CS2 or Elements 3 ?

I need one of the programs in the subject line to open raw files.

If all you want to do with the new program is open and convert raw files then I’d suggest downloading RawShooters Essentials (RSE) from Pixmantec and Capture One LE from Phase One. Try both and see which you like best. The 1.1.3 version of RSE is currently free and Capture One LE 3.7 is $99 with a 15 day unrestricted trial (plus you can download Pro for another 30 day free trial).

In my opinion both of these do a better job of RAW conversion than Photoshop or Elements, and I’m one of those guys who loves Adobe and Photoshop.

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message

If all you want to do with the new program is open and convert raw files then I’d suggest downloading RawShooters Essentials (RSE) from Pixmantec and Capture One LE from Phase One. Try both and see which you like best. The 1.1.3 version of RSE is currently free and Capture One LE 3.7 is $99 with a 15 day unrestricted trial (plus you can download Pro for another 30 day free trial).

In my opinion both of these do a better job of RAW conversion than Photoshop or Elements, and I’m one of those guys who loves Adobe and Photoshop.

Bill

That’s interesting. Are you talking from a workflow viewpoint or do you think that RSE creates a better image technically?

I have noticed some strange effects with ACR with overexposed images containing blown highlights – sometimes the recovered highlight pixels have a weird green tinge, whereas RSE doesn’t have this problem. However, when zooming in at pixel level, I can just about convince myself that ACR produces marginally clearer detail (and I mean marginal!), although I doubt that it would be noticable on a final print. I haven’t tried Capture One. (I use a Canon EOS 300D by the way.)
—
John
Replace ‘nospam’ with ‘todnet’ when replying.

"JEC" wrote in message

Hello, I need one of the programs in the subject line to open raw files. I can’t decide which to get. I already own photoshop 7. Should I save a few bucks and go with elements3 (to open raw then convert to use in 7)? or should i just go ahead and upgrade 7 to cs2? Any downsides to either program? TIA

CS2 allows use of adjustment layers and just about all the filters with 16 bit images – for me, that’s a decider in itself. CS2 also has an HDR facility. Elements restricts you to Adobe RGB(1998) and sRGB working colour spaces – only a problem if you want to use wider gamut spaces. The Elements
3.0 version of ACR is a ‘sawn off’ version (even though it uses the same
plug in as CS2 – I was surprised) – you don’t get some of the finer controls for profiling the camera, etc.

Hope this helps.
—
John
Replace ‘nospam’ with ‘todnet’ when replying.

In my opinion both of these (RSE, C1) do a better job of RAW conversion than Photoshop or Elements

John wrote …

Are you talking from a workflow viewpoint or do you
think that RSE creates a better image technically?

Both. Though I ran my evaluations on CS and not CS2, which I hear has improved the workflow.

For evaluating image quality I looked at how easy it was to get the best colors (Capture One offered a dozen custom tone curves for my 1Ds, for example) and how well a converter keeps the smooth areas smooth and demosaiced and how much detail it picks up in the finely detailed areas (to some extent you can increase smoothness at the expense of detail, and vice versa … I want both) … I would emphasize again "In my opinion" because other users may look for different things and reach different conclusions.

As an example, this is one type of shot I often try to take … http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bowl_detail.jpg … and for eval I’d blow this up to 400% and see which converter gives the best detail in the feathers while keeping the out-of-focus background smooth. Capture One was the winner in that test.

I haven’t tried Capture One.

The same programmer wrote this that wrote RSE (he left and started his own company). RSE has some very nice workflow enhancements and at first glance the images look more detailed but that’s because he set the defaults very aggressively, so you need to play with the settings in both to get a fair test. But if you like RSE there’s no reason to try Capture One.

Again, this is just my opinion … best way to evaluate them is to download the free trials (or free programs) and convert the same files on each of them at both default settings and after dinking with settings to optimize them, then compare the tiffs carefully and decide what works best for you.

Bill

In article ,
says…

In my opinion both of these (RSE, C1) do a better job of RAW conversion than Photoshop or Elements

– snip –

Again, this is just my opinion … best way to evaluate them is to download the free trials (or free programs) and convert the same files on each of them at both default settings and after dinking with settings to optimize them, then compare the tiffs carefully and decide what works best for you.

