The reason there are so many different opinions about "the best" converter is accurate color isn't the answer; it's pleasing color. The color you the image creator which to express.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Good question, John, and I think I should avoid the word accurate in future. I can’t define it right now so can I come at it from a different direction? Most people find it easy to agree when skin seems too red, or green, or skies seem the wrong blue. I’m saying “seem” because I agree it’s mostly subjective. But interestingly, I think people will agree on what’s acceptable (or accurate or pleasing) or not. Often I have to present my images to a group of people who chose what is to be used or not (now that’s not a time for public soul searching). Usually, almost always, there is a consensus about what is okay (I’m trying to stay loose but useful here!) in terms of colour, contrast, brightness, etc. It’s not that I, or anyone else in the group controls the discussion, or that they want to avoid offending me (if only!) or that they don’t know about these things. But 99.9% of the time they agree. They have massive (hilarious) rows about content and my composition, but that’s another story.
I’m wondering if the concept of “memory colours” has any relevance here?
Also, I think that there are other reasons why there are so many opinions about converters. Speed and ease of workflow is important. How well highlights are handled. How sharp. How many artifacts. How shadows/contrast are handled. Etc.
But basically, I agree with you: it’s all about how you want the image to look. For me, colour is maybe the main criterion. And isn’t it great that we have a choice.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
By starting with a proper calibrated White balance reference, and converting using it in post, we come as close to "accurate" color as possible, meaning that the RAW converter is able to make sense out of the other pieces of the puzzle, the RAW data, and the camera profile. Without the "accurate" lighting coefficient data, the camera profile simple cannot work, and ALL color will be askew. IMHO one should get to an "accurate" color rendition because it puts ALL of the color in proper perspective, then I would use tools other than WB to create the pleasing color. or slight adjustment to the accurate WB is OK, but if you skew them too much, all goes out of balance. A profile is only designed to work through the RAW converter if it has the accurate White balance data (the color of the light in terms of White balance coefficients).
HTH
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
From what the color gurus tell us, even though two color devices (such as a DSLR) may be from the same manufacturer and are the same model, each will interpret color slightly differently from the other. Sort of like finterprints and snowflakes, I suppose.
The ideal is to produce a color profile for your individually unique device. Short of that, one uses the built-in profiles in their chosen converter. There are various methods of building these profiles, and most of them in today's Raw Converter engines do a pretty good job. The thing is...the profiles within them have not been built using your indidually unique device and therefore could missinterpet your device's data. This missinterpretation can be by just a hair, or by a whole lot...depending, again, on the color characteristics of your individually unique device.
While modern DSLRs usually fall within a smaller range of varriation than other color devices, it is possible that yours may be just different enough such that the conversion you get from your RC may not be what that RC was trying to deliver.
I think the above is the reason you'll see posts from one individual who says Raw Converter A delivers colors that are bang-right-on...and then see a post from someone else who uses the same make and model device say that Raw Converter A delivers colors that aren't even close.
Bottom line...I suppose we really do need to test which converter does the best job for our particular camera. This, of course, depends upon how color critical the work needs to be and/or how sensitive one is to color accuracy (whatever that term may mean).
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
I'm using a 5D. My priorities are control over the process, good interface and reasonable price. I don't need to mass-process thousands of shots.
[/ QUOTE ]
Charles,
If you're like nearly everyone else here your first experience with DPP might have been less than satisfying. My feelings were even stronger against it. But after three years with ACR I have made a total switch to DPP.
The color and clarity alone make the switch worthwhile. The new version 2.1 has some improved workflow enhancements and a decent noise reduction filter.
If you're coming from C1 or ACR the transition will be tough because the DPP workflow methods are vastly different, but not worse. I'm convinced that for Canon RAW files there is nothing better.
You mentioned that price was a consideration too. DPP wins in that category.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
[ QUOTE ]
While modern DSLRs usually fall within a smaller range of varriation than other color devices, it is possible that yours may be just different enough such that the conversion you get from your RC may not be what that RC was trying to deliver.
[/ QUOTE ]
In shooting profiles for RawShooter, and Magne Nilsen (ETC), we learn that in our experience, camera to camera variation is too small to be considered a variable in RC performance.
White Balance so easy, even our 5 year old can do it.- Melissa Strickland
Linear Mode
