RAW Conversion Programs

A friend of mine and I are evaluating a RAW conversion program called PowerShovel (it's freeware). Although I am pleased with some of the features it offers (especially considering it is freeware), I am rather curious about other programs that some of you may be using.

Freeware or consumer software products are both on the playing field for this discussion... just looking for alternatives and other ideas. Also wondering if there is anything that I can outright avoid.

I use Adobe Camera Raw. As a plug in, it is easier to use in my work flow than Nikon Capture. Capture One DLSR is another possibility. I can't say why I chose ACR over Capture One, but ACR has been surprisingly easy to use and the temperature scale and tint combination allow great fine tuning of the color cast.

I use Adobe Camera Raw, too, and like it but I was looking at Camera One just yesterday. ACR has the reputation among some of adding noise, but I think that's ridiculous. Ignoring outright bugs, conversion software will not add noise. It's seems true, though, that Camera One produces more noise-free images than ACR, but it does so by using builtin noise reduction which ACR lacks. At this point I'm looking to see if I can get noise reduction for ACR to compensate. If not, I'll feel compelled to switch.

ACR is definitely easy to use. It's color correction advantage has now been duplicated in Camera One, so its main advantage is convenience and greater camera support. Camera One is harder to use, supports fewer cameras, and preserves/translates less EXIF data. It's more powerful than ACR and provides more noise-free images.

Hi Gang,

actually I played around with RAW tools for the Canon 10D, whole yesterday evening. Why so long?

Because the original Canon tool is goddamn slooooooow... on my poor 800MHz Celeron III with 768 MB RAM.

Breezebrowser 2.6b was a lot more convincing but required some care, before evertyhing was running with

the new 10D. (Had to copy some files manually) I am willing to spend some bucks for it, because after

becoming a CANONian, I might use it more frequently.

I now want to try some Photoshop plugins, but I think you pay a lot more for them, right? Also batch

processing might take a lot more time. I cannot imagine that it will be faster than BreezeBrowser.

Can anyone convince this or has other experiences?

hi all-

i used Breezebrowser for about a year (D60 and now 10D) and while i think it's a great program for the money, and Chris Breeze is awesome re. support, lately i got Capture 1 and i really like it. excellent control over things like colors, white balance, sharpening, and especially exposure (levels and curves). it's easliy twice as fast as BB and you can continue making adjustments while images are being converted.

in fact, i'm using it right now as we speak

i still think BB is great for looking at and evaluating images, and moving them around.

greg

I'm just fascinated that people are using so few options out there.

Granted, I have been using Photoshop for nearly seven years, which probably gives me a distinct advantage over people new to the program and/or new to digital photography, but I am struggling to objectively determine where the RAW programs end and Photoshop begins.

Truth be told, all I really need the RAW program to do is convert the file into a TIFF. I haven't found anything yet in a RAW proggie that enables me to do something I cannot already do in Photoshop.

Am I missing anything?

Hi Greg,

Welcome to Wetpixel. (Sorry, no cheesy swimming fishy here...lol)

I wish I could use Capture 1 with my S2 but alas....:-( my options are limited.

Cheers

James

Nikon Capture 3 is powerful and fairly simple to learn, but I prefer to use the NEF (Nikon's version of RAW) plug-in for Photoshop Elements. Capture 3 duplicates most of the functions of Elements (and it adds Curves, which Elements doesn't have), so I usually just use Elements. The plug-in requires you to first adjust the exposure and white balance, then it disappears and you're in the regular Photoshop workflow.

I can't remember how I got the plug-in! Either it was installed when I installed Capture 3, or I downloaded it somewhere. At my age, call it a "senior moment."

I've also tried Bibble (they have trial downloads), but for $99, I wouldn't buy it. It's not bad though, and the latest version is supposed to handle most of the current digital cameras, including the S2.

Hi everyone.

Having just made the switch from cp5000 to s2pro, I have been pre-occupied with learning the camera basics. Buying "appropriate" lenses (starting with the Nikon 60mm micro, Sigma 14mm w/a, awaiting more detail and availability on the 12-24mm nikon), Ikelite housing (the old one without full controls) new sb125 flash, etc. has left me a little "RAW". With my first dive trip with this rig scheduled at the end of June(10 days and counting), I don't have any idea about shooting or converting RAW images. Is 10 days enoughtime for me to learn how to, or shoud I just shoot jpeg for this first trip and leave RAW for July? I presently use PHotoshop Elements. Will this program suffice for said conversion,manipulation? Will the new Ikelite back which supports more controls of the s2 fit on the new (old model) housing I just purchased?

All sage advce would be appreciated.

Cheers!

Peter Kitzerow

I wish I could use Capture 1 with my S2 but alas....:-( my options are limited.

Hi can anyone tell me where to download a trial of "Capture 1".

Thanxx, andi

solved! I just found it at http://www.phaseone.com

pakclu - Shoot the highest-quality JPEG and I doubt you'll have any problem. I shot RAW on my first U/W outing with the D100, and most exposures were within a half-stop. Learning your camera controls and your housing are an order of magnitude more important if you don't have much time.

Also, the learning curve for digital is real fast!

Packlu,

I was in the same situation as you 1 month ago. I had just up-graded from a Sony S75 point and shoot to the S2/ikelite housing/single DS-125. I had never used an SLR before now. I bought the 60mm, 18-35mm, and sigma 14mm.

Having been in your shoes recently (having had no experience with RAW), I would recommend shooting exclusively in RAW. I used a 1 gig microdrive which held 80 pictures in the RAW mode. I never came close to filling the card. I downloaded the card to a portable storage device after each dive thinking a flood could happen at any time.

The RAW conversion programs I used were RAW Converter LE (which came with my camera) and RAW Converter EX (which comes with some cameras) which I aquired after I returned from my trip (Tahiti Aggressor). The LE version merely converts the image to an 8bit Tiff file where you have no control over white balance, sensitivity, etc. I have been using this mostly (I'm still going through my pics) because as Jimbo stated, most are within 1 stop of being properly exposed. BUT, since I received the RAW Converter EX I have saved some great shots which would have been lost if shot as a JPEG.

In my opinion (being new at this), there is no good reason not to shoot in RAW. Also, I converted a group of pics to the highest JPEG from the TIFFs and submitted them for printing as a comparison. I was convinced that there would be no difference, but the images from the TIFFs were much better (better saturation of colors most noticable). I know it's only one test but it was just as easy to sumbit the TIFFs at the same cost - so why not. The 8x12s look great.

I shot all the above water pics (we stayed on Moorea and Rangiroa a week before the Aggressor) and one dive (I forgot to change the setting ) in the highest JPEG and wish now I'd shot all of them in RAW as well.

Well, to sum up after all this babble...as a DSLR newbie

Shoot only in RAW. Don't worry about the conversion. It's easy if you use the programs which come with the camera.

Have a great trip. You'll love the camera and housing. Where are you going? Can't wait to see your pics!

John

Oh, I forgot to address Jimbos main point.

I agree, spend the time before the trip getting to know the camera and housing controls. Get in a pool if you can.

The E-book by Thom Hogan was a huge help understanding the camera. www.bythom.com. I had the CD-rom overnighted to me and had Kinkos print it the morning I left.

Great airplane reading and I still refer to it often. Printed, small and pocket sized.

Shoot in RAW and worry about the conversion when you get home!

John

I'd like to point out that shooting in RAW is not just for the gain in exposure latitude. If helps greatly when color balance is way off. Think of it as exposure latitude times 3. You also don't have to settle for what the camera decided in the heat of the moment regarding white balance, sharpening, and JPG compression. With RAW and only RAW you get the best image the camera was ever going to produce. The rest is up to you.

I can accept shooting JPG above water where the conditions are stable, predictable, and what the camera was designed for. Under water you don't have any of those things so you're best off bypassing the camera's feeble processor (ha!) in favor of your brain, photoshop and a good raw converter.

I also would opt for shooting raw.

