Raw Photo Processor (RPP): First Impressions

[ NOTE added 7 February 2014: Somehow, some of the images used in this old post went missing. Don&#...

[NOTE added 7 February 2014: Somehow, some of the images used in this old post went missing. Don't know how. I've replaced some of the missing pictures below, but not all. I have edited the text of the post itself only where explicitly noted.]

Andrey Tverdokhleb's Raw Photo Processor (RPP) is a Mac OS X application that in some ways seems rather retro in its concept. It's a raw processor or converter, and that's all that it is. It's not a raw workflow program like Aperture or Lightroom. You can't crop a photo in RPP. It doesn't do a darned thing with jpegs. And you can't do any digital asset management with it. How does this one-trick pony survive? By doing its one trick really, really well.

I've been trying RPP out lately and I'm impressed. Here are a few observations.

How you use it

When I process a photo in Adobe Photoshop Lightroom, I don't really have to deal with conversion at all. I can open and view raw files in Lightroom as soon as I've imported them into Lightroom's catalog. Lightroom's raw conversion software, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), works more or less invisibly in the background, rendering images for display on my screen and, I presume, assisting when images are exported to another format (usually jpeg). And when I make an adjustment (say, increasing the contrast setting) Lightroom immediately updates what I see on screen. I remember when I first heard other people talking about ACR, I didn't know what it was. I was using it without being aware of it.

Using RPP adds an explicit extra step to my workflow: conversion. That's why I called RPP's concept retro. Back in the days before Lightroom and Aperture and other "raw workflow" applications came into being, you put your raw files on the computer and then you had to convert them to tiffs or jpegs before being able to work on them in Photoshop. Now, with RPP in my workflow, it's like old days once again. I have to leave Lightroom and open the raw file in RPP,  convert it (usually to a tiff file), then reopen the converted file in Lightroom again to finish editing it (cropping, adjusting exposure, color, detail and sharpness, etc.). Not only does this process take a little extra time, it also creates a fairly large extra file that would not be created if I never left Lightroom.

Actually, RPP's user interface does allow me to make a number of basic adjustments prior to conversion. I can tweak exposure, color, sharpness, and even ask RPP to convert the image to mimic the look of certain types of film. But the basic point of RPP is conversion of the raw file. That's why the RPP UI is so limited. It's limited because it isn't trying to do much.
The RPP user interface in its entirety. (2-7-14 replacement for lost image.)


Here's a photo converted by RPP using the P160NP preset, which mimics the look of Kodak's Professional PORTRA 160NC (Natural Color) film.

Converted by RPP using P160NP film preset.
If, like me, you are fond of Lightroom for its intuitive user interface and dislike using Photoshop because you don't think in terms of numbers, well, then, like me, you'll find RPP's user interface a bit off-putting, especially at first. It's frankly a bit scary and unless you're a serious photo editing geek, you probably won't immediately see the purpose of the various options.

The good news is, you don't really have to do much with the user interface at all. Load the photo, click the Apply button (to apply the default conversion settings), then save the new file (as a tiff) back into the same folder where the original is stored. Synchronize that folder in your Lightroom library so the new file appears there, and finish your editing in Lightroom. Seems like a hassle, I know, and indeed, it isn't necessary. After all, you could take what Lightroom (well, Adobe Camera Raw) dishes out and be grateful for it. But in my experience with RPP so far, the small extra effort usually pays off.

I should probably add here that, although I'm using RPP with Lightroom, you can use Lightroom with any additional software you like. Considering that DxO Optics Pro is also trying to be the best raw converter available, using RPP with DxO Optics Pro probably wouldn't make any sense. But it would make perfect sense to use RPP with, say, Photoshop. It works well with Aperture, too. If you were really broke, you could use RPP with Picasa, although then you'd have to deal with Picasa's dislike for tiffs, perhaps by saving your processed RPP output as jpegs instead.

