Camera RAW & the Canon 20D

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

It would seem that Canon would have at least half a part to play in availability of such support n’est pas?

Arty Arty Articus

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

They don’t. Canon offers an SDK that allows others to access their RAW conversion software, but that isn’t what Adobe does. Adobe reverse engineers the various RAW formats so that they can do the conversion properly which is why Adobe Camera RAW does a better job of conversion than Canon’s software does.

I suspect we will see an update a few months after the camera hits the streets. I am sure they want to reverse engineer images from a final production camera and not a beta. God and Canon only knows what changes have been made from beta camera to production camera.

I am also sure like with some other cameras there will be a hack out that will get it working until Adobe gets the update done. I know that has happened with other cameras. The trick will be finding the hack information.

John

"Who is also waiting for a 20D to arrive."

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

It would seem that Canon would have at least half a part to play in availability of such support n’est pas?

Arty Arty Articus

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

Another wonderful pragmatic response

Don’t let this poster near any other NGs – keep him here

Thanks JD

Articus

"John Doe" wrote in message

They don’t. Canon offers an SDK that allows others to access their RAW conversion software, but that isn’t what Adobe does. Adobe reverse engineers
the various RAW formats so that they can do the conversion properly which is
why Adobe Camera RAW does a better job of conversion than Canon’s software does.

I suspect we will see an update a few months after the camera hits the streets. I am sure they want to reverse engineer images from a final production camera and not a beta. God and Canon only knows what changes have
been made from beta camera to production camera.

I am also sure like with some other cameras there will be a hack out that will get it working until Adobe gets the update done. I know that has happened with other cameras. The trick will be finding the hack information.

John

"Who is also waiting for a 20D to arrive."

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

It would seem that Canon would have at least half a part to play in availability of such support n’est pas?

Arty Arty Articus

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you are fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Ryadia

"John Doe" wrote in message

They don’t. Canon offers an SDK that allows others to access their RAW conversion software, but that isn’t what Adobe does. Adobe reverse

engineers

the various RAW formats so that they can do the conversion properly which

is

why Adobe Camera RAW does a better job of conversion than Canon’s software does.

I suspect we will see an update a few months after the camera hits the streets. I am sure they want to reverse engineer images from a final production camera and not a beta. God and Canon only knows what changes

have

been made from beta camera to production camera.

I am also sure like with some other cameras there will be a hack out that will get it working until Adobe gets the update done. I know that has happened with other cameras. The trick will be finding the hack

information.

John

"Who is also waiting for a 20D to arrive."

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

It would seem that Canon would have at least half a part to play in availability of such support n’est pas?

Arty Arty Articus

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

I think the key may not be EULA but Partnership?

Articus

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you are
fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Ryadia

"John Doe" wrote in message

They don’t. Canon offers an SDK that allows others to access their RAW conversion software, but that isn’t what Adobe does. Adobe reverse

engineers

the various RAW formats so that they can do the conversion properly which

is

why Adobe Camera RAW does a better job of conversion than Canon’s software
does.

I suspect we will see an update a few months after the camera hits the streets. I am sure they want to reverse engineer images from a final production camera and not a beta. God and Canon only knows what changes

have

been made from beta camera to production camera.

I am also sure like with some other cameras there will be a hack out that will get it working until Adobe gets the update done. I know that has happened with other cameras. The trick will be finding the hack

information.

John

"Who is also waiting for a 20D to arrive."

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

It would seem that Canon would have at least half a part to play in availability of such support n’est pas?

Arty Arty Articus

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe
takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

Articus Drools wrote:

I think the key may not be EULA but Partnership?

Articus

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you are
fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Ryadia

Well then that is not reverse engineering, is it?

Ryadia

Ryadia wrote:

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you are fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Canon didn’t ‘invent’ anything. A RAW file contains the crude sensor data. The only thing that makes a Canon RAW file different from another RAW file is the order in which the data are written and the way the extra information is stored in the file.

What happens when you open a RAW file is what counts. How are the data converted to a 24 or 48 bit color image? The process needed for this is called color interpolation, and there is no reason to assume that Canon algoritms are better than the Adobe algoritms, just because Canon made the camera. They may be better, they may be not.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

(Annika1980) wrote in message news:…

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?
How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Until Adobe releases an update I wonder if one could perform the same type of hack that was used for the 10D in the initial camera raw plugin? That is, make a copy of the plugin, change the 10D string in the copy to 20D using a hex editor, then put the altered plugin file in the same folder with the 2.2 camera raw.