Bill

I second Bill’s opinion. I use RSE -the freebie version, ‘tho I will probably upgrade- for 20d raw images and like it better than PS CS2’s raw converter.

Jason

—
reverse my name in email address

"Jason Warren" wrote in message

In article ,
says…

In my opinion both of these (RSE, C1) do a better job of RAW conversion than Photoshop or Elements

– snip –

Again, this is just my opinion … best way to evaluate them is to download the free trials (or free programs) and convert the same files on each of them at both default settings and after dinking with settings to optimize them, then compare the tiffs carefully and decide what works best for you.

Bill

I second Bill’s opinion. I use RSE -the freebie version, ‘tho I will probably upgrade- for 20d raw images and like it better than PS CS2’s raw converter.

Jason

—
reverse my name in email address

Thanks for both your inputs. I’ll do a few more comparisons – time to do some serious prints as well as just looking at the pixels!

As a matter of interest, have either of you experienced the weird coloured highlights with ACR that I described? I have heard it refered to by others but I don’t get the impression that it is a widespread problem. However, it was the first thing I noticed when I first got CS2. I think it was suggested elsewhere that it was to do with the colour channels being clipped unequally. However, RSE doesn’t show the problem. But what I did notice was that if I convert any of these problem images to DNG format (using the stand-alone converter) and then open the DNG file in RSE, I see the same weird colours. Perhaps this is not surprising if the DNG converter uses ACR to do the conversion. I could post some examples if anyone is interested.

—
John
Replace ‘nospam’ with ‘todnet’ when replying.

"John" wrote in message news:dbrs7u$gci$1
….

As a matter of interest, have either of you experienced the weird coloured highlights with ACR that I described? I have heard it refered to by others but I don’t get the impression that it is a widespread problem. However, it
was the first thing I noticed when I first got CS2. I think it was suggested
elsewhere that it was to do with the colour channels being clipped unequally. However, RSE doesn’t show the problem. But what I did notice was
that if I convert any of these problem images to DNG format (using the stand-alone converter) and then open the DNG file in RSE, I see the same weird colours. Perhaps this is not surprising if the DNG converter uses ACR
to do the conversion. I could post some examples if anyone is interested.

ACR does have some problems with aliased colors in overexposed images. I would definitely be interested in seeing some examples.

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

John wrote:

CS2 allows use of adjustment layers and just about all the filters with 16 bit images – for me, that’s a decider in itself. CS2 also has an HDR facility. Elements restricts you to Adobe RGB(1998) and sRGB working colour spaces – only a problem if you want to use wider gamut spaces. The Elements
3.0 version of ACR is a ‘sawn off’ version (even though it uses the same
plug in as CS2 – I was surprised) – you don’t get some of the finer controls for profiling the camera, etc.

Hope this helps.

John, Thank you for the info on the 2 adobe programs, I think I will go with cs2 if I go that route.

and thanks to all for the discussions on the different converters, I will download and try RSE first to see if that will work for me, if not I’ll try the adobe trial to compare how it works.

Thanks again

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

ACR does have some problems with aliased colors in overexposed images. I would definitely be interested in seeing some examples.

—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

OK, here goes.

This shot was an ‘against the light’ shot with clipped highlights. It is the most extreme example I have because the colours in the scene are almost monochromatic. I have converted the images with both ACR and RSE. I include one version without any exposure compensation (i.e. as-shot) and one with. All other settings are ‘as-shot’ settings, i.e. no contrast, brightness, white balance adjustments or sharpening .

