ArticlesSoftware/App ReviewsRaw Converter Showdown: Capture One Pro 7, DxO ...

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

By Amadou Diallo | Published Jan 23, 2013 | Software/App Reviews

With the start of a new year, we thought it would be a good time to explore the current state of raw processing with a head-to-head comparison of the leading cross-platform raw image converters: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4, Phase One's Capture One Pro 7 and DxO Optics Pro 8. Of course, today's raw converters offer much more than just demosaicing algorithms. Issues such as processing speed, imaging workflow and output options rank right up there with image quality for amateur and professional photographers alike. And as software gets more and more clever about image analysis, the ability to start with a pleasing image at default settings is enticing as well.

So we loaded our test computer with hundreds of raw files from a variety of cameras and put each application through its paces to find out which one offers the best combination of performance, features and of course, image quality.

The minimum hardware requirements of each application are fairly similar, with all three available for both Mac and Windows operating systems. Each application benefits from multi-core processors, plenty of empty hard drive space and lots of available memory. I'd suggest at least 8 gigabytes of RAM on any system, particularly if you like to have multiple programs running at once.

The contenders

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3
US $149/ €134.07/ £106.48 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

Lightroom 4's modular approach is tailored to a comprehensive capture to output workflow.

Adobe's raw converter and image management software offers tight integration with the company's industry-standard editing software, Photoshop CS. Among the new features in the latest version of Lightroom are geo-tagging, soft-proofing and the ability to create print-ready books. You can read about these and other features in our Lightroom 4 review. For a list of currently supported cameras, visit Adobe's Camera Raw page. Adobe also has Lightroom 4 online training videos available.

Capture One Pro 7.0.2
US $299/ €229/ £228 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

Capture One Pro 7 introduces image catalog support for expanded management and organization options.

Phase One's raw converter has long been popular with fashion and studio photographers due to its robust support for tethered shooting. New to version 7 is a catalog-based asset management option and live view during tethered shooting for select DSLRs. The latest dot release (7.0.2) introduces support for Fujifilm's X-Trans sensor cameras and you can see how it handles the X-Pro1's raw files in our recent test. For a list of currently compatible cameras, visit Phase One's support page. Phase One provides a video tutorial series for Capture One Pro 7 on their YouTube channel.

DxO Optics Pro 8.1.2
US $299/ €299/ £269 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

DxO Optics Pro 8 is best known for its extensive, automated corrections for lens flaws.

DxO Labs' raw converter is built around the company's well-regarded camera/lens correction modules. Long favored by many users in conjunction with external asset management apps, version 8 introduces selective tonal edits and print capability. You can read about these features in our DxO Optics Pro 8: What's New article. For a list of currently compatible cameras, visit DxO labs' support page. DxO Labs also hosts a library of DxO Optics Pro 8 tutorials on their web site.

In this raw converter showdown we'll compare these three programs in the following categories:

Let's get started with our raw converter showdown and find out which one comes out on top.

Click here to continue reading our Raw Showdown article...

LIKE 35

Flag as inappropriate

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions held by dpreview.com or any affiliated companies.

Pin It

Print view

Comments

Total comments: 382

Not sure the following question makes sense: If you made a DNG file, say in LR2, and convert it using LR4, would you get the current LR4 quality as described in this review or, would the quality remains LR2?

When I upgraded from LR2 to 3 and now 4, and from Capture One Pro 3 to 7, I can say that my older RAW images got a real boost in quality. I was wondering if the same happens with DNG files.

BTW, the negative of this situation is that I am tempted to reprocess some older images... when I have the time.

0 upvotes

Good question. Using the DNG format preserves the attributes of the raw file in its original state. So in the vase of software that reads DNG, like Lr you will indeed get any IQ advantages that Lr 4 has over Lr 2. You'll just need to update the file to the latest process version.

1 upvote

For people who say the software is too expensive; I agree with you...However it has been my experience that almost every new generation of software improves the results from my RAW files about as much as buying a new body would (better noise reduction, better dynamic range, and better color).

So if I have a choice of spending $1000 or $2000 on the latest Canikon body or upgrading Lightroom for a tenth of that price, I'm going with the software upgrade.

2 upvotes

What makes Lightroom great is the easy integration with third party add-ons like Photomatix for HDR and Silver Efex Pro for B&W.

3 upvotes

Aperture (which was not included in this review) offers easy integration of 3rd party plug-ins as well.

5 upvotes

Actually, Aperture only has limited support for plugins and forces you to use a lot of third party products in external editor form.

2 upvotes

Great job as usual. But next time you do a skin tone rendering test, throw some Chinese, Japanese, or Korean folks into the mix please.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

3 upvotes

Fair enough.

2 upvotes

Gimp anyone? I use DXO and lightroom 4.0 depending on which camera I'm shooting with.

1 upvote

Been using Capture 1 Pro for a few years now and it is truly excellent. But since release 7, Phase One decided to only support 64-bit Windows. I use 32-bit Windows and will NOT upgrade for reasons to do with other software I must run. So now I'm picking an alternative.
So far good old Bibble, aka Corel Aftershot Pro, is well ahead of the pack, with full support for the multi core AMD CPUs I use. Nothing else is even remotely in the same ballpark when it comes to speed. And the results are at least as good as Capture One Pro 6. Pity it wasn't tested as well..

Comment edited 40 seconds after posting

1 upvote

In my tests Bibble/Aftershot crashed a lot and the skin colors were really bad (grey banding).

Sidenote: You realize that you can run 32bit applications on 64bit Windows, right?

2 upvotes

@iru. Not entirely correct. You can run some 32bit programs on 64 bit but not all. If the program includes any 16bit code it will work on 32bit windows but not 64bit. Also not all 32bit software which runs on 64bit runs identically on 32bit. Then there is the hardware. Not all are well supported in 64bit. I have a lovely printer which I have to have a 32bit printserver to use.

1 upvote

I realize that Apple's Aperture is Macintosh only, but it should be included in this "shoot-out" because it is a viable contender for those who use Macs, both on an amateur as well as professional level. It may not be a "leading contender" but it does draw Mac users away from the so-called leaders. I chose Aperture over Lightroom after trying both of their free trials. I not only preferred Aperture for it's ease of use, but also it's cost - $79 vs Lightroom's $149. There are professional photographers who use Aperture for their entire workflow... please don't slight them (as well as us amateurs) in your reviews.
Thank you for listening....

9 upvotes

I agree... should have reviewed Aperture, but I will look through the article for at least a COMMENT about it. WHY wasn't it reviewed? Not enough users? Just not in the big-boy league? I am currently deciding which to use as a NEW Mac user. Seems like Ap would interact with other Mac programs better. And ya know, I spend so much money on the Mac products, Nikon products, AND the Ladies... I gotta look at the cheaper software!

2 upvotes

I agree. Aperture should have been included. I also selected it over LR in trials and while the learning curve is steep, it is very powerful, integrates well with plug-ins and other OSX applications. The workflow is very natural and frees the creative spirit.

5 upvotes

Agreed. In October 2012 Derrick Story, a professional photographer, did a podcast comparing Lr and Ap. Ap is his day to day app because of its organizational capabilities and he uses Lr occasionally for its image tools. You can listen via iTunes or probably on his site, http://thedigitalstory.com. He compares many other features too, some of the ones covered in this article as well as other considerations.

He also points out that at least for Lr and Ap the price shouldn't be a driver. You're spending $50 to $100 or less per year which is not much relative to the other costs of photography.

0 upvotes

Title says "CROSS PLATFORM" - so I wonder why Aftershot Pro isn't included. I think that's the point of the article the software selected appeals to all computer users. It would have been good, however, to include at least a comparison test or two for each piece of software per platform, i.e. the import/export on both mac and PC and, say the batch editing. Just to compare if there is a difference in performance between platforms.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Well, since it is Mac only I can see why they did not included if their space and time allowed for testing only three.

Aperture might have won several categories but not everyone uses Mac. I do not.

What surprised me more is that they did not include Photoshop; entirely different workflow than LR. But if they could only test three, then yes, LR makes sense.

2 upvotes

Fantastic read, thank you very much.

Having both Lr4 and DxO 7.5, and sometimes also using Olympus Viewer2 (for the OMD files) one thing is not clear and I would appreciate if someone could explain it to me.

Why the same WB color temperature value will result in more or less different colors in all three on them ?

2 upvotes

Good question. White balance is not 'baked into' a raw file, rather the WB settings chosen in the camera are reported as metadata. A raw converter's demosaicing process will influence the colors it renders for the image.

Comment edited 12 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

There is a lot more than the de-mosacing algorithm used that influences color rendering.

While image-file meta-data contains color matrix coefficients (not absolute color temperature and tint data), different RAW processors use differing color matrices applied to the de-mosaiced RGB image-data. The latitude taken is significant - and does not lend itself to consistency in absolute color temperature comparisons.

A given indicated color temperature in Lightroom 3.x yields an image (viewed on a sRGB-calibrated monitor) that is appears to the eyes as being approximately 500 Degrees Kelvin "cooler" than DxO Optics Pro Versions 6.x and 7.x.

In example, 5000 Degrees Kelvin in DxO (6.x and 7.x) looks about the same as 5500 Degrees Kelvin in Lightroom 3.x (for sunlit scenes).

In addition to the numerical value of WB Color Temperature, the amount of applied WB Tint alters chromaticity as well.

Most "As Shot" WB co-ordinates include both Temperature and Tint; these are not simple matters.