Bob Shomler

With a little more thought, I’d guess the D60-10D hack approach would be a little too simplistic to work with different pixel dimensions of the 20D.

Bob Shomler

Bob Shomler wrote:

(Annika1980) wrote…

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?
How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Until Adobe releases an update I wonder if one could perform the same type of hack that was used for the 10D in the initial camera raw plugin? That is, make a copy of the plugin, change the 10D string in the copy to 20D using a hex editor, then put the altered plugin file in the same folder with the 2.2 camera raw.

Unlikely. The 20D sensor is 8 Mpixels and the 10D is 6 Mpixels, so the files are REALLY different.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Are yes…
Another bloody minded armchair expert comes to the stage. Is this not what I intimated in my post?

Ryadia

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Ryadia wrote:

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you

are

fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Canon didn’t ‘invent’ anything. A RAW file contains the crude sensor data. The only thing that makes a Canon RAW file different from another RAW file is the order in which the data are written and the way the extra information is stored in the file.

What happens when you open a RAW file is what counts. How are the data converted to a 24 or 48 bit color image? The process needed for this is called color interpolation, and there is no reason to assume that Canon algoritms are better than the Adobe algoritms, just because Canon made the camera. They may be better, they may be not.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

It’s not just Adobe that does a better job. PhaseOne does an even better job than Adobe. After comparing all three, it’s amazing that Canon’s cameras are as good as they are if they use their own software in their development process. Their software is the worst of any raw file processing software I’ve ever used.

Have you tried the RAW conversion software that comes with Canon’s camera vs. Adobe Camera RAW. It is like night and day and it isn’t in favor of Canon. Take a look at some of the camera BBS’s and you will a lot of people that don’t like Canon’s software. Besides being slow the end image quality isn’t anywhere near as good.

I know it is a surprise and it really shouldn’t be the case, but it is.

John

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you

are

fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Ryadia

Question? Do you any of your think that Canon wants to alienate Adobe Photoshop users by going after Adobe and the loosing Canon camera support in Photoshop? That would be a death scream for Canon and one I don’t think they will risk.

John

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

I think the key may not be EULA but Partnership?

Articus

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you are
fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Ryadia

"John Doe" wrote in message

They don’t. Canon offers an SDK that allows others to access their RAW conversion software, but that isn’t what Adobe does. Adobe reverse

engineers

the various RAW formats so that they can do the conversion properly

which

is

why Adobe Camera RAW does a better job of conversion than Canon’s software
does.

I suspect we will see an update a few months after the camera hits the streets. I am sure they want to reverse engineer images from a final production camera and not a beta. God and Canon only knows what changes

have

been made from beta camera to production camera.

I am also sure like with some other cameras there will be a hack out

that

will get it working until Adobe gets the update done. I know that has happened with other cameras. The trick will be finding the hack

information.

John

"Who is also waiting for a 20D to arrive."

"Articus Drools" wrote in message

It would seem that Canon would have at least half a part to play in availability of such support n’est pas?

Arty Arty Articus

"Bart van der Wolf" wrote in message

"Annika1980" wrote in message

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?

To me that seems unlikely, from the onset, due to the modified parameter sets and a new sensor. Later support (the 1D mark II was supported shortly after market availability) seems inevitable if Adobe
takes its customers serious.

How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Anyone’s guess is as good as mine, or yours.

Bart

Other Canon user’s would seem to disagree. Most don’t much care for PhaseOne either. The one that gets most of the applause is Adobe Camera Raw. I have only used it with a few Digital Rebel RAW images, but will be doing a lot more once my 20D arrives and Adobe gets ACR updated. Since I do most of my work in Photoshop I see little point in using anything else.

John

"PFigen" wrote in message

And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

It’s not just Adobe that does a better job. PhaseOne does an even better

job

than Adobe. After comparing all three, it’s amazing that Canon’s cameras

are as

good as they are if they use their own software in their development

process.

Their software is the worst of any raw file processing software I’ve ever

used.

Speculation seems to be running that since Adobe Camera Raw supports the CR2 format for another of Canon’s high end cameras that it may work immediately for the 20D. Since they haven’t hit the streets yet only time will tell.