Here is the worst example:
‘As shot’ using ACR:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822as_shot.jp g

Now with ACR and some exposure compensation to rescue the blown highlights: http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822exp_comp.j pg

Here is a full res crop of a section of the image (with exposure compensation):
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822exp_comp_c rop.jpg

Here is the same image converted using RSE, first as-shot, then with exposure compensation:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0822as_shot.jp g http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0822exp_comp.j pg

Now here is a second, similar image, not quite as blown out as the first, but still with clipped highlights. Note particularly the colour of the yacht’s sail (which was white):
ACR without and with exposure compensation:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0824as_shot.jp g http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0824exp_comp.j pg

Here is a full res crop of the yacht (with exposure compensation):

http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0824exp_comp_c rop.jpg

Now the RSE versions:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0824as_shot.jp g http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0824exp_comp.j pg http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0824exp_comp_c rop.jpg

I also tried converting using Canon’s own DPP software – no weird colours but no recovered pixels either!!
I have other examples where the effect is more subtle – the green colouring occurs only next to specular highlights – nowhere near as obvious at first sight but there nevertheless. BTW, I also have a version of the above shot which was not clipped. This shows no sign of the strange colours. To save time, I haven’t bothered to upload these but if you want to see them, let me know. However, the above examples, I think, show the effect quite clearly.

Please note that unfortunately, the above links will disappear soon. I am about to ‘upgrade’ my home internet connection to broadband, and in doing so I will lose my home web pages. This is an oversight on my part (I foolishly assumed that the minimum broadband service would correspond to the minimum dial-up service, but not so). However, I cannot justify spending a further

"John" wrote in message
[re Camera Raw / Raw Shooter conversions]

This shot was an ‘against the light’ shot with clipped highlights. It is the
most extreme example I have because the colours in the scene are almost monochromatic. I have converted the images with both ACR and RSE. I include
one version without any exposure compensation (i.e. as-shot) and one with. All other settings are ‘as-shot’ settings, i.e. no contrast, brightness, white balance adjustments or sharpening .

With color temp as set in camera.

Here is the worst example:
‘As shot’ using ACR:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822as_shot.jp g
Now with ACR and some exposure compensation to rescue the blown highlights:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822exp_comp.j pg

Here is a full res crop of a section of the image (with exposure compensation):
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822exp_comp_c rop.jpg

I see what you mean. One thing you don’t mention, that I find even more glaring than the general color shift, is the fact that the sky is green in the center and magenta on the left and right. This is probably impossible to correct in curves without a mask, which I find unacceptable.

Aside from this, for your two examples, ACR starts with a generally colder interpretation of the image, with greens somewhat dominant. On top of this, ACR adds more saturation to the image than RSE does when adjusting the exposure down. Both of these can be controlled using the calibration setting of ACR, but I understand your point that if RSE does not add the green cast, neither should ACR.

RSE starts with a warmer version of the image with slightly less saturation, and when reducing exposure it adds much less – roughly half – the amount of saturation.

Here is the same image converted using RSE, first as-shot, then with exposure compensation:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0822as_shot.jp g http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0822exp_comp.j pg
Now here is a second, similar image, not quite as blown out as the first, but still with clipped highlights. Note particularly the colour of the yacht’s sail (which was white):
ACR without and with exposure compensation:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0824as_shot.jp g http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0824exp_comp.j pg
Here is a full res crop of the yacht (with exposure compensation):
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0824exp_comp_c rop.jpg
Now the RSE versions:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0824as_shot.jp g http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0824exp_comp.j pg http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/RSE_CRW_0824exp_comp_c rop.jpg

Similar comments here, but minus the magenta/green gradient in the sky. The sail in the ACR version tends more toward a yellow with some green. PSE converts the sail to more of an orange color, and less saturated than the ACR’s rather colder interpretation. Reducing the exposure, once again, increases the saturation and makes this discrepancy more obvious.

I also tried converting using Canon’s own DPP software – no weird colours but no recovered pixels either!!
I have other examples where the effect is more subtle – the green colouring
occurs only next to specular highlights – nowhere near as obvious at first sight but there nevertheless. BTW, I also have a version of the above shot which was not clipped. This shows no sign of the strange colours. To save time, I haven’t bothered to upload these but if you want to see them, let me
know. However, the above examples, I think, show the effect quite clearly.

My general feeling is that, under strange lighting conditions, there will tend to be strange colors. Is it unacceptable to you to use curves, or some other tool, to set a point to neutral? This has the advantage that it works, and also gives you chances to improve the image using whatever amount of artistic license you think is proper. BTW- I tried this with the RSW and ACR images, and the RSW image was much easier to correct because the magenta/green gradient is absent from the sky. This constitutes a serious defect in ACR, IMHO.

