1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Same RAW file, different converters

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by david_papp, Jan 4, 2013.

  1. david_papp

    david_papp Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jul 7, 2012
    Budapest, Hungary
    David Papp
    I got a G3 after spending several months with an E-PL1. When it comes to speed and usability I find it quite an upgrade, but I'm still having touch time to process the Panasonic raw files for my taste, so I decided to try out all the software options for processing.

    The image was shot with the G3 with AWB at ISO 500 and plus the Olympus 45mm F1.8 at F2.0. I did no PP, so there are just simple RAW conversions.

    Lightroom 4.3:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/0ve5if9lerm4fub/Lightroom 4.3.jpg

    Silkypix 3.1:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/84e3fdgguma5b0d/Silkypix 3.1.jpg

    DXO Optics Pro 8:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/g8ngebxzbwfbtxt/dxo optics pro 8.jpg

    Capture One 7:
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/i1ji4gwl8jqypyi/Capture One.jpg

    Nikon Capture NX2 (from TIFF):
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5yc0r7351ft9x6/NX2.jpg

    I also wanted to do the same with Aperture, but I couldn't due to Apple killing the trial version of the software. If someone could make a conversion in Aperture, I'd be more than happy to share a RAW file.

    I hope you guys find this not so scientific comparison helpful. Personally I like the file from the Capture One the most.

    //Update: The Aperture file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/cj2pxigrtkycgws/P1020136.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. FastCorner

    FastCorner Mu-43 Veteran

    309
    May 28, 2011
    Very interesting! I finally upgraded to Lightroom 4, so I'm in no position to switch, but I agree that C1 looks the best to me.
     
  3. david_papp

    david_papp Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jul 7, 2012
    Budapest, Hungary
    David Papp
    I updated the original post with the Aperture conversion.
     
  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    sorry to crash the party... but surely if you accept the default RAW conversion from an app as your end point you might as well have shot JPEG.

    the point of shooting RAW is to give you greater flexibility in making the image look the way YOU want. Its my opinion that all RAW convertors can achieve the same results from the same source file... its just a matter understanding the controls...

    K
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. robbie36

    robbie36 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 25, 2010
    Bangkok
    rob collins
    Actually I think one of the good things about Lightroom is that it is very easy to incorporate a different raw converter into your workflow from within the program.

    Interesting - it would be good to have seen a photo ninja comparison as well.
     
  6. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    Really????? She's far too green in the C1 process. LR or NX here (with a preference for LR)....
     
  7. david_papp

    david_papp Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Jul 7, 2012
    Budapest, Hungary
    David Papp
    It's not about accepting the default RAW conversion, it's all about getting the best starting point for post-processing.

    Its my opinion that all RAW convertors can achieve the same results from the same source file...

    In most of the cases it's true, but I'm trying to reduce the time I spend developing RAW files, so that's the reason why I'm trying to find the best starting point.

    In some cases it's not so true. Let's take the example of Olympus RAW files converted with Olympus Viewer and put it next to the Lightroom conversion. You can get kinda close spending hours using pipette in order to produce matching camera profiles, but it's never going to be the same.
     
  8. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    the problem is that there is no one 'best' starting point. The writers of RAW convertors spend time and effort to make their RAW conversion profile as good as they believe they can achieve... but at the end of the day it is just one interpretation of the information.. it cannot fit all occasions.

    There are so many factors that can contribute to the look of a photo, lighting, white balance, the actual lens used, and thats before the photographers personal taste or indeed ability to differentiate colours kicks in.

    Chasing around RAW convertors trying to find the perfect conversion is a futile exercise... Pick one and learn how to drive it... all of them should have the ability to create a user defined profile that you can apply by default, or the ability to apply the settings on one photo to a whole group of photos.

    Personally I use Aperture, and have done since it came out 7 years ago. I have looked at other convertors over the years, but rapidly came to the conclusion that they all did pretty much the same thing, and would rather spend my time learning to understand what the controls in my convertor of choice could achieve.

    K
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Same (and I own and use both), though the CNX UI is...horrible...IMHO.
     
  10. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Me thinks workflow and how well it is tailored to the tool is more important.

    (in agreement with Kevin)
     
  11. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    A 'simple RAW conversion' IS post-processing, although why would anyone accept the RAW converters' default settings as a proper result? It is supposed to be the starting point, or am I doing it wrong?
    OK now I'll read the rest of the thread but I felt compelled to comment. You DID PP, you just didn't put any work in.

    Edit: I just saw the files. That's a portrait under mixed CFT/neon lighting isn't it?
     
  12. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I don't disagree...I think I probably get 99% of the results on 98% of photos with LR and it requires about 25% of the time required for a "better" solution. In real life, it's hard to ignore that sort of math.
     
  13. usayit

    usayit Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    My point is that someone who is just as proficient in another package can say the same.
     
  14. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I'd love to see someone who can make CNX work as well and as fast as LR. I'd pay for lessons!!! :D
     
  15. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    That DxO conversion is not typical of what I see - did you use the 'default (neutral color)' option? My own 'standard preset' is loosely based on DxO's standard default, with a little less saturation and a little less aggressive DxO lighting engine (i.e. shadow recovery) applied, but always tailored to taste.

    Still really love DxO for its lens corrections and overall output, although it is slower (processing time) than LR is.