I have also herd rumors that Adobe is working on the 20D support, but will not release it until they can get a final product camera to ensure it works correctly since changes can and probably will be made from the beta camera and the final production model.

John

"Bob Shomler" wrote in message

(Annika1980) wrote in message

news:…

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?
How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Until Adobe releases an update I wonder if one could perform the same type of hack that was used for the 10D in the initial camera raw plugin? That is, make a copy of the plugin, change the 10D string in the copy to 20D using a hex editor, then put the altered plugin file in the same folder with the 2.2 camera raw.

Bob Shomler

Ryadia wrote:

Are yes…
Another bloody minded armchair expert comes to the stage. Is this not what I intimated in my post?

You can bitch at me for not telling you what you wanted to hear, but the fact remains that the conversion of RAW to TIFF (or JPEG) is not a Canon invention. It takes place in every digital camera on the planet. There is absolutely no reason to assume that Canon does this better than Adobe. In fact, because Adobe is a software company and Canon first and foremost a hardware company, it’s more likely that Adobe is better at this than Canon. It’s their field of expertise.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

There’s an interesting thing here about Canon’s RAW files and how you edit them. Before I bought PS, CS I had only version 7 without the RAW plugin and Adobe had (very conveniently) dropped the plugin from their site. The work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image and copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting the image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without noticible loss.

If I had to "upgrade" PS just to get 20D RAW files open, I’d go the Irfanview route instead. I probably would not have upgraded to CS, armed with the knowledge I now have. In fact Adobe have angered me so much by inhibiting my right to change hardware as I see fit by forcing me to re-activate PS just for changing motherboards or hard drives, this latest version of PS may well be my last Adobe product. It would be really good if they actually got their phone activation lines to connect to someone – anyone so I don’t have to connect my workstation to the Internet just to appease them.

Ryadia
—————–

"John Doe" wrote in message

Speculation seems to be running that since Adobe Camera Raw supports the

CR2

format for another of Canon’s high end cameras that it may work

immediately

for the 20D. Since they haven’t hit the streets yet only time will tell.
I have also herd rumors that Adobe is working on the 20D support, but will not release it until they can get a final product camera to ensure it

works

correctly since changes can and probably will be made from the beta camera and the final production model.

John

"Bob Shomler" wrote in message

(Annika1980) wrote in message

news:…

Will Camera RAW support the new Canon 20D’s RAW (.CR2) files?
How long before we’ll see an upgrade?

Until Adobe releases an update I wonder if one could perform the same type of hack that was used for the 10D in the initial camera raw plugin? That is, make a copy of the plugin, change the 10D string in the copy to 20D using a hex editor, then put the altered plugin file in the same folder with the 2.2 camera raw.

Bob Shomler

Ryadia wrote:

There’s an interesting thing here about Canon’s RAW files and how you edit them. Before I bought PS, CS I had only version 7 without the RAW plugin and Adobe had (very conveniently) dropped the plugin from their site. The work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image and copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting the image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without noticible loss.

Certainly an interesting approach. But does Irfanview offer any color en density correction settings upon opening the RAW files? If it doesn’t and opens the files ‘just like that’, you loose the number one reason to use RAW in the first place: the possibility to make corrections upon opening the file. In that case you might as well consider shooting in TIFF rather than RAW, so you can open the files in any program without the need of a conversion anyway. Unless Irfanview does a linear conversion and outputs in 16 bits, but I doubt that very much…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

From: "Ryadia"

The
work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image and copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting the image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without noticible loss.

Also without any of the benefits of shooting in RAW mode. Why not simply shoot in JPG-Fine mode if you aren’t going to control the conversion?

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message
SNIP

Certainly an interesting approach. But does Irfanview offer any color en density correction settings upon opening the RAW files?

No, it uses either the Canon DLLs, or a DCRAW derived converter DLL, taking some default settings.

Bart

"Ryadia" wrote in message

Unbelievable…
Canon’s EULA says it all. Reverse engineer any of their products and you

are

fried turkey!
And prey tell… What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?

Why shouldn’t/couldn’t it be better? Capture 1 does a much better job all round than Canon’s offerings, which are limited, to say the least.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

There’s an interesting thing here about Canon’s RAW files and how you edit them. Before I bought PS, CS I had only version 7 without the RAW plugin

and

Adobe had (very conveniently) dropped the plugin from their site. The work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image

and

copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting the image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without

noticible

loss.

Your standards and requirements must be very low then. At best Irfanview offers a mere representation of what the picture *might* look like when correctly developed – a quick preview. The result of doing what you suggest bears no comparison to a proper RAW conversion using something like Capture One.

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon has limited the already tight contrast range even further. Shooting RAW and using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and increases the detail available in the images.

Ryadia

"Annika1980" wrote in message

From: "Ryadia"

The
work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image

and

copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting the image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without

noticible

loss.

Also without any of the benefits of shooting in RAW mode. Why not simply

shoot

in JPG-Fine mode if you aren’t going to control the conversion?

If you (or anyone else) can pick which one of my images has been opened with Irfanview and which one with capture 1, Canon’s own browser or a home grown RAW converter, you can rightly judge my work. Until then, all your comments do is criticize something and someone you have never seen. Just because you don’t like the software someone else uses, does not enable you to judge the quality of their work.

How it is that you can pass comment on the standard of a stranger’s work without ever seeing it, raises the spectre that you are talking through your arse. Willing to make outrageous statements in an attempt to get a reaction. If you have something to say about the subject which is subjective, say it. Don’t criticize someone for having a standard of work you know nothing about. It just makes you look like an idiot, idiot!

Ryadia
——————-

"G. Innipig" wrote in message

"Ryadia" wrote in message

There’s an interesting thing here about Canon’s RAW files and how you

edit

them. Before I bought PS, CS I had only version 7 without the RAW plugin

and

Adobe had (very conveniently) dropped the plugin from their site. The work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image

and

copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting

the

image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without

noticible

loss.

Your standards and requirements must be very low then. At best Irfanview offers a mere representation of what the picture *might* look like when correctly developed – a quick preview. The result of doing what you

suggest

bears no comparison to a proper RAW conversion using something like

Capture

One.

Ryadia wrote:

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon has limited the already tight contrast range even further. Shooting RAW and using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and increases the detail available in the images.

So on the one hand you say that Canon does a very poor job when converting the sensor data to JPEG *in* their own cameras, but on the other hand you say: "What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?". Seems to me you just answered your own question…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Ryadia wrote:

"G. Innipig" wrote in message

Your standards and requirements must be very low then. At best Irfanview offers a mere representation of what the picture *might* look like when correctly developed – a quick preview. The result of doing what you suggest bears no comparison to a proper RAW conversion using something like Capture One.

If you (or anyone else) can pick which one of my images has been opened with Irfanview and which one with capture 1, Canon’s own browser or a home grown RAW converter, you can rightly judge my work.

Apart from the fact that you haven’t given an URL where he could find those images, it doesn’t prove anything. Even if you use CaptureOne software, you can still get a very poor result if you don’t know how to properly use it. So, if the difference is indeed not visible as you suggest, it only shows that *YOU* were not able to get better results with C1 than with Irfanview. But that does not prove it’s not possible.

The only proper challence would be if you let other people have one of your RAW files and then let them prove they can get better results with C1 or Photoshop than you get with Irfanview.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Ryadia" wrote in message

If you (or anyone else) can pick which one of my images has been opened

with

Irfanview and which one with capture 1, Canon’s own browser or a home

grown

RAW converter, you can rightly judge my work. Until then, all your

comments

do is criticize something and someone you have never seen. Just because

you

don’t like the software someone else uses, does not enable you to judge

the

quality of their work.

How it is that you can pass comment on the standard of a stranger’s work without ever seeing it, raises the spectre that you are talking through

your

arse. Willing to make outrageous statements in an attempt to get a

reaction.

If you have something to say about the subject which is subjective, say

it.

Don’t criticize someone for having a standard of work you know nothing about. It just makes you look like an idiot, idiot!

Ryadia
——————-

Get out of bed on the wrong side, asshole?
You are clueless.

Your earlier question in this thread: "What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW
converter than the people who invented it?" shows how little you know.

And as for this little gem of yours:
"The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. …. [junk]
avoides that clipping and increases
the detail available in the images."
Laughable. You really believe that Canon purposefully set out to "clip the histogram"? Purposefully downgrade the result? Tosser.

Stick to what you know best chum (though I can’t imagine what that might be. Building things out of Lego I daresay.)

I feel another addition to my killfile coming on; no room for puffed up knowitalls round these here parts.

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon has limited the already tight contrast range even further. Shooting RAW and using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and increases the detail available in the images.

