Reading mode: Light Dark

My ideal raw coverter: a deductive approach

Go to last post
Thanks Iliah ( I think) as this is either a "light bulb" moment for me or more confusion.

All the experienced editors here advise to do as much as possible in "raw" as possible before moving to pixel editing. This makes sense. Working in LR seems to adhere to this as it is parametric before exporting.

I had previously thought of asking whether ON1 Raw was really a significant advantage to most users compared to LR etc.(insert any other raw editor) plus ON! 10.5 etc.(insert any other pixel editor).

ON1 Raw appears to provide a lot more editing capability before exiting to 'layers" or "effects" at which point a PSD file is produced for further work. As I said , for my limited capabilities it is probably not a factor, but I am now uncertain how far I appear to proceed in ON1 Raw before it is not "raw".

I think I missed a vital point in the workflow.

If you can you point me to a tutorial that helps I would be very grateful.

Regards.

Roy.
 
lancslad said:
Thanks Iliah ( I think) as this is either a "light bulb" moment for me or more confusion.

All the experienced editors here advise to do as much as possible in "raw" as possible
Click to expand...
Well, I guess they do not know where the raw ends. In Lr it ends right after the file is opened, because demosaicking follows opening the file.
lancslad said:
before moving to pixel editing. This makes sense. Working in LR seems to adhere to this as it is parametric before exporting.

I had previously thought of asking whether ON1 Raw was really a significant advantage to most users compared to LR etc.(insert any other raw editor) plus ON! 10.5 etc.(insert any other pixel editor).

ON1 Raw appears to provide a lot more editing capability before exiting to 'layers" or "effects" at which point a PSD file is produced for further work. As I said , for my limited capabilities it is probably not a factor, but I am now uncertain how far I appear to proceed in ON1 Raw before it is not "raw".

I think I missed a vital point in the workflow.

If you can you point me to a tutorial that helps I would be very grateful.

Regards.

Roy.
Click to expand...
 
sankos said:
Ashurbanipal said:
sankos said:
C) Continuing the point above: a lot of raw converters forget about post-resize output sharpening. I don't want to reach for another program just to downsize and sharpen my web output from a 20MP or 50 MP file. Currently only a handful of programs allow me to do this directly with raw files within one raw conversion suite: Lightroom, Capture One, ON1 Photo Raw and RawTherapee. The latter two fail some of my previous requirements, so ultimately I'm left with two programs only: Lightroom and Capture One (the free darktable has to be mentioned as a runner-up, being almost perfect as well).
Click to expand...
Just in case you weren't aware, you can do output sharpening in darktable by creating a style with your sharpening options and then choosing that style in the "global options" section of the export settings when doing web output. Took me too long to realize that option so thought I'd share in case you hadn't seen it. :) And thanks for sharing your thoughts, quite interesting!

--Steve
Click to expand...
Steve, many thanks for that -- indeed I haven't thought of doing it this way, thinking: "why would I want to add a style on top of my general style and processing?". Now I need to come up with a nice general sharpening style for web.

--
Marcin
Click to expand...
I had the same thought initially. :) It's not quite as flexible, but the nice thing about it being style-based is that it allows you to create multiple styles for output sharpening to choose from. You can also couple those with other modules to, say, add output sharpening and a frame or watermark without modifying the history stack of the underlying images. I'm sure there are other uses that haven't occurred to me, as well!

--Steve
 
Don_Campbell said:
Raw converters start with the raw raster and create a demosaiced raster along with subsequent tweaks. I guess I don't get your distinction or the angst it inspires.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction -- I shouldn't have used the word "rasterize". What I meant was that I'd rather have one original raw file accompanied with a set of development instructions written in a small sidecar file, instead of having to render a secondary file (tiff/psd) for some simple corrections like small dodging/burning or local white balance correction. Darktable allows me that, the main version of RawTherapee doesn't (I haven't tried the locallab version).
 
lancslad said:
A very nice, well thought out post (even alphabetical in the list of options) so I believe it deserves at least one thumbs-up.
Click to expand...
Thanks :)
lancslad said:
I have been trying to hedge my bets for the future - I am sticking to LR for now (interested to see what the new version offers) but I keep getting drawn back to ON1 Raw as it, for me anyway, is a fun program to use and the ability to do so much more in raw before, I share your pain, giving in to the PSD, TIFF route is attractive, although I suspect for my competency it is probably not a significant factor.

