Any free RAW converters out there?

After the imminent demise of RS|e, the free version, and a highly competitive market section around the $120 mark, are there any other free RAW converters out there?

Of course if you are a Canon shooter, there is DPP. Other than that, I know of none. Its sort of the case you get what you pay for LOL. I will continue to use RSP/CE and C1 with ETC profiles for the time being. I will also download the upgrade for Bibble--but the interface puts me off there---and there is no camera profiling possible.

Helicon

I read the Helicon Noise filter has built in RAW support now. It has a free version.

If you haven't checked out the latest version of DPP, recommend giving it another look. It has a built in auto curves button that works very well. The landscape DPP setting gives very nice greens without oversaturating them to yellow like some other converters.

Diane Fields said:

Its sort of the case you get what you pay for LOL.

Click to expand...

To give you a bit of background to my question: RS|e was the converter I could easily recommend to people asking me (or not), it was cheap but capable and, most important, non-proprietary in regard to file formats. DPP, ZoomBrowser, PictureProject, Nikon View and all other give-aways from cmaera manufacturers can usually only work with their own RAW formats. In the case of Nikon (PP and View) the converters do nothing more than what their cameras could do.

As long as RAWShooter is available I could still recommend it but what about later?

Does every camera that has raw as an option not ship with a converter for its raw files?

Yes, for its but not for others. And they aren't always capable of even the most rudimentary changes (see my Nikon comment).

something you will see increasingly often is...

Harvey Moore said:

Does every camera that has raw as an option not ship with a converter for its raw files?

Click to expand...

My Ricoh GR-D produces RAW DNG files, for which it sends along a copy of Adobe Elements (with ACR). Dave Coffin's DC-Raw also reads vanilla DNG, using the parameters as found, no camera profiles. So small manufacturers that produce a raw file are the first converts to DNG -- it saved them a software development bill, and left someone else with the problem of getting the most out of their raw files.

Dierk Haasis said:

Yes, for its but not for others. And they aren't always capable of even the most rudimentary changes (see my Nikon comment).

Click to expand...

It appears that you are looking for a raw converter as universal as possible as far as camera models are concerned, with extended image adjustments, and free

I think Diane's comment regarding you get what you pay for applies here. As the saying goes, "There aint no such thing as a free lunch".

In Pixmantecs case the initial entry was no cost giving them market exposure and many "beta" testers before they released the pay version with a lot more features.

In Canon's case, they ship DPP with the camera and it is updatable at no cost, but it is by no means free. The cost of it is in the hardware cost.

Support by other hardware mfrs raw utilities varies by brand as pointed out. I do not think you are going to find much without paying some price.

Maybe a search of shareware will reveal something close.

OK, let's assume I write an article on RAW converters. I want to point amateurs to a good and cheap program - they don't want (often can't) pay several hundred EURO for ACR* or C1. The next best I can come up with is Bibble, Silkypix and BreezeBrowserPro. Until yesterday there was RS|P in this list, and RS|e as the lowest budget solution possible.

DCRAW may be a bit complicated for many non-geeks. But it is free.

Before Lightroom Windows is not even in beta I cannot even think of recommending it, although judged by paperform it would be the one program many are looking for.

RS|e was free and available and being updated even after Premium was published. The marketing reasons I do not care for. Since I have been a very early RS|e (later P) user I know quite well what they did.

My original question had (and has) no hidden meaning - it's not about philosophy, not about market shares, not about free lunches or anything else. I just want to know if anybody knows a program not unlike RS|e, which I could test and probably use for my article and pointing people to. For my own use I still have RS|P, ACR, BBP; I am considering buying Capture NX and Lightroom. Do I get what I pay for? No idea, not one of the programs I own is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, so I guess not. Since ACR is the most expensive, I'd say, price does not necessarily reflect quality. RS|e shows the same the other way round. In my book that makes such a rule of thumb as "you get what you pay for" rather useless.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsher than warranted, it has been a long day. Nothing personal, Harvey, just wanted to try to mae clear what I look for.




*Yes, you get a quite capable and feature-rich image editor with it, but they don't need it.

Not taken personal Dierk, just a discussion and understanding each other. I recently had a heated discussion on another board with the "get something for nothing crowd", maybe I need to put some distance from it.

I think rse was an exception, and now the no cost end is approaching. Years ago I used the shareware version of Paint Shop Pro (no need for raw then by me), it went pay only and now gobbled up by Corel.

Corel PSP is about $129 now, and they were shipping rse with it, don't know what they will do now. PSP is a very capable program, in my opinion better than elements, another lower cost converter editor.

I still think the mfrs raw conversion which ships in some form with digital cameras that offer raw combined with a shareware editor or low cost editor is the best you will find. Basic editors are inexpensive but the sacrifice is in areas like color management and advanced editing capability.

When I bought my 20D, Elements, DPP, & Zoombrowser came with it. I upgraded Elements to CS/CS2 for $300, an adobe program that I think still exists. After learning ACR and CS2, I then upgraded DPP to latest version and learned how to use, it is impressive. I happen to like ACR and DPP, but many do not.

If I run across a low cost program I wil post it.

Just a thought---if someone is going to shoot RAW--that means they've bought a more advanced camera--maybe DSLR or one of the higher end fixed lens cams. If they are going to the trouble to shoot and convert RAW--then its most likely they are going to print--at least some. So--I would suggest that a $1 or 200 program may just be the cost of working/processing as they paid with film--only less in the long run. I think Elements or PSP would fall into that area (does PSP have conversion?---its a long long LONG time since I used it). C1 LE (which is what I"ve used for a number of years) is only $99 and will fit most people's uses--Bibble Light is $69 and Bibble Pro $129---so they aren't terribly expensive in the scheme of things. I do understand your point---but beyond the mfg.'s converters, I don't see an alternative.

Good choices Diane. Corel was shipping RSE with the latest version(s) of PSP, Adobe buyout may modify that.

Dierk Haasis said:

OK, let's assume I write an article on RAW converters. I want to point amateurs to a good and cheap program - they don't want (often can't) pay several hundred EURO for ACR* or C1. The next best I can come up with is Bibble, Silkypix and BreezeBrowserPro. Until yesterday there was RS|P in this list, and RS|e as the lowest budget solution possible.

...

RS|e was free and available and being updated even after Premium was published. The marketing reasons I do not care for. Since I have been a very early RS|e (later P) user I know quite well what they did.

Click to expand...

Take another look at SilkyPix, download it, install it, and choose not to register or demo it. You get less control but you also get a free converter for the two main platforms. Send anyone with the wherewithal to run Linux/BSD/Solaris/... to DCRaw.

my $0.02,

Sean

This one is pretty good and works with Windows as well as Linux:
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

Gareth

I'll second the Silkypix nomination; it has a free mode, and while it is a little more clunky than RS|E, I find it quite usable.

Picasa and Irfanview

Google's Picasa app and Irfanview both have Raw conversion capability, with the latter I think you need to install a DLL file from DCRAW or DPP. I'd recommend Picasa by the way, it's a lot of fun.

John Carolan said:

Google's Picasa app and Irfanview both have Raw conversion capability, with the latter I think you need to install a DLL file from DCRAW or DPP. I'd recommend Picasa by the way, it's a lot of fun.

Click to expand...

Hi John
unfortunately (for Mac and Unix users) both Google's Picasa app and Irfanview are Windows "only"...

not free but basic price for basic options

You can try dpMagic minilab.
It wil cost you $12 a a year.

Please check this out, it could be interesting as it develops in the future. It even supports linux!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=19187667

Thanks to all for the hints. I have been looking into several of them - since I am on Windows and the target audience for my article will be, too, only Windows apps were considered - and think I've found the one to go with.

Some q'n'd eval:

- Silkypix is out. I once tried it but found it much too complicated; the not too intuitive (let's say "engineer's PoV") UI is greatly hindered by the anything but professional translation inot English. Bad enough we have to sit in front of computers using programs in English - for most people in the world, even in Europe, E is at best a second language. Also, the free version does not offer more than, say, Nikon PictureProject.

- dcRAW surely is free and good but command line. Very well as the basis for other programs, not very good to work with daily.

- dpMagic minilab again is fairly limited

- Picasa and IrfanView (the latter being used by me for years) can show RAW files, and they can save a demosaiced version in another format, but I haven't found a way to optimise the images. They do essentially the same as in-camera algorithms when shooting JPEG.

- UFRAW carries too much politics with it, and is a bit geeky; even the author himself implies you shouldn't use it on Windows, partly out of his stance towards MS, partly due to him not knowing much about the OS.

Roll the drum, here it comes, the winner of the post-RS|e-Prize:

RAW Therapee - very clear and easy to use UI, easily installed, the Website may not look like much but is easy to navigate and understand. Currently the only downside after a few test runs is the re-rendering speed, which is far from RAW Shooter or even ACR. I guess that will change over time.

Since my observations are usability-driven - resulting image-quality was never such a great issue - I'd be happy if anybody can set me straight.


