comparing converters

[Jamesmd]

Hi all , I have a question .

When you compare different converters , how do you do it ? I mean , when you start with X converter , they way it actuates drives you to one way of developing de image , when you go to Y converter it drives you another way ,if you use Z another , and so on . I don't know if I'm explaining well .

And many times you end up with different images you like .

So , how do you compare objectively ?

cheers

James

 

[Jamesmd]

for example , what happens to me often , is that I see C1 is better , but there is something about aperture I like so I go back to C1 and look for it there , but that isn't the best way and , is very slow

 

[Jamesmd]

In my confusion I only needed downloading DxO demo :wtf:

Anyone have it , what are your thoughts comparing with others ?

Thanks

james

 

[Bob]

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

 

[Jamesmd]

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

I agree , thats why I think I always end up going back to Aperture and plugins and do everything there , and for some special cases use some other I need in that moment

Thanks .

 

[cam]

when i compare converters, i look at the one that does the best RAW conversion for any given camera -- period.

i will then bring the image into Photoshop for tweaking and b/w conversion (although sometimes there is a stop into True Grain along the way).

as of now, i have the Sigma and Epson RAW converters for those cameras, Aperture for my Ricohs, and C1 for the M8.

my workflow is cumbersome, my cataloguing for sh*t. but i know i'm getting the most out of each and every image i process and that is of paramount importance to me. i am happy, even if extraordinarily slow....

 

[Jamesmd]

when i compare converters, i look at the one that does the best RAW conversion for any given camera -- period.

i will then bring the image into Photoshop for tweaking and b/w conversion (although sometimes there is a stop into True Grain along the way).

as of now, i have the Sigma and Epson RAW converters for those cameras, Aperture for my Ricohs, and C1 for the M8.

my workflow is cumbersome, my cataloguing for sh*t. but i know i'm getting the most out of each and every image i process and that is of paramount importance to me. i am happy, even if extraordinarily slow....

Uff , I just tried lightroom 2 for some days , and I think its great , I can do the same as aperture but colors I think are better ( for my taste )

Why did I download the demo !!!!
cheers

James

 

[cam]

Uff , I just tried lightroom 2 for some days , and I think its great , I can do the same as aperture but colors I think are better ( for my taste )

Why did I download the demo !!!!
cheers

James

:ROTFL:

 

[iiiNelson]

I have LR 2.4, C1 4.8.2, Aperture 2, and a few other converters I don't really use. I find that I really like Aperture but they don't support my current cameras. I can get good results out of C1 but I hate working with it and the interface really makes no sense to me. It's so archaic. LR has it's downfalls in that it can't do everything (some things HAVE to be exported to PS CS4) but Adobe supports it well. You can't beat the straightforward layout for quick photo touch-ups and management IMO. So that's why it's my primary PP converter.