2 upvotes

I've know it's been mentioned, but for you students and teachers out there, the Adobe educational discount is amazing. $89. Wahoo.

Corel Aftershot Pro at $34 is spanking and you really don't need more. Very nice, but not as established so I understand why it's not included above.

Cheers,
Seth

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Couple things I didn't see when skiming through the article. First Capture One has the ability to output a number of different formats at the same time. Just choose them, click develop, and walk away. As far as I can see with Lightroom, you have to output each one separately which takes time.

Also the keystone correction tool in Capture One is brilliant and anyone doing architectural photography should look at it, even if they use a shift lens as you don't always get the camera level.

0 upvotes

True, but for the record, that is in the review.

4 upvotes

Thanks if you are talking about the output formats, I missed that. I still can't see a reference to the keystone tool. What page is it on?

0 upvotes

I saw none of these features noted. I use both C1 and LR4. But, in most cases, I do the RAW conversion in C1, using LR4 as mostly a keywording application and permanent storage catalog. I am still not comfortable with Capture One database.

A good analysis, though, and I am pleased to see that your mileage may vary. I am wondering about the selection of software. What was it based on?

0 upvotes

I have been using DXO and LR for many years with several Canon bodies. I have processed tens of thousands of images with either software. My conclusions are more or less opposite of the DPR findings.

1. DXO has really bad colors. Skin colors cannot be salvaged.

2. LR has much better highlight control. DXO actually got worse with its latest version.

3. Detail recovery is not important with today's high resolution cameras.

4. DXO has really good high ISO NR.

3 upvotes

Experience ≠ ability.

3 upvotes

Huh?

0 upvotes

Am I wrong, or are you actually drawing the same conclusions as the article?
The review reports that LR has better colour skin rendition for Canon, has better highlight control than DxO and DxO has better Hi-ISO rendering....

0 upvotes

I think it is how you use it as much as anything. I use DXO, LR, Photoshop and others... but mostly photoshop and DXO.
I find that the colors, skin tones included, from DXO is very good. I also find the distortion correction on my lenses to be better with DXO then anything else. However I agree with the reviewer's comments based on the results in the test images.
To me, the surprise was how good Capture 1 was not how bad LR was.

1 upvote

Not all of my conclusions are opposite to DPR, you are right. But DPR says "WINNER: DxO Optics Pro 8 typically provides more pleasing saturation at its default settings." I disagree with this (for Canon RAWs), and not only when it comes to skin colors. LR renders much more pleasing colors with landscapes as well, for example - there is certain warmth to the image that DXO cannot reproduce regardless of the WB settings. Also, the tint and the luminosity of the blue skies is much more pleasing with LR (DXO tends to blow them); yellows become lemon type of yellows with DXO instead of slightly gold ones, etc.

DXO has several dozens of color rendering choices, and many Film Pack ones, as well. None of them can do what LR can. LR looks better sometimes with the Camera Standard profile - improves the reds.

Moderate ISO NR is better with LR but super high ISO NR is better with DXO.

0 upvotes

I have been using DXO extensively after using primarily Adobe and I agree that Adobe has better highlight recovery. DXO does very well with shadow recovery however.

Although I shoot with the D800, and often the AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II, I find that the Lens Softness feature (sharpening and maximizing per pixel detail) provides a definite improvement. The Lens Modules (for specific camera/lens combinations) make DXO my favorite in terms of image quality (vs. Adobe and Capture NX 2).

0 upvotes

Thanks! I enjoyed the read. I recently switched from DxO to C1 and I'm *veryveryveryvery* happy with my decision. That has mostly to do with the responsiveness of C1 (see Page 2, "Image Viewing" and Page 4, "Tool Adjustments") and the flexibility of the UI. I could configure the UI exactly the way I want it to be (two screens: 1 filled with tools, 1 with preview). I didn't go with Lightroom since it had severe color problems with neon highlights in my tests. Is that fixed now?

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

Thanks for the comparison. I haven't tried anything outside of Lightroom for years (except Photoshop and the Nik plugins). These other two products look great, but this kind of confirmed that LR4 still offers the most efficient workflow while providing robust RAW editing capability. I used to prefer Nikon Capture over Photoshop for RAW, but it was such a dog for workflow and speed. When I tried Lightroom 3 I never looked back. With any of these products you have to learn how to get the best out of them. I don't shoot Nikon much anymore anyway ;-)

0 upvotes

Isn't it standard practice to include the fact that y'all have a relationship with DXO when reviewing DXO products?

10 upvotes

We incorporate DxO Mark test data in our lens reviews and smartphone camera reviews. We publicized the announcement on our homepage and include their logo on the relevant review pages. So we're being as transparent as we reasonably can.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 1 minute after posting

6 upvotes

Amadou Diallo:

No the relationship should be noted in the text of this article. In about the first paragraph.

