Ken Norton wrote:
> <snip oodles I have to reread and think about>
> So, my point in all this is that RAW ain't RAW and for those who poo-poo the
> idea that ACR isn't necessarily the end-all-be-all in converters are sadly
> mistaken.
I agree. I continue to use mostly ACR for my Canon DSLR files for one
reason only, it's works very well and I haven't run across anything
better. I suppose in theory I should try some of the other slightly to
very costly options, but PS and I are pretty close buddies and it comes
with ACR. So something like DXo would have to be noticeably better at
RAW conversion to be anywhere near worth the cost to me.
I do try out the free/inexpensive options, but none have a
look/feel/result so far to pull me way. I just tried perfectRAW, a GUI
dcraw front end. Lots of interesting looking extended options, but far
from ready for prime time as yet. Interesting, though. I tried a
conversion. It's obviously wrong in major ways, but has some handling of
some tonalities that are quite good in a way I haven't yet defined and
make the ACR version look undefined in parts of the image.
Unfortunately, the interface is so unrefined that the pull down boxes
don't show the whole text of the choices, so adjusting it is guesswork.
> Maybe it's best for Canon and Nikon files, but those of us shooting
> E-thingies must be a little more adaptive and creative. It's not that ACR is
> bad, it's just that there is more to raw conversion than color-order.
>
I'm always ready for a better mousetrap. That's one of the underlying
reasons I keep image adjustment in RAW processing to the minimum. I like
the work flow model where RAW conversion and post processing are
separate. That way, either one may be changed without much impact on the
other.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|