Many of the gurus seem to agree on that Raw Developer is the raw converter that can extract most detail, due to the Lucy-Richardson deconvolution. At the same time, I am very concerned about color accuracy and very fond of my DNG profiles created with the DNG Profile Editor.

Raw Developer can take DNGs as input, and in the Input pane, there is a choice of input profiles, amongst others #1-the camera profile, #2-DNG Style Color Rendering Default, and #3-DNG Style Color Rendering (Use file metadata). I had hoped that when I applied my DNG profile in ACR, saved with that profile as DNG and opened the image in RD with input option 3, the profile would be used. But no. I can see a difference between #1 on the one hand and #2 and #3 on the other, but not between #2 and #3. (In ACR, I can clearly see the difference between my profile and the Adobe Standard).

Now I could try to go the other way: try to learn the necessary basic Unix and create ICC profiles with Argyll, then output TIFs from RD and use these in ACR and PS. Question: Would ACR and Photoshop recognize these profiles, or the color changes made by them?

(I would like to go on post-processing in ACR and PS.)

Thank you for your input. - Hening.

The is a project on Sourceforge that converts DCP profiles to ICC profiles: http://sourceforge.net/projects/dcp2icc/

Haven't tried it, so have no idea how well it works, but be aware that DCP profiles are significantly more sophisticated than ICC profiles; unless your DCP profiles are fairly simple, its unlikely that they will convert too well.

Sandy

Thank you for the hint, Sandy.

I made my own ICC profiles for my cameras using ColorEyes Camera and it provides me with excellent results, but I've not tried using my Adobe DCP profiles within the program (I'll give it a try, though).

When using the ICC profiles, the files processed from Raw Developer are tagged with that profile and can easily be read & viewed in Photoshop. A typical workflow is to convert to an appropriate workspace (e.g., ProPhoto, Adobe 98, etc.) within Photoshop.

Thank you for the tip, Chris. There is, however, a detail I don't like much about ColorEyes Camera: "Starting at $ 499"... Hening

I was just thinking about this issue! I am a huge ACR fan and make mural sized prints and was wondering if another raw converter had the ability to produce more detail. Do you think there is a real world difference when trying to push print sizes? Any other threads you know of about the issue. It is hard for me to think of using another converter but would be interesting to see if it makes a dif.

Yes, there is a very significant difference in fine details rendition that can give life to a large print.

The new demoisaicing/sharpening engine of LR3.0 beta does appear to reduce the gap considerably though.

Cheers,
Bernard