Do you see ON1 Raw, after fixing the minor irritants (they should have stuck to the core program before venturing into pano etc.,) as the future?
Click to expand...
The all-in-one concept behind ON1 Photo Raw appeals to me. The way they market their product is annoying but I think in a year or two, when/if they have introduced all the promised features and the program gets more stable, it will be a very interesting proposition indeed. Where ON1 is pretty unique* is the introduction of luminosity and colour range masking that can be applied to the file at the raw-development stage (without the need to proliferate your image stack with additional TIFFs or PSDs). Currently LR allows some of this only globally with the HSL module. Capture One has the colour range masking feature but I think adding luminosity masking (blend-if) should be the next to-do thing on their list. With ACDSee you can do the same, but they force you out of the raw development stage to accomplish the task.

*It should be noted that the free darktable and Lightzone (which I forgot to mention in my OP) also allow you using luminosity and colour range masking.

--
Marcin
 
Last edited:
My understanding of the word "IDEAL" is very fluid, so is with my preferences of current RAW converters.
 
Iliah Borg said:
I see a raw file as a latent image, a converter as a developer, and need very few controls in the converter (custom colour profile, white balance, brightness, shoulder, toe). The main thing I want from a raw converter is high quality development (demosaicking, mostly, and low intrinsic noise added to shadows).

For all other adjustments, Photoshop. Those are not over the raw data anyway.
Click to expand...
 
sankos said:
Don_Campbell said:
Raw converters start with the raw raster and create a demosaiced raster along with subsequent tweaks. I guess I don't get your distinction or the angst it inspires.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the correction -- I shouldn't have used the word "rasterize". What I meant was that I'd rather have one original raw file accompanied with a set of development instructions written in a small sidecar file, instead of having to render a secondary file (tiff/psd) for some simple corrections like small dodging/burning or local white balance correction. Darktable allows me that, the main version of RawTherapee doesn't (I haven't tried the locallab version).

--
Marcin
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying. Looking over the Darktable documentation, I can see it has changed since the days in which I found it quite limiting and frustrating. I also see that it uses floating point arithmetic. On the other hand, I am not so certain that It would be easy to do the local things I do quickly and easily in GIMP when finishing off the PP that I start in RT.

I don't think Local LAB is fully formed yet. I'm not even sure it has been merged into the main development version of RT at this time. It also seems somewhat limited. For instance, as I read about it, it is does not allow multiple local areas to be dealt with in a single photo. I imagine when it is merged into the stable release of RT I will find good uses for it but I doubt it will replace some of the things I do in GIMP.

Of course, the operations that one does in RT are saved as a profile file which can be used to restore the tweaked/developed version if required from the unchanged raw. It can also be used to process other images in RT singly or in batches.

Fundamentally, what I do in GIMP is significant to produce my final result but on the other hand, the operations I do in GIMP are simple and easy to replicate. I can quickly repeat them again with very little effort if I decide to go back and change something I've done in RT.

A lot of my images are shot in challenging conditions that are difficult to control. They may require a bit more local fiddling than other folks do with their images. Different tools for different problems I would guess.
 
Last edited:
Iliah Borg said:
Iliah Borg said:
Iliah, what is good enough for you as a Raw developer (if Win, not Mac)?
Click to expand...
If Windows, I can live with RawTherapee http://rawtherapee.com/downloads

A port of Darktable for Windows is here: https://discuss.pixls.us/t/darktable-for-windows/4966
Click to expand...
What do you think about PhotoFlow - as of today?

I do not fully understand the approach. It is LibRaw- and dcraw-based and also includes a mix of well-known 3rd party libraries and even pieces of code from RT and Darktable. Am I wrong? What I missed?
 
sankos said:
The question of which program is the best raw converter keeps coming up in various photography-related discussions.

Over the years I have tried several raw conversion programs. Here's an alphabetical list of them:
  1. ACDSee Pro/Ultimate
  2. Affinity Photo [AP]
  3. Aftershot Pro [ASP]
  4. Alien Skin Exposure
  5. Capture NX-D (or other camera-bundled versions of Silkypix)
  6. Capture One [C1]
  7. darktable [dt]
  8. digiKam [dK]
  9. DxO Optics Pro [DOP]
  10. Lightroom/ACR [LR]
  11. ON1 Photo Raw
  12. Photo Ninja [PN]
  13. RawTherapee [RT]
  14. Silkypix Developer Studio Pro
And here's how I arrive at my current favourite raw converters. It's a three-step, deductive approach.

A) One of the fundamental things I require of my raw converter is being able either to choose the input/camera colour profile or being able to tweak colours non-globally. Sometimes a given raw converter gives you pleasing colours for one of your cameras, whereas it doesn't cut it for another. Or you'd like to have a similar starting point for your various cameras and you'd like to equalize them somehow. Sure, you can tweak your colours with tools like Curves or HSL sliders/equalizers and make a preset of it, but they are usually only global adjustments (there are exceptions to this). Also, some converters allow you to apply those colour changes only to a rasterized file, and this is not ideal for my workflow (see point B). The following raw converters pass this test: C1, dt, dK, DOP, LR, NX-D, ON1 (with a caveat), PN and RT. With Silkypix you can choose from various colour profiles the program ships with but you can't use one of your own.

B) I want my raw converter to allow me an uncomplicated, fast, parametric workflow, without the need to rasterize the file needlessly (if I were e.g. a portrait retoucher or did compositing obviously this wouldn't apply). This means the converter has to have some localized adjustments available in the form of brushes or layers (to apply tonal, chroma and detail changes, such as local dodging/burning, local white balance, local NR/sharpening, local CA/PF/moire-removal, etc.). Unfortunately this eliminates such converters as NX-D, PhotoNinja, the main version of RawTherapee and DxO Optics Pro.

C) Continuing the point above: a lot of raw converters forget about post-resize output sharpening. I don't want to reach for another program just to downsize and sharpen my web output from a 20MP or 50 MP file. Currently only a handful of programs allow me to do this directly with raw files within one raw conversion suite: Lightroom, Capture One, ON1 Photo Raw and RawTherapee. The latter two fail some of my previous requirements, so ultimately I'm left with two programs only: Lightroom and Capture One (the free darktable has to be mentioned as a runner-up, being almost perfect as well).

As you can see these three criteria revolve around the question of a convenient workflow. Now, if I need ultimate image quality for my hero shots I may forego one of the three criteria, e.g. if the underlying demosaicing or noise reduction of LR or C1 introduce too many artefacts that are going to show in output and if I can't eliminate them within the programs, I may have a look at a two-program solution (e.g. LR → PS, C1 → Affinity, or using complete suites like ACDSee or ON1). However, a vast majority of my photography can be satisfied with relying almost exclusively on LR or C1, without any sacrifice to the final output. Quality and quantity are not always mutually exclusive.

So how do You choose your favourite raw converter? What are Your sine qua non criteria?
Click to expand...
 
leerob said:
So, which is the best? C1?
Click to expand...
If C1 gives you the image quality for your camera that you want, in a workflow that works for you, for the price that you are willing to pay, then I'd say yes.

--
Marcin
 
Last edited:
sankos said:
leerob said:
sankos said:
leerob said:
So, which is the best? C1?
Click to expand...
If C1 gives you the image quality for your camera that you want, in a workflow that works for you, for the price that you are willing to pay, then I'd say yes.

--
Marcin
Click to expand...
Which did you choose?
Click to expand...
I chose C1 for my Sony camera (which I no longer have) and LR for my Pentax and Nikon cameras. If I run into moire problems with LR I may run the problematic files through RT or dt (both offer AMaZE demosaicking which gives me great detail and less moire). LR is my main photo hub because I like tagging and geotagging my photos and I find it the easiest over there. Those tags are picked up by C1 and dt from the sidecar files. I'm pretty comfortable editing both in LR and C1 but I find it takes me more time to tweak my files to my heart's content in dt or RT, so I usually take the path of least resistance.

--
Marcin
Click to expand...
To nie uzywa Pan C1, tylko LR?

Dostalem C1 v9 za darmo.

