Reading mode: Light Dark

R1 RAW Converter Challenge Results!

Go to last post
B

Brian Mosley

Forum Pro
Messages
20,742
Reaction score
169
Location
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England, UK
Hello everyone,

over the next 5 posts in this thread, I'm going to list the top 5 converters in order of quality, based on a series of 1:1 crops from the R1 Land Rover test shot.

The judgements will be completely IMHO, and open to challenge and discussion...

I hope you find these interesting and informative...

Kind Regards

Brian

--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
Thank you for your interest and support Daddad...

I'll look forward to reading everyone's comments on these, and hope it stimulates further discussion - at least we have some serious comparison shots to judge here.

Kind Regards

Brian
--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
hello Brian,

I am using bibble myself, but browsing through your crops I have to admit that I would prefer the Silkypix output in 4 out of five times.

It seems to be sharper in several cases ( although some aliasing artifacts) and the colors look a lot better to me. You have mentioned before somewhere that the warmer Landrover colors are actually more realistic - just judging from the pictures I would nevertheless prefer the colors of the car and the foliage produced by SP as more "natural".
 
Hello!
luc0815 said:
hello Brian,

I am using bibble myself, but browsing through your crops I have to
admit that I would prefer the Silkypix output in 4 out of five
times.
Click to expand...
Yes, Silkypix does very well in this comparison...
luc0815 said:
It seems to be sharper in several cases ( although some aliasing
artifacts) and the colors look a lot better to me.
Click to expand...
Yes, sharpening is a real balancing act... I have much more to learn in this area - you can make an image look much sharper, but then you realise there are halos and artifacts which are very distracting when you look closer (or print larger). You can also destroy (or enhance) fine detail (like the circle of stars above the GB sticker).

I guess it's most important to be able to fine tune the sharpening to your personal preference... There is a free plugin for Bibble which gives special controls over sharpening - if you're already using Bibble, this is a must have imho :
http://nexi.com/sharpie
luc0815 said:
You have
mentioned before somewhere that the warmer Landrover colors are
actually more realistic - just judging from the pictures I would
nevertheless prefer the colors of the car and the foliage produced
by SP as more "natural".
Click to expand...
Obviously, personal preference is part of the equation... here's an example of someone with a strong personal preference for high impact renditions :
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=20688242

If your converter of choice is powerful and flexible enough then you can decide what you like best... rather than accepting what you're given on auto.

I really like having a great starting point on auto, and then being allowed to take it in different directions depending on my preference for the scene - which is what Bibble gives me...

We will have to ask the expert users of Capture One/ACR/Lightroom to comment on the controls available there... perhaps we should have a new challenge, to simulate the look of DXO provided by Russ Johns on that thread above :)

Thanks for your comments

Kind Regards

Brian

--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
Well done for keeping up this interesting discussion. If I could make a few small points:-

1.) Judging how good/bad sharpening is can be problematic because the best strategy is to sharpen for your desired output. For inkjet prints, many photoshop pros sharpen their image up to the extent that at 100% view on an LCD or CRT monitor the sharpening looks bad, with very noticeable halos. But printed at 300+dpi on an inkjet it looks fantastic. This is what I have found with images from RSE and RSP - the sharpening applied by these raw converters can seem heavy handed when the images are viewd at 100% on screen, but when printed (at say A4 size or 8 X 10 inches) they look fantastic.

2) ACR is not a standalone product but part of Photoshop, so any future judgements about raw converter facilities should really consider ACR+PS together. Thus, while, for example, ACR's sharpening algorithms are quite poor, the many different sharpening options afforded by Photoshop CS2 are very extensive, especially considering all of the optional plugins. The same could be said for nosie reduction and ACR - it's not great, but the plethora of Photoshop plugins for this ARE great.

3) I don't think of any of us have pushed RSP in your raw converter challenge as far as we could - I just didn't have the time but I think that in ANY list of the top 5 raw converters it should be in there. After all, those folks at Adobe were so impressed that they bought out the software house that made it and are gradually and slowly introducing some of its technology into Lightroom.

4) At the end of the day, we've probably taken this 'which raw converter is best' issue as far as we can. Maybe the next round, in the interest of adopting a more scientific approach, could ask for votes on what forum readers think are the best images, where we 'anonymise' the images so that we don't reveal until the end which came from which raw converter? I think we all tend to get attached to whatever converter we have invested money in, so the 'blind taste test' approach would be a nice little experiment!

Marco
 
Hi Marco,

I won't apologise for the lack of scientific / objectivity in this comparison... there are simply too many variables to the exercise! I'm just interested in creating a dialogue which may help raise our awareness of what's out there and useful for the R1 and RAW.
Marco Cinnirella said:
Well done for keeping up this interesting discussion. If I could
make a few small points:-

1.) Judging how good/bad sharpening is can be problematic because
the best strategy is to sharpen for your desired output. For inkjet
prints, many photoshop pros sharpen their image up to the extent
that at 100% view on an LCD or CRT monitor the sharpening looks
bad, with very noticeable halos. But printed at 300+dpi on an
inkjet it looks fantastic. This is what I have found with images
from RSE and RSP - the sharpening applied by these raw converters
can seem heavy handed when the images are viewd at 100% on screen,
but when printed (at say A4 size or 8 X 10 inches) they look
fantastic.
Click to expand...
Excellent points! again, it's probably most important to have fine control over how much and what type of sharpening is applied... in this particular comparison, we're aiming for the best possible rendition when viewed at 100% on screen. It should be relatively easy to apply more aggressive sharpening from there... for output to print.
Marco Cinnirella said:
2) ACR is not a standalone product but part of Photoshop, so any
future judgements about raw converter facilities should really
consider ACR+PS together. Thus, while, for example, ACR's
sharpening algorithms are quite poor, the many different sharpening
options afforded by Photoshop CS2 are very extensive, especially
considering all of the optional plugins. The same could be said for
nosie reduction and ACR - it's not great, but the plethora of
Photoshop plugins for this ARE great.
Click to expand...
These comparisons are in the best possible light for ACR, calibrated and enhanced in CS2.
Marco Cinnirella said:
3) I don't think of any of us have pushed RSP in your raw converter
challenge as far as we could - I just didn't have the time but I
think that in ANY list of the top 5 raw converters it should be in
there. After all, those folks at Adobe were so impressed that they
bought out the software house that made it and are gradually and
slowly introducing some of its technology into Lightroom.
Click to expand...
The challenge is still completely open... even to the authors of any RAW converter out there! I will be happy to host & present the best efforts of the most knowledgable experts :)
Marco Cinnirella said:
4) At the end of the day, we've probably taken this 'which raw
converter is best' issue as far as we can. Maybe the next round, in
the interest of adopting a more scientific approach, could ask for
votes on what forum readers think are the best images, where we
'anonymise' the images so that we don't reveal until the end which
came from which raw converter? I think we all tend to get attached
to whatever converter we have invested money in, so the 'blind
taste test' approach would be a nice little experiment!
Click to expand...
I've posted 1:1 crops for comparison in a number of areas here, and by blind comparison, rated them as a starting point for discussion... if you have any comments on the rating of any of the series above, then please raise them! I'm hoping I can learn from a discussion here.
Marco Cinnirella said:
Marco
Click to expand...
Thanks Marco, I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful comments...

Kind Regards

Brian

--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
No worries Brian, happy to contribute to a great series of threads. Two further points:-

1. I have found that some converters that are otherwise great with images from a camera, can be pretty bad when it comes to getting good skin tones. My own experience with RSP/RSE and ACR, for example, is that while the former really nail landscapes, ACR is the best for natural looking skin tones in portraits.