RPP's different approach to raw conversion: darker results

Addendum 2/9/14: The following section has been edited to delete two missing images and a couple lines of text that had accompanied them. 

I don't really understand the technical details terribly well and to use RPP, I don't think you need to. I do notice a couple of things about RPP that distinguish it from the converter (ACR) that Lightroom relies upon.

The most obvious difference is that RPP's conversions seem generally darker.

What's happening..., I think, is that RPP is maximizing dynamic range and moving as much data as it can into the middle of the picture. In any case, RPP's conversions do often start out a little (sometimes more than a little) darker than the automatic conversions I see in Lightroom....

Addendum 9/24/11: My guess about why RPP's conversions seem darker was wrong. I give a better explanation in a follow-up post, here.


RPP's different approach to conversion: detail preservation

The other thing that's clearly different is that RPP is recovering more detail, sometimes a lot more detail, from the raw files than Adobe Camera Raw is. This is a photo I took in Rocky Mountain National Park in summer 2010, with a Panasonic LX3. Here's what I made of the photo using Lightroom alone:

Moraine Park, Rocky Mountain National Park. Processed in Lightroom 3.x.

And here's the same photo, first converted by RPP, and then given a wee bit more post-processing back in Lightroom:

Processed in RPP.

The remarkable thing here is, until I ran this photo through RPP, I thought that I'd simply lost the detail in the trees in the foreground. I wasn't even too unhappy about it. It's really a photo of the clouds from a receding thunderstorm, so the trees aren't really all that important. But it was exciting nonetheless to discover that the detail in the trees actually is there in the raw file; Lightroom just hadn't found it.

By the way, if you think that the clouds in the first photo are more dramatic, that's fine. I don't disagree with you. I could however match that look in the RPP photo, mainly by increasing the saturation; indeed, I have boosted the saturation and contrast in the sky in the second photo to a degree using a graduated filter in Lightroom. What I can't do in Lightroom with ACR, is bring back detail that ACR doesn't see.

NOTE: The last two examples and the examples that follow are not screenshots, they are processed shots. You'll have to trust me that in every case I tried to make the best picture I could from the file I was working with. The point I'm making is, I got better end results starting with RPP than I did starting with an image silently converted by ACR.


When you see yourself in your daughter's eyes...

Here's another example, using a portrait of my daughter. Here's the Lightroom/ACR version:

Converted by ACR (Lightroom 3)

Now I rather like this shot. Lightroom and ACR do a pretty good job with the skin and the colors. As before, the RPP conversion started out a bit darker and a bit flatter, but this time, I did a little secondary editing in Lightroom on the tiff file created by RPP, boosting the exposure and the vibrance a little:

Converted by RPP

If you compare the enlarged versions of these two photos, you may find it hard to decide between them. I did, at first. Part of the problem here is that this is a portrait and in portraits like this, we often prefer to have soft skin, rather than show absolutely every pore. The RPP version here is not quite as soft. But I can soften skin in Lightroom, after conversion, if I need to. What I can't do is put detail back if it's lost in conversion—like this detail in the eyes. Here's a close of Catherine's right eye (left side of the photo) as converted by RPP:


Converted by RPP. If you look closely you may be able to make out my right arm coming up to hold the camera, as well as my shoulders and my head. Blown up further, there's even more detail.

Look closely. You can see the photographer (me) reflected in the subject's pupil. Here is what Lightroom comes up with:

Converted by LR5
The pupil is simply too dark to preserve the detail of my reflection.

ADDENDUM FEBRUARY 2014: The 2012 process in Lightroom 5 does a better job with the eye than the example I show here, which was done with an earlier process in an earlier version of Lightroom. But I just tested and RPP's result is still better.

Do these differences matter in the real world, when you're not looking at everything at 100%? Depends on the photo and what you want to do with it. May also depend on how picky you are.