12 upvotes

What about the other raw converters?

Comment edited 19 seconds after posting

4 upvotes

In the opening sentence of the article, we stated that we looked at the leading cross-platform raw converters.

3 upvotes

Just downloaded the trial version of DXO Optics Pro 8 and compared a couple of photographs that I processed in DXO and in Lightroom 4.3. I have a Nikon D600. As far as I can tell, I much prefer the results I get in Lightroom 4.3 to DXO. DXO isn't bad and maybe has some advantages that I can't see, but in my opinion and at this point I would take Lightroom 4.3 over DXO any day. Lightroom is easier to use, faster, more intuitive, and in my eyes produces better results. It felt a little painful working with DXO due to the constant lagging each time I applied a change to the RAW file. As if that wasn't enough, Lightroom is also much cheaper. Nearly half the price, especially if you're a student and can buy it at less than $100.00.

2 upvotes

To see some of the advantages of DXO, try with pictures that need perspective or distorsion corrections (also for example UWA or fisheye).
In my opinion DXO is not great as complete raw editor, not very responsive, but very good as specialized tool for the above mentioned features.
Probably for this reason now they also offer ViewPoint, a simplified program just specialized in those corrections.

Comment edited 14 seconds after posting

1 upvote

You can do perspective and distortion corrections with LR as well. What DXO does but LR does not are Volume anamorphosis corrections.

3 upvotes

Volume anamorphosis correction is the "invisible feature". No-one seems to notice it or comment on it. Maybe no-one uses UWA lenses?

Comment edited 16 seconds after posting

1 upvote

It helps with moderate WA as well, to cure the "this lens makes me look fat" phenomenon for people away from the center. LR should have it as well.

0 upvotes

All very good raw processing software in their own rights. However there are at least six other programs that can offer matching quality conversions. The competition is great and will ensure we continue to see continued improvements.

1 upvote

I've compared Lightroom and DxO Optics Pro 7 for a month. This showdown exactly matches my conclusions. Lightroom is better at everything, except what counts the most for me - lighting, geometry, distortion, chromatic aberration and noise corrections. (though Lightroom has a small edge at correcting highlights). I didn't try Capture One because it was too expensive - I use DxO's standard version, which is much cheaper than Elite -, but it is quite impressive.
All in all, three great programs, each one with their strengths and weaknesses. There was really no point in finding a winner here, as you should choose the one that best suits your needs rather than the Gold Award.

3 upvotes

Shoot Raw

Pull the embedded JPEG out, with dcraw ("draw -e *", and setup in your chosen file manger; as a right click option.) This is not developing, and is instant, and camera dependent(size).

Use the JPEG(s), where sufficient to your own goals. AKA, you got the settings right, in the camera, and controlled the light where you could.

For time purposes: For those fewer Raw shoots; that would benefit, from 16 bit light adjustments (including color), then just click the Raw file, that you preset, to bring up "ufraw".

Learn what the ufraw (free, and cross-platform) settings do, from it's web page. You do not have to adjust all of them; but only the few, that matter, and to effect the change you are after. With ufraw, you just download, or make your camera's profile, first, and then ufraw produces a default photo; matching your cameras JPEG, if that's what you want. It mostly finished developing; upon loading. You can match any style, this way. Do the rest in gimp, and it's plug-ins.

2 upvotes

While ufraw will not seem as flashy, at first run, it is a better Raw developing component; like the built in Camera Raw is to Lr, and Photoshop.

Extensive photo organizing can be done SEPARATELY,; by Picasa, in Windows, and the most advanced (flashy) DigiKam, in GNU/Linux (such as Linux Mint to start).

Everything I recommended is free.

I dropped the catalog heck, along with Lightroom, and simply use the simple, one click transition from ufraw, to gimp, and save in whatever format I choose. As you know, it is not good to edit JPEG's; so when I wish to put a photo through many editors, I simply save it in PNG format, and that has 9 times compression. I prefer PNG to TIFF. Yet, this way is so much faster, for me, that I just go back to the Raw file (or pulled JPEG), quickly, when needed. If I want a "master" photo, again, I just save as a .png file (by adding .png, at save). That could be used for making B&W, Instagram type stuff, and other versions, of the same shot.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

Lastly, Gimp is a wonder, in itself. What you need to know: Be sure to load all the plug-ins, that you need; along with the gimp. There are numerous, one click, slide-able, treatments, and all manner of things it can do automatically; without doing it all manually. From Lomo, to inverse diffusion, and from advanced NR, to auto CA reduction. Plug-ins are the deal. Video tutorials are also all over the net.

One of my favorite things, is when you save, as a JPEG, it automatically selects the best compression size, based on the picture. You get the best looking JPEG, in the smallest size.

Of course, gimp gives you the power to do any kind of edit, and so it becomes a one stop catch-all, for anything you could want. The menus are rich with options, and you learn where stuff is, very quickly. But these are not stupid features; but powerful ones.

ufraw, and tagging etc., being separate, is more logical, and is offset, by the massive power of the Gimp, for everything else.

Comment edited 49 seconds after posting

3 upvotes

The first curve, in ufraw, is for all your photo's; with that camera. I find you can leave it alone, with a downloaded CAMERA profile loaded. The second curve, can do any style you would like. If you have not worked with curves, you need to do it. That's another subject.

You can do fun things, with ufraw; like give a Pany shot, a Nikon color look (at load time).

Tips: You can invert negatives, simply buy taking that second curves, and moving the right dot, down, and the left dot up.

Also, once you get all your ufraw defaults set they way you like, don't forget to click the "save once" option, BEFORE you save, or transition to the gimp.

You can crop in ufraw, or later, in gimp. Just drag the corner.

Save most things for the gimp. You just want the greater latitude; when it's really needed.

You can (re)set WB easily, with the eye dropper, on a Gray, or snow white section of your shot. Yet, I recommend using a Gray card (or snow-white something), as your WB preset, in cam, first.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting

2 upvotes

All is no cost to you, and also cross-platform.

Not only does it work better for me (and I used them all!), in order to get, or match, any look, color, or treatment, including Canon, and Nikon's own programs for their own cameras; but I find it better, and as I said, with no "catalog", or any other database dragging me back. See, you do not need that. If your camera is doing well, then we are talking about alterations, that can be easily repeated, and if you start over, with Raw. Which you probably want to do anyway; as this is a progressive learning experience. If you want to save a master, for client, then as I said, that's easy enough to do, also. Maybe you want those variations, or maybe you want to start from what you did, as a master, later. No problem. Just save a 9X compressed PNG. But if you think about it, it is not even required. Free yourself. Your Raw, is your real original. Your Raw is never changed; but only "developed", or its JPEG pulled.

Stay in the Light.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting

1 upvote

UFRaw 0.18 is positively "ancient" at this point, and uses older DCRaw binaries which do not support any camera released in what is now (nearly) 2 years time.

20/02/2011 - UFRaw-0.18 released, based on DCRaw v 9.06:

http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

Further, it will not function with versions of GIMP later than 2.611 on WinXP OS. I uninstalled UFRaw 0.18 (and the 8-bit only GIMP 2.80) completely as a result of this unfortunate situation.

0 upvotes

Ok for your showdown, but DxO is disqualified as it is the only one that doesn't handle the RAW files from the Fuji X-trans (and it seems that it would not)

0 upvotes

My comparison for FAIR USD / GBP exchange rate:
(current exchange rate is about 1.6)
1. Adobe Photoshop Lightroom: 149/106.48 = 1.4
2. Capture One Pro: 299/228 = 1.31
3. DxO Optics Pro: 299/269 = 1.11

2 upvotes

Interesting article, but, as others have mentioned, not including Aperture was a mistake. At the very, very least it warranted a significant mention in the intro and closing comments. I hope you can find the time to revisit this work with Aperture included in the not too distant future.

5 upvotes

They were reviewing cross platform software which Aperture isn't.

3 upvotes

The "cross-platform only" stipulation is a fig leaf. This site has long stubbornly ignored Aperture. The editors have insisted that this reflects market share, but I refuse to believe that there are more DXO users than Aperture users.

4 upvotes

Not a fig leaf at all. A lot of folks don't use Macs. Nor will some of us ever... we just don't like being ripped off!

2 upvotes

> Not a fig leaf at all. A lot of folks don't use Macs. Nor will some of us ever... we just don't like being ripped off!

Still live in the '80s? The money you save by buying Aperture rather than Capture One can buy you an iPhone.

0 upvotes

Stu 5, yes, I did read the 'cross-platform comment', that is precisely the mistake I'm highlighting! The review would have been far more useful if it hadn't limited itself to being cross platform only.

0 upvotes

At present I use ACDSee Pro for cataloguing and Raw development, and DXO Pro mainly for perspective and distortion corrections, where in my opinion is unbeatable.
The review (showdown) is interesting, but I agree with other comments, it would be better to also have other alternatives, cross-platform and not, considering that in these days the sector is quite crowded.

Comment edited 28 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

am I reading this right in that he applied NO luminance NR to the 25K ISO sample for Light room? that's his custom setting?

0 upvotes

Yes, that's correct. As stated in the text above it, the second column of images was used to illustrate the relative saturation levels possible with the converters without introducing excessive color noise.

0 upvotes

And what about Aperture?

4 upvotes

It's not cross platform and they were only testing cross platform software.

9 upvotes

Any reason that only cross platform software was chosen?

2 upvotes

Fantastic article. Will become a definitive resource for years to come. Explains what you have been doing instead of testing some 9-months-old-and-still-untested cameras. :)

If only you could have add bundled software into comparison. They maybe lacking in some advanced areas, but everybody's needs are different, and free is free. :)

1 upvote

A lovely touch in irony, peevee1!

1 upvote

would like to see the above 3 products compared with RawTherapee. And oh yes, some "value for money" scoring would be appreciated :D

1 upvote

Value is a subjective thing, different people value different features differently. Some features can even be assigned negative value, if they are not used but still take up space in the menus. :)

0 upvotes

I was going to say the exact same thing. I use RawTherapee all the time and it would be interesting to see how it compares to the others mentioned in this article.

0 upvotes

Comparison of expensive, big-name tools. Not immediately useful. Somehow I never doubted that if I had plenty of cash to throw around, I can pump IQ easily. That's not a challenge. So to my point:

How about shedding some light on cheaper or free alternatives?

0 upvotes

For the vast majority, LR4 is so inexpensive now that cost is almost irrelevant compared to the price of gear. Given this, I don't see the point of reviewing low end freeware.

8 upvotes

LR4 costs $150.

That is a price of decent s/h lens.

Relatively speaking: it is expensive. Because, given free cash, I'd rather get a lens.

0 upvotes

Lightroom can make every image you take better. Those few $150 lenses that exist will only benefit those photos you take with them. I bought Lightroom (back when it was $300) before I made any investment in lenses beyond a standard zoom. It has been well worth it.

2 upvotes

I can find it for $120 without even trying (from B and H). That's not a trivial amount, but it's low enough I can afford it, and I'm on disability. Compared to the cost of bodies, lenses, and computers, $120 is not very much for a powerful piece of software. And there are cheaper/free options, but none that offer as rich of a feature set.

That said, a less detailed comparison of the various alternatives would be a great companion to this article. Many of us do not need professional workflow and asset management features, and whether an application is available on platforms other than the one we use is unlikely to matter.

But thank you very much for all the work that went into this. I found it very interesting.

0 upvotes

Any lens that retails for less than $150 is just an expensive body cap. I have thought that Lightroom is a bargain. I have a bag of lenses that sell for 10 times that but LR processes every image I photograph. Having used most of the convertors one time or another they all do a fine job with pluses and minuses. Pick one, learn it and go out and take pictures. I choose Adobe because I felt it is most likely to have long term stability and support as an Adobe product, and can leverage their corporate resources.

0 upvotes

Nice article. I have DXO Optics Pro 8 and Lightroom 4, and use DXO mainly for individual edits, and Lightroom for large volume file edits. Very nice review agree with most of the comparison information. If i cant get something right in one, I can usually switch over and get the results I seek.

0 upvotes

Does Amazon have an investment in DXO Labs?

3 upvotes

No.

5 upvotes

But DPReview has a working collaborative relationship with DXO Labs. :)

4 upvotes

And now there is another very good player, the Photo Ninja from Picture Code, is an amazing RAW converter.

I have tried and it is really good, better in somethings that Lightroom.

8 upvotes

How do you find it in terms of sharpening? I didn't see a difference in sharpening quality in your examples.

0 upvotes

I did not tested much the sharpening, I was more concerned about the colors and low and high light recovering. But it seemed good with the medium amount of sharpness I gave. I am really liking this Photo Ninja for image quality and the interface. But this is me, anyway besides my experiences, I only read good opinions about the quality of this RAW converter.

2 upvotes

Yes, Photo Ninja is easily the best raw convertor on the market today, although it is less rich in features than some of the others. Anyone who tries it will immediately see a difference from whatever he/she is currently using.

1 upvote

Yeah I remember the thread you made about it, and the color output was indeed very good. Did you test out the clarity, or would that be part of color and contrast?

0 upvotes

I agree in terms of pulling up details, noise reduction and illumination - there is no other player on the ground. However, other aspects not the best, eg. workflow, wb, preview speed. and, on osx is very irritating the handling of magic mouse (usually zoom in/out while simply moving the cursor across the frame)

0 upvotes

Where is ACR?

0 upvotes

As mentioned by others, it's a shame no printing tests were done (including photo-book options).

However another important aspect is stability. One thing that makes me a it wary of DXO or Capture 1 is that I've heard they can be less stable than Lightroom or Aperture.

I've no idea whether that's truly the case, so observations on this would have been appreciated (even if the answer is there's no problem with any of them).

It was very interesting to see a little about how the programs render differently.

BTW I believe a Lightroom review exists. Does this mean we'll get reviews for other processors?

0 upvotes

EDIT: I see you do mention that Lightroom offers Photobook printing.

It would be good to see how well it works though. (Much like the request to see how well printing works in each program in practise.)

0 upvotes

Printing is (for me) the final step in the workflow process and the most important output option. I use LR primarily because it excels in this last step of the workflow. Did I miss comparisons of printing capabilities in this evaluation?

0 upvotes

Last page, under 'Additional Features'.

2 upvotes

Ron Poelman:

Agreed. The omission was a big "mistake".

0 upvotes

We can only hope that Aperture 4 includes a RAW converter plugin architecture so we're not stuck with Apple's pathetic tools and their apathetic update cycle. (Yes, some may be satisfied with Apple's RAW support for their particular camera but the breadth of coverage is not very wide nor deep.)

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting

0 upvotes

I use a Nikon D7000 which is fully supported.
Aperture receives regular updates and I find their "tools" powerful and subtle.

What camera do you use?

1 upvote

Steve, can you be specific as to which cameras are not supported and which tools you find "pathetic"?

1 upvote

Aftershot (formerly Bibble) is "cross platform".

Opens plenty of things that DXO just skips, eg DNGs from the Leica M9.

2 upvotes

"With the start of a new year, we thought it would be a good time to explore the current state of raw processing with a head-to-head comparison of the leading cross-platform raw image converters"
I see your point but if we included Bibble it would have been hard to justify not including several other applications.

3 upvotes

+1
No Aftershot in a RAW review ??
Oh, that's right, this is a commercial site.
What a joke.

3 upvotes

Amadou Diallo:

Why aren't you treating Aftershot as a serious raw converter?
Bibble is the old name--prepurchase by Corel.

And Aftershot has been updated, as recently as Dec 2012.

Including DigiKam would have opened up all sorts of possibilities.

2 upvotes

arscii:

Not to worry the "current state of raw processing" would include Aftershot, so DPReview can always start next month on such an exploration.

0 upvotes

For a supposed review site the house style has become cringingly embarrassing. This evaluation of software is a "showdown" of "contenders". The migration from Docklands to Hollywood is almost complete. Is Scott Kelby now the editor?

2 upvotes

What can I say, some of us get excited about raw converters ;-)

Comment edited 17 seconds after posting

8 upvotes

Evidently so, my dear chap, and there is nothing wrong with raw excitement. But please, a little restraint in language.

0 upvotes

Thanks for the review! It's timely seeing as I was curious about the current special DxO has on their products. I've used Ligthroom since it's beginning and agree with most of your points about the product.

Still wish everyone would work towards team workflows. That's my biggest gripe about Lightroom. It takes some work to get multiple users to work with the same images and same database. If I could have my entire studio simultaneously working on the same Ligthroom database....that's pretty close to post-processing nirvana.

joel*

0 upvotes

I am a long timer user of DXO. I'm interested in switching and this review confirms I should just move to LR4 or C1. C1 for better skin tones, or LR4 just to stay within 'mainstream'. Hard decisions.

0 upvotes

Where is ViewNX2? Fast and easy!

Where is Gimp and its raw converter? Not so fast but lots of features.

Crossplatform is not really a selling point since like 10000 B.C

0 upvotes

It is a strange decision indeed. Is it any wonder the top thread on dpreview is, L'iberalism is a psychological disorder.'

0 upvotes

L ;-)

0 upvotes

We could have done a very broad comparison of every raw converter on the market. We decided to take a more detailed look at three of the most popular cross-platform solutions.

3 upvotes

A Nikon-only converter doesn't deserve a spot here.

What's the user base of Gimp and the amount of interest it would have for readers?

1 upvote

I imagine the reviewers chose cross-platform tools not because of the utility of cross-platform usage (or it's value as a "selling point") but because a review of those tools would be relevant to the widest audience of dpreview readers.

6 upvotes

As you rightly observe, Amadou, you could indeed have "done" a comprehensive review of the raw converter market. And had you done so, you might well have produced a robust and respected piece of work of which you could be justly proud.

0 upvotes

@BJN:
ViewNX2 Nikontool for Nikoncameras doing a great job with Nikonrawfiles and associated Nikoncameras and upload to Nikon Image service? 14bit Software with a userbase of millions? Sometimes 3rd party software is not the answer. Besides that - fast and dependable processing, good archivfunctions. No reason to pay ransom to Adobe.

Gimp works well, has a 12bit limit and thus limited to everday workflow - no superhighresolution files at the moment, soon to be solved. I replaced PS 4 years ago with Gimp on all PC-Workstations. And I dont employ pain in the ass Macacademy PS artdrones.

0 upvotes

I recently reviewed the same 3 programs (http://www.twin-pixels.com/best-photo-raw-converters/) and I came to pretty much the same conclusions.

And I didn't review Aperture either because it wasn't updated; it wouldn't be fair to compare the current gen Lightroom with old-gen Aperture.

Comment edited 29 seconds after posting

0 upvotes

That seems like a reasoned choice.

0 upvotes

Actually it is a poorly informed choice. Even though the version number has not changes in a while, there have been several updates making changes to functionality. The last update was not that long ago.

1 upvote

Aperture is updated regularly. Just because the updates are free and they haven't gone to v4 to charge more money doesn't mean it's not updated. What's old gen about the current Aperture?

1 upvote

Aperture not included, seriously?
What value does this review have without Lightroom's biggest competitor? Aperture wasn't even mentioned in the intro.

2 upvotes

Aperture isn't a cross-platform piece of software.

17 upvotes

hah!, R. Butler is correct! @swankFoto sorry.

0 upvotes

Aperture seems to have been deliberately excluded because it's not cross-platform. But it still should have rated a mention.

FWIW, I'm an Aperture user myself, but tried out Capture One about a week ago. C1's default rendering was more high key, which is generally more flattering for portraits. No obvious differences in clarity though. But I like Aperture's retouching tools much better.

2 upvotes

RButler stated a fact. What that fact has to do with excluding Aperture I have no idea. Most pros are on Mac so this "showdown" is pretty worthless to a large segment of this site's intended audience.

2 upvotes

As stated in the very first sentence, our aim was to compare cross-platform raw converters. For a piece as involved as this one, we have to prioritize software which any of our readers (apologies to Linux users) can actually use.

16 upvotes

Are you saying you don'ty cater for macusers richard? If so that is a jolly poor show. Some might think youare taking the microsoft dollar.

1 upvote

No, and nothing I said implies it.

We've covered software that works on BOTH the most popular platforms. We're not excluding either group.

Comment edited 4 minutes after posting

8 upvotes

Many would take exception the statement that "Most pros are on Mac".

9 upvotes

R Butler+Amadou Diallo+asw66:

Of course Aftershot(Bibble) works on Mac, Windows and Linux, and it's often better than DXO; it opens Leica M9 DNGs, unlike DXO, Samsung raws too.

The free, if a bit glitchy and odd to use, Digikam will also run on three platforms I believe.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting

4 upvotes

The fact that Aperture was not included because you apparently are awaiting an update has some plausibility. However, "cross platform" as the reason for not including Aperture won't cut it, especially since your test machine was a Mac! Indeed, you also left out AfterShot Pro (née Bibble Pro) from Corel, which is one of the most cross-platform commercial applications out there, as it runs on Mac/Windows/ AND Linux! I am not only interested in hearing about the market leaders. I also want to hear about what is viable, period.

3 upvotes

I found this an interesting review, but share the viewpoint that it would have been nice to have seen Aperture included, since it's the obvious rival to Lightroom. While I accept that Aperture isn't cross-platform, the test was carried out on a Mac, probably the system of choice for most photographers, and even those currently using PCs would surely like to know whether Apple offers a RAW-processing product that warrants switching allegiances.

2 upvotes

> Aperture isn't a cross-platform piece of software.
How about the free Raw Therapee?

2 upvotes

If you want to do heavy tonal compression on an image ( bring out detail in highlights and shadows) and still have the image looking natural and not 'HDR'ed' then LR is way better than C1 or DXO - it's not even close.

0 upvotes

All the chatter about default is off the mark, it all smacks of simplistic jpeg processing and may as well be compared to in camera processing. A more accurate assessment can be made by processing marginal difficult images.

All this is a promotion of mediocrity, try extending yourself

1 upvote

Great article thanks for the effort put into it.

1 upvote

This would have been the ultimate review if it had included Aperture. Remember, many of us are not in bed with Microsoft or Adobe.

2 upvotes

Great article, good effort in getting a comparison across 3 popular PP products. Despite some of the criticism that alternative products X, Y and Z etc, were not included, the review gave a good detailed overview about each product's capabilities especially in comparison to the others being reviewed.

Yes, it would have been nice to have some kind of comparison tool that listed and compared features between all these PP products available on the market today. However, we talking software products, not cameras which have the hard stats nicely listed out for a side by side comparison. We want to know about the quality of these products, not so much their metrics or hard stats.

The review dealt mainly with a lot of visual concepts, nebulous renderings and subjective outputs, so all in all only a very few products could be compared against one another at the same time. How would an article of this scope and magnitude comparing all similar software PP products been possible?

1 upvote

Total comments: 382

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

The contenders

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3 US $149/ €134.07/ £106.48 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

Capture One Pro 7.0.2 US $299/ €229/ £228 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

DxO Optics Pro 8.1.2 US $299/ €299/ £269 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

Comments

Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4.3
US $149/ €134.07/ £106.48 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

Capture One Pro 7.0.2
US $299/ €229/ £228 (discounted upgrade pricing available)

DxO Optics Pro 8.1.2
US $299/ €299/ £269 (discounted upgrade pricing available)