bigfatfish said:
Hi guys,
was just wondering if anyone uses the photoshop raw plugin and compared it to the capture 1 raw conversion. which one would yield better quality?
It depends on the camera really.
IMHO, after using 4 different brands of DSLRs over the last 5 years, in terms of colour, tone and overall 'definition' (sorry can't think of a more appropriate word at this time), the camera manufacturer's own code tends to be the best if 'quality' is the only consideration.
But apparently for a lot of people, quality is NOT the only consideration
What alternatives like C1, Adobe Camera Raw, RSE, Bibble, Silkypix, amongst many others, give you are more flexibility, controls and features (none necessarily for the better towards the final outcome if you ask me). Often the manufacturers' own raw conversion applications are badly written, have flawed or terrible interfaces, are slow, or just don't take the working photographer's everyday workflow into consideration. If the manufacturer's themselves wrote better raw conversion apps, none of these other players would be necessary.
Some quick anecdotal experiences:
Oly E-1 - C1 teases out a fair bit more texture and details from some raw files than Oly's own app (subject dependent - I find C1 a lot better for pulling out details in objects that are distant or have very fine texture). This has largely to do with the more sophisticated sharpening algorithm available in C1. BUT the Oly colour and overall look is *much* better if you ask me. Would I give up Studio and run C1? Not all the time, depends on the subject matter but I'd say I'd use them maybe 70/30 in favour of Studio. ACR is so so. The big weakness with Oly's own converter is the sharpening algorithm. E-1 owners owe it to themselves to purchase the Photokit Sharpener script.
Canon EOS 1Ds - The 1Ds is my main squeeze at the moment. I have played with countless no. of converters for this camera's files. I still find myself coming back to DPP, Canon's own humble little app. The latest incarnation of ACR holds no candle, especially so when you shoot at higher than ISO200. The colours and tone just look much more film like with DPP. I get artifacts with ACR that I don't get with DPP. DPP's thumbnail rendering speed is also very commendable with 11MP files. C1 is alright. Sometimes better and sometimes worse than ACR. I hate the C1 interface though.
Fujifilm S2 - strictly on quality alone, there's no way ACR can ever beat Fuji's own converter. But whoever Fuji hires for their coding writes really nasty apps. Interface is not so good. It will be the same with the S3. However, I'd like to say that even when I had my S2, I only shot in 12MP jpeg because the camera is just too slow to shoot in RAW. The S2's jpegs are the best in-camera jpegs I have ever seen. Very nice and clean files. Stunning colour and tonal rendition.
Nikon - my last ever Nikon DSLR was the D1x, which made me swear off buying a Nikon DSLR for a while after that. Such a dope of a camera - which is a real pity given it's excellent handling qualities. Things have improved tremendously after that model of course. With this one, ACR is alright, even preferable to Nikon's own converter then. Then again, I am not in touch with Nikon's converter now.
Kodak 14n/SLRn - whilst Kodak's app is outstanding in terms of colour rendition, I prefer ACR for better tones, noise control and details. I think if you're using this camera everyday, you will better be able to live with ACR as your main converter.
Now the thing is, all my comments are largely only valid for my way of working. Your own mileage may vary, and likely will.
