Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?
-
#1. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
jrp Charter MemberWed 20-Jan-16 11:24 AM | edited Thu 21-Jan-16 08:55 AM by jrpGood idea, Linwood.
Let me organize it.
Maybe one NEF at a time.Have a great time! 😉
JRP
Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert Gallery, My Portfolio
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade
You want to do more for Nikonians? Please Donate here, we need your help.
You want to further improve your images? Visit the Post for Critique and Advanced Advice forums. -
#4. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
"It's not an adventure until something goes wrong." --Yvon Chouinard
http://www.cosmicfires.com
#5. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
I'd really like to see the results of that as I've never seen any side by side comparisons to demonstrate that one converter is significantly better than another. Maybe I'm one of those who doesn't fully understand where the processing of the RAW converter stops and normal post processing begins, so I have a suggestion for jrp - when you kick this off, can you please post an explanation of the capabilities of RAW converters and what the writers of them do to make one better than another, or perhaps why one would work better than others in particular circumstances. If there was one that was an outstanding leader, wouldn't we all use that (and wouldn't Adobe have bought them out by now)?
My second point is about the ability to compare the results both before and after post-processing to see which produces the best end result. I'm guessing that whilst the output from converter A may be better than from converter B, once both have bee post processed by software X, that the picture from B could now be deemed better?
So, I really like the sound of what you are recommending, but could those of us who are less knowledgeable on the topic have a soup-to-nuts explanation of exactly what's being compared and what measures would be used to rank the results.
Thanks, Geoff
Visit my Nikonians gallery and my personal website: www.geoffbaylisphotography.co.uk
See my portfolio.
-
#6. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 5
jrp Charter MemberThu 21-Jan-16 11:52 AMGood points. However, this little project is more ambitious that it may seem at first.
The skills with a particular converter and subsequent software for finishing post-processing vary from one person to another.
So a final veredict on a raw converter and other software combo will be relative to those skills.
We may leave this for the conclusion of the exercise.
The same applies to your second point because it could be tainted by preset settings.
I am convinced that Nikon had the best RAW converter for us, Nikon users, thanks to their association with Nik Software. After the relationship broke down, this is not longer true, leaving Adobe Lightroom to become now one of the most popular ones and -because of continuous use and practice with it and price- it has a darn good reputation amongst amateurs. Professionals use other tools.
I am hoping some of them will jump in and show them to us.
I will post a case image for starters in the morning, one without much or any problems, to warm up in the exercise. Just need time to search for it.Have a great time! 😉
JRP
Founder & Administrator. Mainly at the north-eastern Mexican desert Gallery, My Portfolio
Please join the Silver, Gold and Platinum members who help this happen; upgrade
You want to do more for Nikonians? Please Donate here, we need your help.
You want to further improve your images? Visit the Post for Critique and Advanced Advice forums.
#7. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
For a variety of reasons, I have a pretty good set of the current raw converters on my computers and know how to use most of them pretty decently. My personal experience is that with the exception of local adjustments, most will produce good results. If I like one a bit more than another, it's usually not hard to make the other look the same with some fairly minor moves to sliders. There was a time years back when that really wasn't the case, but the power in most of them has increased dramatically, and comments about which one is better than other usually disclose more about the person making the comment and their skills than the product itself. I can tell that many comments originate from people doing little more than using default settings, which can often be easily changed for personal preferences. I can't imagine working this way, but some people seem to approach this subject that way. Certain companies have changed their defaults to appeal to people who do this cursory analysis, so they have defaults with jacked up contrast, saturation and clarity to appeal to that crowd. The initial results may look better for some images, but poorer for others, especially if there is going to be subsequent processing in something like Photoshop.
My bottom line: I'm not sure that constructing a level playing field for this is achievable or even desirable unless we dumb it down to something that isn't terribly meaningful. I'm really not trying to be a wet blanket, but I think a more useful thing to do is to try to help people get the most out of the tool(s) people are already using. That was the primary intent of this new forum, and I still think it's a noble idea. We just need to get some increased activity going.
Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography
-
#8. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 7
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 21-Jan-16 02:29 PM
>My bottom line: I'm not sure that constructing a level playing
>field for this is achievable or even desirable unless we dumb
>it down to something that isn't terribly meaningful. I'm
>really not trying to be a wet blanket, but I think a
>more useful thing to do is to try to help people get the most
>out of the tool(s) people are already using. That was the
>primary intent of this new forum, and I still think it's a
>noble idea. We just need to get some increased activity
>going.
Last part first... one reason I posted this is that the forum was, at best, off to a slow start in its primary goal. I personally think this is that there's no clear delineation (for example) in someone who uses Adobe in why and when to come here, vs. the Adobe forum. Or possibly their camera specific forum. So I was looking for something that would at least have more directed appeal at raw processing to start building up a bit more critical mass of both traffic and perhaps focus of discussion on the raw processing aspect.
As to bounding and a level playing field - not simple. I agree.
I do have a couple thoughts to offer.
One is that to level the playing field then there should at least be a direction or target. Consider HDR as an example; many such tools offer a target of the initial conversion, from artistic to photo-realistic to surreal or similar. I think any comparison by different people similarly needs a target, and my suggestion is photo realism. It's certainly possible during post processing to try for artistic or surreal looks (or B&W for that matter). Comparing one person's artistic impression with another is not about the converter so much as the artistic vision.
As to removing variations in skill, allow volunteers with given tools. Let the masses see the same image processed for the same goal by different people who think they are good and choose the best (not necessarily overtly)?
I do not suggest this become some kind of definitive, end-all selection of a product. Indeed, my choice and your choice afterwards of "best may be different because of different needs for different strengths (e.g. noise handling may be more important for me, and color quality for you). I did this to spur discussion into the details and strengths and weaknesses of the products.
Include local adjustments? Include HDR? Maybe not. Or maybe you limit such major feature variations in one iteration, and not in another (i.e. everyone produce the best they can with global variations that any ACR is likely to do, but also then improve it with local adjustments).
Honestly I think there are two goals -- add some science to comparison of converters, and spur discussion and focus on them for this forum. Maybe the "some science" vs. "perfect science" will actually contribute to the second goal as contributors suggest ways to improve the quality of the comparisons.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com -
#13. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 7
cosmicfires Registered since 22nd Nov 2011Thu 21-Jan-16 06:28 PMI agree there are a lot of variables."It's not an adventure until something goes wrong." --Yvon Chouinard
http://www.cosmicfires.com
#9. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
"Something is needed to liven this forum up."
Hopefully no one believes that this contest will result in any kind of definitive, objective ranking of raw converters. Too many variables, personal preferences, artistic visions, etc. However, it should produce arguments, disagreements, and, general, hopefully not too intense, discussion.
Like Linwood said, "Something is needed to liven this forum up."
Pat
#10. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/
Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery
-
#11. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 10
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 21-Jan-16 04:13 PM>I think this is a reasonably fair comparison of the three
>converters:
>http://www.lifeafterphotoshop.com/dxo-vs-lightroom-vs-capture-one-pro-best/
I had seen that one, and while interesting I think it also had too much focus on what they do out of the box, i.e. with defaults.
While that's a significant factor for some people, I think for most it is not - if you adopt one of these you are going to adapt it to your likes, you will have presets or at least go-to adjustments you use.
Yeah -- out of the box Adobe is flat. More web space has been wasted making that statement than any other single feature of Adobe. We get it. Let's move on.
That's why I think the more interesting comparison is how good of a job someone who has adopted each one, and is really good at it, can do. If I wanted out of the box images I'd shoot JPG.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com -
#12. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 10
walkerr Registered since 05th May 2002Thu 21-Jan-16 05:00 PM | edited Thu 21-Jan-16 06:12 PM by walkerrUnfortunately, that's an excellent example of how these kinds of discussions can go wrong.Rick Walker
My photos:
GeoVista Photography-
#14. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 12
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Thu 21-Jan-16 08:42 PMI guess this is all a matter of semantics.
In my understanding, the term raw conversion pertains to the demosaicing of raw files. Different photo editors use different algorithms which may result in quality difference of the demosaiced files. To my knowledge, all photo editors automatically apply some sharpening and perhaps some noise reduction. Therefore, I cannot see a simple way to compare raw converters. For DXO, the closest you can get to the unaltered file is by using the "no correction" preset.
Therefore, the proposed venture is aimed at comparing photo editing programs rather than raw converters. In addition to raw conversion, creating and changing presets and moving the various sliders by persons "skilled in the art" will be demonstrated.Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#15. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 14
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 21-Jan-16 08:51 PM
>Therefore, the proposed venture is aimed at comparing photo
>editing programs rather than raw converters. In addition to
>raw conversion, creating and changing presets and moving the
>various sliders by persons "skilled in the art" will
>be demonstrated.