If you're just posting to the web, then maybe not. But I should mention that RPP has a couple of different conversion modes and one of them is designed specifically for converting photos for use on the web. It's quicker and makes smaller files. So far I've mostly been working with the larger conversion options. Anyway, the details do matter if you're printing, especially if you're printing large.

And for some, perhaps many, photos, Adobe Camera Raw seems to do a very nice job and RPP may not offer much in the way of improvement. I will however mention that I have not yet seen RPP produce a result that is worse than ACR.

Real world processing

Here's a portrait of Mrs Juanita Edwards at 95 years of age, sitting in the kitchen of the house she's lived in since the mid-1950s. First, the jpeg created by my Panasonic Lumix FZ35 (used in raw + jpeg mode).

JPEG produced by the camera.

It's really not bad. Most consumers would be quite happy with this result. Here's Lightroom's conversion of the raw (dng) file:

Converted by Lightroom 3.6.

ADDENDUM 2/9/2014: At this point I have deleted two images. They were enlarged sections of the images immediately above (the Lightroom 3.6 conversion) and below (the RPP conversion made around the same time). The blow-ups are no longer quite fair to Lightroom. The conversion process used in Lightroom 5 today (early 2014) dates from 2012, a year or two after these images were first used in this post. Lightroom today does a better job with this image than it used to. Referring to the RPP enlargement, I said: "Seems noisier, but there's more detail. That's a common trade-off. In the print, the noise will disappear on its own, and the improved detail will make a cleaner impression." After the brief examination of the enlargements, the post continued as follows.

Here's the larger version from RPP:

Converted by RPP.

Notice also that RPP has the colors right. The room is not in fact as white as it appears in the Lightroom conversion.

It's not magic

Adobe's a huge company and Lightroom is a widely used, highly respected program. By contrast, RPP comes from a single (very talented) guy I had never heard of before. Is it even thinkable that RPP could do a better job than the raw converter from Adobe? Am I perhaps imagining that RPP is better, just because I want it to be, or because it's new and unfamiliar to me?

I doubt it. I've been using Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw for about five years, since the beta of version 1, and I've only been using Raw Photo Processor for a day or two, and yet I was able to coax quality out of several different types of raw file that I've never gotten from ACR. The difference appears to be real.

And it's not magic. The developer of RPP explains in the accompanying documentation that he doesn't use some of the math shortcuts that are common in the more widely used raw converters. But those shortcuts are not there because the programmers at Adobe are lazy. Adobe's approach is a reasonable compromise that achieves a remarkably high quality result, while at the same time allowing for changes to appear on screen instantly. In other words, ACR is fast. RPP, not so much. Some changes do not appear on screen automatically; you have to click the Apply button to see them. And RPP's conversion isn't instantaneous. It's not slow, either, especially if you have a modern multicore Intel Mac. But the difference is sufficient that I'm not sure that I'm going to start processing all of my images in RPP.

Still, in a couple of the photos I've run through RPP, the improvement was pretty impressive.

Try it, and if you like it, buy it

The absolute minimum compliment that must be paid to RPP is to say that it's an extraordinary piece of software coming from an individual. In my tests here (preliminary to be sure, but already fairly extensive) RPP more than holds its own against Adobe Camera Raw and the raw converter in DxO Optics Pro — two of the most highly respected pieces of software in the world of digital photography. (ACR is also used by Adobe Photoshop.)

If you're happy with what you're using now, well, you probably haven't read this far. If you have stayed with me to this point, and assuming you're on a Mac (because RPP is Mac only), I urge you to give RPP a try. If you do, be prepared to spend more than 10 minutes with it; it does take a wee bit of figuring out. The accompanying documentation however is very useful. Read it.

And if you decide, as I have, that you can find a place in your workflow for RPP, then by all means, contribute to the author. It's certainly the fair thing to do, to pay for the software you use. And talent like this deserves support. If you make a donation, you'll get a few extra features and also you'll get a plug-in for Aperture and Lightroom that allows you to send your image files (via export) over to RPP from inside Aperture and Lightroom.

You Might Also Like

10 comments

  1. It really looks as though RPP - whilst having greater detail - also has a lot more grain. Have you turned down Lightroom's automatic Noise Reduction settings to zero to provide an accurate comparison - which would have a corresponding increase in detail and grain ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Damen: I don't see RPP adding "a lot" more noise. I confess I'm not sure what you are thinking of when you refer to Lightroom's "automatic Noise Reduction settings". I don't do any processing via presets on import. Once the image is imported, Lightroom 3's sliders automatically go to 0 for luminance and 25 for color noise. I don't routinely mess with these settings, although I have tried moving the color slider to 0 and haven't seen much of a difference. I don't have a custom camera profile for my cameras; not sure if that would make a difference.

    To be honest, I'm not terribly concerned about noise. I am always more worried about detail. I should add further that I'm testing nearly all of my results nowadays not by looking at the computer monitor at 100% or 200%, but by printing. I occasionally study my prints with a magnifying glass, but what I really care about is how the print looks from a normal viewing distance, in good light. And what I've found is that images converted (and given basic processing) in RPP are giving me better prints than images converted in Lightroom. Not always. Perhaps not even most of the time. But often enough for me to have added RPP permanently to my tool kit. I'd say that RPP does a better job of conversionabout one-third of the time. The other two-thirds of the time, RPP is never worse, but not noticeably better. What I'm doing at the moment is using RPP only when I'm not immediately as happy as I'd like to be with the initial results from Lightroom.

    Thanks for the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No problems - on my monitor at least (maybe because it is so large, but listen to me brag), the difference in noise levels is quite striking - I am not exaggerating when I say it seems like a huge difference on my screen (easiest to view in the Mrs Edwards shot, but also entirely visible on your daughter's face). Of course, this is based on an on-screen view rather than a print, so your point that this may not exist (or be as pronounced) in a normal workflow (and not subject to jpeg compression) seems reasonable.

    I also just checked some photos in Lightroom and found that I was wrong - I had thought the user-controllable default noise reduction was quite high, but I was mistaken. Yes, moving the sliders down to zero would be what I was wondering about. Of course, I suspect the default initial noise reduction in Lightroom (which is innate and beyond user control) is actually a fair bit higher ... at least RPP gives the user full control here.

    Thanks for having taken the time to respond to my queries.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think it's always a problem to talk about noise (or sharpening, clarity, or color, or other fine points of digital photo processing) when the discussion is limited to the Web. When we view things on screen — and especially when we blow things up to 100% — they always look different than they do in print. And it's a painful fact of life that what my clients see on their (typically uncalibrated) displays can be quite different from what I see on my display.

    I'm not evangelizing for RPP. Have corresponded with the developer, who has been very responsive and helpful, but otherwise I have no connection with him. I paid for my license. And I feel free to observe that the UI for RPP is pretty klunky.

    Still, it has helped me get better results from a number of shots, so I continue to use it. I have the feeling I might get good results from DxO Optics Pro, perhaps as good as RPP; but I find DxOOP even more difficult to use than RPP, so I don't crank it up very often.

    Occasionally Aperture gives me better results. I'm not sure what's going on here. Could it be that every raw processor is better for certain kinds of photos than for others? Maybe.

    Thanks again for the comment!

    ReplyDelete
  5. I guess I'm today where you were when writing this post and I can only but agree with your findings. I find that both Aperture and Lightroom (the latest versions) add something I call the "Hollywood varnish" to my converted raw files.

    I asked a friend of mine, a professional photographer who's a Lightroom advocate and gets inside info from Adobe before the rest of us, -What happens after the raw file has passed thru some algorithms until the point it shows up on my monitor? He couldn't answer it but clearIy the control over that chain of corrections is not something that we can do influence much anyway.

    That's what I find refreshing and liberating with RPP. I feel that Andrey Tverdokhleb (the programmer) treats me like an intelligent human being and not somebody who was molded by the marketing dept of Apple or Adobe.

