Recently we discussed why professional photographers shoot RAW, not JPEG. As we know, RAW format requires additional processing for converting the image to JPG or TIFF. This can be done by using RAW converters. In this article, we’ll discuss a few important points about selecting a RAW Converter.
What types of RAW converters exist and how to choose a RAW converter?
Adobe Camera Raw screen shot
Let’s start…
When you bought your camera, (remember, we are talking only about cameras which support RAW format; usually that’s any Digital SLR cameras) you had a software CD with manufacturer’s native RAW converter (DPP from Canon, Nikon Capture from Nikon etc.). However, these converters are not the best way to work with RAW images. They have limited possibilities, slow speed and poor functionality.
So, I suggest using third-party software, such us Adobe Lightroom, AcdSee Pro Photo, ArcSoft PhotoStudio, Apple Aperture, Bibble Labs Pro, DxO Optics Pro, Lightcrafts LightZone, Nikon Capture NX, or Phase One Capture One.
The most commonly used RAW converters are:
- Adobe Photoshop CS, with Camera Raw plug-in
- Adobe Lightroom
- Apple Aperture (only for MAC)
- Phase One Capture One 4
Before and After RAW image processing
Adobe Lightroom – With this software you can polish and process your images, create a web gallery and upload it to your web site. You can then print your photos, while staying in the same program.
Adobe Photoshop CS and Adobe Lightroom use the same RAW converter.
If you already have Adobe Photoshop CS, you should have Camera RAW Converter as a part of the Adobe Bridge. You can download the latest version of The Photoshop Camera Raw plug-in from Adobe and follow the instructions to install this file where necessary.
Apple Aperture – This software has similar features to Lightroom and more convenient, user-friendly interface. However, it works only with Mac operating system.
Phase One Capture One 4 – This professional RAW converter has the best algorithm for image processing with maximum accurate color rendering. Most professionals work with Capture One 4. Through our own experience, it does a great job, but the output has a bit less detail than what Adobe Photoshop produces. On the other hand, it is faster and more convenient to use when you have hundreds of files to convert.
Which RAW converter is best for you?
If you are shooting for your family albums and want your images to look professional, I suggest using Adobe Lightroom. It is really an “all-in-one” software.
If you like reportage photography – for instance shooting weddings or events – and need batch processing, your choice would be Phase One Capture One 4.
If you are a fan of Mac and like their perfect style and quality, your RAW processor is Apple Aperture.
I prefer to work with Adobe Photoshop CS plus Camera Raw, because I don’t have a Mac and I like the smooth integration of Camera Raw Converter with Photoshop.
If you are looking for more detailed reviews, I can suggest DIGITAL CAMERA RAW CONVERTER COMPARISONS from Steve Hoffmann.
Related posts:
I’m sorry but you don’t seem to know what you are talking about on a few points.
Nikon Capture for instance is simply the best RAW converter for Nikon cameras, as the company doesn’t release its NEF format details to third parties who have to reverse engineer in order to approximate Nikon’s output. Capture NX isn’t for everyone however; the interface leaves a lot to be desired.
Lightroom isn’t for families — that’s what Photoshop Elements is for. Lightroom in combination with Photoshop is indeed what most professionals use for their digital asset management and RAW conversion, contrary to your assertion that professionals prefer Capture One.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 8th, 2009 at 7:17 am
To Ray Richards
This article is only my opinion. I have a lot of friends amateur and beginner photographers who are using Lightroom instead of Photoshop Elements, because of limited functionality. I think this is just a personal preference on what to use, but I do not think Lightroom is too hard to work with even by amateur.
[Reply]
The Adobe Camera Raw Converter in Adobe Photoshop CS is notthe same as in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom. There have been four iterations of Photoshop since it became part ofthe Creative Suite family: CS, CS 2, CS 3 and currently CS4. Each hasvery different versions of Adobe Camera Raw. The raw conversion engine in the most recent update of Adobe Photoshop CS 4 (ACR 5.5) is however the same as the current version of Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, Lightroom 2.5, however the user interface differs from Lr 2.5 and ACR 5.5 with Lr being much more user friendly as well as incorporating an archiving database, something that the Photoshop CS4 plus bridge combination lacks.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 8th, 2009 at 6:46 am
to Ellis Vener:
Hi, Ellis.
Thank you for your comment. Let me quote Scott Kelby who is the editor-in-chief for Layers Magazine, Photoshop User magazine and the president of NAPP the National Association of Photoshop Professionals.
“Q. So, which one should I use?
A. Camera Raw in Photoshop CS3, Camera Raw in The Adobe Bridge, and the Develop Module of Lightroom 1.4 are all the same. All three have the same sliders, in the exact same order, they have the same tools, etc..