Exactly. Though my suggestion is to limit it to the global aspects of editing such as noise, exposure, tone, etc. "Anything you can edit" is much too broad, and would include painted on edits, cloning, etc.
I don't think "NEF Processing Skills" as defined in the forum was ever meant to include the demosaic process only.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#17. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 15
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Thu 21-Jan-16 10:52 PMGetting back to my argument re. differences in the demosaicing algorithm, I post conversions of the same raw file by LR (upper) and DxO (lower). In LR, I removed all sharpening and all sliders were in their null positions. For DxO, I used the "no corrections" preset. The histograms are virtually identical, but there are some subtle differences apparent - at least on my monitor, 30" NEC, calibrated). There is a difference in the shading of the water, the fine structure of the clouds, the reflection on the black barrel to the left etc.
The picture was taken with D800, Zeiss 35/2, 1/320s, f/8, iso 100, cpl.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#18. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 17
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Thu 21-Jan-16 11:04 PMThe histograms are
>virtually identical, but there are some subtle differences
>apparent - at least on my monitor, 30" NEC, calibrated).
>There is a difference in the shading of the water, the fine
>structure of the clouds, the reflection on the black barrel to
>the left etc.
This also shows one of the difficulties. Subtle differences are going to be hard to see in reduced resolution images. I get that pixel peeping is often frowned upon, but "fine structure of the clouds" for example is hard to see at these sizes.
I'm also not sure zeroed is a reasonable starting point, as it is not really zero, it still has a camera calibration profile in LR (not sure about the other) that is playing a huge role in how colors look, for example. Change the profile, change the colors.
That's why I suggest that it is the whole toolbox surrounding the converter - profiles, distortion (especially CA correction), and what a skilled operator can do with it that is, at least to me, of most interest.
Linwood
Ps. Stop using such a sharp lens, someone could get hurt.
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#20. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 18
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Fri 22-Jan-16 12:00 AM>This also shows one of the difficulties. Subtle differences
>are going to be hard to see in reduced resolution images. I
>get that pixel peeping is often frowned upon, but "fine
>structure of the clouds" for example is hard to see at
>these sizes.
You are correct, the differences are subtle, even at high resolution. The goal of this exercise was to establish some kind of baseline by just looking at the demosaicing.
>I'm also not sure zeroed is a reasonable starting point, as it
>is not really zero, it still has a camera calibration profile
>in LR (not sure about the other) that is playing a huge role
>in how colors look, for example. Change the profile, change
>the colors.
In both conversion the camera default calibration was used.
>That's why I suggest that it is the whole toolbox surrounding
>the converter - profiles, distortion (especially CA
>correction), and what a skilled operator can do with it that
>is, at least to me, of most interest.
Again, this was just done to set a baseline, and it might be useful to agree on a set of adjustment parameters.
Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#23. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 20
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Fri 22-Jan-16 12:31 AM>In both conversion the camera default calibration was used.
But in both products are they the same?
I found that blues and greens in particular were more saturated when I did my own Color Passport profile, and deeper blues is one obvious difference.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
-
-
-
-
-
#19. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 17
Don_ Registered since 20th Jan 2015Thu 21-Jan-16 11:19 PM | edited Fri 22-Jan-16 12:46 AM by Don_One my monitor (retina iMac calibrated with ColorMunki Photo) I see a difference in the colour of the sand and the water looks a little lighter closer to the shore...hard to see any other significant difference, possibly a little deeper black under the dock and a slightly more vibrant black barrel with the DX0 version
When I use DXO no adjustment except the camera and lens profiles applied against the Lightroom default with the camera calibration set to neutral (as shot) and lens profiles applied I can often see a significant difference so i am going to be very interested to follow this thread.
I processed this shot through Lightroom default settings except camera neutral calibration with lens profile applied and processed with DXO with no adjustments except camera and lens profile applied I see a significant difference. lightroom on top, DXO on bottom. This is an extreme example...not all are close to this dramatic a difference. **Correction** I was troubled by such an extreme difference so I went back to DXO and make sure I had not applied some change unintended...what happened was setting the camera profile I applied D810 instead of D800. Not quite as dramatic a change now but still noticeable.
Attachment#1 (jpg file)
Attachment#2 (jpg file)
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
#21. "TRE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 19
GiantTristan Registered since 08th Jan 2006Fri 22-Jan-16 12:20 AMThis is indeed quite dramatic. You don't say what lens you were using, but the LR and DxO profiles are quite different. Also, when you apply a camera/lens module, the image is automatically sharpened. DxO does not use the USM approach, but selectively sharpens different regions of the lens.Tristan
Visit my Nikonians gallery-
#22. "TRE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 21
Don_ Registered since 20th Jan 2015Fri 22-Jan-16 12:25 AMI used a D800 with Nikkor 85 f/1.4Visit my Nikonians gallery.
-
-
-
-
#16. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
So far your stated purpose of livening this forum is a success.
I came late to the RAW/PP show just as Nikon & NIK split so I never made friends with NX. I have tried several RAW converters and the best one is the one that I am 'currently' most familiar with. Which ever one I use, I make some general adjustments then export to PS. For the last while my go-to has been Capture One.
I would very much like to see a comparison of converters perhaps using 3-4 NEF images - light (a little over exposed), dark (under), balanced with deep shadows & bright areas, and maybe a NEF of a colour chart. I can envision a thread for each example showing default output and adjustments by individuals.
Just sayn'. Cal
#24. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
I read and re-read your OP so that I could concentrate on the initial idea you had and not be influenced by subsequent comments.
So here are a few of my own observations.
To me the use of a raw converter is two-fold. One is to obviously demosaic the raw data into a viewable image. The second is to correct for white balance (I only include this setting since it is the only one that all raw converters can adjust regardless the camera settings at the time of capture), to make tonal adjustments, luminance and contrast corrections, and to mitigate noise, lens distortion, CA, and corrections to hues that are not accurate because of the properties of the sensor and the processing engine of the converter. Given all this, my primary goal when I process a raw file to bring all these things to as close to the interpretation I want as possible. Then there is also the ability to make your own camera profiles to automatically make a lot of these corrections for you. I sometimes use this approach to arrive at a basis for further adjustments.
So, what I see here is that yes, it takes a certain amount of skill to take a rather flat rendering of image data and turn it into something that is close to what we remember seeing when we snapped the shutter, or is in the direction of our artistic intent. And to me here is the rub. When I take someone else's raw file and try to correct it in ACR, for instance, I'm coming at this exercise somewhat handicapped, not knowing what the actual scene looked like, or felt like. I think this is critical, and to me, is an important part of the photographic experience. It's kind of like trying to compose music inspired by the continent of Africa without ever having been there. Sure you can see pictures of that incredible landmass but that is hardly going to inspire you, or help capture the essence of the place. So, I see editing a raw file that I didn't take with the goal to show my best skills at using a particular raw converter is kind of missing the point.
Here is how I approach my workflow most times, and hopefully will illustrate my point better. When I take a raw file my goal in the conversion process is to eliminate as much as possible characteristics of the file that I think will be more problematic to correct once the file is sent to Photoshop. I'm not necessarily trying to achieve an artistic viewpoint at this stage, I'm trying to address all the technical issues, and correct them benefiting from the increased latitude editing the raw data offers. So in the end it seems to me that it is not so much how much prowess with one converter one has as to how well can we correct what we perceive will be difficult to correct later or that will impact negatively our final vision.
Ernesto Santos
esartprints.com Ernesto Santos Photography
Get my new e-Book "Churches of Texas"
See my portfolio.
-
#25. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 24
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Fri 22-Jan-16 08:33 PM
>I read and re-read your OP so that I could concentrate on the
>initial idea you had and not be influenced by subsequent
>comments.
Thank you for the thoughtful observations.
> So, I see editing a raw file that I didn't take with the goal to show
> my best skills at using a particular raw converter is kind of missing
> the point.
I particularly agree that seeing the original scene is a big part of doing post processing, consciously or unconsciously we shape our work based on that.
In this case, perhaps the least biased thing is to choose photos none of the experts took. So they are at least all equally handicapped.
As I think the reverse -- each to bring a different photo they took that they processed with their preferred converter, tells us even less about the converter as then it is also more about the subjects and the photographer.
But again, this is to dig out information and spur discussion, not to produce the final gospel of an answer.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com -
#26. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 24
noneco Nikonian since 12th May 2009Fri 22-Jan-16 09:02 PMErnesto,
Very well put.
