RAW converter

Modern digital photography is very much associated with image processing programs. Sometimes, just the photo editor creates exactly that photo, which we ultimately consider the work of the photographer.

RAW converter

RAW converter


Modern digital photography is insidious, sometimes it turns into ordinary mathematical tricks, which I already wrote about in articles'Subpixels', 'Gigapixels', 'JPEG", "Tricks with RAW'and'RAW setup'. Any photograph taken in the so-called raw format - RAW, for printing or viewing on a computer must be converted (converted) into a simpler format with an unambiguous representation of the data. This program is usually called a RAW converter ('rav-converter'). There are just a lot of such converters, but due to the specifics of the raw files of each individual camera, the converters sometimes cannot recreate the “correct” photo from this raw data. It is often said that for the best results you need to use only the “native software” that sometimes comes with the camera.

Below is my experiment that everyone can repeat. The essence of the experiment is very simple - you need to convert the same raw file with different converters and see what happens :) The photo from the experiment was taken on Nikon Nikkor-SC Auto 1: 1.4 f = 50mm, I specifically chose a lens without microprocessor contacts to exclude any specific image enhancement by the converter by correcting lens imperfections from the database. The picture was taken in difficult lighting conditions: very cloudy weather, two flashes.

Link to the archive with photos. (The archive takes 96.9 MB to view the packed files, the archive should be unpacked). Attention: the photos are not for the faint of heart, they are especially dangerous for scammers and pixel worms :)

The archive contains the following files:

  • DSC_5549.NEF - original RAW file obtained during shooting. Nikon D700, 14bit, lossless compression, control vignetting, ADL, noise reduction at slow shutter speeds, noise reduction at high ISO - were off. All shot in Picture Control mode SD (standard mode): contrast correction - 0, brightness - 0, saturation - 0, hue - 0, sharpness - position 5 out of 10. White balance - "flash". If you turn on all the native "improvements", then third-party software copes with displaying data even worse. EXIF You can look at any available program that you are used to. If there is no such program, then it is easy to do using the service on http://regex.info/exif.cgi.
  • DSC_5549.JPG - original JPEG file obtained during RAW + JPEG shooting, settings are described above. JPEG L with quality priority.
  • DSC_5549 (acr-original) .jpg - file converted with Adobe Camera Raw 6.0 (ACR 6.0) in default mode.
  • DSC_5549 (acr-auto) .jpg - file converted with Adobe Camera Raw 6.0 in auto mode.
  • DSC_5549 (capturexn2-original) .jpg - file converted with CaptureNX 2 v 2.4.5 in default mode.
  • DSC_5549 (capturexn2-pt) .jpg - file converted with CaptureNX 2 v 2.4.5 with PT selected capture mode.
  • DSC_5549 (lr-auto-tone) .jpg - file converted with nude Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.2 using the 'Auto tone' command. When exporting to JPEG, the quality was 100%, other settings were default.
  • DSC_5549 (lr-original) .jpg - file converted using nude Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.2 in default mode with standard profiles installed along with the LR setting. When exporting to JPEG, the quality was 100%, other settings were default.
  • DSC_5549 (photoshop-from-original-jpeg-with-auto-levels) .jpg - this is how the processed on-camera JPEG looks like with Photoshop's “auto levels” command.
  • DSC_5549 (viewnnx2-after-quick-adjust) .NEF - this is what ViewNX 2 did from the original RAW when installed white balance 'Calculate automaticaly' and PT mode is selected.
  • DSC_5549 (viewnx2-auto-pt) .JPG - ViewNX 2 on install white balance 'Calculate automaticaly' and PT mode is selected.
  • DSC_5549 (viewnx2-original) .JPG - ViewNX 2 by default
  • DSC_5549 (inverted original jpeg) .JPG - original JPEG rotated 90 ° for viewing with built-in utility for Windows OS
  • picassa-view-original-nef-file.jpg - this is how the original RAW file looks when viewed by Google Picassa, a screenshot of the program window.

No comment.

Configuring a converter is a very delicate and necessary task.

