Adobe Camera Raw 3.3 quality?

[peterkrogh]

In general, the issues here will be pretty hard to pin down.  Rick has pointed out some places in the past where there are some tiny, but pretty unarguable advantages to a C1 conversion. As has been said here, it is, to some degree, a comparison of the operator's skill with the software that will be on display.

 This is further clouded by the fact that there is no objective truth in RAW file rendering, and anything that looks like a "good photograph" will include the mapping of scene color and contrast to an artificial construct that we have become accustomed to.

Jeremy's point that workflow options are probably more important is more on track.  How well and how fast can you get images "good enough to proof with" is going to be a deciding factor for many people. This is certainly the issue that is most obviously in front of photographers dealing with RAW file workflow at the moment.

My personal criteria also includes the ability to have predictable rendering across multiple applications, a facet that some do not value as highly.  This will become increasingly important as we enter a world where photographers may be choosing among multiple RAW file converters, and where adjustments made with one program will be rendered differently in subsequent versions of that same program.

Tt's important to remember that this area - RAW file conversion - is one that will be developing rapidly over the next few years.  We will certainly see before the end of the year a number of improvements in the ability to create a RAW file rendering. It appears that Lightzone, Lightroom, and Nikon CaptureNK are all moving the ball forward in cool and interesting ways.  Comparisons done in April 2006 will have less value in even a few months, probably.

That said, a comparison made by someone like Rick, who really knows this subject matter, will be of considerable value for those who are interested in a good look at the current landscape.
Peter

 

[Rick McCleary]

Underlining what Peter mentioned, I have stated a couple times that the difference between TIFF's processed in ACR vs. C1 vs. NC, etc. will be verry subtle indeed.  To some (myself included), those differences are worth the extra time and effort required to use a converter outside the mainsteam Bridge/ACR workflow (specifically C1).  My unscientific judgement is that all processers except C1 will produce virutally identical results when done by a skilled operator.  From my perspective, C1 is in a separate class due to it's rendering of shadow tones and surface texture.

I'm embarking on another extended annual report trip, so I won't be able to invest the time needed to do a good, objective comparison of the main RAW converters.  When things calm down on the business front, I look forward to working on this project.

The two primary factors I'll be looking at are:
  1) quality of the conversion
  2) how the converter fits into a high-volume workflow

Currently, I use the Bridge/ACR/DNG workflow for editing/archiving because it is the most time-efficient.  When it comes time to make derivative files for CMYK reproduction, I go to the original CR2 RAW and convert using C1.  This will become easier when C1 releases v4 which will support reading DNG's.  Then I won't have to keep a parallel archive of CR2's.

This is a bit clunky.  I look forward to the developments that are currently ion the pipeline that will hopefully make our lives easier in the future.

[Michael_S]

I was wondering about copyrights.  I have no problem with them being posted and viewed.  My only restriction is that no one should profit from them.  So "copyright 2006 Michael Surratt" on both of them, please.

Now that I have the earliest part of my workflow nailed down I can get serious about the Bridge steps, especially copyright and other bulk metadata.

Thanks for the consideration

--Michael Surratt

[dandill]

A comparison of Capture One and Raw Developer has just been published at http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/raw_28/essay.html

Dan

[AlanDunne]

Well, I am through with comparing raw converters for a while. It has been fun though. My final write up on my conversions  of Michael's and Jeremy's images can be found at http://www.dunnefamily.ca/.

When all is said and done, the different converters can produce different results, but I did not see anything that I would consider to be "flawed", althoug DxO on auto pilot can do both wonderful and strange things. As was suggested by Jeremy and Peter, the workflow is the biggest differentiator, and for me at least ACR wins hands down.

As Peter suggested, with the current rate of innovation in raw conversion (and the user interface to it) most lessons that I learned will be obsolete within a year or so.

To the forum members, thanks for indulging me.

Cheers ... Alan

[Michael_S]

Alan,
Thank you for hosting the images and being such an active participant in our mutual investigation (or adventure)!

With the color calibration I have done in ACR, Noise Ninja in Photoshop, and the 50mm prime lens I am definitely sticking with Bridge-ACR-PSCS2 for now.  I'm interested to see how this marketplace develops in the next few months.  It should prove to be a wild but exciting ride for all of us.

I'll be exploring Adobe Bridge and iView MediaPro 3 for quite a while....

--Michael

[jeremyrh]

Alan,
Thank you for hosting the images and being such an active participant in our mutual investigation (or adventure)!

Yes, Alan - many thanks for your hard work.

To be honest, when I saw the results of my own comparison I thought that the ACR image was a more faithful rendition of the colour - the NC reds just seemed unrealistically bright - almost jarring. But when I went back and looked at the statues the next day I saw that the colours really were quite discordant. The red and yellow had been splashed on recently by someone with a spray can, or a paint pot, and they did stand out quite a lot.

I've recently been ploughing through a lot of images for a book I'm making, and I've found that using NC I have to do very little to get them to where I want them. The downsides are that NC is dog slow, and missing some important functionality. For the images that I can do entirely in NC, I'm ahead. For the ones that require that I fire up PS I'm probably behind. Hopefully NC NX will make life easier, but even so, for now I'm sticking with NC. It gives me most of the image I want, and I like the ability to save a record of what I've done in the NEF file.

Having said that, if Adobe bring out an Intel-native version of ACR/CS3 next spring, and Nikon don't update NC NX to Intel-native, the pain of continuing with NC may be too much to bear.

I've found this discussion instructive and I hope others have also!

cheers,

Jeremy.

[peterkrogh]

If you are running on a Macbook Pro, then you can do it right now.  I saw a friend boot his macbook in Windows last night - very disconcerting.  It's a VERY fast way to run Photoshop - I think it is one of the fastest laptop option on the planet.  Mcbook Pro, Windows, PSCS2.

It's a strange world we are entering.
Peter

[jeremyrh]

If you are running on a Macbook Pro, then you can do it right now.  I saw a friend boot his macbook in Windows last night - very disconcerting.  It's a VERY fast way to run Photoshop - I think it is one of the fastest laptop option on the planet.  Mcbook Pro, Windows, PSCS2.

Heh heh! Now why would I want to do a nasty thing like that to a Mac? 

Seriously - that would be a damned expensive option, BootCamp, a full price copy of XP, and a new copy of CS2. Ouch!!