". . . I'm trying to address all the technical issues, and correct them benefiting from the increased latitude editing the raw data offers."
I see the idea here as finding out which RAW converter delivers a viewable image that works for each of us. And, more importantly, how individual converters skew their output so we can better choose which one to use.
Cal
#28. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff? - Edited" | In response to Reply # 0
Some people may elect to add textures to the image, others may want to demonstrate an HDR effect, and the rest of us could share our approach for producing a "realistic" image. The entrants would explain what they did so the rest of us can learn from their experience. This type of challenge may also help us to broaden our artistic vision.
A similar (but more limited) cookoff can be seen here:
https://tinylanscapes.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/here-are-the-volunteers-processed-images/
Anyway, that's my two cents on the subject.
Dan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
My Flickr Photostream.
Visit my Infrared Photo Blog.
-
#29. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff? - Edited" | In response to Reply # 28
<<Some people may elect to add textures to the image, others may want to demonstrate an HDR effect, and the rest of us could share our approach for producing a "realistic" image.>>
I'll stick to "realistic" please, otherwise we may see armageddan type skies, pseudo Monet's with a hint of Picasso
Richard-
#30. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff? - Edited" | In response to Reply # 29
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Sun 24-Jan-16 02:15 PM>I'll stick to "realistic" please, otherwise we may
>see armageddan type skies, pseudo Monet's with a hint of
>Picasso
And there's a forum for that already (Artistic).
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com-
#31. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff? - Edited" | In response to Reply # 30
domer2760 Registered since 23rd Oct 2010Sun 24-Jan-16 02:28 PMGood point.Dan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
Visit my Nikonians gallery.
My Flickr Photostream.
Visit my Infrared Photo Blog.
-
-
#32. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 0
Something I ran into recently was processing event images taken in a high contrast situation. I found that my normal presets and editing techniques were not effective because they added contrast during conversion. Because I was trying to recover shadows on faces, more contrast was the last thing I needed. A very neutral conversion provided a better starting point for subsequent editing. This was a technique that is different from the starting point on 90% of my images - but it worked well. I could add contrast later in the workflow and end up with a better result.
It's easy to miss this part of raw conversion and get into editing. ACR has a lot of capability, but some of it is more typical of editing in other products. There are also different tools used in a workflow, and what might be RAW conversion for one program is normally done during editing in other programs.
Perhaps a discussion of RAW conversion strategies is more useful than the actual conversion. What are the differences in conversion strategy used for a specific image or type of image?
Eric Bowles
Director - Nikonians Academy
Nikonians Team Moderator
My Gallery
Workshops and Private Instruction
Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera
-
#33. "RE: Let's have a contest of sorts? Raw Converter Bakeoff?" | In response to Reply # 32
Ferguson Nikonian since 19th Aug 2004Tue 02-Feb-16 11:47 PM>Perhaps a discussion of RAW conversion strategies is more
>useful than the actual conversion. What are the differences
>in conversion strategy used for a specific image or type of
>image?
Indeed, and perhaps each worth a whole separate discussion. For example, the relationship of shadows and black point and how those two relate to contrast is both subtle and powerful. And then throw in Clarity which is sort of similar but different.
Or saturation and vibrance.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com
G
I read thread here and elsewhere often comparing converters. Almost invariably they are written by someone who tries several, but usually starting with one they are familiar with.
Abilities play a lot into it, plus I think some are just idiotic what they compare. Kind of like comparing the picture-controlled Capture render with a flat, Adobe-standard ACR, and not realizing that's not apples-to-apples, really.
Or worse, you see results of ACR with one set of images, and Capture One with another set, etc. That's more comparing photographers than converters.
So here is what I think is a real test, and I wonder if there are people here, team members or others, who might be ideal.
To me the ideal comparison is to take a few photos (something manageable, but probably not just 1 - maybe 3 or so of different sorts). Have people who really like each product then do their best job of converting. It's not about apples-to-apples in terms of same settings or same technique or same post-processor, to me -- it is what a skilled user of the product can produce.
Then post the resulting JPG full res so people can see and compare the results. Along with a NEF if they want to try it at home.
Would there be any interest? A real bake-off of post processing tools for raw? On the same image(s)?
Not suggesting it be some much aimed at declaring a winner as giving prospective users of each comparative results from the same original NEF.
Linwood
Comments welcomed on pictures: Http://www.captivephotons.com