Comparison of RAW conversions

I have placed a comparison of RAW converters on my website (please note it's a small server, so be gentle.) I compare Canon FVU, BB, ACR and PowerShovel. There are some non-linear and linear conversions.
Original photo taken with G3.
I am interested in feedback, both on the results, and how I might present such a comparison to better help make a decision about optimal workflow.

Click here

cheers,

Hello,

I don't understand raw vs tiff vs jpeg at this point. But it seems almost everyone takes their orig. in RAW format. I've done that for play. Then I used the Canon converter to convert it to a 16-bit Tiff file. But what I don't understand is when I open the Tiff file in Photoshop 6 - I loose the options to add some filters and create new layers or backgound. Am I missing something? Enjoyed viewing your website BTW.

Tug

Canon D60

Philip,

Thanks for the great comparison!

I posted a message on the G3 forum asking about differences between the in-camera JPG and RAW. I'm going to cross post this message there as a follow up.

The question is, if a JPG is shot in SF/Large, how much better can you make the raw? How much work is involved to get there?

I know all the reasons given for shooting in RAW mode, but it seems to me the in-camera processed JPG looks darn good, and I'd have to do a lot of work to the RAW image to get to the same point.

Here's a link to my comparison of in-camera JPG, BreezeBrowser and ACR:

http://home.attbi.com …ers/photos/BB-ACR-JPG.jpg

These are crops of a larger image. I shot the JPG first, then immediately shot another and saved it as RAW. No Photoshop processing was done other than to crop and cut and paste the images onto a larger canvas.

Some observations:

The BB-Combined is REALLY soft and gray. Maybe this wasn't the best image to use Combined on.

The ACR is also soft. But in processing in ACR, I could really see that the WB needed to be made to daylight. It wasn't as apparent in BB.

Notice the detail in the brick and snow. The sharpened BB is as good as the JPG, but a little red. I did another BB in daylight (but forgot to do the sharp) and the colors match a lot better. If you do a little color sampling of the walls, the JPG, Daylight BB and Daylight ACR are very close.

I think I'm going to be shooting most shots, and certainly snapshots, in SF/Large. I'll leave RAW for only those images I know I'll be post processing and want to hang on the wall. For those I'll be using BB.

All very interesting. Almost makes you wonder why you would use RAW if it takes so much work to get quality that approaches SF Jpg.

Photoshop has limited functionality in 16 bit mode. But it is best to take advantage of the wider tonal and color range of 16 bit when you first start working on an image.

So here is the procedure if you convert a RAW file and leave it in 16 bit mode. Open the 16 bit file in Photoshop and go to the menu called Image>Adjustments>Curves (or Levels if you prefer). Do your basic curves adjustments on the image setting things like white point, black point, neutral point or color balancing with the Red, Green, Blue curve. This will be done directly to the image because the current version of Photoshop cannot use layers in 16 bit mode. Once you have done the basic adjustments, go to Image>Mode>8 Bit and convert the image to 8 bit so you can work with full Photoshop functionality like Layers.

For more on this see: http://www.luminous-landscape.com …es/digital-workflow.shtml

If you just use the Canon RAW converter (e.g. File Viewer Utility) and leave the settings at default, you should get a practically identical image to the same photo taken as a JPEG. It will of course have the option of being 16bit, and will not have gone through JPEG compression. Using something like Breezebrowser gives you many more options for extracting more data from the image, and enhancing what you have, that it's easy to get different results to the JPEG.