Within the next few weeks, we'll probably have several tools (YP, BB, Scott, etc.) to use with Raw files from 1D, D60, etc., and each will have its own style in terms of interface, workflow, etc.
For my purposes, what makes YarcPlus unique, and desireable, is ARF. I started playing around with this with D30 images several months ago, and ended up concluding that it did in fact remove artifactual pixels (which D30 users have noted from the very beginning), resulting in a cleaner image file to edit.
I've had my 1D about 2 weeks now, and have taken some time to do some reasonably controlled testing of ARF in M1 and M2 mode with images at ISO 200, 1600 and 3200. I converted each (to 16-bit TIF) without ARF, and with M1 and M2 modes of ARF. I examined the images resulting without any editing, and again when appropriate Unsharp Mask was applied to each. I used images made with the Canon 100/f2.8 USM Macro at f/4, mounted on a solid tripod.
My tentative conclusion is that ARF in M2 mode is desireable for converting 1D images of
all ISO's. Frankly, that surprised me. The difference at higher ISO is so dramatic that it might be more appropriately called a noise reduction filter. The resulting images are dramatically less "noisy."
Prior to applying any Unsharp Mask, the "ARF'd" files appear to contain less detail, sharpness, contrast. But if I then applied USM, the end result was just as detailed and sharp, but with considerably less noise. I was also surprised that I could apply a fair amount more USM than I usually do on the ARF'd images, and avoid an 'over-sharpened' appearance. Presumably, it's because the image is much 'cleaner' to begin with.
I posted a similar message at Galbraith's forum, asking for others to make similar comparisons, and would make the same request here. I'd genuinely be interested in what others find with similar comparisons.
Don
http://www.dlcphotography.net 
