thelps wrote:I saw this link to a RAW processor test listed on another forum and thought i would put it out here.
http://www.alpha-numerique.fr/index.php ... Itemid=321
The text is in French so its hard to deceiper under what parameters the test was done, ...
...could tweaking the settings on some of the others have made a difference or are the settings on auto? With all these questions I have thrown it in here for a look anyhow. Someone pointed out the best raw processor is the one you know best - a good sentiment. For me I liked LR for low ISO but thought Dx0 was best for higher ISOs. On the other point of usability, even though there are things I don't enjoy with LR, it seems to gel with me when it comes to using it. Perhaps its familiarity that wins.
CHICHORNIO wrote:Hugo Rodriguez´s link, but just in case I leave here the original spanish link to a Raw Developer test and it´s counterpart in english. Good reading.
http://www.hugorodriguez.com/index_reve ... rfecto.php (spanish)
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... sMEZXvHJfQ (english)
Detail Man wrote:DxO performs all Noise Reduction before demosaicing in the processing chain. This is a different approach (from what appears to have been stated by ISL Software Company, and others) than the methods by which Silkypix approaches Noise Reduction operations. In the case of Adobe Lightroom, I do not know the system processing-architecture. Perhaps you know?
... Unforunately I don't know how LR works - I suspect there is a forum somewhere where this has been discussed!
From the translation it looks like LR is well liked - dare I say the winner - no I didnt want to use that word - there is no real winner here, but for my tastes I like the Dx0 at high ISO.
Cristian78 wrote:For Mac users only I can also recommend Raw Photo Processor (RPP)
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest