In my experience, there are a wole lot of ewasonable converters, and only a few optimal converters.
When comparing converters, I use several criteria.
1) Image quality
2) controls and flexibility
3) Fit with my workflow
Some of my pet peeves are the areas where converters have grown functionality outside of the actual raw conversion itself and close-off other systems.
I appreciate some of this functionality, but there is some tendency to dray you in to a particular "family" of software.
"Bad things" about some products:
-Digital asset management - well, it would be real good if Capture One, Microsoft Expression, Lightroom/Bridge and others could use a single rating and tagging standard so that once rated in C1, then the same rating would be available in Bridge
-Inability to generate full resolution previews, Phase One files in Lightroom or Microsoft Expression for example.
-Inability to invoke the converter itself from the command line. What I want here is simple, just an invocation with a file name and some conversion options.
-Inability to invoke converters from DAM software.
-Lightroom and Capture NX claim to make only non-destructive edits, but when the images with local adjustments are exported to photoshop, they are baked-in and not in layers
-Various local interpretation of white balance
-Inability of some high featured combined products to accurately display images with embedded icc profiles in the monitor color space
-Inability of some converters to use arbitrary icc profiles (DPP for example)
-Inability to take a chunk of images and move them around while preserving ratings tags and adjustments without depending on a monolithic database. I really prefer drag and drop in the file system to database exports.
-Converts that come up with new formats not well supported by anyone else but them (C1), ok so I will just ignore it since I can.
So I guess I am a grouchy old man who eliminates converters based on what I think are their worst features. :cussing:
-bob