It became pretty clear to all digital camera users that shooting in RAW format is the only sensible way of preserving the finest details your camera can capture. Although reading, converting and interpreting RAW data may seem pretty straightforward to many, experienced photographers know that results from various converters do vary by a huge extent in resolving information burried into RAW files. I have tested all recognized RAW converters, both commercial and non-commercial, with results ranging from astonishing to dissapointing. After hundreds of test runs, I still can't tell which one to choose as the best all-round. Some are better in resolution, others in colour reproduction or noise level. As new converters appear on the scene every month, I'll try to include them into this survey. Largest portion of review texts and pics will be published in Croatian magazine FotoMag, but there are many photos that won't fit there for limited space, so it's my pleasure to publish it here and present to even broader photo community.
Great informative work. Thank you.
I was not aware the differences can be so dramatic. In fact, I thought RAW conversions - certainly on the resolution side should be absolutely the same. This is wierd.
Konrad
12-Apr-2005 16:24
This is fantastic job! I never thought there are such a differences when using RAW converters. You're the MAN! I'll keep my eye on your experiments and check your great comments on dpreview...
thank you very much for all your efforts!