What's the best RAW converter for the money??

[Vaughn T.Winfree]

--OK,
I am a die hard Adobe CS user.
I have not found much use to upgrade, but now I think I will bumo to CS3.

I have also been shooting loads of JPEG's for a long time and only RAW when I felt the need.
Now I am thinking of going strictly to RAW for landscape shots.

But I am wondering what does the best just taking multiple RAW files and batch processing more than one at a time with all the info imbedded in the file??
Is there something other than Adobe I should be looking at????
Thanks..

Vaughn T. Winfree
Friends Don't Let Friends Shoot Film
GET - R - DONE!!!!!!!

pBase supporter http://www.pBase.com/vaughn

 

[Conchita]

You will find ACR amazingly different in CS3.

 

[Jim Hess]

If you really are going to upgrade to Photoshop CS3 I think you should wait to ask that question until after you have had a chance to use the new ACR. But there is one thing to be aware of. Your Photoshop CS3 installation will include ACR 4.0. There were new features added with the first update (4.1), and the current version is ACR 4.3.1. You will have to go to the Adobe website and get that update. Alternatively, after you have installed the new version, go to the Help menu and check for updates. So far, that feature has actually worked in the new version.

The new version of ACR has all of the editing controls that Lightroom has, and you will see a dramatic difference when you compare ACR 4.3.1 with ACR 2.4. There simply is no way to compare the two. You might also consider purchasing, "Real World Camera Raw with Photoshop CS3", originally written by Bruce Fraser but updated for CS3 by Jeff Shewe who has been a consultant on the continued development of ACR.

Since switching to Photoshop CS3/ACR I find that I can do at least 90% of my photo editing in ACR. So I would wait to ask this question after you have had the chance to use the new version for a while.

 

[Ed Grenzig]

--OK,
I am a die hard Adobe CS user.
I have not found much use to upgrade, but now I think I will bumo to
CS3.
I have also been shooting loads of JPEG's for a long time and only
RAW when I felt the need.
Now I am thinking of going strictly to RAW for landscape shots.
But I am wondering what does the best just taking multiple RAW files
and batch processing more than one at a time with all the info
imbedded in the file??
Is there something other than Adobe I should be looking at????

For a die hard Adobe user the answer is NO!
You will love PSCS3 and ACR 4.3.1

For a die hard Nikon software user:
Nikon CNX

 

[cosilver]

If you shoot Nikon, I would very seriously consider trying Capture NX for raw editing and CS2 for enhancements/cloning etc (unless you're set on spending more $ for CS3). I use Capture NX, and it's hard to beat for raw editing. I don't use/have CS2/3, I do have Lightroom with ACR and Elements 5 with ACR, but still prefer using Capture NX for my raw editing.

--
Albert-O
Colorado
-----------
Please visit me at
http://www.berto.zenfolio.com

 

[Conchita]

Recent ACR versions do this. Bridge also does this.

 

[daleeight]

Lightroom.

I tried it, learned to use it, liked it, and no need to upgrade my old PSCS...
--
Dale

 

[Ed_C]

ACR, int all its flavors throws away most of the decisions you made at the time you took the shot. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't like Adobe making their own decision as to what a camera profile should be and I REALLY don't like them throwing away almost everything but basic exposure and white balance. If I were just pointing and shooting I suppose I wouldn't mind my decisions being trivialized but as it is I do mind. The only time I will use ACR is if I am in a huge hurry and that is more important than ultimate quality.

You didn't mention what camera you are using. Your manufacturer's own software is typically designed in the way they think complments their design decisions. In the case of Nikon I think Capture 4.x and NX both are slow but do a far better job of rendering RAW files than Adobe does. I also find that NX in particular gets me far closer to a completed photo than ACR.

Just my 2 cents worth.

--
Ed C.

 

[Jim Hess]

ACR, int all its flavors throws away most of the decisions you made
at the time you took the shot. That rubs me the wrong way. I don't
like Adobe making their own decision as to what a camera profile
should be and I REALLY don't like them throwing away almost
everything but basic exposure and white balance. If I were just
pointing and shooting I suppose I wouldn't mind my decisions being
trivialized but as it is I do mind. The only time I will use ACR is
if I am in a huge hurry and that is more important than ultimate
quality.

You didn't mention what camera you are using. Your manufacturer's
own software is typically designed in the way they think complments
their design decisions. In the case of Nikon I think Capture 4.x and
NX both are slow but do a far better job of rendering RAW files than
Adobe does. I also find that NX in particular gets me far closer to
a completed photo than ACR.

Just my 2 cents worth.

--
Ed C.

Then why are you shooting in raw? That is the whole concept. That is why it is a "raw" image. If what you are looking for is something that makes all the adjustments for you then you should not be shooting in raw.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

The newest versions of ACR are fantastic. I bought a new camera because of the awful ACR conversions in PS Elements 4 on the Mac - but when I upgraded to CS3, the new ACR processed the old images superbly.

However, I use very few features of ACR, and do most of my work in Photoshop. The features of Photoshop blow away what ACR can do, for the most part. So I generally use ACR to produce dull, linear images (making the most of the available bits) that I pump up in Photoshop. The ACR features that I use include chromatic aberration, purple fringe removal, white balance (if I'm feeling lazy), and very rarely, and if desperate, recovery.

 

[cosilver]

Then why are you shooting in raw? That is the whole concept. That
is why it is a "raw" image. If what you are looking for is something
that makes all the adjustments for you then you should not be
shooting in raw.

I don't wish to speak for Ed, but I think what he is saying is that Capture NX starts off with the actual camera settings that the shooter set at the time of the shot. ACR on the other hand, cannot read these camera settings and applies its (the ACR engineers') own interpretation of what those settings should/could be. Thereby ignoring many of the camera settings that were set at the time the photo was taken. Capture NX on the other hand, starts with the actual settings of the camera at the time of the shot, and the user of NX can then make further adjustments, knowing that his field settings have remained intact - this is not so with ACR.

Now, that is not to say that ACR is not very good, because it is, only that Capture NX starts off with the true settings that the shooter set at the time of the shot, so the user doesn't have to try and recreate in editing what they already set while taking the picture; they get the full benefit of any in-camera settings that other software is unable to read, but that NX is able to read exactly.

--
Albert-O
Colorado
-----------
Please visit me at
http://www.berto.zenfolio.com

 

[Mario Giannini]

I've found that each raw converter has different benefits. I've taken most of them for a trial run, and when I was done I opted to purchase Bibble, partially because of its compatibility with Noise Ninja.

Some time ago I did a test of ACR, Nikon's Capture NX and Bibble, and posted some results here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=22728391

I found Bibble to return the most natural looking images, be the easiest to setup the way I like (basic defaults for minimal processing), and provide the type of automated processing that works for me (though I seldom do this).

I would recommend you get the trials of a couple converters and do your own tests. I would also test with a variety of images. For example, one of my test images had a christmas light in the background with good bokeh, and certain converters would turn the smooth gradient into harsh steps, not noticeable on any other type of photo.

I have CS2, and have only user newer ACR with Adobe DNG Converter. The results seem ok, but I still prefer Bibble and don't care to upgrade to CS3 yet.

Many people like to stick with the conversion software from their camera manufacturer. I'm not crazy about Capture NX from Nikon, but there are certain images that it seems to deal with better than Bibble (sharpness and that wierd gradient thing), but not many.

I use CS2 far less than I used to since getting Bibble.
--

Everything I write is a personal opinion. Even when I quote facts, they are the facts I personally choose to accept.
http://www.pbase.com/mariog

 

[Ed_C]

Then why are you shooting in raw? That is the whole concept. That
is why it is a "raw" image. If what you are looking for is something
that makes all the adjustments for you then you should not be
shooting in raw.

Are you serious? I am shooting RAW because I want the control. Nikon software gives that because it allows me to control the decisions from start to finish. Adobe is throwing those decisions away.

I have no idea how to make that more clear if you don't get it.

--
Ed C.

 

[Glen Barrington]

Raw Therapee is pretty darned good, as is the conversion software that comes with most Canon cameras. Olympus Master does a good job on orf files, but it's slow, and that UI - Uggh!

Personally, I am using Lightroom. It has the best combination of quality and ease of use for Raw conversion that I have found, and I can use it on both Canon and Olympus cameras. I also like that I can convert all my raw images to dng and have a single workflow with all sources.

I am also seriously considering ACDSee Pro 2. Raw quality is quite good, though it is nowhere nearly as easy to use as LR for raw. It also doesn't support dng as fully as Lightroom does. It's big advantage is that it is a far superior organizer than LR is and the print quality is much higher. It's also about half the cost of LR and easily twice as fast for most operations. I'm waiting to see what V2 of Lightroom is like before I make a final decision.
--
STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos. . .
http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington

 

[Conchita]

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. While you certainly can make many more adjustments in PS than in PE, those you can make (the basic and details tabs) are identical. And there are lot more features in ACR 4 and higher in Elements, as well, compared to the older versions of ACR (cropping, apply settings to multiple images, etc.) You can certainly tweak things a whole lot more in PS, but the basic conversion should have been the same between PS and PE.

 

[Jim Hess]

Then why are you shooting in raw? That is the whole concept. That
is why it is a "raw" image. If what you are looking for is something
that makes all the adjustments for you then you should not be
shooting in raw.

Are you serious? I am shooting RAW because I want the control.
Nikon software gives that because it allows me to control the
decisions from start to finish. Adobe is throwing those decisions
away.

I have no idea how to make that more clear if you don't get it.

--
Ed C.

Of course I am serious. Adobe isn't making any decisions for you. Yes, a profile is provided as a starting point from which you create your own customized profile for your own camera. Apparently, you don't understand the workflow and the theory behind ACR. The idea is to capture the pixels and save them without applying any in-camera processing. That gives you complete control and customize the profile for your camera to produce the results you are looking for. I don't understand what you feel is taken away. With ACR it's possible to create defaults specifically for your own camera, not just the camera model. Additionally, you are able to create presets to accommodate special situations which might include lighting, different ISO settings, etc.. ACR is completely customizable, but it does require some effort to set it up properly. I don't mean to be sounding arrogant or snotty. I just think you and I look at things a little differently. Personally, I like how ACR works for me. I have different presets for different situations that usually cover the majority of adjustments that I want. But, admittedly, I sometimes need to make individual adjustments as well.

 

[Jim Hess]

I think I probably misstated a couple of things about ACR. ACR does NOT ignore ALL camera settings. ACR will honor the white balance, and of course the aperture and shutter speed settings will have an impact on the exposure of the image. What ACR DOES ignore are settings such as noise reduction, sharpening, and other processing settings that can be programmed into some cameras. Most people will, I think, prefer to exercise control over those settings with other software.

 

[m1ks]

Yes it is still out there for download, just no support for current models but workarounds for newer model formats.
Beats ACR and DPP hands down

 

[spease]

The best raw converter for the money is Raw Therapee. It is free.

 

[Ed_C]

I just don't blindly drink the Adobe Cool Aid.

If you are fine with them throwing away your decisions that's lovely for you. We don't all agree.
--
Ed C.