Professional RAW processors and dSLR cameras have the option of using the “Adobe RGB” space, which is capable of representing more colors. This is usually intended for print, resulting in deeper colors. On screen, images shot in Adobe RGB may look unsaturated and dull.

You can try enabling color management in ACD See Pro or you can convert images to SRGB in Photoshop (Edit –> Convert to Profile)

But, I seem to be having a very weird problem.
Jpeg’s that I edit in Photoshop, and RAW files edited in C1 Pro look excellent in the programs.
But, when I open them in AcdSee pro 3, the look dull and borring.
What could be the problem?

Thank you,
Igal.

My comment has been touched on in a number of posts and is regarding workflow using different RAW converters to get the best out of each. Indeed you even partially answered the question when you proposed a DxO and LR workflow as:- “Original RAW –> process in DxO –> export as DNG –> Lightroom –> TIFF/JPEG”.

I am lucky in having DxO, LR, C1 (which rarely gets used these days), Canon DPP (never gets used) and finally Photomatix for HDR images.

I tend to use DxO when lens correction is important but process these with most of the other settings turned off. Then, because I like LR’s cataloguing capabilities, bring it back into LR as a TIFF and do my final edits in Photoshop.

It would be good to get feedback from you, or others, on the various components to use in a multi RAW processing environment. Indeed, for HDR images, I don’t think I have found a good workflow that incorporates Photomatix as compromises have to be made.

Thanks again,
Rog.

You basically did here what I left out: compare image quality with examples. Nice to see

It is sad that all the players in the digital imaging space were unable to come up with an open standard that supports everyone’s requirements, present and future. However, that day may eventually come as digital imaging evolves and matures. Part of the reason is that these guys are in a race with each other to produce the best imaging products, good for us. Supporting an open standard for workflow, image processing, image archiving will be critical. We do not want to be locked in to a vendor set forever. It is pretty incredible how far and how fast it has come from the days of the late 90s when 2MP noisy sensors were state of the art. With processing and processing tuned to the imaging sensor, I expect significant future advances in the next years and decades. You will also see different decisions about where to partition the processing – in-camera hardware or post processing software – which will affect the DNG choices. I believe we are still in “wild west” days for a little while, early adopters beware. Another of my concerns is around archival. I store RAW, but all the post processing and corrections we do would ideally be reproducible 10-20 years from now, so whatever software workflow we decide on has to support the legacy all the way back. Never mind what will happen to digital storage media and the readers/writers necessary. In any case, there should be a good open DNG standard as soon as possible.

I haven’t used HDR much either, but I am getting a feel for it. I am using it to go back and post process some older photos and have been able to bring out some details that I could not do any other way. HDR is ideal for those inside cathedral shots where there is a lot of small scale detail, I also think they tuned the software to do well with sunsets with a lot of dramatic clouds and reflections from the underside of the clouds. The lighthouse is the Portland Head Light in Cape Elizabeth Maine, which some estimate is the most photographed in the world. We had just had a snowstorm which was winding down in the afternoon, just in time for the sunset. Those conditions happen maybe once a year, so I don’t think you will see too many shots like those. I used HDR on those shots (bracket 5 or 7 spaced 1EV apart at 5fps) evident by the ghosts of the multiple exposures in the surf. I did not do a lot of work on processing those shots, you can see spots from the snow and frozen sea spray stuck to the lens, horizon off horizontal, etc. And I do admit they appear a little over-processed. I am working on a few chosen ones to fix all those issues, however this will take significant time.

The DNG question is a tough one. I started using it around 2005 because my camera at the time was producing uncompressed RAWs and saving 33%-50% space when archiving the files wasn’t too bad. I also thought DNG will get a wider support, if not from camera manufacturers directly, at least from all software makers. If you read between the lines of my article, you can guess I regret a little using just DNG, as I can’t load my old images in DXO for example. The obvious answer is that we must lobby the camera makers and software companies to add support for DNG. Nowadays support for MP3, JPG or TIFF is taken for granted, that should b the case with DNG, instead of ARW, CRW, MRF, NEF, RAW to name just a few.

Workflow, I’m trying to do as much as possible in the RAW converter and yes, leave the 8bit-only operations last.

HDR – I must admit I haven’t worked extensively with it, I have a HDR cathedral and I agree it takes a lot of tweaking to get a convincing look.

Thank you for your review.

I have been a very happy user of C1 standard until C1 5 Pro has come out. As with many other posters, because of the price I am looking at alternatives. I also have in the past year started shooting with wider angle (14-24 FX f2.8 + D700 Nikon), and recently started experimenting with HDR (decided on Photomatix, for now. Best HDR is a very similar situation, each has its strength, no one does it all). As you said, there is no one simple solution, DxO is absolutely unparalleled in optical correction. I played with the optical correction in C1 Pro 5, but it is not up to the same standards. I also have come to the same conclusion that Bibble takes the cake for noise reduction.

My question is around workflow and the amount of database conversions. My concern is that moving from NEF to DNG and/or TIFF-16 to TIFF, not to mention JPEG final output, and running those through each individual programs’ interpretations of those formats introduces noise. For example, I have seen differing results in the quality of NEF processing between D200, D300 and D700 into C1 4.8, never mind conversions. Another example is that some of the filters and plug ins can only run in 8-bit mode. Is there an argument to get into DNG as quickly as possible and limit yourself to only using LR, PS and native plug-ins? Second, should one also consider the order of operations such that anything that can only be done in 8-bit mode be done last?

Finally, any comments on HDR? My limited experience has shown that it has promise, but a long way to go before all the problems are overcome. I have had success in bringing out detail in snow drifts simultaneously with jagged dark rocks that no amount of Highlight/Shadow in C1 or PS could come close to. On the other hand, aligning 7 exposures with moving subjects creates problems, noise is added, but most significantly it creates more macro effects such as subtle glows and shadows around masses.

Thanks again for your excellent review.

Thank you for this delightful and an informative article on the RAW giants. LR and C1 are like like the Nikons and the Canons of the RAW just because of the money they have and the professional zealots heralding and serving as poster people.

When I first started only two years ago, I started with ACR 4.x and ultimately purchased into the C1 PRO license (then 3.7.8) and have been loyally using C1 PRO since the second half of 2007. With LR 3 on the horizon, I am thinking of “divorcing” C1 and picking up LR 3 when it comes out–I am hoping LR 3 would have a lens correction module where it would look up its database of lenses similar to PTLens and voila!

Then LR3 (Adobe) will really shine and I think they will win even more customers just because Adobe >> CaptureOne in regard to financial resources and programmers. Thank you for your time sir and I have an immense reverence for you and your work. Reading your article, I was compelled to try DXO Optics 6 and oh-my-goodness, its grotesque and unintuitive GUI turned me off.

My ultimate wish is for the “HDR” Fill Light/Recovery of ACR to be integrated into C1 (still my de facto RAW)-it squashed C1’s Fill Light and Recovery until kingdom come.

Happy new year 2010 sir!

Best in health,

ronald n. tan