It's getting a good reputation for its ability to recover detail, partly because it has so many demosaicing options. RawTherapee - I've only recently looked at it again for the first time in years. One thing I hate is that it makes a mess of your file system by creating a labyrinth of sub-folders with buddy files for every folder with images that it scans. It has a LOT of colour correction options, so pros love it. It ticks most of the boxes, although it doesn't come with a lot of look profiles, and I find its colours under artificial light a bit unconvincing. There are 30% off deals sometimes, but you have to be quick. There is a major upgrade coming soon, supposedly.Ĭapture One Pro 7 - This a good alround program that matches LR, but it's expensive. I used to find it poor at high ISO but the later versions are better. No included lens correction profiles - you have to calculate your own. Some people love its colours, although I am not wild about them in all cases and you don't get a wide range of look profiles. A wedding photographer with thousands of images would go crazy trying to use this program. Photoninja - this has a cult following because of its ability to recover fine detail (esp on Fuji) so it's the converter of choice for landscape photographers, but I find its workflow slow and cumbersome. But don't expect fast development or fast camera updates. It's a good option if it supports your camera and you like the colours as it doesn't require you to use a database and it is fast. It has good workflow and good plugins but I don't like the colours any more and it has limited support from Corel and the NR in the latest version is poor. Can be a bit slow.Īftershot - I used to use this all the time but I don't use it much any more as it doesn't support Fuji X. The "Adobe LR look" is very common as it's so widely used. Fuji), good set of auto lens corrections. Lightroom - fast workflow, good high ISO, good local editing tools, average fine detail recovery & primitive sharpening, good highlight recovery, good film simulations, problematic for some cameras (e.g. There are one or two other converters meeting my requirements but I either found their image quality not quite good enough or I did not like the price or licensing scheme. I use DxO for 95% of my images, I use ASP when I need their layer capability for some local corrections. crw format)Īs I am retired time is not always an issue, so speed of the converter is not a high priority requirementįor me this set of requirements converged to DxO Optics Pro and AfterShot Professional. Support raw output of my previous cameras (which include the almost forgotten.Support straightening of horizon and perspective correction.to be stored either in a converter database or in sidecars, but never in my out-of-camera original images Housekeeping data / development settings /. Support standard Windows drag-and-drop from multiple folders (so I can select images in IMatch and drag them to the raw converter).Only when a converter satisfies these requirements I will install a trial version to select the one(s) with the best image quality.įor what it is worth, these are the requirements I wrote down four years ago when I decided to switch my main camera: My way of selecting a suitable raw converter is to write down a set of requirements that the converter has to meet. I suspect a lot of IMatch users have gone through the raw-converter selection process at least once.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |