Raw Conversion Programs

[Steven M. Anthony]

So how do they differ? Not in terms of bells and whistles. But do the algorithms each use differ? What makes one work better than another? Or is it personal taste?

Can you tell I'm new to raw processing? :oops:

[scottbergerphoto]

BreezeBrowser, DPP, and EVU all use the Canon SDK algorithms. The others, PSCS and C1 use their own. You can download trial versions of Breezebrowser and C1LE and see which one you like best.
Scott

[Steven M. Anthony]

Is one any better than the other? Are the algorithms that different? or is it a matter of ease of use.

For example, in PaintShop Pro (v 9.0), I can adjust the sharpening of the raw file prior to converting to jpeg--just like on Canon's BreezeBrowser. But will I get different results depending on which one I use?

[ssim]

Assuming that you apply the same methodology to each image from different conversion utlities, yes, you would end up with the same basic results.

Which conversion program you use depends alot on your workflow. When I first started I used breezebrowser and did batch conversion on what I thought might be keepers. This proved to be very time intensive. I switched to C1 and haven't looked back since. It is complimentary to the way that I handle my images. I adjust each one individually and I really like that I can continue to work while it is doing processing the background.

[Scottes]

I think it really depends on your workflow style, since the end result *can* be the same.

I think that each converter has default settings which work fine on certain images and personal tastes, but certainly not all. If you shoot a lot of one type of image you may find that you like the results of converter A over B or C or D. But it's simply because less work is required for that type of image and personal taste. They can all be equivalent.

As to workflow, I *really* like Capture One's, which suits my way of working. I don't want to wait to be able to browse, or preview, or zoom in, or convert. C1 does a lot of work in the background since I have to wait less than with other converters (all features considered). Alas, C1 is probably the least intuitive it seems, so it seems to cause more frustration and people give up on it.

[Jesper]

Probably different programs use different algorithms. But which program uses which algorithm is something the vendors don't tell you; they just say that their program's algorithm is better than that of the competitors.... :? so that's not very useful information.

I think the differences between all of those programs are in the details. Some are easier to use or faster than others, some give you more advanced controls than others. It's also a question of personal preference. Some people like the colours that program 1 produces with default settings nicer than the colours of program 2 with default settings.

It would be interesting if someone would do an objective, detailed test of all the RAW converters so that we can find out if one of them is indeed better than the others.