded name instead of its real performance.

For Nikon users, Capture NX 2 is the only RAW converter you need. I guess Canon user will also say that of DPP. How much market share is now covered?

So, OSX has single digit market share and you do the comparisons on a Mac????? If this was going to be an Apple article, might as well have reviewed Aperture also.

This was not bad but ... why on earth did you compare Lightroom and Capture One Pro at two different preview sizes? They BOTH support 2048 and 2880; what on earth would make you think that changing Lightroom's setting but not Capture One's setting wouldn't be biased?

That is just such an incredibly amateur mistake I really had to make myself continue reading because I was expecting a train wreck of uneven and biased comparisons.

Overall I think this came to the right conclusion but would have benefited from ar least one section where you do a "Best Case Scenario" comparison and take a really noisey, poorly exposed image and try to make it as best as possible in each program - that's what a lot of people really care about: how far can I take my shooting and get good results? How many more images will I be able to save? Journalists and sports photographers are probably more interested in that sort of thing.

Regarding DxO Optics Pro:

In the case of Panasonic, quality of rectilinear distortion correction appears to be notably higher than Panasonic correction meta-data utilized by applications such as Adobe LR/CR. Presumably characterized at more Focal Lengths.

"Lens Softness" correction default settings were changed (in V 6.x) to "V2" (Global=-0.5, Detail=50). Have found that these settings can overdo the sharpening effects. I typically use the original "V1" (Global=0.0, Detail=0).

I find the auto NR controls' settings can be (uniformly) reduced by factors of between 2 and 5.

Adobe LR/CR Color NR is more effective than DxO Chrominance NR. DxO Luminance NR (particularly at settings <= 10) appears to result in less detail-smearing than LR/CR Luminance NR. This article speculates as to why that may be so.

See Section (1) here:

http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=395:la-reduction-de-bruit-avec-dxo-optics-pro-6&catid=67:dxo-optics-pro&Itemid=317