Photography: Does it matter what you use to import raw pictures?

[Heifetz]

I think because its raw, every application should import it the same way, and not have any quality difference. Is this correct?

 

[LordMaul]

Not necessarily/depending on what you're doing. If you want something to be imported exactly the way it was designed to turn out, you may want to process the raw files in your camera maker's proprietary software and then export it to, say, a .tiff for editing in Photoshop (in the case of Nikon Capture, for instance). This is, though, mostly relating to quality of color, saturation, etc. and does not necessarily reflect "quality." Quality should be fine as long as you're using a respectable program to do the processing.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
I think because its raw, every application should import it the same way, and not have any quality difference. Is this correct?

No that is not correct. Look how these two different software packages display the same ORF file (Olympus RAW format, E-300)

http://www.tfinch.org/pics/compare.jpg

 

[Heifetz]

I think the RSE versus picasa example is very suspect. I've used RSE and noticed that by default, it applies some filters to imported images. So the difference between the two might be caused by the actual post image processing, rather than difference in the raw files.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
I think the RSE versus picasa example is very suspect. I've used RSE and noticed that by default, it applies some filters to imported images. So the difference between the two might be caused by the actual post image processing, rather than difference in the raw files.

But if you have no control over RSE using these filters, then the image DOES have a quality difference.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Heifetz
But is the difference from displaying the raw image, or the actual file itself is different? I'm importing my pictures from my nikon d70 through picasa. I can also do it from photoshop, or RSE.

RAW data is not changed in the RAW file. Bayer demosaicing is such a complex process that there are many programs, each of which does it in a slighly different way. Some RAW converters have better moire suppression, some have better highlight recovery, while others have better detail retention, etc. Try several and compare to see what works best for your camera, lenses, subject matter, and shooting conditions.

 

[LordMaul]

The knowledge that some of these people have makes me wonder why they do not start a photography studio of their own. I would like to work for someone who actually knows what's going on with their technology, instead of some of these photographers who think you have to pray to the CF card and chant a special "resolution song" for it to look good. 😉

 

[iamtrout]

I personally recommend Capture One Pro by Phase One. Excellent, excellent program. It's made my life a LOT easier, not to mention made my work look a lot better to boot.