Mam DxO, LR6 standalone. Uzywalem RT tez.
 
sankos said:
leerob said:
sankos said:
leerob said:
So, which is the best? C1?
Click to expand...
If C1 gives you the image quality for your camera that you want, in a workflow that works for you, for the price that you are willing to pay, then I'd say yes.

--
Marcin
Click to expand...
Which did you choose?
Click to expand...
I chose C1 for my Sony camera (which I no longer have) and LR for my Pentax and Nikon cameras. If I run into moire problems with LR I may run the problematic files through RT or dt (both offer AMaZE demosaicking which gives me great detail and less moire). LR is my main photo hub because I like tagging and geotagging my photos and I find it the easiest over there. Those tags are picked up by C1 and dt from the sidecar files. I'm pretty comfortable editing both in LR and C1 but I find it takes me more time to tweak my files to my heart's content in dt or RT, so I usually take the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...
I have tried many free trials and C1 was on top of my list. I had spent so much on upgrades starting with the purchase of CS2. I also own LR. As a hobbyist these days I'm just having trouble with the $300 US price tag. Capture/output sharpening and resizing algorithms are very high on my list for any converter. It has been a few years. Maybe I'll try the download again.
sankos said:
--
Marcin
Click to expand...
 
leerob said:
To nie uzywa Pan C1, tylko LR?

Dostalem C1 v9 za darmo.

Mam DxO, LR6 standalone. Uzywalem RT tez.
Click to expand...
Witam Rodaka :) Kupiłem wersję C1Pro v.8 za małe pieniądze do aparatu Sony, ale za wsparcie dla Nikona i Pentaxa musiałbym zapłacić ponad 200 euro, tymczasem LR daje mi porównywalną jakość detali, więc zostałem przy tej tańszej opcji. Miałem kiedyś wersję C1 Express (chyba 6) za darmo i kolory Pentaxa były lepsze niż w LR, ale dla mojego Nikona profil już nie jest tak dobry.
 
My criteria is to get the best result with the least effort :)
Nowadays I am mainly dealing with low ISO CaNikon RAWs.

For CaNikon decided to use ACR with some help from Photo Ninja.
Photo Ninja to recover colored highlights, ACR does an excellent job
to recover luminosity, but not chroma.
ACR is not good for Fuji X-trans, Photo Ninja is.

.......................

For Pentax RAW with Pixel Shift, without any doubt RawTherapee is the choice.

For high ISO images with lots of noise DXO(Prime).

For Sony/Fuji Capture One.
Can use for CaNikon too, but ACR is already embedded into Photoshop.

BTW, I suspect Luminar for Windows will be my main RAW converter...
 
Last edited:
leerob said:
Zeee said:
sankos said:
leerob said:
sankos said:
leerob said:
So, which is the best? C1?
Click to expand...
If C1 gives you the image quality for your camera that you want, in a workflow that works for you, for the price that you are willing to pay, then I'd say yes.

--
Marcin
Click to expand...
Which did you choose?
Click to expand...
I chose C1 for my Sony camera (which I no longer have) and LR for my Pentax and Nikon cameras. If I run into moire problems with LR I may run the problematic files through RT or dt (both offer AMaZE demosaicking which gives me great detail and less moire). LR is my main photo hub because I like tagging and geotagging my photos and I find it the easiest over there. Those tags are picked up by C1 and dt from the sidecar files. I'm pretty comfortable editing both in LR and C1 but I find it takes me more time to tweak my files to my heart's content in dt or RT, so I usually take the path of least resistance.
Click to expand...
I have tried many free trials and C1 was on top of my list. I had spent so much on upgrades starting with the purchase of CS2. I also own LR. As a hobbyist these days I'm just having trouble with the $300 US price tag. Capture/output sharpening and resizing algorithms are very high on my list for any converter. It has been a few years. Maybe I'll try the download again.
leerob said:
--
Marcin
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Yes, I had a problem with $300 price tag also.

Give it a try and let me know what you think of it now.
Click to expand...
Pretty amazing detail and very smooth NR application and I didn't do much. I found lens correction and the output sharpening palettes.

I'm having some issues with cropping. It crops and shows you the pixel dimensions but I can't figure out how to downsample it.
 
Last edited:
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