What is the best RAW converter for Sony ARW in 2017 ...

[Evgeny]

Hey,

Looking for a good advice or working experience with Sony IDC 5 vs other well-known non-Adobe raw converters.

I am now playing with RT 5 + Neat Image, DxO Optics 9, C1 9.5 and IDC 5. The results are usually comparable, keeping also in mind the UI and settings differences. The main idea is to simplify my workflow where possible and do not overprocess the input file.

My Sony camera is (usually) a77 II.

Your view? Examples?

Thanks in advance!

[Manfred M]

There is no "best" per se, but it depends on personal preferences and specific needs. I use the Adobe Camera One, DxO Optics Pro and Capture One for different reasons.

1, Because I am a Photoshop user, I generally default to Camera Raw 9.10 because of the integration with Photoshop. I use SmartObjects in most of my edits, so the seamless integration between the raw convertor and the image processing software is great. That means I can go back and make tweaks to the original raw data without having to worry about tweaking the white balance and color space after I have started my edit. To me that is the strength of that solution.

2. I primarily use Capture One 9 for tethered shooting. It does that better than any other software I have tried for that purpose. If I were a pro shooting for the publishing industry, I would probably use it for more as it is designed around strict adherence to ICC profiles, so the work flow, especially with the commercial offset press printing process is cleaner than other raw conversion solutions.

I personally find the main drawback with Capture One is the non-intuitive user interface. From anyone I have spoken to, they all complain about the relatively long learning curve with it.

3. DxO Optics Pro 11 - this is my go to raw convertor for "problematic" images. It's strength has always been the high quality camera / lens profiles with better correction for lens distortion and chromatic aberration than the other two products. If I have a noisy image, this is my go-to raw converter because I feel I get far cleaner images than with other products. The Prime noise reduction is excellent and beats all the other solutions out there, although it is not particularly fast. I personally feel that noise reduction should be done during raw import rather than in the edit stage.

I believe Prime was introduced with version 10, so that is something you won't have on your version.

[Evgeny]

There is no "best" per se, but it depends on personal preferences and specific needs. I use the Adobe Camera One, DxO Optics Pro and Capture One for different reasons.

1, Because I am a Photoshop user, I generally default to Camera Raw 9.10 because of the integration with Photoshop. I use SmartObjects in most of my edits, so the seamless integration between the raw convertor and the image processing software is great. That means I can go back and make tweaks to the original raw data without having to worry about tweaking the white balance and color space after I have started my edit. To me that is the strength of that solution.

2. I primarily use Capture One 9 for tethered shooting. It does that better than any other software I have tried for that purpose. If I were a pro shooting for the publishing industry, I would probably use it for more as it is designed around strict adherence to ICC profiles, so the work flow, especially with the commercial offset press printing process is cleaner than other raw conversion solutions.

I personally find the main drawback with Capture One is the non-intuitive user interface. From anyone I have spoken to, they all complain about the relatively long learning curve with it.

3. DxO Optics Pro 11 - this is my go to raw convertor for "problematic" images. It's strength has always been the high quality camera / lens profiles with better correction for lens distortion and chromatic aberration than the other two products. If I have a noisy image, this is my go-to raw converter because I feel I get far cleaner images than with other products. The Prime noise reduction is excellent and beats all the other solutions out there, although it is not particularly fast. I personally feel that noise reduction should be done during raw import rather than in the edit stage.

I believe Prime was introduced with version 10, so that is something you won't have on your version.

Many thanks! Fully with you - where I can! I have PRIME in my DxO v9 Pro, so I can compare.

Just a couple of quick questions ...

PRIME (as of DxO Optics Pro 11) vs Neat Image ... your feelings?
Sony IDC 5 ... any experience? It is not easy to find its users - or I am not lucky.

[Manfred M]

Many thanks! Fully with you - where I can! I have PRIME in my DxO v9 Pro, so I can compare.

Just a couple of quick questions ...

PRIME (as of DxO Optics Pro 11) vs Neat Image ... your feelings?
Sony IDC 5 ... any experience? It is not easy to find its users - or I am not lucky.

As a Nikon and Panasonic shooter I have not used IDC 5, nor have I used Neat Image. The only other raw converter I've tried was Nikon View NX2 and I stopped using that when Adobe released the current (2012) Engine and fixed the problems Nikon users had with the Adobe software.

[JBW]

Capture 1 Sony Pro. It does have a steep learning curve but no steeper than most. Much of time I only pp in C1. Occasionally I do a little extra work in Gimp. Here's a sample of what it allows me to produce:



I shoot with a Sony Alpha a58. If you want to see more of what it allows me to do then check out my blog. And if memory serves it is on sale now for under $100. They also have a Sony Express version that has about 90% of the bells and whistles and is absolutely and totally for ever free.

[Evgeny]

Thanks Brian - impressive!
No experience with IDC? No need?

[JBW]

Thanks Brian - impressive!
No experience with IDC? No need?

I think it came with the camera but if I remember correctly it seemed limited. I tried RawTherapee and then came upon C1 Sony Express. Eventually I moved up to Sony Pro. Sometimes I will need to do work in Gimp or Fiji but most of my processing is done in C1. I'm going to stick with version 9 until 11 comes out.

