RAW convertors in use by POTN members

.
I clicked on "OTHER" because I didn't see mine on the list of choices ..... although I believe that more people have this RAW converter on their computers than any other RAW converter in the world.

I use Apple's proprietary program, "Photos", as my RAW converter. Formerly called "iPhoto", Photos is what comes pre-installed on every Mac, right from Apple. . I find that as a converter, it works very well for all of my needs, and have never seen a reason to get another RAW converter.


.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19249161
.
I clicked on "OTHER" because I didn't see mine on the list of choices ..... although I believe that more people have this RAW converter on their computers than any other RAW converter in the world.

I use Apple's proprietary program, "Photos", as my RAW converter. Formerly called "iPhoto", Photos is what comes pre-installed on every Mac, right from Apple. . I find that as a converter, it works very well for all of my needs, and have never seen a reason to get another RAW converter.


.

This poll is frustrating...most of the time, the 'Edit Poll' option is NOT PRESENTED to me, so I cannot modify the poll to add your chosen program, Tom! I have to wait until it decides to pop up before making changes to the voting choices.
I reported this to Pekka, but no idea when it will be fixed.


After about a dozen attempts, I got 'Edit Poll' to show itself, and added Apple Photos to the list. 'Edit Poll' fails to show on Page 1 of the thread, but does show up on Page 2 of the thread?!

.

Well that's cool that you ewre able to add it as a poll choice, even if it's behaving a bit clunky. . I changed my choice accordingly.


.

gjl711 wrote in post #19249157
+Mostly use ARC but I have been getting better results with DPP lately.

When using DPP do you do all your work there or do you send files to ACR (for example) to finish. While very good I found DPP lacks export sharpening.

digital paradise wrote in post #19249292
When using DPP do you do all your work there or do you send files to ACR (for example) to finish. While very good I found DPP lacks export sharpening.

I do my raw adjustments in DPP than "Transfer to Photoshop" to do the finishing. It's not an efficient workflow but I do not do bulk work.

gjl711 wrote in post #19249323
I do my raw adjustments in DPP than "Transfer to Photoshop" to do the finishing. It's not an efficient workflow but I do not do bulk work.

Thanks. That was what I did for years before getting LR. It worked great for hobby shooting but events like weddings was a nightmare. DPP is on the list of my options if I ever drop Adobe. Do you know about this plug-in for PS? Used to be $100 and now free. PhotoKit Sharpener. It has been a few years now and I'm not sure which OS or versions of PS it will work with now.

http://www.pixelgenius​.com

digital paradise wrote in post #19249359
Thanks. That was what I did for years before getting LR. It worked great for hobby shooting but events like weddings was a nightmare. DPP is on the list of my options if I ever drop Adobe. Do you know about this plug-in for PS? Used to be $100 and now free. PhotoKit Sharpener. It has been a few years now and I'm not sure which OS or versions of PS it will work with now.

http://www.pixelgenius​.com

If I worked events, I would not use my current workflow. I have three main photo tasks:
1. For work I shoot images mainly for training materials and release notes and brochures for internal use. Occasionally it's something else but always low volume. A typical shoot I take maybe 100 images needing only 5~10 of them. Each has quite a bit of manipulation.
2. Family archive. I have been digitizing tons of old negatives, slides, prints using my SLRs. Though the quantity is much higher, each image is really a custom restoration. I tried LR but it just isn't suited for the task. These mainly get the DPP to PS treatment as I like the DPP raw conversions slightly better than the ARC ones.
3. Images for fun.
I guess there is a forth, I have done more than a couple events for family and friends (weddings, big parties, reunions and such) For those I use the batch processing of DPP.

Adobe DNG

i voted under Other since the Adobe RAW you listed isnt the DNG...

gjl711 wrote in post #19249323
I do my raw adjustments in DPP than "Transfer to Photoshop" to do the finishing. It's not an efficient workflow but I do not do bulk work.

In another recent thread about getting in-camera Canon Styles somehow replicated in LR, in another thread I mistakenly thought, "Import photos into DPP, export XMP sidecar files, and then import that all into LR" and stopre Presets." I did not know A) DPP does not support XMP; nor did I know B) that XMP transfers metadata but not other image adjustments. Nice try, no cigar.

Now you mention 'Transfer to Photoshop', which I had not known about in DPP, and that immediated raises to mind, would that get Canon Style settings into DPP and then transfer to PS or LR so they inherit DPP settings which could be stored as Preset? Thinking out loud!

I have been useing a scanner to bring old negatives (prints long gone) into LR, and when I read about folks digitizing negs by shooting them with dSLR, my impression is that the resulting postprocessing to do the neg-to-positive with proper color balance and contrast, etc. is somewhat laborious and fidgety. Since you already have the digitize-neg process, could you describe your workflow and how easy/fidgety you find it?

Ltdave wrote in post #19249369
Adobe DNG

i voted under Other since the Adobe RAW you listed isnt the DNG...

Dave, my thought process about DNG is not a 'RAW convertor', it merely is an INTERMEDIATE TRANSFER convertor to get RAW files into ACR or Lightroom, when either are too dated in version to support native import of very recent RAW files.
I have used DNG conversion and then brought Sony A9 files (or other recent cameras) into Lightroom, even though my LR6.1 does not support Sony A9. The RAW conversion still happens in Lightroom 6.1, not in DNG.

I see it as analogous to my providing transcription of recorded information into Word documents, and you come to me with Hungarian recording. I do not speak Hungarian, so I get Hungarian recording changed into a French recording, and then I transcribe the French recording into a document in English with Word. Transcription is not the same as translation of Hungarian to French.

Wilt wrote in post #19249372
In another recent thread about getting in-camera Canon Styles somehow replicated in LR, in another thread I mistakenly thought, "Import photos into DPP, export XMP sidecar files, and then import that all into LR" and stopre Presets." I did not know A) DPP does not support XMP; nor did I know B) that XMP transfers metadata but not other image adjustments. Nice try, no cigar.

Now you mention 'Transfer to Photoshop', which I had not known about in DPP, and that immediated raises to mind, would that get Canon Style settings into DPP and then transfer to PS or LR so they inherit DPP settings which could be stored as Preset? Thinking out loud!

I have been useing a scanner to bring old negatives (prints long gone) into LR, and when I read about folks digitizing negs by shooting them with dSLR, my impression is that the resulting postprocessing to do the neg-to-positive with proper color balance and contrast, etc. is somewhat laborious and fidgety. Since you already have the digitize-neg process, could you describe your workflow and how easy/fidgety you find it?

As far as I know you can only transfer to PS, not LR.

That command has been around since I started in digital in 2005 - I think. Too bad there is no option to send it as a Smart Object so you could access the camera colour profiles but then it would have go to LR as a CR2 or 3.

This is what I got transferring tp PS which creates a TIFF. The blacks I think are richer in DPP. Maybe more contrasty. In DPP the colour was Standard.

Thx for comparison. The differences you identified seemed easily changed in LR (and I presume in PS), either with change of Black level and/or Shadow control, to look 'the same' as DPP result.

Wilt wrote in post #19249402
Thx for comparison. The differences you identified seemed easily changed in LR (and I presume in PS), either with change of Black level and/or Shadow control, to look 'the same' as DPP result.

Thanks. Yes you can but I can never get it to look as good. When using the actual camera profiles provided by Adobe or from Color Fidelity I get that rich black look. I haven't used the DPP Transfer to PS command in years. If I ever start doing that I'll mess around with it.

ACR and LrC's Develop module are the same raw converter engine and now look alike. They now use the same file system folders to store presets and profiles. So showing them as different items does not convey the reality.