So on the one hand you say that Canon does a very poor job when converting the sensor data to JPEG *in* their own cameras, but on the other hand you say: "What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?". Seems to me you just answered your own question…

Just what is your problem Johan?

G. Innipig wrote:

Stick to what you know best chum (though I can’t imagine what that might be. Building things out of Lego I daresay.)

I feel another addition to my killfile coming on; no room for puffed up knowitalls round these here parts.

Well, I certainly had you picked right.
Posting crap in the hope of hi-jacking a thread.

Ryadia

Ryadia wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon has limited the already tight contrast range even further. Shooting RAW and using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and increases the detail available in the images.

So on the one hand you say that Canon does a very poor job when converting the sensor data to JPEG *in* their own cameras, but on the other hand you say: "What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?". Seems to me you just answered your own question…

Just what is your problem Johan?

Becoming personal because you don’t have any arguments left, is the only thing left for you in this discussion?

*ploink*

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Now, now people – this is a wonderful discussion for sure

But if it turns into a testosterone contest may I say you all lose?

Articus

Ryadia,

If doing RAW conversion they way you are doing it works for you more power to you. That is the most important things. I think what others are trying to say and like Bush have some problems with English is that doing the conversion the way you are you are not getting the most out of the RAW format because they way you do it doesn’t allow you much control over the conversion process. Being able to choose from several resolutions, 8 or 16 bit depth, white balance, exposure, temperature, etc. is what makes RAW so great. All of this is done without interpolation which means it gives you much better results that say opening an 8-bit jpg in Photoshop and using the mode menu to convert it to 16-bit or using levels or some other Photoshop feature to adjust the white balance of the image.

But, like I said if you are happy with how you are doing it now then that is all that is important. They are your images and you have a right to do with them what you please.

John

From: "Ryadia"

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon has limited the already tight contrast range even further.

This is silly.

Shooting RAW and
using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and increases the detail available in the images.

No, it simply makes a conversion using default settings. What you are doing is akin to simply converting to JPG from the RAW file. You’re throwing away every advantage of shooting RAW in the first place.

In article <1gjl8ai.bt60ck1saegbgN%>, Johan W.
Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon has limited the already tight contrast range even further. Shooting RAW and using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and increases
the detail available in the images.

So on the one hand you say that Canon does a very poor job when converting the sensor data to JPEG *in* their own cameras, but on the other hand you say: "What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of a RAW converter than the people who invented it?". Seems to me you just answered your own question…

Just what is your problem Johan?

Becoming personal because you don’t have any arguments left, is the only thing left for you in this discussion?

*ploink*

Careful, careful. You made a "personal" – and completely unwarranted – assumption about me in alt.graphics.photoshop. I don’t know you, but I do believe I see a double standard at work here.

You are quite wrong there Bret.
But then you’ll no doubt get the picture soon enough. God knows you shoot enough of them!

Ryadia
————-
"Annika1980" wrote in message

From: "Ryadia"

The problem with jpg mode is the clipping of the histogram Canon has programmed into the camera. Blown out highlights are a common effect of this. Another effect if you try to overcome that by metering for the highlights is the opposite effect in deep shade areas. Basically Canon

has

limited the already tight contrast range even further.

This is silly.

Shooting RAW and
using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and

increases

the detail available in the images.

No, it simply makes a conversion using default settings. What you are

doing

is akin to simply converting to JPG from the RAW file. You’re throwing

away

every advantage of shooting RAW in the first place.

"Annika1980" wrote in message

From: "Ryadia"
Shooting RAW and
using Irfanview (or any other converter) avoides that clipping and

increases

the detail available in the images.

No, it simply makes a conversion using default settings. What you are

doing

is akin to simply converting to JPG from the RAW file. You’re throwing

away

every advantage of shooting RAW in the first place.

I’ve already said the guy is clueless and plonked him.

Richard Pini wrote:

Just what is your problem Johan?

Becoming personal because you don’t have any arguments left, is the only thing left for you in this discussion?

*ploink*

Careful, careful. You made a "personal" – and completely unwarranted – assumption about me in alt.graphics.photoshop. I don’t know you, but I do believe I see a double standard at work here.

If I did, I apologize, but I don’t think I did. You asked a question about cameras with a higher dpi than 72 (I trust that’s the one you are referring to). As I and other people have explained, the dpi output of a digital camera is totally irrelevant. So was it unwarranted that I concluded from your question that you misunderstood what resolution realy means? I don’t think so.

