Spent some time last Sunday comparing some RAW converters. The 100% crops shown are from ACR, DXO, Bibble 5 and In-Camera (Would have liked to show bigger crops but the forum doesn't let me do so ). All post processing mistakess and wrong settings are (c) by me
Shot with A700 V4, ISO 1600. Can you tell which is which? Please refer to the pics as
1 2
3 4
Will tell the answer and my impressions next week, but I would be interested in hearing your feedback!
At least the last two are what my A700 look like at 1600 with ACR and in-camera - the top two I find harder to judge, but Bibble has much stronger NR features.
To make it more easy and to stop us from looking only at noise reduction, here is an ISO 200 comparison. Monaco, seen from far (and low contrast, due to haze I guess):
Any more guesses or feedback on RAW conversion is welcome!
DXO - pic 4
I initially wanted to test only DXO and processed a batch of pictures. For normal light pictures, DXO was good. I did some blind-tests comparing it to in-Camera JPG (not knowing which one I looked at) and nearly always chose the DXO picture as better. Even I shot the camera in vivid, sharpening+1, DXO seemd to have more 'punch', stronger colours and contrast. And since I used a supported camerea-lens combo, everything was automatic.
The shock was the low light pictures. While noise is handled better than in camera (with high NR off), it introduces some jagged lines. I found this in several pictures. I think one problem is the DXO lightening when it tries to hard to add fill-light and local contrast to shadow areas. Anyway, I tried to turn to 0 all processing options, but the jagged lines remained. Very annoying. Might be my error with the settings, but I couldn't figure it out. Interstingliy, DXO offers a before-after view-mode, and in the before image straight lines remain straight.
JPG - pic 3
No surprise here, most noise is in this pic, that's in camera (Kevin got 1 point).
ACR - pic 2
This is ACR with photoshop elements. Honestly, it doesn't look that bad (but people keep on complaining about ACR).
Bibble 5 - pic 1
I'd say this is the best, fine grain and good noise control (1 point to David for spotting this). Looks a bit darker and softer, might be I have to change some settings. Also the ISO200 shot from bibble seems a bit darker, maybe more contrasty. I did some more blind tests after I had processed the batch with bibble, and would generally choose them over in camera jpg, and in low ISO sometimes over DXO and sometimes not.
Usage: All programs have their own philosophy and might be awkward to use. You just have to keep learning. Got to grips with DXO after a short while (not as bad as many say) and Bibble still has many secrets for me (which I might not solve since I only had a trial license). All programs can be used pretty fluently, but when you start processing, DXO is very slow.
My verdict is, I'll wait for the final Bibble 5 before buying anything. By then there also might be also new versions of DXO and LR, but image quality wise, for my purposes, B5 looks promising.
Dr. Harout wrote:Hmmm, quite interesting, Thomas. I'll wait for further inquiries.
Thanks Doc, it seems there are no further inquiries. With everybody asking wether to buy LR or DxO or Bibble 5 I thought my comparison would raise some interest. But maybe it was just mot scientific enough. Will talk about Wavelets and Fourier transformation in my next comparison
My problem with DxO, which you can see in your sample, is that it adds a green cast to the A700/A900 colours. DxO have now admitted that this is an issue and will be corrected in a June update. Unfortunately, they do so much in the background with colour and other processing that there's no easy way to deal with this colour cast.
Otherwise, there are some frustrating interface issues with DxO. For example, you can only see detail adjustments such as noise, sharpening, and dust removal if you magnify to 75% or higher. I had a very wide angle Niagara photo I was working on, and birds appear as annoying specks. To remove them, you have to work at high magnification. When you want to spot the next one, you can't go back to a view that fits the whole shot, because none of the dust removal shows, so you don't know which specks you have already done.
What makes it worse is that there are no icons to quickly switch between 100% and fit in view magnifications. So you are constantly having to choose between using a list box to choose the percentage, or using a slider which you can't get exact.
On the other hand, image quality of high ISO shots is fantastic. If you are using their supported lenses, the sharpening, noise reduction, and distortion tools are really good at all ISO ratings.
DxO needs to grow up a lot on the interface side, but if it does, it could become my primary processing tool.
). All post processing mistakess and wrong settings are (c) by me 
and to stop us from looking only at noise reduction, here is an ISO 200 comparison. Monaco, seen from far (and low contrast, due to haze I guess):