The main problem is not the exposure - you'll get this right sooner or later. (most times) (But you will love to have the feature when you did a shot of something rare and did only get one shot and didn't get the exposure right in this shot)

The main point UW are the possibilities you get to adjust the White Balance. You can tune your Whitebalance setting as you want and be a Photoshop Pro: you will not be able to get the WB to the point like you can with a good RAW Conversion Program

Additionaly - The right alternative to RAW would be TIFF not JPEG. And TIFF is way to big. Even in the best JPEG setting you loose important picture information (JPEG use compression) that you want to have when you work on the pic later. If you take Photography seriously JPEG is NOT an option. When you create JPEGs later for web use you should create it directly from a loss free Format (PSD, TIFF) when you do changes again do them again in the loss free format and converse to JPEG then. Multiple saving of JPEGs leads to multiplication of the losses.

There area also other neat tricks you can do when you shoot in raw. For Example you can "extend" your dynamic range when you produce 3 different exposed RAW conversions and combine them to one picture. This is way better then dodging and burning.

Simon

My camera came with raw file converter le. When I used the finepix software to convert them, they converted and appear to be just fine. However, these images don't allow for the adjustments which RAW is supposed to enable me to perform. If I "open as" raw in photoshop, all I get is this very large amorphous grey blob (no discernable image). I tried adobe help (inthe elements program) but am only getting more frustrated. Does anyone know where I can read about the basics of raw and associated image manipulation?

Thanks as always!

Peter

:freak:

Peter,

The E-book by Thom Hogan I mentioned has a comprehensive section on the RAW format. RAW converter LE merely converts the Raw image into an 8-bit TIFF file without allowing you to manipulate white balance, etc. You will have to get RAW Converter EX (Fuji H2 Hyper Utility Software) to do what you want.

John

I am shamefully admitting that I was wrong to advise someone to shoot JPG underwater if he wasn't comfortable with the RAW format. I do shoot RAW (NEF) underwater, but on land I usually shoot JPGs.

Speaking of Thom Hogan, here's what he says on his website:

What are the advantages of shooting in the RAW mode versus TIFF?

Thom's Answer: I wish Nikon hadn't put TIFF mode on the camera. JPEG FINE is quite good, much faster, and would give you photos that are pretty much indistinguishable from TIFF. If you want all the quality the camera can deliver, you shoot NEF (RAW), though. The NEF format gives you a host of things you don't get elsewhere:

The original sensor data: The sensor outputs 12-bit data through the ADC. JPEG and TIFF reduce this to 8-bit. Thus, at a minimum you've lost tonal range. But the real kicker is that after-the-fact interpolation programs (e.g. Capture, Bibble, QImage) have gotten better and better, while with JPEG and TIFF you're stuck with what the camera's electronics were coded to do. It's the difference between Polaroid instant photos and having a negative. With NEF you've got a negative, and if enlargers and printing technologies improve, so does your work. With a Polaroid (and JPEG/TIFF), your original defines the maximum quality you'll ever get.

The ability to override the camera's settings: There's a lot you can get wrong, but the most common problem is getting the white balance incorrect. NEF allows you apply white balance settings after the fact, while with JPEG and TIFF you'd have to use color controls in Photoshop to fix shifts, which isn't as easy or as intuitive. Ditto contrast, hue, and sharpening.

The ability to nudge exposure: Since we have the original sensor data and plenty of excess tonal range, we can apply different linearity curves directly to the data. This works great for recovering underexposed images, less so for overexposed images (a blown highlight is gone forever).

I have to agree with Craig. I am new to RAW, but having just taken 500 photographs on a recent PNG trip, I am convinced that RAW is the way to go.

JPEG is good for surface work where you know the white balance and everything is relatively predictable. But, U/W all this goes out the door. If you shoot RAW then you will alwasy have the best photo/data saved to the chip which the camera can produce. Conversion is easy and post manipulation in RAW slightly more difficult but easy to master.

The only hassle I've had is trying to find a suitable RAW conversion/manipulation platform. Capture 1 seems like a good investment, but does not support my canon G5. Bibble I have no knowledge of, and of cuse the new Elements 3 looks interesting and probably one of the better options. Iain