[JohnRostron]

I use Affinity Photo for the raw files from my Sony A55 with no problems. Some users have mentioned problems with AWR files, but not from the A55 or A77. The performance with raw files has been sluggish in the past, but it is improving with each update. Affinity offers a develop module (persona) before handing over to the photo persona for the rest of your editing. Recommended.

John

[dje]

Hi Evgeny

I have used a number of non-Adobe raw converters for my Sony a6000 .awr files and they've all given decent raw conversion.

Sony IDC seems to apply default sharpening which can't be removed but it is probably acceptable in most cases. Also general image processing in that app is a bit limited if I recall correctly

Capture One does a good job and the Sony Express version is free and the Sony Pro version is quite reasonably priced. I'm not personally fussed on the catalog or session system it employs though.

I am currently getting to know Affinity Photo. It seems to do a good job at raw conversion but that aspect of the software is quite slow.

Of the three apps above, only Capture One allows the use of your own camera profiles.

Dave

[Evgeny]

Hi Evgeny

I have used a number of non-Adobe raw converters for my Sony a6000 .awr files and they've all given decent raw conversion.

Sony IDC seems to apply default sharpening which can't be removed but it is probably acceptable in most cases. Also general image processing in that app is a bit limited if I recall correctly

Capture One does a good job and the Sony Express version is free and the Sony Pro version is quite reasonably priced. I'm not personally fussed on the catalog or session system it employs though.

I am currently getting to know Affinity Photo. It seems to do a good job at raw conversion but that aspect of the software is quite slow.

Of the three apps above, only Capture One allows the use of your own camera profiles.

Dave

Thanks Dave,

I am now playing with the test ARW/JPG files from Imaging Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...a77-iiTHMB.HTM) and Sony IDC 5.1, C1 10 for Sony, DxO Optics 11 and Raw Therapee 5.1 - keeping in mind that all of them are more or less new (say 6 moths old or even less). The idea is to do my best to match the test JPG while using the same workflow. What I don't have is the camera profile(s) for them all. Just hope that Sony IDC and C1 for Sony somehow know the camera internals.

The results and conversion/export speeds are similar, at least as far as I can see using my cheap NEC E monitor. The main difference is in UI, especially RT vs IDC. Not sure I need more than 10% of all the RT options and endless settings. The export files are also different in size, sometimes significantly.

Two quick questions about C1: do you prefer to use your own camera profile - and how to find/cook it? Did you try Lumariver?
Other: do you see that the C1-exported JPGs are bigger than expected?

[dje]

Thanks Dave,

I am now playing with the test ARW/JPG files from Imaging Resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...a77-iiTHMB.HTM) and Sony IDC 5.1, C1 10 for Sony, DxO Optics 11 and Raw Therapee 5.1 - keeping in mind that all of them are more or less new (say 6 moths old or even less). The idea is to do my best to match the test JPG while using the same workflow. What I don't have is the camera profile(s) for them all. Just hope that Sony IDC and C1 for Sony somehow know the camera internals.

The results and conversion/export speeds are similar, at least as far as I can see using my cheap NEC E monitor. The main difference is in UI, especially RT vs IDC. Not sure I need more than 10% of all the RT options and endless settings. The export files are also different in size, sometimes significantly.

Two quick questions about C1: do you prefer to use your own camera profile - and how to find/cook it? Did you try Lumariver?
Other: do you see that the C1-exported JPGs are bigger than expected?

Hi Evgeny

I'm away from home at present but will have a closer look at your C1 questions when I get back later today. I haven't used my own icc profiles for C1 though. Lumariver has just come out but I think it would be certainly worth a look if you did want to make your own profiles.

Dave

[dje]

Thanks Dave,

What I don't have is the camera profile(s) for them all. Just hope that Sony IDC and C1 for Sony somehow know the camera internals.

The Sony IDC software people should have access to calibration data for their own cameras and given there seems to be some sort of collaboration between Sony and Phase One, you would hope the Capture One camera profiles are good too.

Two quick questions about C1: do you prefer to use your own camera profile - and how to find/cook it? Did you try Lumariver?
Other: do you see that the C1-exported JPGs are bigger than expected?

As indicated in my previous post, I haven't tried my own camera profiles with Capture One. The profiles for C1 on my Windows 10 machine are located in Program Files/Phase One/Capture One 10/Color Profiles/DSLR. If you create your own profile, I guess you can just place it in this directory.

I tried exporting the same raw file to jpeg for C1(quality setting 80%), IDC(quality setting Level 2) and PS(Quality setting 10/12). The size ranged from 3.2MB to 4.6MB with C1 the smallest and PS the largest. The trouble is, the quality settings have different ranges with different software so it's difficult to set up a comparison of jpegs with exactly the same level of compression.

Dave

[Evgeny]

I tried exporting the same raw file to jpeg for C1(quality setting 80%), IDC(quality setting Level 2) and PS(Quality setting 10/12). The size ranged from 3.2MB to 4.6MB with C1 the smallest and PS the largest. The trouble is, the quality settings have different ranges with different software so it's difficult to set up a comparison of jpegs with exactly the same level of compression.

