canon v. photoshop raw

wrote in message

i just got a canon 20d and they have a cd with their software to work with raw files; i also have photoshop 8 – any suggestions as to which is better?

tia …

steve

Seing as raw files are not editable files and have to be converted for Photoshop to use them. It’s the quality of the conversion that makes the difference. It’s about even between Canon and Photoshop. The real sleeper of the industry is "SharpRaw Pro". This program is dog slow but boy, does it do a fantastic job of converting raw images.

The canon converter generates a TIFF file in Photoshop. The Photoshop converter has a fair load of options to compensate for lens effects and exposure latitude adjustments. Your milage may vary with whatever you use.

I suspect C1 Pro will make them all look poor cousins when they eventually release the 20D compatible version. The only proble with C1 is the learning curve.

in article at
wrote on 11/30/04 10:32 PM:

i just got a canon 20d and they have a cd with their software to work with raw files; i also have photoshop 8 – any suggestions as to which is better?

—
I would begin converting your files to DNG files.
Camera RAW is a crazy mix specific to each camera from each manufacturer.

MSD

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:52:09 GMT, WharfRat
wrote:

in article at
wrote on 11/30/04 10:32 PM:

i just got a canon 20d and they have a cd with their software to work with raw files; i also have photoshop 8 – any suggestions as to which is better?

—
I would begin converting your files to DNG files.
Camera RAW is a crazy mix specific to each camera from each manufacturer.

I wouldn’t assume that a "standard" owned by Adobe would have a large take-up.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:52:09 GMT, WharfRat
wrote:

—
I would begin converting your files to DNG files.
Camera RAW is a crazy mix specific to each camera from each manufacturer.

I wouldn’t assume that a "standard" owned by Adobe would have a large take-up.

—

If the traffic on the DNG news group is anything to go on, there is 0 interest in yet another privately owned "standard". If they really are serious about it being a public standard for doing anything, they need to pass it into the public domain and see if it survives. I agree there is a need for a universal RAW file format but Adobe’s is not it.

Ryadia

Ryadia wrote:

wrote in message

i just got a canon 20d and they have a cd with their software to work with raw files; i also have photoshop 8 – any suggestions as to which is better?

tia …

steve

Seing as raw files are not editable files and have to be converted for Photoshop to use them. It’s the quality of the conversion that makes the difference. It’s about even between Canon and Photoshop. The real sleeper of the industry is "SharpRaw Pro". This program is dog slow but boy, does it do a fantastic job of converting raw images.
snip<

How do you work with that thing?
No preview and only one undo, no wonder you say it is slow. I can’t wait to try the lens correction thing, looks just perfect to generate the right numbers to be used in PanoTools. Did you use it? Is it accurate at measuring your lens distortions?

Stephan

Then you better not use TIFF or GIF as those are privately owned. In fact ..TIFF is owned by Adobe. There is nothing wrong with Adobe DNG and in fact I think you will find over the next year that the support grows for the format. As for cameras that too will grow, will we see it supported by companies like Canon I doubt it. Canon seems to be tight assed about everything including their RAW format which is why Adobe has to reverse engineer it. They only thing Canon seems capable of doing is putting out products before they are ready and then releasing buggy firmware that doesn’t fix the problem.

John

"Ryadia" wrote in message

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 12:52:09 GMT, WharfRat
wrote:

—
I would begin converting your files to DNG files.
Camera RAW is a crazy mix specific to each camera from each manufacturer.

I wouldn’t assume that a "standard" owned by Adobe would have a large take-up.

—

If the traffic on the DNG news group is anything to go on, there is 0 interest in yet another privately owned "standard". If they really are serious about it being a public standard for doing anything, they need to pass it into the public domain and see if it survives. I agree there is a need for a universal RAW file format but Adobe’s is not it.
Ryadia

"John Doe" wrote in message

Then you better not use TIFF or GIF as those are privately owned. In fact .TIFF is owned by Adobe. There is nothing wrong with Adobe DNG and in fact

I

think you will find over the next year that the support grows for the format. As for cameras that too will grow, will we see it supported by companies like Canon I doubt it. Canon seems to be tight assed about everything including their RAW format which is why Adobe has to reverse engineer it. They only thing Canon seems capable of doing is putting out products before they are ready and then releasing buggy firmware that doesn’t fix the problem.

John

I take it then, that you are a fan of Canon? Yes? No?
I don’t use TIFF or GIF.
I don’t support Adobe’s attempt at re-inventing the wheel either.

I have a 20D but hate Canon to no end. The shipped a product that has flaws and so far have done little to fix it. So if you don’t use TIFF or GIF what do you use? PSD, that is Adobe. BMP, that is Microsoft and I think Apple. Almost all of the formats are owned by someone. They may not charge for use but they are not public domain either.

As for Adobe reinventing the wheel, they didn’t. They invented the wheel since until DNG there was no unified format for RAW images.

John

"Ryadia" wrote in message

"John Doe" wrote in message

Then you better not use TIFF or GIF as those are privately owned. In fact .TIFF is owned by Adobe. There is nothing wrong with Adobe DNG and in fact

I

think you will find over the next year that the support grows for the format. As for cameras that too will grow, will we see it supported by companies like Canon I doubt it. Canon seems to be tight assed about everything including their RAW format which is why Adobe has to reverse engineer it. They only thing Canon seems capable of doing is putting out products before they are ready and then releasing buggy firmware that doesn’t fix the problem.

John

I take it then, that you are a fan of Canon? Yes? No?
I don’t use TIFF or GIF.
I don’t support Adobe’s attempt at re-inventing the wheel either.

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 18:31:35 GMT, "John Doe"
wrote:

I have a 20D but hate Canon to no end. The shipped a product that has flaws and so far have done little to fix it. So if you don’t use TIFF or GIF what do you use? PSD, that is Adobe. BMP, that is Microsoft and I think Apple. Almost all of the formats are owned by someone. They may not charge for use but they are not public domain either.

As for Adobe reinventing the wheel, they didn’t. They invented the wheel since until DNG there was no unified format for RAW images.

Not quite true. There is a RAW standard, but, of course, the way it’s used varies between camera manufacturers. Why? Because they all use different processors/CCDs and consequently the results are all different. Plus some misuse the makers notes and all sorts of other areas as well.

As long as camera makers use different devices and different ways of using the EXIF and IPTC (i.e. forever) there will always be differences and no quasi-open "standard" will fix it.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Ryadia wrote:

wrote in message

i just got a canon 20d and they have a cd with their software to work with raw files; i also have photoshop 8 – any suggestions as to which is better?

tia …

steve

Seing as raw files are not editable files and have to be converted for Photoshop to use them. It’s the quality of the conversion that makes the difference. It’s about even between Canon and Photoshop. The real sleeper of the industry is "SharpRaw Pro". This program is dog slow but boy, does it do a fantastic job of converting raw images.

I spent an entire morning testing their lens distortion tool.

I followed *carefully* their instructions, shot the target with perfect light.
Everything was leveled.
Result: TOTAL CRAP, useless piece of software.

Stephan