    But it is as he say, - You most likely need an image editor for the final touches.
    The GUI of RPP? Could be worse but also better. He seems to be open about input from the users and he certainly was quick when I paid him $20 and immediately sent me the unlock code :)

    So maybe RPP is the tool beyond Aperture, Lightroom et al? I sure like it even if it is a bit cumbersome to use it together with Aperture. It is easier with LR but the interface and workflow in Aperture is a breath of fresh air compared to LR.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi William, I LOVE using RPP. Is it possible for you to add back into this post the pics that are missing? I would love to see a few of the close up shots that you wrote about. I am also trying to figure out a workflow from RPP to LR as well.

    I was finding that the import/render time to LR JUST to see if my images were sharp/blurry or not was too time-consuming and I just found a photo viewer: XnView MP (http://www.xnview.com/en/xnviewmp/) that is a great viewer for zipping through the RAW images quickly. So far, this is what I have come up with:

    Import images from sd card to RAW folder
    View images for evaluation and elimination via XnView MP
    Delete the crummy ones :-)
    Open RPP and start basic image adjustments
    Batch process entire folder (I found out how to have TIFF files export to their own folder)
    Import TIFF folder into LR
    Do final edits with film presets (I am using film emulsion presets from Red Leaf Botique in Canada... love them)
    Apply NR and Sharpening
    Export as JPGs to final print ready folder

    My question is this, do you find it better to apply NR and Sharpening to images right after importing the TIFFs to LR and then apply presets, or would you apply film presets and then finish with NR and Sharpening before export?

    I look forward to your reply.

    (By the way, your daughter is beautiful :-)

    Amy

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for this detailed comparison, William. You seem to be running into the same issue with RPP as I am with my Sony NEX 5T files though. Skin tones are much better in the Adobe Lightroom/ACR renditions than in RPP. I've fiddled all I can with white balance and vibrance and just can't get the nice warm tones which Adobe gives my Sony files (similar to what Canon has always done with their jpeg processing). I'm thinking particularly of the portrait of your daughter.

    Alec Kinnear

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alec, note that this article was posted originally in 2011 and last updated over a year ago in early 2014. It's now May 2015. For what it's worth, I haven't used RPP much in about a year. Nowadays I'm shooting mainly Olympus OM-D E-M1 and my raw conversion workflow has changed somewhat. I typically start in Lightroom 5. If that produces an acceptable result, I stop there. If it doesn't, I look at Perfect Photo Suite 9.5 or DxO Optics Pro 10. What hasn't changed is that I still believe that (1) no one converter can be best for every image and so (2) it's good to have more than one tool in your toolbox.

      Delete
  8. Thanks for this detailed comparison, William. You seem to be running into the same issue with RPP as I am with my Sony NEX 5T files though. Skin tones are much better in the Adobe Lightroom/ACR renditions than in RPP. I've fiddled all I can with white balance and vibrance and just can't get the nice warm tones which Adobe gives my Sony files (similar to what Canon has always done with their jpeg processing). I'm thinking particularly of the portrait of your daughter.

    Alec Kinnear

    ReplyDelete
  9. > Skin tones are much better in the Adobe Lightroom/ACR renditions than in RPP

    That is a bit of strange statement coming from a photographer. Skintones depend on the quality of profile and whitebalance - speaking of the Lightroom are better or DxO is better is really really wrong.

    RPP also unlike other raw converters include a lot of film legacy - properly working film curve (properly working with contrast and brightness not the gimmicks like ACR/Lightroom), and what is unique - a real film profiles. Not simulations - profiles of real slide and negative films developed under standard conditions. These in raw development frequently give you a lot better starting point than any of the existing raw converters - as author of this article say, RPP does one job but it does it really well.

    ReplyDelete

Search This Blog

© William Porter Photography. Powered by Blogger.