2. Raw converters can be great with some cameras but poor with others. I find that ACR is great with my KM 7D images, but not so good with R1 images. Sometimes this is because the guys at Adobe (or other software houses) put more effort into their profiles/algorithms for some cameras than others. I get the feeling, for example, they spend a lot of time getting their Nikon and Canon DSLR algorithms good, but not so much time on 'quirky', more 'niche' products like the R1. I wonder whether the designers of products like Bibble and Silkypix will come clean and tell us how much work they put into their R1 algorithms vis-a-vis colour, etc. compared to their Canon and Nikon DSLR algorithms?!

The upshot of all this, especially for those of us who own more than one digital camera capable of shooting RAW, is that a 'one size fits all' approach may not always work - having more than one raw converter in your arsenak can often be useful...

Marco
Brian Mosley said:
I won't apologise for the lack of scientific / objectivity in this
comparison... there are simply too many variables to the exercise!
I'm just interested in creating a dialogue which may help raise our
awareness of what's out there and useful for the R1 and RAW.
Marco Cinnirella said:
Well done for keeping up this interesting discussion. If I could
make a few small points:-

1.) Judging how good/bad sharpening is can be problematic because
the best strategy is to sharpen for your desired output. For inkjet
prints, many photoshop pros sharpen their image up to the extent
that at 100% view on an LCD or CRT monitor the sharpening looks
bad, with very noticeable halos. But printed at 300+dpi on an
inkjet it looks fantastic. This is what I have found with images
from RSE and RSP - the sharpening applied by these raw converters
can seem heavy handed when the images are viewd at 100% on screen,
but when printed (at say A4 size or 8 X 10 inches) they look
fantastic.
Click to expand...
Excellent points! again, it's probably most important to have fine
control over how much and what type of sharpening is applied... in
this particular comparison, we're aiming for the best possible
rendition when viewed at 100% on screen. It should be relatively
easy to apply more aggressive sharpening from there... for output
to print.
Brian Mosley said:
2) ACR is not a standalone product but part of Photoshop, so any
future judgements about raw converter facilities should really
consider ACR+PS together. Thus, while, for example, ACR's
sharpening algorithms are quite poor, the many different sharpening
options afforded by Photoshop CS2 are very extensive, especially
considering all of the optional plugins. The same could be said for
nosie reduction and ACR - it's not great, but the plethora of
Photoshop plugins for this ARE great.
Click to expand...
These comparisons are in the best possible light for ACR,
calibrated and enhanced in CS2.
Brian Mosley said:
3) I don't think of any of us have pushed RSP in your raw converter
challenge as far as we could - I just didn't have the time but I
think that in ANY list of the top 5 raw converters it should be in
there. After all, those folks at Adobe were so impressed that they
bought out the software house that made it and are gradually and
slowly introducing some of its technology into Lightroom.
Click to expand...
The challenge is still completely open... even to the authors of
any RAW converter out there! I will be happy to host & present the
best efforts of the most knowledgable experts :)
Brian Mosley said:
4) At the end of the day, we've probably taken this 'which raw
converter is best' issue as far as we can. Maybe the next round, in
the interest of adopting a more scientific approach, could ask for
votes on what forum readers think are the best images, where we
'anonymise' the images so that we don't reveal until the end which
came from which raw converter? I think we all tend to get attached
to whatever converter we have invested money in, so the 'blind
taste test' approach would be a nice little experiment!
Click to expand...
I've posted 1:1 crops for comparison in a number of areas here, and
by blind comparison, rated them as a starting point for
discussion... if you have any comments on the rating of any of the
series above, then please raise them! I'm hoping I can learn from a
discussion here.
Brian Mosley said:
Marco
Click to expand...
Thanks Marco, I appreciate your reasoned and thoughtful comments...

Kind Regards

Brian

--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
Click to expand...
 
Marco Cinnirella said:
No worries Brian, happy to contribute to a great series of threads.
Two further points:-

1. I have found that some converters that are otherwise great with
images from a camera, can be pretty bad when it comes to getting
good skin tones. My own experience with RSP/RSE and ACR, for
example, is that while the former really nail landscapes, ACR is
the best for natural looking skin tones in portraits.
Click to expand...
Again, this is an excellent point... we need a good R1 portrait to have a 2nd round of comparisons!
Marco Cinnirella said:
2. Raw converters can be great with some cameras but poor with
others. I find that ACR is great with my KM 7D images, but not so
good with R1 images. Sometimes this is because the guys at Adobe
(or other software houses) put more effort into their
profiles/algorithms for some cameras than others. I get the
feeling, for example, they spend a lot of time getting their Nikon
and Canon DSLR algorithms good, but not so much time on 'quirky',
more 'niche' products like the R1. I wonder whether the designers
of products like Bibble and Silkypix will come clean and tell us
how much work they put into their R1 algorithms vis-a-vis colour,
etc. compared to their Canon and Nikon DSLR algorithms?!
Click to expand...
I can ask on the Bibble forum... or maybe someone from bibblelabs will comment here?
Marco Cinnirella said:
The upshot of all this, especially for those of us who own more
than one digital camera capable of shooting RAW, is that a 'one
size fits all' approach may not always work - having more than one
raw converter in your arsenak can often be useful...
Click to expand...
This is certainly a point in favour of self-calibrating ACR and also of your confidence in the profiling method of your favoured RAW converter.
Marco Cinnirella said:
Marco
Click to expand...
Kind Regards

Brian

--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
1. Can you make the RAW available for download? I would like to compare my ACR & Lightroom renderings with yours, and I can't receive large files by e-mail.

2. Can you explain your methodology and why you think your test is valid?

That came out vague I suppose, so let me comment. Since the conversions you post vary quite a bit in white balance, saturation, tonality, sharpening, etc., I assume that you have not attempted to calibrate the conversions to each other. This is OK if you are only interested in default/auto renderings, but then your test only proves which converter works best on this particular image. To test which converter is "best" on default settings, you need to evaluate a wide range of different images. Otherwise it's like testing screwdrivers on only one size and type of screw. All you prove is that the best screwdriver works best on that screw.

In addition, for me, the default conversion is of very limited interest. The whole point of RAW is flexibility, to develop the image in the direction you see fit and bring out its full potential, as judged by your own eyes. Default settings are only the starting point. If you don't change them, you're basically just shooting JPEG in a convoluted manner (albeit with a better JPEG engine than the in-camera version).

If on the other hand you would like to test raw converters to determine which is best for various image quality aspects like detail, tonality, etc., then you must (at the very least attempt to) calibrate exposure, white balance, saturation and sharpening of the different renderings. How can you correctly judge differences in shadow detail when the shadows are exposed differently, and sharpening levels vary greatly?

Sorry if I come across overly critical. I would love to see a detailed comparison of raw converters, but unfortunately I can't draw any conclusions from your test images so far.
 
Hi Brian,

I like your R1 Raw Converter Challenge very much, but the results and the outcome is based on conversions by different users and your personal opinion.(sorry no offence!)

As i mentioned bevore,several conversions where made by different users which automaticly leads to differences in image quality.

Because everyone has a different(personal) opinion about how the image should look like.For example, i could have easely matched Bibble pro with CS2 but i did'nt.Why not? As i mentioned earlyer,I like natural looking images and thats why i callibrated my own system which is based on Gretag McBeth colors.What i,am trying to say here is,if you really want to know which Raw Converter is the best one for the job,You should personaly try all of them your self with the same settings like contrast,color and sharpness.Maybe you allready did.And then post your findings again.
Personaly i like the image converted by Capture One very much.
It almost matched my own Image in color,which i happen to like!

Best Recards,Marcel.
 
Hi nicke2323,

thank you for your comments, and constructive criticism is certainly welcome!
nicke2323 said:
1. Can you make the RAW available for download? I would like to
compare my ACR & Lightroom renderings with yours, and I can't
receive large files by e-mail.
Click to expand...
Of course! In our previous lengthy threads I have repeatedly asked for volunteers to create their (personal) best renditions of this RAW file using their RAW converter of choice... your e-mail is blocked, so if you would like to e-mail me through my profile, I will send you a link to download the RAW file for yourself :)
nicke2323 said:
2. Can you explain your methodology and why you think your test is
valid?
Click to expand...
Yes, this is a comparative review, to stimulate dialogue between discerning RAW converter users... it seems to be having the desired effect!
nicke2323 said:
That came out vague I suppose, so let me comment. Since the
conversions you post vary quite a bit in white balance, saturation,
tonality, sharpening, etc., I assume that you have not attempted to
calibrate the conversions to each other.
Click to expand...
Yes, you're quite correct, this is a very loose comparison, allowing for the creative control of the contributing individuals.
nicke2323 said:
This is OK if you are only
interested in default/auto renderings, but then your test only
proves which converter works best on this particular image. To test
which converter is "best" on default settings, you need to evaluate
a wide range of different images. Otherwise it's like testing
screwdrivers on only one size and type of screw. All you prove is
that the best screwdriver works best on that screw.
Click to expand...
The review is based on full-on attempts by the individual contributors to create the best quality rendition with the RAW converter of their choice.

We can then have a discussion about which conversion comes out the winner... I've started the ball rolling with my own posts above - hopefully these will be challenged and we can all learn from the discussion?
nicke2323 said:
In addition, for me, the default conversion is of very limited
interest. The whole point of RAW is flexibility, to develop the
image in the direction you see fit and bring out its full
potential, as judged by your own eyes. Default settings are only
the starting point. If you don't change them, you're basically just
shooting JPEG in a convoluted manner (albeit with a better JPEG
engine than the in-camera version).
Click to expand...
I agree entirely! that's why this exercise allows full creative control...
nicke2323 said:
If on the other hand you would like to test raw converters to
determine which is best for various image quality aspects like
detail, tonality, etc., then you must (at the very least attempt
to) calibrate exposure, white balance, saturation and sharpening of
the different renderings. How can you correctly judge differences
in shadow detail when the shadows are exposed differently, and
sharpening levels vary greatly?
Click to expand...
Yes, I can see your point, but we're just not equipped to do this... I'm not even sure it's possible, e.g. how would you calibrate across different RAW converters for shadow exposure?
nicke2323 said:
Sorry if I come across overly critical. I would love to see a
detailed comparison of raw converters, but unfortunately I can't
draw any conclusions from your test images so far.
Click to expand...
You don't have to draw scientific, measurable conclusions from this exercise, but you can get involved in the discussion! I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts here...

Kind Regards

Brian

--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
Hi Marcel,
MRS said:
Hi Brian,

I like your R1 Raw Converter Challenge very much, but the results
and the outcome is based on conversions by different users and your
personal opinion.(sorry no offence!)
Click to expand...
None taken! and the results posted are only intended to launch a discussion of the relative merits of each RAW converter. My ranking is completely open to debate.
MRS said:
As i mentioned bevore,several conversions where made by different
users which automaticly leads to differences in image quality.
Click to expand...
Yes! that's what we're hoping to discuss...
MRS said:
Because everyone has a different(personal) opinion about how the
image should look like.For example, i could have easely matched
Bibble pro with CS2 but i did'nt.Why not? As i mentioned earlyer,I
like natural looking images and thats why i callibrated my own
system which is based on Gretag McBeth colors.
Click to expand...
I included your rendition of ACR, calibrated and further enhanced with CS2 because I think it is a very high quality converter - it deserves to be considered by anyone for the R1.
MRS said:
What i,am trying to
say here is,if you really want to know which Raw Converter is the
best one for the job,You should personaly try all of them your self
with the same settings like contrast,color and sharpness.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but that would be expensive and time consuming for everyone... at least we can share what we like about the successful converters we know here.
MRS said:
Maybe you
allready did.And then post your findings again.
Personaly i like the image converted by Capture One very much.
It almost matched my own Image in color,which i happen to like!
Click to expand...
Yes, it was very good... I think we could consider the ratings of each in detail above if you wish?

Kind Regards, and thanks for your help with this Marcel...

Brian
MRS said:
Best Recards,Marcel.
Click to expand...
--
--



http://www.gopetition.com/online/9523.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top