Please note that unfortunately, the above links will disappear soon. I am about to ‘upgrade’ my home internet connection to broadband, and in doing so
I will lose my home web pages. This is an oversight on my part (I foolishly
assumed that the minimum broadband service would correspond to the minimum dial-up service, but not so). However, I cannot justify spending a further

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"John" wrote in message
[re Camera Raw / Raw Shooter conversions]

This shot was an ‘against the light’ shot with clipped highlights. It is the
most extreme example I have because the colours in the scene are almost monochromatic. I have converted the images with both ACR and RSE. I include
one version without any exposure compensation (i.e. as-shot) and one

with.

All other settings are ‘as-shot’ settings, i.e. no contrast, brightness, white balance adjustments or sharpening .

With color temp as set in camera.

Yes, I just leave it set to ‘auto’ in the camera because I expect to set it more accurately when I do the conversion.

Here is the worst example:
‘As shot’ using ACR:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822as_shot.jp g
Now with ACR and some exposure compensation to rescue the blown highlights:
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822exp_comp.j pg

Here is a full res crop of a section of the image (with exposure compensation):
http://www.todnet.demon.co.uk/samples/ACR_CRW_0822exp_comp_c rop.jpg

I see what you mean. One thing you don’t mention, that I find even more glaring than the general color shift, is the fact that the sky is green in the center and magenta on the left and right. This is probably impossible to correct in curves without a mask, which I find unacceptable.

Yes, you’re right. It was certainly beyond my skills to correct it!. I did manage a significant improvement, but it does seem unnecessarily hard work if there are other raw converters with keep the colour balance more neutral.

Aside from this, for your two examples, ACR starts with a generally colder interpretation of the image, with greens somewhat dominant. On top of

this,

ACR adds more saturation to the image than RSE does when adjusting the exposure down. Both of these can be controlled using the calibration setting of ACR, but I understand your point that if RSE does not add the green cast, neither should ACR.

My initial worry here was why is there a difference. After all, there are many people singing the praises of ACR, so I was quite surprised when I first opened Adobe Bridge – these particular files were amongst the first I saw and the colours are even scarier at thumbnail size 🙂 I wondered if there was a trade off – maybe ACR extracts more ‘lost’ information than RSE: it is usually the case that the more sensitive instrument is the most susceptible to noise. However, if there is any detriment to RSE, it is very subtle. The only slight difference I can see, is that if you zoom the full res crops to 300%, the ACR version looks ever so slightly smoother, as though the RSE version has been very slightly sharpened. Yet I had sharpening disabled in both convesions for all my samples.

My general feeling is that, under strange lighting conditions, there will tend to be strange colors. Is it unacceptable to you to use curves, or

some

other tool, to set a point to neutral? This has the advantage that it works, and also gives you chances to improve the image using whatever

amount

of artistic license you think is proper. BTW- I tried this with the RSW

and

ACR images, and the RSW image was much easier to correct because the magenta/green gradient is absent from the sky. This constitutes a serious defect in ACR, IMHO.

The lighting was certainly strange, although not necessarily unusual here in Scotland! I have no problem with making adjustments/corrections using curves etc. where necessary, although that said, the less I have to do, the happier I am. I’d prefer the raw converter to sort out the fundamentals and leave the curves for the more artistic stuff as you suggest above. However, it’s not an ideal world but on the face of it, RSE seems to be closer to the ideal at the moment, at least with these more awkward images. I really need to notch up some more experience with RSE from a workflow/usability aspect – it seems to be highly rated in this forum.

That’s progress! But there are other ways to get your web page. Check

out

free web hosting. If you don’t mind ads they do the job. Or you may find

a

way to keep your server on a home machine, using one of the free dynamic

dns

services. But I recommend spending 8 dollars a year for your own domain name, and use of a service such as zoneedit.com to keep your name pointing the dynamic ip address to your home machine.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Thanks for the tips – I’ll look into those options. I must admit, I was taken by surprise. I think there are beter ISPs but I thought it would be better to stay with Demon to avoid the hassle of changing email addresses. I guess we all make mistakes!

Thanks very much for your comments and advice – much appreciated.

—
John
Replace ‘nospam’ with ‘todnet’ when replying.