• Camera Raw Vs Lightroom

Note: This article has continued to receive updates. For technical reasons, it will continue to say Nov ’18 at the top, but includes software that was released after that date.So here’s a big comparison of almost all the available commercial RAW converters for Mac, plus six open source ones, plus two commercial Windows-only titles. If you’re a Windows user, you may find a few names on this list that you haven’t heard of before, as they are Mac-exclusive. Criteria for selection were that the software should support Pentax cameras and be usable completely offline I will mark the differences in the table. Surprisingly, all programs seemed to support Pentax cameras as both DNG and PEF.

Note: Later additions to this article have not all been tested yet. The test image by: flat picture preview as shown by Luminance HDR (same concept as ungraded video footage)JPEG export settings usedImages shown as part of this review are the default renderings. That’s all I’m going to focus on, for this as well as part 2.Images were directly exported from the converters to JPEG. When either or both options were given, quality was set to 90 and the colour profile to sRGB. Otherwise, the default settings were accepted.

RPP offered nothing between 85% and 95%, so 85% was chosen. Phocus offered a “high” quality setting as well as maximum and some lower settings. The “high” setting seemed to correspond to approximately 90% and was chosen.Operating system was macOS High Sierra 10.13.6 for most of the Mac testing. Problems encounteredAll Skylum products (Photolemur, Aurora, Luminar) and ACDSee could not operate without phoning home and did therefore not receive further consideration two three Skylum products now included (but I’m not impressed), see below. Two versions of ACDSee for Mac also included.

Similarly, Perfectly Clear could only be installed via a download manager that had to be installed before anything else could be installed.Update: I got “free” Luminar and Photolemur licenses as part of a bundle and so have added them to the list of tested programs. Having reviewed Luminar after all the others, I can say that in the default rendering, Luminar offers nothing that would lift it above a free offering such as macOS Preview. You may read more positive things about Luminar elsewhere, but be aware that they have an affiliate marketing program and the people who are telling you nice things may directly benefit through providing a sell button. In forums, Luminar has been described as “beta” software, and it’s been alleged that it has long-standing bugs. The recent version “with libraries”,. Also now added Aurora HDR 2018 as I similarly got a free license via a giveaway.The problems with Photolemur are of a different nature. Photolemur needed a lot of memory and time (several minutes) to produce a rendering that was pretty similar to something HDR Projects can produce instantly with two clicks to select the correct pre-viewable preset (see below).

Worse, it needed yet more time (again, minutes, roughly as long as the first step) to save the image, almost like it was re-rendering the entire image yet again rather than making use of the image rendered in the first step. The phoning home of these two apps is a price not worth paying, not to mention the software also costs money on top of that. In the image on the right, only exposure and saturation were changed. I added this to show how similar the treatment of the foreground is.RPP unexpectedly crashed the first time the Pentax DNG was opened. Even worse, Photo Ninja just “booped” at me when trying to click anywhere within the window and displayed a tiny preview of the image. On the second launch it seemed to work fine, but would not export, so a screenshot is provided instead.

The memory consumption in the case of PhotoNinja therefore refers to simply loading the image into the application – it was already fairly high, but did not seem to have memory leaking. RAW Power 2.0 froze at 100% CPU usage (one core), unable to complete the export (I tried several times). Presumably, exporting at a smaller size and placing an ugly watermark is just too much work.Cyberlink failed to quit on Cmd+Q, and had to be quit through the menu instead (i.e. You need to mouse your way up there – depending on how you work, this may not be a problem).

Also, you can only enter parameters into fields in Cyberlink while hovering your mouse over them – mouse away and your chance is gone. Reading what you’ve entered while the mouse is over it well, you get the idea.DxO needed to phone home to get optics modules and thus was used without the usual corrections. It also did not make PRIME denoising available, so this could not be tested.DxO, RAW Power, HDR Projects, Color Projects and Iridient watermarked the image, but HDR Projects, Color Projects and Iridient were more subtle about it than the other two.Corel Aftershot needed manually downloading and installing a camera profile before it would open any DNG files – this needs to be done for each camera, one file at a time, apparently. The camera profile was a meagre 15kB in size, so why this can’t just be installed by default is hard to understand.Color Projects output an image rotated by 90 degrees counterclockwise although it correctly displayed it in the application. Its default preset was “natural high quality”, which is more saturated than “natural neutral”, and was in fact the output with the most saturated greens except for HDR Projects.

HDR Projects also rotated the image by 90 degrees counterclockwise on export. Please note that I manually corrected these rotations, so you should imagine yourselves having to do the same, presumably every time you export a portrait orientation image!Luminance HDR did not select a rendering, but instead displayed a flat picture profile. In this case, I therefore took the liberty to select a rendering that looked reasonable – it should be noted that Luminance HDR’s 11 algorithms vary hugely in how the output looks, covering everything from muted to garish.Silkypix did not register itself as being able to handle any raw files (including DNG), so images could not be simply opened from the Finder.On its first attempt, Capture One exported an image of 16168775 pixels instead of the expected 19961856, but exported a full size image on the second attempt.

Hasselblad Phocus exported its first image correctly and then froze. Phocus generally froze a lot for me. This was also my experience the previous time I tested it. Its output is identical to that of Preview as it uses the macOS RAW engine.

However, it has many more customisation options than the OS’ own tool. The image produced by Aperture is very slightly different – again, more options available.Similarly, the output of Silkypix DSP 7 and 9 was identical in spite of claims that oversharpening of out of focus areas had been addressed. Out of focus areas in DSP 7 did not seem oversharpened compared to competitors, so perhaps the sample image was not affected by this bug, and further investigation is needed.

Still, having two images that are identical pixel by pixel seems remarkable.RAW Power seemed to be leaking memory in chunks of approximately 70MB up to a maximum of 600MB.Silkypix, Photivo, Color Projects, HDR Projects, Cyberlink and Aperture would not associate with files, while some programs including Lightzone and Picktorial seemed to make themselves the default app without asking. I did not pay attention until after this latter phenomenon happened, so this might deserve another separate investigation, and there might be more culprits found.With that caveat, only RPP, On1 Photo RAW, AlienSkin Exposure, RAW Therapee and Darktable seemed to perform without hitch. However, RPP, RAW Therapee, Darktable and Photivo were also among the programs where figuring out how to correctly export, or in some cases export at all, took some digging. So only On1 Photo RAW and AlienSkin Exposure really performed flawlessly from a usability view. Positive things encounteredSeveral applications, among them DxO, Lightzone, AlienSkin, RPP and HDR Projects, label their exports with a suffix – DxO, lzn, -Exposure, rpp and HDR, respectively.

This is useful because it means that even if they export to the same folder, they won’t overwrite each other’s files.The two HDR solutions only seemed to support sRGB as a colour profile; however, they additionally both support special HDR image formats whose colour gamuts I’m not familiar with.I did not notice any program not supporting 16 bit TIFF output, but I may still double-check that. Data gathered (click for a larger view)Asterisks indicate further discussion in the main text. Note that ProPhotoRGB and ROMM are one and the same, so programs supporting ROMM were noted as supporting ProPhotoRGB.

Says:I'll try to post some straight comparisons later, but at first glance, my DNG conversions look to be about one stop darker than the RAFs and noisier.Anyone else noticing this?Originally posted at 12:08AM, 13 December 2011 PSTVIEW + FINDER edited this topic 98 months ago.attractive thrill deleted says:Not noticed that, as yet anyway. Just enjoying not having to use Silkypix and getting back to ACR.98 months agopoised sleet deleted says:What will be interesting is to see how Lightroom handles the size medium 'raw+jpeg' files created by the camera.98 months agosays:AFAIK, Lightroom & Camera Raw has the same conversion process as DNG converter. It just goes one step further to turn it into a DNG file.I see no changes at all converting Nikon D7000 NEF files into DNGs.98 months agosays:Interesting. After converting RAF to DNG, ACR won't recognize the Medium X10 images as 6 mp. It thinks all files are 12mp. That's why I initially said there's more noise. It's opening as an upsampled file.

I have to force ACR to open it as 6mp.So now the noise is comparable to the Silkypix conversion. But DNG default conversions still look very dark and more contrasty.

All it takes is a bit of tweaking to lighten it up, even the Auto setting gets it pretty close. But I find it strange that the default files are so different.I'm still using Photoshop CS3 which only supports ACR up to version 4.6 so I wonder if that's the source of the difference. RAF in Silkypix EX converter - Shown in default view, no adjustments @100% DNG (converted from RAF) in Adobe Camera Raw - Shown in default view, no adjustments @ 100%98 months agosays:BTW, sorry for the references to Lego on the Flicker account where I post these images. It's my 11-year-old son's account.:)98 months agosays:hmmm.