PS: Most likely I will tip my hat to BreezeBrowser, which does cost a bit, but delivers a lot.

Rawtherapee certainly seems to have alot of potential in the future. quite an amzing program considering it is a one man show. Looks like I will end up with lightroom since RSP died

Its weakness is, it is being developed by one guy, and it is free. Such software development is OK, if its for something that is not requiring updates every few weeks, due to a new camera being released, whatever. No such thing as a free lunch.

Probably the hope is that it gets bought by Adobe/Microsoft, whoever.

Not quite sure he needs to update for new cameras as long as they use a Bayer pattern sensor. The problem lies not within the basis of the image (data) but in the metadata, to be precise the Manufacturer Section.

As an example look at the D2xs from Nikon, which presumably comes with yet another NEF format. Thom Hogan has a link to a D2xs hack to let older converters support these NEFs. The only thing that seems to be different is the camera model designation in the Manufacturer Section metadata.

Granted, demosaicing is not everything but as all major RAW converter developers showed, other data are secondary, particularly camera measured white balance. I am referring here, obviously, to Nikon's infamous encryption, which some converters ignored, some hacked, and one got from cooperation with Nikon.

Hi Derek,

I'm not aware of Nikon problems, I get enough with Canon (-insert 'wry smile' smilie here)

In the short term, then whatever works will be OK. It will be more of a concern, say in five years time, when I'm stuck without being able to get at my raw data, because I'm running windoze xs 8000, sp 103, and so on. The software development tools these days, are quite expensive, and as the number of folk actually doing anything reduces, the cost of said tools may in future be completely out of reach of the 'free software' one man developers.

Best wishes,

Ray

Daniel Harrison said:

Rawtherapee certainly seems to have alot of potential ...

Click to expand...

Perhaps as a joke or seriously for those that take only 10 or 15 shots a weeks. I tried it out on one of my smaller RAW repository directories containing a mere 363 CR2 files and it simply froze up. After 10 minutes with no change on a small directory I wrote it off as too immature to matter for anything remotely serious. Perhaps it may be of value in 6 months.

Please note I use a very simple DAM method, all files from a single camera go in a single directory with a sequence number. Metadata is for databases and EXIF/IPTC not for directory structure or filenames. None of the RAW tools I use has major performance issues with opening up directories with ten or more thousands RAW files in them beyond thumbnail generation. Freezing up on a few hundred files is an issue that should not be occurring.

some thoughts,

Sean

Sean, the word "potential" means just that. Just because it doesn't serve your needs right this minute, doesn't mean that it doesn't have the *potential* to do so in the future. I took a look at this program and was very impressed with its demosaicing and color rendition, which gives it much promise. What you are concerned with above is UI issue, which can be resolved over time.

Daniel,

That which has potential is something which shows promise of future usefulness (or to quote a dictionary, existing in possibility). When something fails to work, it does not show potential, it shows bugs. I could care less how fast your software crashes, if it fails to work right, then it has no potential as anything but as a source of problems.

I am sorry, but software which has chosen algorithms that cannot handle a small number of RAW files (less than a days shooting) without freezing up do not show potential for usefulness. I am talking as a software engineer here and this type of thing does not bode well for workflow dynamics and efficiency.

This is not to say the RAW conversion may not be superior, but that may only be viable for copying a dozen or so files to a directory and then converting that tiny number of files.

But in reality, a small 1 GB CF card holds 100+ 8 MP images. And for moderate shooting I use about 1 GB of storage an hour while shooting means that any tool that cannot handle hundreds if not thousands of RAW files at a go is not viable. And a tool that is not viable, lacks potential.

My attitude may appear cynical, but in truth it is pragmatic. If you cannot do the job with the tool, then it has no potential for the job at hand. And changing my workflow to something less efficient is simply not in the cards as there are a finite number of hours in a week.

all the best,

Sean

Sean DeMerchant said:

I am sorry, but software which has chosen algorithms that cannot handle a small number of RAW files (less than a days shooting) without freezing up do not show potential for usefulness.

Click to expand...

So, neither Capture NX nor Lightroom or Aperture have potential?

As a software engineer you know better than me that speed optimisation is the last thing to do. For companies consisting of one person it is vital to bring out the product in a v1 even if it is "not there yet". LightZone is one example, RAW Therapee is another.

RT is slow but that may change [see: 'may' stands for 'it has the potential']; the UI is already better than many other products' (thinking of Silkypix here, ACR and Capture). As long as it is a free luncheon it's alright with me. I won't use it as my main converter - already have RS|P and ACR, will get Lightroom - but it is ideal for hobbyists not wanting for Capture 1, Photoshop cum ACR, or even Bibble or BreezeBrowser Pro.