Maybe it was unnecessary to say so (I could have explained it without saying you asked the wrong question). I accept that and I do apologise if I hurt your feelings. I also don’t think I need to know you personally before I can say something. If someone says "the moon is a cube that orbits Venus", do I personally have to know this person before I can conclude he is clueless about the subject?

This is totally different from a person who says "what’s your problem" simply because he doesn’t have any arguments against what I’m saying.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

From: "G. Innipig"

I’ve already said the guy is clueless and plonked him.

I don’t know the guy and have no wish to trash him here (yet). I simply pointed out that what he said about the JPGs being clipped sounded silly to me. It’s certainly the first I’ve heard of it and I’ve read a bit on the subject.

I imagine one day you will bother to follow a thread instead of just looking for parts of it to start a fight over? If your post is not "becomming personal" what actually is?

Ryadia
——————-
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

So on the one hand you say that Canon does a very poor job when converting the sensor data to JPEG *in* their own cameras, but on the other hand you say: "What makes you think Adobe can do a better job of

a

RAW converter than the people who invented it?". Seems to me you just answered your own question…

Just what is your problem Johan?

Becoming personal because you don’t have any arguments left, is the only thing left for you in this discussion?

*ploink*

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

I think you have misunderstood what I said Bret. I know Johan has. The description I originally offered was of how to open a camera raw file (CRW to be precise) in Photoshop 7 without the Photoshop RAW plugin. In case you
can’t find the first post, it went like this:

" There’s an interesting thing here about Canon’s RAW files and how you edit them. Before I bought PS, CS I had only version 7 without the RAW plugin and Adobe had (very conveniently) dropped the plugin from their site. The work-around I used and still find amazingly good is to use the thumbnail viewer of Irfanview – a free image handling application, open the image and copy it to the clipboard then, create a "new" document in PS, pasting the image into it. This method produces a very nice conversion without noticeable
loss."

I don’t know where you read in that piece that I promoted using Irfanview to do a conversion to jpg. All I said was it gave you a vehicle through which you could edit Canon RAW files without actually having a RAW converter. It save you the cost and inconvience of upgrading to Photoshop CS just to edit RAW files.

Perhaps you might include interpretation of histogram data in your "reading of the subject". It is my interpretation of the histograms from a lot of Canon RAW and JPG files which led me to the conclusion that Canon mangle the histogram during their in-camera jpg creation.

I’ll also clarify the Irfanview-to-Photoshop workflow now too. Irfanview itself open the JPG file saved with a RAW file (if the function to save a RAW and JPG is enabled in the camera) unless, you install Canon’s RAW converter. Then Irfanview can use that to open the RAW file. You can also save space on the flashcard if you disable save of the JPG.

If you then copy the image to the clipboard, open Photoshop 6 or 7 and create a new document, you can paste the copied image into that document without any loss of detail. You can use this process to open a RAW file in Corel PhotoPaint or for that mater, any other graphics program which supports cut and paste. It is basically the same procedure Adobe use except it’s not integrated in PS.

This is much preferred to using the mangled JPG Canon create in their camera. When you get the new 20D (your D60 isn’t much use here) shoot a scene in JPG and the same scene in RAW. When you get home, compare the histogram in Photoshop and you too will see that the JPG histogram is different to the RAW one. Highlights will be clipped or alternatively, shadows will be clipped if the contrast range is a summer, sunny day (not in Tennessee, in Australia).

Because Irfanview supports the use of Canon’s own RAW converter, it is very likely to provide support for 20D RAW files. If Adobe follow their past performances, they’ll introduce a "new" version of Photoshop everyone will be "encouraged" to upgrade to, just to get 20D RAW files open. At best they’ll probably do what they did with the original RAW plugin and charge you for it. All I’ve offered is an alternative and described some of my experience as to how to handle Canon camera files and Photoshop. I print posters and wall art every day for myself and my clients. I do have a clue about what I do.

I can only assume Johan and you have though me to have no knowledge of the subject. Not surprising since I stopped promoting my business in newsgroups. It’s a pity other don’t follow suit in that and stop advertising theirs in every post. Maybe then we wouldn’t have to offer rewards for the identity of Trolls just to have an independent opinion.