I am curious to see whether you will able to compensate the brightness in Adobe without compromising too much the noise levels.Originally posted 98 months ago.Celso Kuwajima (a group admin) edited this topic 98 months ago.says:Is it possible that Fuji has modded the Silkypix code to be able to use the camera mode settings as a default place to start the conversion?98 months agosays:I've done some adjusting in ACR and then Photoshop and I can get the DNG exposure to match the RAF conversion, but the DNG is softer. I also have to pull detail from the shadows that Silkypix shows in default. And once I sharpen, the noise is slightly more.I don't think the DNG conversion is recognizing in-camera settings from the RAF - like sharpness and noise control. I know with Nikon's Capture, being proprietary, it does. I wonder if it's the same with Fuji's conversion.Usually though, one can match the in-camera adjustments with another program. In this case, the Silkypix is better both from the start and after trying to match it with adjustments.Very strange.Later I'll post 200% crops to show the difference.Originally posted 98 months ago.VIEW + FINDER edited this topic 98 months ago.says:OK, this defies logic but here's the difference at 200%.

Silkypix EX is the winner - by a huge margin. It's on the right - and completely unretouched. No color, sharpening. A straight default conversion saved to TIF.The DNG on the left had to be adjusted to match the Silkypix version - including.03 radius/100% sharpening. It's got more noise and despite the sharpening, it's way softer.Here are the exposure details:ISO: 400ExpMode: Auto, M4:3, DR400%Exposure: 1/10 sec @ f/2. (handheld with image stabilization)Anyone got an explanation for this difference?Originally posted 98 months ago.VIEW + FINDER edited this topic 98 months ago.says:I updated CS5 and Bridge and then converted one of my pix using both ACR default and Silkypix default.

No post processing.Silkypixoriginally posted an image I had tuned up in Silkypix. The Silkypix shown now has default settings.Originally posted 98 months ago.don32pix edited this topic 98 months ago.says:Here are another pair converted with ACR default and Silkypix default. I picked these to show skin tone and high ISO3200. No NR or post processing.ACR. Originally posted 98 months ago.don32pix edited this topic 98 months ago.says:Yes, Silkypix EX really does need 'figuring out.' It's a bit clunky but I spent a lot of time on it the first week I had the camera and I think I have a feel for it now. I seem to be getting better results than most.At the moment, I don't have any other options anyway.

Either DNG converter is lacking or my version of ACR doesn't seem capable of fully understanding the data.98 months agosays:Also struggling with the DNG files, seem to lack detail no matter how hard I try I cannot get them as sharp as the out of camera JPEGs!!I am converting to DNG then to Lightroom (2), it seems that it is missing critical calibrations that woulkd help.Has anyone tried directly in Lightroom 3.6?98 months agosays:Lots of similar chatter on other forums regarding the same issue. Looks like Adobe's implementation for the X10 may have been hasty,98 months agosays:Well, at least I now know it's not me. It looks like Adobe jumped the gun.

Apparently Camera Raw isn't reading the lens corrections found in the EXIFs, leading to softness. Plus, there's a problem with noise at high ISO files.No explanation yet on what's causing my roughly one stop difference in exposure between the two converters.DxO says they'll have an EX10 module for Optics Pro in April. Maybe they'll speed up a bit to take advantage of the vacuum.98 months agosays:I saw these default rendering comparisons done a lot with nx2 vs lightroom. It doesn't matter how the unprocessed raw is rendered in a default setting in any given editing program.you are going to be altering the picture any way.

Camera Raw Vs Lightroom

Furthermore, you can custom calibrate a camera's profile exactly how you want it, so once again, default rendering settings are trivial.If you are going to nail the shot perfectly in-camera shoot jpeg. If the shot is near perfect you won't need the editing versitility of a raw file.98 months agosays:The DNG/Camera Raw version.is. edited - and it can't even match the low noise and sharpness of the completely unedited Silkypix.

That says there's a problem with the software, IMO.98 months agosays:I've wasted far too much time on this so after these shots, I'm going to take a rest!:)The conclusion is that converted DNGs in Camera Raw don't seem to work well at all beyond ISO 100. Noise, exposure issues and softness are the problems (see above).At ISO100 however, it's another story. The differences seem to be due solely to Adobe not having access to or not being able to recognize the camera settings for noise, color and lens data.Here, the 200% Camera Raw example on the right has more noise, less saturation and less sharpness.With a little tinkering: Noiseware Pro noise reduction, color correction and.03radius/30% sharpening, I was able to nearly duplicate the Silkypix example on the left - which, by the way, has no post work except 5 blue to counter a slight yellow tinge:So it appears that Fuji has done a remarkable job of eliminating the need for much post-processing. I'm still going to shoot RAW but I doubt I'll be resorting to using just one converter.Originally posted 98 months ago.VIEW + FINDER edited this topic 98 months ago.says:I see what you mean now.

Yeah, I'm using lightroom to process some 1600 ISO shoots taken in crappy light. It definitely looks like most of the low noise jpeg shots are camera's processor at work.I can manage to kill the noise and retain decent sharpness, in lightroom, but it takes a good amount of editing steps.I'll try out the x10's raw function in a real shooting scenario though. I don't think controlled tests are the best way to gauge a camera.98 months agosays:Maybe we can come up with good basic presets for the LR3 import of X10 Raw files?!98 months agosays:It could just be how Lr is rendering the files, which will eventually get fixed.

Eh, I wouldn't sweat it yet. It's still workable, it just takes more steps to get to the jpeg output than one would think.Hopefully adobe puts out another update that refines this one.98 months agosays:Re; the above shots: not mentioned was the exposure data: 1/1000 at f/5.6, Exp.Bias: -1, ISO100, focal length: 10mm, Mode: M 4:3, Color: Provia.I think it's also important to note that the examples are shown at 200% magnification, not 100%, indicating just how sharp the lens is.97 months agosays:I agree that default outputs of ACR vs Silkypix should not be the taken too seriously since we all do further editing.

I think Adobe got ACR good enough that I will use either one depending on what needs to be tweeked and how I feel that day.:-)When the Fuji S100fs was new some of the raw conversions were so far off they were unusable. That is what I was looking for.

What I found was better than I expected and I think very usable.Note that using Nikon Capture NX2 vs ACR is as different as the X10 Silkypix vs ACR conversions.97 months agosays:viewfinder - often times I think people mistake sharpness for contrast. A lot of new gen lenses have high contrast, which gives it the illusion of sharpness. The x10 lens is a medium contrast, which is why the colors and skin tones appear so nice. A lot of portrait lenses have this quality.However, back to the point.

Embed pdf parameters. I wouldn't sweat the ACR conversion, Adobe simply has to do some fine tuning to x10's file profile. Also, all the same information is there, it just you have to do a little more work to get to the same result.97 months agosays:@nakeddork. Actually, I'm only disappointed in the ACR processing of the high ISO images. Now that I know the differences, the EX converter is what I'll use above ISO200.But for ISO100, it could be a plus.

In an earlier post, I lamented the absence of an option to turn off the X10 noise reduction completely - as most DSLRs allow - to enable selective NR in post. The ACR conversion gives us just that: a bare bones conversion without any in-camera wizardry. It does show more detail while also showing more noise. This offers an opportunity to shoot landscapes where you'd want very little NR below the horizon and much more above it. Or any other situation where detail trumps excessive noise.ACR still needs some tweaking though.

I understand the lens profiles are off a bit, which could explain the occasional difference in sharpness.97 months agosays:At the risk of upsetting the more technically minded, how important is using RAW? Silkypix is so nasty to use compared to the RAW converter in Elements which I'm used to that I've started just shooting JPEGS.

You can open them in RAW converter anyway and they're looking good printed out at A4. Horses for courses I guess but life is simpler!97 months agosays:Yes the JPEG output of the X10 is very good, though all those seasoned photographers with Lightroom know better. Just at the moment it is tricky until Adobe tune it some more, especially over 100 iso. 90 months agosays:Have you tried converting to DNG and then opening the DNG in Lightroom? I'm getting pretty good results opening the DNGs in Camera RAW and editing in PS.

So far, I haven't found anything better.90 months agopoised sleet deleted says:VF - question for you, do you know if the free dng converter from adobe the same as the dng converter built into LR4?90 months agosays:viewfinder, jorepuusa, viewfinder:I don't think the issue you are all having really is to the end game. I think we all professional shooters can agree that you provide the client with they images the ask for - period - full stop.I think the RAW/JPG debate is really more for the photographer and what best helps you get to your end game. At the end of the day a JPG is 8-bit. Doesn't matter if it comes SOOC or is converted in Adobe product from a RAW or TIFF.The plain truth is that if you need to have a lot of latitude in post processing images, there are advantages to using RAW over JPG.I for one shoot a mixture of file types, some different in the same shoot.I think sometimes we tend to cause more strife amongst ourselves over trivial arguments that have little to nothing to do with the work.It would be like mechanics arguing over using an air compressor wrench to take lug nuts off a car tire versus using a manual lug wrench. There are benefits to each, but who is to say which is better? Again - subjective.Originally posted 90 months ago.gryphon1911 A.Live edited this topic 90 months ago.says:I tried the Adobe converter on a wide angle shot, and the DNG had a huge amount of barrel distortion! I would guess that the in-camera converter does some correction, but apparently so does silkypix, because the distortion was not there (with lens corrections at 0).90 months ago.