Comparison of RAW processors

[OldRadioGuy]

The question in another thread about a Vibrancy control in PL's RAW processing underscores the growing importance of RAW capabilities in a photo editor as more and more DSLR photographers shoot in RAW.

Here's a listing of controls/adjustments (and screen shots) in the RAW modules of each of three programs I use.

ACDSee Pro 3 -- Primarily an image management utility, but containing an extremely good section for processing RAW images:

1. Exposure
2. Highlight Enhancement
3. Fill Light
4. Contrast
5. Vibrance
6. Sharpening - Amount
7. Sharpening - Radius
8. Sharpening - Threshold
9. Noise Reduction - Luminance
10. Noise Reductioin - Color
11. Lens Distortion Correction
12. Rotate
13. Straighten
14. Perspective - Vertical
15. Perspective - Horizontal
16. Perspective - Vertical Shear
17. Perspective - Horizontal Shear
18. Crop
19. White Balance - Temperature
20. White Balance - Tint
21. White Balance - Strength
22. Lighting - Shadows
23. Lighting - Midtones
24. Lighting - Highlights
25. Advanced Color - Saturation (9 controls)
26. Advanced Color - Brightness (9 controls)
27. Advanced Color - Hue (9 controls)
28. Tone Curves



Adobe Camera RAW for Photoshop Elements 7. This is a plug-in. Rather than doing an automatic update through the program, you have to download the updated plug-in and then install manually. Since Elements 8 was released last fall, a newer verion of Adobe Camera RAW has been issued, but it doesn't work with Elements 7. Thus, I don't know if the latest plug-in only adds support for additional cameras or new features.

1. White Balance - Temperature
2. White Balance - Tint
3. Exposure
4. Recovery
5. Fill Light
6. Blacks
7. Brightness
8. Contrast
9. Clarity
10. Vibrance
11. Saturation
12. Sharpening - Amount
13. Sharpening - Radius
14. Sharpening - Detail
15. Sharpening - Masking
16. Noise Reduction - Luminance
17. Noise Reduction - Color
18. Depth (16 Bits/Channel or 8 Bits/Channel
19. Crop
20. Straighten
21. Red Eye Removal
22. Rotate Image
23. Curve Graph



PhotoLine 16 Digital Camera Raw Data

1. Gamma
2. Contrast
3. Color Temperature
4. Clip White
5. Clip Black
6. Color %
7. Curves
8. Option - Create 16-Bit Image
9. Option - Automatic color Correction
10. Option - Use Camera White Point
11. Option - Light Correction



RAW Lab in PaintShop Photo Pro X3 now has a vibrancy adjustment. However, the RAW module in that program will remain useless until Corel fixes the inability to control blow out in extreme highlight areas. The same problem was present in Paint Shop Pro Photo X2.

Bob

[bkh]

I think that you are mixing up two distinct processing steps when dealing with digital camera raw data.

1) Converting digital camera raw data into an RGB image (de-mosaicing). This is what should really be called "raw conversion". Basically, the only choice to be made here is what de-mosaicing algorithm to use.

2) Post-Processing: Correcting/enhancing/… the resulting RGB image. All the adjustments you list only take place at this stage, that is, after raw conversion has changed your camera image into an "ordinary" image.

As all of these adjustments are also required for jpegs from a digital camera as well as to scanned photos, negatives, slides …, I do not see a compelling reason for putting them into the raw converter part, except for the simple fact that PSE cannot process 16 bits per channel, so that it is better to perform certain corrections before reduction to 8 bits/channel takes place. Maybe the same is true for ACDsee?.

So, to be fair to PL, you'd have to add all the controls that PL can apply to any 16 bit bitmap image.

In fact, my guess is that PL offers you so much choice in the raw converter is because it does not come with camera-specific presets which give you a reasonable starting point for editing in other programs. In fact, I have already suggested that PL use the raw converter that is part of Mac OS. Imo, it gives much better (especially in terms of colour) results than I have been able to achieve with PL's own raw converter. (In fact, you can already use that converter with Import->Image Capture, but it only imports raw files directly from the digital camera card, not raw files that are already on your hard disk.)

Cheers,

Burkhard.

[OldRadioGuy]

I think that you are mixing up two distinct processing steps when dealing with digital camera raw data.

Sorry, I did not mean to do that with my more general application of the term RAW. You are absolutely correct.

So, to be fair to PL, you'd have to add all the controls that PL can apply to any 16 bit bitmap image.

My purpose was to show the actions available within the "RAW" modules and how each software developer has chosen to make these operations available to the user within that subset of functions. I leave it up to the individual user which approach is best. I hope there are others here who will post examples from other programs.

Bob

[Koyaanis]

You might find this link enlightening http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/ You can compare various demosaicing algorithms used on RAW files. You will find that Adobe's and others' expensive editor methods don't fare too well.

Now that RAWTherapee has been relicensed under GPL, I wonder if their EAHD, HPHD, and VNG-4 algorithms could be used in PhotoLine. They're quite a step-up in preventing aliasing artifacts on fine details. If not, it's nice to know that RAWTherapee's interface allows you to send an image to PhotoLine after importing it into their program using one of their algorithms. (Put just the path to PhotoLine.exe file in the option for this, no extra quotes, no %1 for filename or anything else. Getting it to work was slightly confusing at first. Simpler than what Windows normally requires.)

[bkh]

My purpose was to show the actions available within the "RAW" modules and how each software developer has chosen to make these operations available to the user within that subset of functions. I leave it up to the individual user which approach is best. I hope there are others here who will post examples from other programs.

Maybe I haven't expressed myself clearly enough. My suspicion is that for most programs, the "RAW" conversion part is the part of the program which can handle 16 bits of colour depth. So, at least for me, the interesting question is: what functionality does a given program have for handling 16 bits (or more) of colour depth, not what's available in some part of the program called "raw converter", as opposed to other functionality in the program. In fact, for programs like PS and PL, imo it doesn't even make sense to offer a lot of functionality in the "raw" conversion part, since it is (and has to be) available elsewhere anyway.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[bkh]

You might find this link enlightening http://www.rawtherapee.com/RAW_Compare/ You can compare various demosaicing algorithms used on RAW files. You will find that Adobe's and others' expensive editor methods don't fare too well.

Have you been able to access the original raw files? I haven't, and I'd love to compare results with some other raw converters (including Nikon's own).

Now that RAWTherapee has been relicensed under GPL, I wonder if their EAHD, HPHD, and VNG-4 algorithms could be used in PhotoLine. They're quite a step-up in preventing aliasing artifacts on fine details.

[/quote]
I haven't checked their licenses, but if it is GPL, that means that they cannot be used in commercial products like PL.

Cheers

Burkhard.

[Hoogo]

In fact, for programs like PS and PL, imo it doesn't even make sense to offer a lot of functionality in the "raw" conversion part, since it is (and has to be) available elsewhere anyway.

But it's useful to have all interesting sliders at hand. Only the new "working layer" can handle it in a similar way.

[bkh]

In fact, for programs like PS and PL, imo it doesn't even make sense to offer a lot of functionality in the "raw" conversion part, since it is (and has to be) available elsewhere anyway.

But it's useful to have all interesting sliders at hand. Only the new "working layer" can handle it in a similar way.

True, but this argument applies to other digital image material as well. I simply don't see a reason for having a different interface for raw files as opposed to 16 bit tiff scans.

Cheers

Burkhard.