Dave

My jpg files with the best quality setting (100%) are huge!

FYI, the initial test file sizes were 24MB (arw) and 18MB (jpg) ... more details:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...2I0100.ARW.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...2FAR2I0100.HTM

The smallest file size in average is probably with IDC. DxO and C1 cooked jpg files are more or less of the same (big) size, and RT jpg files are significantly bigger. Need to understand the reason.

[dje]

My jpg files with the best quality setting (100%) are huge!

FYI, the initial test file sizes were 24MB (arw) and 18MB (jpg) ... more details:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...2I0100.ARW.HTM
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PROD...2FAR2I0100.HTM

The smallest file size in average is probably with IDC. DxO and C1 cooked jpg files are more or less of the same (big) size, and RT jpg files are significantly bigger. Need to understand the reason.

Evengy have a look at the EXIF info for the jpegs and in particular the YCbCrSubSampling tag. This describes what chroma sub-sampling has been used in the jpeg. 4:4:4 means no sub-sampling and is the highest quality and largest size. 4:2:2 means that the two chroma components are sampled at half the rate of the luma. This gives lower quality but smaller file size. These settings are separate to the level of DCT compression used but the software quality setting for saving a jpeg usually sets both of these parameters.

Dave

[Evgeny]

Evengy have a look at the EXIF info for the jpegs and in particular the YCbCrSubSampling tag. This describes what chroma sub-sampling has been used in the jpeg. 4:4:4 means no sub-sampling and is the highest quality and largest size. 4:2:2 means that the two chroma components are sampled at half the rate of the luma. This gives lower quality but smaller file size. These settings are separate to the level of DCT compression used but the software quality setting for saving a jpeg usually sets both of these parameters.

Dave

Thanks Dave - again!

Exactly! However, I can see YCbCrSub Sampling only with ExifTool. The rest of my collection of viewers was useless.

What do you prefer for EXIF and JPG viewing?

[dje]

Thanks Dave - again!

Exactly! However, I can see YCbCrSub Sampling only with ExifTool. The rest of my collection of viewers was useless.

What do you prefer for EXIF and JPG viewing?

Evengy I use EXIFTool Gui or PhotoME for viewing EXIF data, they are both good and give you the complete list. For general image viewing I use Fastone Image Viewer.

Dave

[Evgeny]

Evengy have a look at the EXIF info for the jpegs and in particular the YCbCrSubSampling tag. This describes what chroma sub-sampling has been used in the jpeg. 4:4:4 means no sub-sampling and is the highest quality and largest size. 4:2:2 means that the two chroma components are sampled at half the rate of the luma. This gives lower quality but smaller file size. These settings are separate to the level of DCT compression used but the software quality setting for saving a jpeg usually sets both of these parameters.

Dave

FYI: it seems that Oloneo does it with 4:2:0 ... from what I see in exiftool.
A bit unusual?

File Size : 21 MB
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)

[dje]

FYI: it seems that Oloneo does it with 4:2:0 ... from what I see in exiftool.
A bit unusual?

File Size : 21 MB
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling : YCbCr4:2:0 (2 2)

Evgeny I believe the allowable options for chroma sub-sampling with jpeg are 4:4:4 , 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. I think it is up to the individual software makers to decide how they employ these options for different levels of quality. I just had a quick look at Photoshop and it uses them as follows

Quality 12 4:4:4
Quality 10 4:4:4
Quality 8 4:4:4
Quality 6 4:2:0
Quality 4 4:2:0
Quality 2 4:2:0

So it appears that PS doesn't bother with 4:2:2, but some software makers do.

By the way, 4:2:0 is commonly used in television broadcasting and consumer video.

Dave

[Evgeny]

Evgeny I believe the allowable options for chroma sub-sampling with jpeg are 4:4:4 , 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. I think it is up to the individual software makers to decide how they employ these options for different levels of quality. I just had a quick look at Photoshop and it uses them as follows

Quality 12 4:4:4
Quality 10 4:4:4
Quality 8 4:4:4
Quality 6 4:2:0
Quality 4 4:2:0
Quality 2 4:2:0

So it appears that PS doesn't bother with 4:2:2, but some software makers do.

By the way, 4:2:0 is commonly used in television broadcasting and consumer video.

Dave

In exchange ...

All: 100% quality

DxO Optics Pro 11: 4:4:4
Capture One 10: 4:4:4
Raw Therapee 5.1: 4:4:4
Sony IDC 5.1: 4:2:2
Oloneo PhotoEngine 1.1.400: 4:2:0

UPDATED
------------

RT 5.1 (other options): 4:2:2 (Balanced), 4:2:0 (Best compression)
SilkyPix DS Pro 8: 4:4:4, 4:2:2, 4:2:0

[Elle Harper]

Adobe Lightroom is definitely a great RAW processing program that many people use globally. I found an interesting free item - VSCO Lightroom Presets - 35 Lightroom Film Presets Free http://fixthephoto.com/retouch-tips/...m-presets.html