If you need 4 different apps for that (Finder, RAW Therapee, Photoshop, DxO Prime noise) and are happy with this load of stuff to learn, great. The "best RAW converter" is simply a subjective decision: What suits my workflow, how easy and reliable do I get the images what I want. And again, to answer this question scientifically - no matter how nonsensical that'd be - we first need to say hwich qualities are about to be "measured" and how big their values is. There's also no "scientific answer" as it is no measuring process or mathematical proof. And if a tool doens't suit my skills, expectations and needs for usability, it can remain in the shop even if it's the best one for somebody else. No, there's no answer to the "best RAW converter" as long as it's not specified, which qualities should be delivered and how important it's user interface is. That is a scientific question and answer. The OP was about best raw converter, not DAM, or printer driver, or HDR. If that means for the perfect pano I use RawTherapee for the raw conversion, DxO PRIME noise reduction, and final edits and stitching in PS, that's my workflow. If I want to produce a high quality image, I am not afraid to use whatever tools are available. I would use it for that purpose, but I find using the finder (or explorer in windows) is better for me as I organize by project and date. We can talk all we want about which is best from a purely scientific standpoint, but that is irrelevant. Does it work the best for many people? I guess so, since it is the most used photo DAM out there in terms of marketshare. I have never stated the Lightroom is the "best", I would never argue that. If the editor drives a person nuts, it's not going to be the "best" for that person. As mentioned in an earlier post, the best RAW processor is not necessarily the "best" in a scientific sense, but rather in terms of what best fits a given persons workflow. That is just one reasons why it has not been widely adopted. Of course RawTherapee suffers from what many open source software packages suffer from, a terrible user interface (not that the likes of Adobe Lightroom is much better, but is, slightly). RawTherapee is a great editor in many respects, and does have far more RAW tools than Lightroom. To put it bluntly, I shoot RAW because I do not like the in camera algorithms. You produce an identical JPG if you use the same Picture Control settings. The Nikon software NX-D, NX2, employ the exact same algorithms as the cameras. Also mouse middle-click for zoom-in, and again for over-zoom, is something where you need to read the manual.You were specifically talking about Capture NX2 and Capture NX-D, not RawTherapee in the post I was responding to. At first, I felt that many controls were in an unexpected place, e.g. I feel once you get used to Darktable, it will be great. Color balance may be harder because RT offers many ways to control it.ĭarktable's controls seem fairly intuitive to me, and the default is a decent starting point which makes learning easier (though it doesn't affect the ultimate capability for a skillful user to get results). RawTherapee noise reduction choices are particularly complete and fast-acting. Shadow recovery is easy even in JPEG highlight recovery is probably good in all Raw processors. It's really easy to do all this stuff in RawTherapee. Noise reduction while retaining sharpness.There are three areas where a Raw processor can be very useful: Maybe RawTherapee improved a lot in version 5.4, because it seems quite easy to use now. Others will have more recent knowledge than I, and I'm not motivated to do anything difficult since I have very good Windows raw processing already. I recall finding that it offered a large number of processing choices, but I thought it was complex to use. It's been quite a while since I tried RT.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |