RAW: PS CS vs C1 conversion

[tommykjensen]

I am trying to decide if I should buy C1Se. I know many say it is the best and superior to PS CS.

But I would like to see it on my own images, I can see a difference on the following test image but would like to hear which You think is best.

I have converted the same image with both converters with standard settinga. I have not adjusted anything. Then I have resized to 800x533

1
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/rawtest1.jpg

2
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/rawtest2.jpg

3
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/rawtest3.jpg

4
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/rawtest4.jpg

[slejhamer]

I would bet that the top one is from C1.

In the upper left corner, that big smudge of clipped yellow is representative of the infamous blooming yellow/neon green problem that C1 has with 10D and 300D/D-Rebel files. Try using the 10D Sunset profile and see if this improves. In my opinion the difference is significant. Hopefully they will fully resolve this problem by the October release date.

Note that PS did not clip the saturated yellows, but instead just blew the area to white. This happens even if there is detail evident in the RAW file, which can be brought out with FVU or BreezeBrowser.

Now look at the hand at the lower right side. The PS image (assuming it's #2) shows red fringing around the edges of the hand, while the C1 image does not. And in the brigher feathers at the far right, the PS image has a cyan tinge.

In other words, neither C1 nor PS is perfect!

The default settings in PS seem to have given you warmer skintones, and the image seems warmer overall. You will have to tell us whether or not this is accurate though.

In my opinion, the results I get from the two are comparable. C1 at the default setting does a better job of higher-ISO noise reduction. Also I like C1's workflow much better. And that's really the key - I think most people who say C1 is superior are talking about the workflow, not the processed results. These should be very similar if you take the time to go beyond the default settings.

Then again, I could be completely wrong!
:lol:

[Roger_Cavanagh]

What are default settings? One of the great benefits of both C1 and ACR is the ease with which adjustments can be made and reviewed. You should be trying to get the best result from both converters - something that you clearly have not done with this image - and then factor in the complexity of making adjustments along with the final image quality.

I haven't voted because both versions indicate you could have got a better result.

Regards,

[tommykjensen]

Getting better results require You to know the particular adjustments that can be done.

So far I just mainly know how to adjust in PSCS but with C1 I find the gui rather confusing so far so I don't know how to adjust anything yet. And I don't think a comparison of an adjusted image to a non-adjusted would be a fair comparison. Thats why I used the standard parameters.

[tommykjensen]

Anybody up for a challenge?

Who can get the best results out of the original raw with PS ?

and

Who can get the best results out of the original raw with C1 ?


If anybody are interested I can send You the raw file.

[The Photo Tuell]

Ever thought of using Canons EVU to convert RAWs? Why does it have to be C1 or PS?

All shots in my gallery are converted with FVU/EVU.

[gmitchel]

I tend to agree with Roger. The question for most users is whether either product is capable of producing a better RAW conversion, making full use of the available features.

However, Roger's comment seems to assume people are using the RAW converter to edit images. Many of us do not allow our RAW converters to do that function.

I allow ACR II to change my white balance setting and that's it. I would consider otherwise, if something like adjustment layers was available for nonlinear edits in ACR II.

I try to work nondestructively. Applying settings in ACR II or BB or C1 is rather like making adjustments to the Background layer in PS itself. ;) So, I don't do it.

Therefore, I do find the default comparisons to be useful for the way I work, while acknowledging that Roger has a good point, too. :)

Cheers,

Mitch


What are default settings? One of the great benefits of both C1 and ACR is the ease with which adjustments can be made and reviewed. You should be trying to get the best result from both converters - something that you clearly have not done with this image - and then factor in the complexity of making adjustments along with the final image quality.

I haven't voted because both versions indicate you could have got a better result.

Regards,

[tommykjensen]

Ever thought of using Canons EVU to convert RAWs? Why does it have to be C1 or PS?

All shots in my gallery are converted with FVU/EVU.

Most of mine actually are converted with FVU. I'll add this to the comparison. The new EVU, I just tried it yesterday and its lousy GUI wise. 3 windows open to adjust with preview, no thanks.

[tommykjensen]

I added 2 more version of the image because I realized that I had not updated the camera raw in PS.

The images was converted with following:

1: C1
2: PS CS (version of camera raw that came with PS CS)
3: PS CS (version 2.2 of camera raw)
4: FVU / EVU


Still if anyone are up for the challenge to get the best out of the raw file with either C1 or PS let me know nad You can get the raw file. Many have commented that the comparson should be done on the best possible result from each convertor but since I am at a stage where I can't do that I would very much appreciate if any of You gurus out there could do Your magic on my original raw file.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

OK, Tommy, I'll put my money where my mouth is. :)
Send me the raw.

roger at rogercavanaghdotcom

Regards,

[tommykjensen]

OK, Tommy, I'll put my money where my mouth is. :)
Send me the raw.


Thanks Roger

I sent You a PM.

[fishboy]

I know that the RAW vs JPEG debate has been raised ad nauseum, but I would like to ask how one maximises the image quality of RAW images so that they look as "silky" as the JPEGs that come out of the EOS 300D (which are truly wonderful at low ISOs).

I understand and appreciate the inherent benefits of shooting RAW but have struggled to get the same picture quality using RAW converters.

The converted images from PS CS are really noisy, and C1 SE v3.5 is better, but still not as smooth as the JPEGs. I guess I really want to have both the control of manipulating RAW images and the wonderfully smooth look of the Canon JPEGs! Is this possible? What is the on-camera processor doing that the RAW converter isn't?

I know that many people love C1 - but flexibility and losslessness aside, are your pictures as silky as the JPEGs? Would noise reduction programs like Noise Ninja really recreate the same look? I am unable to use BreezeBrowser as I am running a Mac platform.

Any advice on this matter would be truly appreciated. :cry:

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Right, here's my C1 conversion:

http://www.pixelpixel.org/images/linked/200406/crw_2991-2.jpg

This has been processed entirely in C1SE. The settings I used were:

- White balance: left at auto as shot setting
- Exposure Compensation -0.8 to recover some of the blown highlights, though I'm still not very happy with the raised hand
- Film extra shadow and Contrast Compensation -25 to bring out more shadow detail
- Curve adjustment to boost shadow detail (the dancer's face is the main problem - but I think PS work is needed to do much more)
- Profile 300D V2
- Saturation boost 7.5%
- Sharpening 400/1 (I only used this much because the image was to be downsized)
- Downsize to 600x400 and convert to sRGB, low quality JPG

The whole process could be completed in seconds (not counting actual conversion time), though I did play around a bit more than necessary.

As regards "silky JPGs", my guess is that this is a matter of taste and that fishboy likes extra contrast, which is typically what you get from out of the camera JPGs.

Regards,

[tommykjensen]

I can't see the image or download it.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I can't see the image or download it.

Seems to be OK now - must have been a hiccough at my site host.

[slejhamer]

Roger, what's 300D V2?
Are Magne's new profiles out?

Nice processing job, BTW.

:)

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Roger, what's 300D V2?

That is the C1 profiles that are supplied with the 3.5 upgrade.

Are Magne's new profiles out?

As of yesterday, when I lasted checked etcetera, no - got the impression there would be a short wait. Magne says on the site that existing users will be emailed when his V2 profiles are ready, and you can register to be notified on the site.

Nice processing job, BTW.

:)

Thank you.

:)

[tommykjensen]

Nice job Roger, thank You.