I'd agree with you if the core feature of a program does not work, imagining a RAW converter that does not convert at all or only produces pictures looking like they are from Jackson Pollock.

Sean DeMerchant said:

Daniel,

That which has potential is something which shows promise of future usefulness (or to quote a dictionary, existing in possibility). When something fails to work, it does not show potential, it shows bugs. I could care less how fast your software crashes, if it fails to work right, then it has no potential as anything but as a source of problems.

Click to expand...

I disagree with your analysis, but ok. After reading your post a couple of times, I believe that the primary difference is how we are defining the "something" that has potential. You are defining the "something", it appears, by a snapshot of the current state of the rawtherapee package. I think we are agreed that the software, frozen in time as of today, is not useful for anything other than experimentation. I am defining "something" as the software+the author, which includes all future versions of the software to be released...in those future versions lie the potential that we are arguing about.

Dierk Haasis said:

So, neither Capture NX nor Lightroom or Aperture have potential?

Click to expand...

I have no idea as I have not tested them. Well, except Capture NX which has no potential for a Canon shooter the day DPP has no potential for a Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Sony, ... Shooter.

But what I was talking about was not slow, but frozen up. The event loop (if it even exists) for the GUI was frozen up in generating thumnails or an infinite loop or a O(n^3) or worse time algorithm and I gave it 10 minutes and it was still frozen up while a reasonably spec'ed system was running smoothly with a pegged out CPU. Even Bridge (which many call way too slow) remains responsive when trying to generate 10,000+ thumbnails.

Whatever the cause, the current version contains code that is non-functional for my workflow.

Dierk Haasis said:

As a software engineer you know better than me that speed optimisation is the last thing to do.

Click to expand...

Not true. It depends on your requirements. For a GUI, near real-time responsiveness is always a requirement. A GUI should never freeze up for more than a few seconds and that is almost always a sign of a poorly chosen algorithm. I could care less if the thumbnails are done, but do not peg my CPU out and show no progress but an hourglass that indicates the program is unresponsive for many plus minutes.

Imagine a team writing software for an EEG who did not put real-time as an absolute performance requirement. The nurse in the ICU monitoring station would find out a patient had died five or ten minutes later due to a software snafu. Not acceptable.

Imagine a modern fighter jet without real time fly by wire responsiveness. As they are almost aerodynamically unstable by design to make them super responsive and maneuverable. A half second delay could kill the pilot by causing the jet to fail by any number of means.

Whan performance is put down as a final afterthough, performance never occurs. At the same time, I could care less how fast your software crashes compared to a slow plodding piece of code that works every time.

In the end, the current software has no potential as it simply failed to work. Perhaps you had different results. It failed for me with my workflow and I am not going to change my workflow for a tool that does not work.

Dierk Haasis said:

For companies consisting of one person it is vital to bring out the product in a v1 even if it is "not there yet". LightZone is one example, RAW Therapee is another.

Click to expand...

I admit writing such a tool solo is a hard task. But the issue at hand for me is the software failed 100%. I did not get a single RAW conversion done as the browser froze up. That has no potential. Perhaps a future version will have potential, but until the underlying algorithms are fixed, I cannot see any reason to integrate a tool that regularly fails and wastes my time.

If I find a workflow change that needs new hardware (faster CPU, more RAM, ...) and that saves human tim that I can afford I often take it. The computer exists to save my time and make me more efficient, not to be fast unto itself.

Dierk Haasis said:

RT is slow but that may change [see: 'may' stands for 'it has the potential']; the UI is already better than many other products' (thinking of Silkypix here, ACR and Capture). As long as it is a free luncheon it's alright with me. I won't use it as my main converter - already have RS|P and ACR, will get Lightroom - but it is ideal for hobbyists not wanting for Capture 1, Photoshop cum ACR, or even Bibble or BreezeBrowser Pro.

I'd agree with you if the core feature of a program does not work, imagining a RAW converter that does not convert at all or only produces pictures looking like they are from Jackson Pollock.

Click to expand...

Again, when the browser freezes up on a mid spec system (1.8 GHz A64, 2 GB RAM, ~1.5 TB of disk) and you cannot get a single RAW conversion, then it has no potential as it stands. Now I may have touched another directory (a big repository) and moved on, but I expect thumbnail generation to follow my lead and stop when I am not in a directory. Regardless, it is those big repositories with too many thousands of RAW files that make finding archived images easy. I hate having huge numbers of subdirectories as they simply waste thought on things that do not matter.

enjoy your day,

Sean