Q. So what’s the difference?
A. Camera Raw has a light gray background, and Lightroom’s Develop Module has a dark gray background.
Q. That’s it?
A. That’s it.”
Camera Raw, Bridge, or Lightroom?
[Reply]
I will not say Nikon Capture 2 from Nikon have limited possibilities, slow speed and poor functionality, because on a decent computer it’s pretty fast and accept plug-ing filters fron Nik Software.
So I suggest to try it, if you get it with your camera, before other raw converters.
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 8th, 2009 at 7:41 am
to FotoStefan:
OK, I won’t persist here, because I don’t have experience with Nikon systems (our studio use Canons). However, my opinion based on my friends (professional photographers) decision to use Lightroom, Apple Aperture and Capture One 4 instead of Nikon Capture.
[Reply]
It seems that your article goes a bit farther afield than the title claims. In the title, you indicate a description of how to chose a RAW converter. The article is far more about software that handles RAW as a single part of the feature set and little is done to illuminate the differences it the actual RAW converters in each, which can be very significant to production outcome.
An article that examines the RAW processes and the resultant outcome would be closer to what iI expected, I’m afraid.
But thanks for what you did cover.
John
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 10th, 2009 at 6:11 am
to John Vansteenberg
Thank you, John for your comment. I plan to write a detailed review and comparative analysis of two RAW converters Adobe Camera RAW and Capture One 4. See you soon here!
[Reply]
Hello, good morning!
I also use the four programs mentioned above, I like them all, but I’m really liking Lightroom, which works on both Mac and Windows!
[Reply]
I am so confused…. I shoot in Raw 80% of the time. Primarily because I believe that is the wise thing to do based on teachers, and more experienced photographers. When I edit my photos I use, Lightroom, Elements and even Picasa. Whenever I am done, and the ‘save as’ window gives mne the choice of HOW to save the picture…jpg, tiff etc. Is there something that I am missing?
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 10th, 2009 at 6:20 am
to cynthia o’connor
This is exactly what you should do. When you shoot RAW you have a possibility to adjust and correct your image without losing quality before you save it to jpg or tiff.
[Reply]
I shoot professionally, and use Adobe CS4 to process my raw files. I would like very much to switch over to Lightroom, but, at the moment, have more important things to spend money on than buying more software. I DO have a question about the raw conversion process. Is there a difference in the actual algorithm, or the mathematics that the various programs discussed use to convert the raw file, or is it just a difference in the controls, and what the photographer is able to do with the file? If I processed a raw file in Capture One, for example, and then processed the SAME raw file in ACR performing the same adjustments to the file, would I see a difference in the output?
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 12th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
to Lorenzo Bevilaqua
Yes, the different manufacture use a different algorithms (however this is more like a speculation, as they do not desclosure what algorithm they use) , so the result will be different. This is what I have personally seen between Adobe raw converter and Phase One. In my opinion, photos converted in adobe would have a little more details, especially in the overexposured areas.
However, Llightroom and Photoshop are using the same converter, so no difference in result between them.
[Reply]
You mention ArcSoft Photostudio, I use this software…. but it doesn’t have any RAW capability…. I have to shoot on JPeg until I can afford photoshop! I’m just more careful about getting it all right in camera to avoid lots of post-production!
[Reply]
admin Reply:
October 11th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Sorry, I meant ArcSoft® PhotoStudio® Darkroom 2, not Photostudio
[Reply]
In answer to Lorenzo’s question on RAW converter algorithms, you correctly identify one of the major differences: the resultant image quality, achieved by various algorithms. The issue is not so much in the mid tones, but rather in the high pass and low pass adjacent tones. (High contrast and low contrast tones next to each other and in highlights and shadow areas.) In one case (high contrast), blurring to gray or mixed tone of the adjacent values, in the other, the ability to differentiate fine detail (like lace or lattice or other fine details suffers).
Additionally, with RAW converters evolving into workflow managers, things are fast changing in the functionality of these programs. Adobe’s introduction of Lightroom, created great market awareness of the inter-relationship between process steps and production efficiency. Process speed, ICC profiling, Print que management, advanced image editing/correction features (like chromatic aberration and barrel distortion correction, as well as sharpening and layers adjustments, sharpening and plug ins, all these and more are about to come together into new products being offered in the near future.) They will save photographers hundreds of hours annually and improve their image quality simultaneously. Fabulous!
With Adobe’s ubiquitous dominance because of a lack of competitive products rather than customer friendly policies and product improvements, it will be great to have a batch of new choices to examine.
Respectfully,
John
[Reply]