Heresy: Iridient Raw Dev better than C1?

[plasticman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well for the last 24 hours I've been as happy as can be: last night after casually reading through a thread over on RFF that mentioned Raw Developer in passing, I thought I'd open up a demo I'd tested for my Epson RD1s and run a few M8 images through it.

 

I was totally amazed!

 

I know this is heresy, but the files suddenly showed far more natural colors (especially dealing with the muddying of skintones that I've found so problematic with the M8), and also revealed a wealth of fine detail that's ever so slightly blotched or smeared in the C1 files.

 

Please note that I've carefully ensured all noise-reduction is disabled in C1, and also fine-tuned other settings to ensure that I squeeze as much detail as I can from the files, and I've been moderately pleased. But quite often I've had a nagging feeling that the files should really be better, considering the lack of AA filter.

 

Well Raw Developer seems to do the trick! In addition I found that Highlight Recovery (a critical tool with the rather abrupt upper end of M8 files) gives a much more graduated and subtle fall-off, without posterizing or even the tendency to give the entire image a grey sheen as can happen in extreme cases with C1.

 

I know this will be hard to believe, but I thought I'd just let people here know, for all those who are dissatisfied with C1 but can't abide the horrible loss of detail and pastel colors of Lightroom.

 

Incidentally, the interface is pretty archaic and feels like going back ten years in time, but everything does work as described in the manual.

 

I'm off to pay my registration fee. (and naturally I probably have to add after this glowing testimony, that I have no connection whatsoever with Iridient or anyone involved in the company).

 

Mani

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[plasticman]

I thought I'd take a couple of side-by-side screengrabs for the curious: one image where my daughter's face was caught in problematic shade from her hat in a bright sunshine scene, the other a corner detail from a test shot with the 21mm Elmarit.

 

Naturally sharpening algorithms have a lot to do with how detail is perceived, but the greater detail is abundantly available everywhere in the images opened in Raw Dev - which sometimes just isn't ever visible in C1, whatever the settings.

 

I'm loving the camera all over again! Amazing the difference it makes finding the right developer!

 

(Naturally jpeg compression will mean that a lot of what I'm talking about won't be visible - but I hope the images give some idea).

 

PS: all noise reduction set at zero for both programs. As can be easily seen, the RawDev files are much noisier - but in a good way, imho.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Jamie Roberts]

It's not heresy at all--lots of people use and swear by Raw Developer. Lots of people use C1.

 

Personally, I prefer the softness of the sharpening in C1. I have my own output-specific sharpening workflow that doesn't hold up as well with output from other converters.

 

Anyone's MMV, of course.

 

It's worth pointing out, too, that the estimable Raw Developer is a Mac-only product.

[ammitsboel]

I had problems with color in RAW Developer.

The C1 M8 color profile might be better overall.

You will have to adjust the setting to have same illuminance and contrast in your test. There's more contrast and black in the RAW developer shot.

[plasticman]

It's not heresy at all--lots of people use and swear by Raw Developer. Lots of people use C1.

Personally, I prefer the softness of the sharpening in C1. I have my own output-specific sharpening workflow that doesn't hold up as well with output from other converters.

 

I didn't realize RawDev was Mac only - sorry about that oversight.

 

In fact, I had no idea people were using it much at all - which is why I thought I'd write about it here, as I see so many questions and problems posted by people who seem to have trouble with C1, for various reasons.

 

I'd certainly say that C1 has a far greater wealth of tools and settings, and is itself vastly superior in its renditions of M8 files to LR and even Aperture, but I have to say that seeing all my captures in RawDev over the last day has given me an enormous boost of enthusiasm for the camera - and I thought it was worth sharing.

 

Incidentally, as you know RD has a comprehensive choice of sharpening algorithms (including 'none', of course). My defaults were something called 'R-L Deconvolution' which (to quote a small part of the description of this technique in the manual):

 

"...uses Richardson-Lucy deconvolution and is more an image restoration/reconstruction or "refocusing" technique compared to the other 3 options which are more traditional edge contrast enhancing filters... Almost all digital cameras use an anti-aliasing filter which has the effect of slightly blurring the image. Richardson-Lucy in theory is well suited to undoing the effects of such a filter."

 

The best part about digital is that no-one is forced to use their 'local' developer anymore - so we can all go out and find the one that suits us best!

 

Mani

[plasticman]

I had problems with color in RAW Developer.

The C1 M8 color profile might be better overall.

You will have to adjust the setting to have same illuminance and contrast in your test. There's more contrast and black in the RAW developer shot.

 

Henrik - they weren't meant as tests really: these are simply a couple of shots that I picked at random to illustrate the comparison.

I've been unhappy with the M8 color profile in C1, and even less happy with the Lightroom interpretation - which I felt lacked depth (not to mention the gross lack of fine detail in the demosaicing algorithm), and for me the experience of seeing the RD renders has been a revelation.

 

I guess I knew the debate would devolve into nitpicking about settings or 'C1 is better' statements, but I posted nonetheless in the constructive hope that others might have the chance of trying this rather more obscure application for themselves, and making their own judgements.

 

So just to repeat for everyone: these images were NOT meant as scientific comparisons. I DID NOT try to match contrast or any other settings, but rather tried to leave most settings at their defaults (except noise reduction, which I always set to zero in all my raw development workflow).