Ryadia
————–

—– Original Message —–
From: "Annika1980"
Newsgroups: comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: Camera RAW & the Canon 20D

From: "G. Innipig"

I’ve already said the guy is clueless and plonked him.

I don’t know the guy and have no wish to trash him here (yet). I simply pointed out that what he said about the JPGs being clipped sounded silly

to me.

It’s certainly the first I’ve heard of it and I’ve read a bit on the

subject.

I agree with what you say here John.
Incidentally Ryadia works with me – just to clear any suggestion of vested interest.

One part of all this discussion that seems to have been missed by all those suggesting they can get better results with different software (and they probably can on a monitor) is the output devices ability to reproduce a tonal range and indeed the colour range the extracted image has to offer.

AFAIK, only a continuous tone output device can come close to reproducing the whole picture. Certainly inkjet printers or an Offset press cannot. My Xerox cannot produce the full tonal range of a photograph – regardless of which application imported or converted the original image yet it pumps out "photographs" all day long. So the question I raise now is; Why bother with expensive software like Capture one, if only one type of printer can reproduce the extra detail that software is alleged to produce?

Douglas
———————–
"John Doe" wrote in message

Ryadia,

If doing RAW conversion they way you are doing it works for you more power to you. That is the most important things. I think what others are trying

to

say and like Bush have some problems with English is that doing the conversion the way you are you are not getting the most out of the RAW format because they way you do it doesn’t allow you much control over the conversion process. Being able to choose from several resolutions, 8 or 16 bit depth, white balance, exposure, temperature, etc. is what makes RAW so great. All of this is done without interpolation which means it gives you much better results that say opening an 8-bit jpg in Photoshop and using

the

mode menu to convert it to 16-bit or using levels or some other Photoshop feature to adjust the white balance of the image.

But, like I said if you are happy with how you are doing it now then that

is

all that is important. They are your images and you have a right to do

with

them what you please.

John

This is much preferred to using the mangled JPG Canon create in their camera. When you get the new 20D (your D60 isn’t much use here) shoot a scene in JPG and the same scene in RAW. When you get home, compare the histogram in Photoshop and you too will see that the JPG histogram is different to the RAW one. Highlights will be clipped or alternatively, shadows will be clipped if the contrast range is a summer, sunny day (not in Tennessee, in Australia).

It is true that the histograms will differ. This is because the histogram you see in Photoshop (ACR) from a RAW file is the actual data, while the histogram in camera approximates the histogram you’d get if you shot JPG mode using the camera’s current settings rather than RAW mode.

It is also true that the camera applies a default tone curve to the default RAW to JPG conversion. All digital cameras do this. So once again, I agree with you.

My point of contention with what you said was your description of how Canon "mangled" the JPG in camera. I thought that was a little harsh.

Also, you seemed to ignore the advantages of a true RAW converter like ACR with your Irfanview conversion technique. You explained to me that you only meant to suggest this workflow if you don’t have a RAW converter like ACR. This doesn’t seem too likely since the camera comes with the software needed for conversion. Also, if you don’t have a RAW converter then why shoot RAW in the first place?

From: "Ryadia_"

Because Irfanview supports the use of Canon’s own RAW converter, it is very likely to provide support for 20D RAW files.

I have it from a very reliable source that we will know about ACR’s support for the 20D before the camera is available. I take that to mean that Adobe is on top of it.

"Ryadia" wrote in message

G. Innipig wrote:

Stick to what you know best chum (though I can’t imagine what that might be.
Building things out of Lego I daresay.)

I feel another addition to my killfile coming on; no room for puffed up knowitalls round these here parts.

Well, I certainly had you picked right.
Posting crap in the hope of hi-jacking a thread.

Ryadia

My dear chap. Strikes me it was you who posted the crap

Techno Aussie wrote:

I agree with what you say here John.
Incidentally Ryadia works with me – just to clear any suggestion of vested interest.

One part of all this discussion that seems to have been missed by all those suggesting they can get better results with different software (and they probably can on a monitor) is the output devices ability to reproduce a tonal range and indeed the colour range the extracted image has to offer.
AFAIK, only a continuous tone output device can come close to reproducing the whole picture. Certainly inkjet printers or an Offset press cannot. My Xerox cannot produce the full tonal range of a photograph – regardless of which application imported or converted the original image yet it pumps out "photographs" all day long. So the question I raise now is; Why bother with expensive software like Capture one, if only one type of printer can reproduce the extra detail that software is alleged to produce?

