RAW Converter Bonanza

Hot on the heels of the announcement of Photoshop CS2 with its new separate RAW processing features, came the "release candidate" of CaptureOne Pro 3.7, and Olympus Studio 1.3. Studio 1.3 comes with a lot of interesting new features and options, so I thought it would be interesting to try it. I'm not really sure what all the conversion engine options are for. If they have pros & cons for different types of images, why not tell us ? But no, Olympus remains inscrutable on this point. To me it seems more a case of "we can't decide, let the user work it out", or simply traditional old "more options os better", however useless they are. Anywaa, one major improvement over Studio 1.2 is that the histogram works again, so at least it is usable. One MAJOR flaw, but really, really bad news, is that 16-bit TIFFs are still created with no EXIF data. What are they thinking of ? This makes cataloging a real headache, and for that reason alone more or kills Studio stone dead as a professional tool. However, if the quality is there - and many people swear by Studio's quality - it might be worth the pain, at least sometimes. So I decided to run a little test, on an image I took recently of a brown bear at the Goldau wild animal park. Here below is the full image (the Studio version in fact). The photo was taken using the Zuiko 50-200mm zoom, handheld, at ISO 100. I processed the image in C1PRO v3.7 and Studio 1.3 using default settings as far as possible, with no sharpening, no exposure compensation, no noise removal. In both cases I output to AdobeRGB. Studio automatically compresses the data, it seems, if you compare the before and after histograms. C1 doesn't, at least not by default, and this accounts for the slightly brighter default result - it is trivial to compensate either way. In fact in both cases outputting to ProPhoto could have advantages, then compressing in Photoshop. In Studio I used the "Advanced High Function" engine (well, why not ?) and left the saturation setting at CS2, sharpening at -3. To be honest the differences to my eyes are negligible. Studio's internal sharpening seems quite good, but in any case leaving sharpening off and using Photokit Sharpener looks better to me. Studio's workflow remains very poor, and even on a Dual 2.5Ghz G5 Mac, it isn't particularly speedy. Studio gets the job done, and produces great quality, but it isn't worth the upgrade from Viewer. C1 gives results which are just as detailed (I really do not see this "plasticky" look some complain about), has far better workflow, gives much more control over the image, and doesn't throw away EXIF data. Bring on Photoshop CS2... 1:1 crop of Studio 1.3 processed image 1:1 crop of C1 v3.7 processed image