I would like to share some experience of using converters. I really like the way native ViewNX and CaptureNX display a photo. In order to reproduce the image as accurately as possible - since I saw it on the camera display and in real life, I use the “native” converters. Refinement (retouching, color correction and other boring routine) is done in Photoshop. I like a bit of a sadistic mechanism: first correct the original RAW (NEF) file using ViewNX, export the result to TIFF (16-bit uncompressed), and then finalize it in Photoshop. Thus, I get the parameters of the photo closest to the original. ViewNX has three very strong negative aspects:

  1. changes the original RAW file, after which the camera will not see it
  2. no noise reduction function, which greatly limits ViewNX when converting images at high ISO
  3. requires tremendous computing power

CaptureNX is also a very interesting and very useful converter with many subtle "native" settings that other converters do not have (for example dust removal function) But for some reason, he didn’t take root with me, I use it only for very thoughtful picking in RAW files.

Well, of course, Lighroom comes in handy when you need to deal with large file sizes. Nothing better for batch processing RAW has yet been invented :) I already began to notice that I behave like a gamer - when working in LR, I keep my left hand near the 'asd' keys for quick access to some functions. There is nothing better than turning on LR in the evening, pressing the letter 'F' twice (switch to full screen mode) and starting to fancy a photo.

My usual job at LR

LR load when processing photos in the Develop tab. Processor I3-3240, 8GB DDR3

Leave your thoughts about converters in the comments.

Thank you for attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Add a comment: an256

 

 

Comments: 247, on the topic: RAW converter

  • Lynx

    And I do not use ... I indulged in something like that and abandoned it. ))

  • Marina

    In the same way, I torment the photo, first captureNX, then Photoshop. But NX on the old desktop PC slowed down, but nothing on the new laptop.
    Wiew NX is the most sadistic in its inhibition, but for some reason it draws shadows better

  • aleks58579

    Advise a beginner that it is better to start studying for post processing, lightroom or photoshop, or thanks all together.

    • go cleaver

      Try lightroom, this is also from adobe, but for a beginner, kmk, it will be easier to start with LR.

  • X ray

    Until recently, I only used Camera Raw (and, of course, Photoshop), then I started using Nikon's native CaptureNX. I like the latter because it immediately displays rich color (in contrast to Camera Raw, which produces a “raw” image), but the disadvantage is that the interface is extremely inconvenient for me personally. By the way, in this article I first encountered the mention of lightroom, now I will start to master :)

    • Andrey Dolzhenko

      What is the meaning of Lightroom to you if you use CameraRav? The engine is the same. The CD has more opportunities and it works faster ... :)

  • Sergiy

    BACKGROUND ACR. We don’t want to see the bulletin of the program vidkriva files in one of the third vidomim way, ignoring the camera. The same was brought to the skin once. It took over an hour and all one image of the image of such an inner chamber. I so trivial zik. І one day, it was unsuccessful, having rubbed on a video clip likiwiguy about Nikon Capture NX2. The result is boo deluxe! Potim vzhim I pomіtiv і and beskoshtovna ViewNX2. Now they are less curious. After tasting Lightroom. Alevona menya was created by the very same ACR, less than with the lowest interface.
    I’m not a designer in Vlasna, and in most of the time I have vistach є Capture NX2. In addition, by installing the plug-in vid Nik Software, in Photoshop, you can tezh.
    In a few cichs of Nikon's programs, a straining computer is required. And the stench develops more and more. Already an hour passed, and the stench was all the same, without reduction and innovation.
    In the remaining Nikon cameras, they’ve even zipped the converter, allowing you to change the Ravfile directly to the cameras.

  • Sergei

    Thank you Arkady for the article, only I wanted to ask you what converter you prefer, but you got ahead. He began his journey with Nikonovsky ViewNX, CaptureNX, now here is the lightroom in development, during this time he concluded, as in photography, one converter tool can not do.

  • Denis

    Nikon invests Capture NX exclusively with top-end DSLRs, and the remaining 98% of photographers are content with View NX - a useless program even for processing a small number of home photos. And programs that have an Adobe engine do not display Nikon camera color settings at all. Lightroom also pushes the photographer to batch processing, which is why it is actually widespread. Perhaps for the effectiveness of the final photo, in terms of saturation and believability of colors, you should put up with the inconvenient Capture NX interface.

  • Sergei

    Since I don’t do photography professionally, I can afford to do without heavy artillery like Photoshop. I started shooting in a jeep, from there I brought in the habit of tuning to the maximum during shooting without relying on post-processing. Therefore, I manifest myself as native ViewNX. Its functions are enough for me (an amateur). The computer is very powerful and I don't notice the brakes. As a result of tests and digging, I found out one thing. It is better to convert RAW to jpeg at full size at maximum quality. If further resizing is required, it is best to entrust it to another program. (I use free XnView) It seemed to me that when converting to a size different from the original from the matrix, the NX loses a little in sharpness. True, you can see this only with a "magnifying glass", but still.

    • Sergei

      any resizing of raster graphics distorts it.
      downsize - the algorithm must come up with pixels that do not have transitions and discard part of the original
      upsize - the algorithm must come up with pixels that were never in the original
      hence the different quality of different conversion algorithms.

      ZHEPEG generally practically creates a new picture on the basis of the original with a different color depth and discarding a huge
      the amount of source information.

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    from the very beginning I have a view and captcha did not work for some reason. I tried Adobe RAV Converter, DRL Optics Pro, LR. Dwell on the latter, due to ease of use + the ability to use third-party plug-ins and photoshop is always on the catch

  • Yarkiya

    http://pavel-kosenko.livejournal.com/444989.html
    Friends, do not be lazy and read the book "Live Digital", it will save you from many color correction mistakes. This is not an advertisement, I myself recently read and discovered the world of color in a new way.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Of course, not advertising, but the first phrase “Where to buy” there just like that :)

      • Sergei

        Just downloaded as PDF for free. With a quick look a lot of interesting things. Thank yarkiy

      • Yarkiya

        Sarcasm accepted :), but there is a free reference. So it’s definitely not an advertisement. By the way, I’ve been hanging on your blog for a year, but only now I decided to unsubscribe. I am very grateful to you for your work. If I can bring at least some benefit, I will be happy.

      • Mahal Makhalych

        Just downloaded the link above for free.
        It's time to say something ...

    • Lynx

      thank you!
      it remains to find in the paper in his hometown, he really doesn’t want to communicate again with the shipments.

    • Neofot

      You, photographers and photographers, are just shocking me. One is not normal from morning till night on New Year's holidays, writes articles (by the way, great), another is not normal posts a book that he wrote on the Internet - and all this is free (who can, as it were). Here I rest with my soul. You don't even need to go anywhere, just a community of people ... good people in love with photos. Arkady, whatever moves you, you are great. Yarkiy, thank you. Thank you all from the bottom of my heart! Alas, the weekend is over, and this is not the case in my industry. Not at all. Thanks again.

      • Arkady Shapoval

        Well, photographers like all the work on the weekend. Today there will be no article, you need to finish the photos.

    • Alexander Smolko

      Huge like for the book.

  • Yarkiya

    And also, if you wish, search the Internet for the book by Johannes Itten, The Art of Color. It must be read before trying to master Photoshop and "others like them".

  • Other

    Adobe has a red scarf, while Capture has a more orange.
    And what was it really like? :) Which converter is closer to reality?

    • Novel

      This is subject to subject shooting. And for a portrait, IMHO, skin color is much more important - it should be naturally beautiful, even at the cost of inauthenticity.

      • Sergei

        all right. therefore, Kenon is preferable to skin tone than Nikon. Nikon's dirty gray-green tint on the skin is indestructible.
        and it’s even easier to take Fujah water (see the review of Arkady) and get normal colors without tambourines with converters.

        • Alexander

          Please tell me, what is your system? I think that still Canon :))) Which is not strange, judging from your message;)

        • Michael

          Did you shoot on d40?

    • Novel

      There, after all, a shift to yellow occurs in the whole photo with an increase in color temperature. Not only the scarf is insulated.

  • Ed

    Aperture is also a thing.

    • anonym

      for poppy it’s the most

  • fierce Anonymous

    here they were puzzled ... I threw the disc with the captchur right away. I didn’t trust this program. Now I read it, I have to try. There is still capture one from phase one, I used it at first, but then we started shooting and for the sake of speeding up I switched to LR, and then in AKP. I never thought that different packages would give different results at the exit. Thanks for the article)

  • Leonid

    Thank you for the article, Merry Christmas! I am an amateur, I switched to RAW photography for a long time, I used my own one - it is very inconvenient, and when there are more than 30 photos it takes a lot of time. Light Room 5.3 or Capture One 7.3 are more convenient converting editors. Alas, of course, there are no sensible docks on them, so I studied it myself by trial error. My preference is Adobe Light Room.

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    Oh, with these converters. Bya. Everyone shows a different picture, plus different monitors and eyes. I am silent about printing. Internet engines are also with character. Here and process as you like. I think you just need to be calm about this. There is no absolute.
    Although I had a photo shoot in the park with a terrible green skin. Lightroom did not help, the Kapchur van turned out much better.
    Someone doesn’t use any converters at all, maybe it’s true if you don’t do post-processing. I like that he forgives mistakes in light-color, it is necessary for responsible reporting.
    Thanks to Arkady for all the thoughts!

  • Novel

    I worked for a while with Capture 1 and still some of its tools seem convenient to me (framing and horizon especially, although in FS there are a couple of unnecessary actions in total). But the main part of working with a bare file (open in 16 bit mode) in Photoshop using the Margulis method. Fast enough and more flexible.

  • anonym

    Often photographers, when they begin to craft, and orders go into line mode, then go to lightroom.

    • Eugene

      That's right!))

  • R'RёS,R ° F "RёR№

    An excellent article and reflection on the topic of conversion. I don’t want to harass anyone, but most of the software is really hard for a simple layman. I will simply say: I use ACDSee Pro

    • Vadim

      I quite agree with you, Vitaly. For light correction, the fifth version of ACDSee is enough for me. I have already said more than once and I will repeat myself - the initially correct camera settings are more important than the software used for processing later. It's easier for me to make a take of a frame, with changed settings, than to sit and move the sliders in the converter later. Well, where you need Photoshop, you can't do without it, but I definitely don't smile at processing all the pictures taken in RAV. I use RAV for shooting in poor conditions and when I'm sure that processing will be required, and so - JPEG with or without correction in ACDSee. Yes, shooting for money requires a different approach, the responsibility is not the same. Well, everyone will still do as they are accustomed to and as it is more convenient for him personally.
      And Arkady, as always, is on top, capacious, not clever and informative. One word - a hard worker!

  • anonym

    I have in RAW on the Nikon D3100 even at low ISO values ​​for some reason photos with a considerable amount of noise are obtained (

    • Lynx

      most likely you confuse noise with something else .. blur, blur and other things.

    • Sergei

      photo to the studio! :)
      Can you put RAV and throw the link?

  • Novel

    Yeah, Adobe camera raw gobbled up the color and details of the skin. It seems that it handles .NEF files worse than .CR2.

  • Valery

    Good article!!! I use ACDSee Pro 5-6 less often with Photoshop. Arkady Blshoe thanks !!!

  • Ongrey

    I use ViewNX, as for performance since version 2,26, it seems that there was optimization for 64-bit systems and the program practically does not slow down, it is convenient to support profiles from the camera, if you need the same freedom in customization as in Photoshop, create your own profile and customize it, although of course some of the settings are not there, but it is very convenient for working with Nikon's files, especially for an amateur, not a retoucher.

  • Oleg

    But why the intermediate conversion of rabbis into typhus?

    • Arkady Shapoval

      A slightly larger margin of quality for processing, and the funny point is that ViewNX spends less time when converting to TIFF (16 bit) than in 100% JPEG.

      • Novel

        This unsettled TIFF is simple. A large JPEG compression is quite resource-intensive. If you save PNG or TIFF with compression on large photos, you also have to wait a long time.

        • Sergei

          strictly speaking, the LPEG has not only and not so much compression as discarding "redundant" information - ie. irrecoverable losses.

          • Novel

            At a high quality, a minimum of information is discarded, therefore the main contribution to the reduction in size is made precisely by compression (entropy coding by the Huffman method).

          • Sergei

            how many bits of TIFF and how many - ZhPEG?

          • Novel

            JPEG - only 8. There is also Grayscale. TIFF - 8 or 16.

          • Sergei

            Novel,
            You yourself answered your question.

            High quality discarded minimum information
            ================================================== ========
            what minimum are we talking about when switching from conversion from 16bit to 8bit ???

          • Novel

            You don't have to try to catch me at my word. We are in the context of the question: “Why is the saving time of a 16-bit TIF file without compression at a much larger size significantly less than the saving time of an 8-bit JPEG file? I have been familiar with the structure of both formats, the technologies of internal presentation, compression and their features for ten years, no less.

  • Alexander

    Hello Arkady. So far, I’m a complete ignoramus in all this and am only saving myself the first DSLR. I tried to convert through Corel DRAW X5 and this is what happened https://www.dropbox.com/s/w8o2md2uc9mkmtq/DSC_5549.jpg . Tell me how much it resembles a real picture? I also noticed that if you adjust the exposure to +1, it turns out like (lr-original).

Add a comment

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2023

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2014/01/mos-6581/comment-page-1/?replytocom=369174

Versión en español de este artículo https://radojuva.com/es/2014/01/mos-6581/comment-page-1/?replytocom=369174