Douglas,

I appreaciate your point, but that is not the reason to use a true RAW converter, at least not for me. The reason is that you can correct things WHILE converting the file, and you do so while you still have the full 12 bits data.

A real word example: If you do not shoot in studio conditions but outdoor, you may get an image from time to time that has a contrast problem. If you open it ‘the Irfanview way’, you may end up with an image that has both some blown out highlights as well as some pure blacks. Blown out highlights and pure blacks cannot be repaired in Photoshop: you can lower/increase the brightness, but that will not recover any lost detail.

If you use a RAW converter on the other hand, you can lower the exposure a bit (say half a stop) and set a special curve to brighten the shadows. You will often find that the detail in the highlights can be recovered this way, while also keeping some detail in the shadows. The reason is that this detail *is* present in the RAW file, but you’ll loose it (you’ll clip it) if you do not change the exposure and/or other settings. Those differences *are* visible on any printer.

Of course, if you shoot in the studio all the time, there is no reason why you couldn’t control the contrast and the exposure to such extend that using RAW has no real advantages any more. In that case you may consider not using RAW at all, but shoot in TIFF. TIFF will increase the speed of your worksflow, because there’s no need for any conversion.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

"Annika1980" posted:
"…
Also, you seemed to ignore the advantages of a true RAW
converter like ACR with
your Irfanview conversion technique.
…."

Hint … IrfanView uses the Canon software modules (DLLs), so it’s probably "not all that bad.". See the ‘Plugins’ page at the IrfanView web site

http://www.irfanview.com/

= = = = = Copied from the above site = = = = =

CRW – (version 3.92): allows IrfanView to read Canon CRW/CR2 files (high resolution image version)
Note: this PlugIn requires additional Canon DLLs.
———————————————————— —————————–
The list of Canon CRW DLLs required by IrfanView CRW.DLL (3.85 and later):
CDFILSYS.dll
CDPTPCLS.dll
CDRAPCLS.dll
CDSDK.dll
deImg010.dll
deImg110.dll
deImg121.dll
deImg129.dll
deImg131.dll
deImg153.dll
deImg167.dll
deImg168.dll
deImg404.dll
DeImgd60.dll
IWrap.dll
psCamDat.dll
pscDcd.dll
pscDevUI.dll
pscDvlp.dll
pscParse.dll
———————————————————— —————————–
You can download these DLLs with the Canon ZoomBrowser
program:
http://www.canon.com/
or try here:
http://irfanview.tuwien.ac.at/plugins/canon_crw.zip
(check "Readme.txt" for instructions and install!)

RSD99 wrote:

"Annika1980" posted:
"…
Also, you seemed to ignore the advantages of a true RAW
converter like ACR with
your Irfanview conversion technique.
…"

Hint … IrfanView uses the Canon software modules (DLLs), so it’s probably "not all that bad.". See the ‘Plugins’ page at the IrfanView web site

http://www.irfanview.com/

Nobody is suggesting that it’s bad. It’s just that you do not get the extra possibilities you would have when you use a real RAW converter, including Canon’s own software. For example, with a RAW converter you can often save blown out highlights by setting the exposure a little lower (and compensate for that by increasing the brightness of the mid tones and shadows. Because Irfanview doesn’t offer any settings upon opening the RAW file, you do not have that option in this program. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, it only means you do not get the *EXTRA* control people are talking about.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

RSD99 wrote:

"Annika1980" posted:
"…
Also, you seemed to ignore the advantages of a true RAW
converter like ACR with
your Irfanview conversion technique.
…"

Hint … IrfanView uses the Canon software modules (DLLs), so it’s probably "not all that bad.". See the ‘Plugins’ page at the IrfanView web site

http://www.irfanview.com/

Nobody is suggesting that it’s bad. It’s just that you do not get the extra possibilities you would have when you use a real RAW converter, including Canon’s own software. For example, with a RAW converter you can often save blown out highlights by setting the exposure a little lower (and compensate for that by increasing the brightness of the mid tones and shadows. Because Irfanview doesn’t offer any settings upon opening the RAW file, you do not have that option in this program. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, it only means you do not get the *EXTRA* control people are talking about.

Unless you have carried out considerable experiments with all the dynamic link libraries available for opening RAW files (as we have at Technology Australia) you could not possibly be in a position to make accurate judgements about what can or cannot be achieved by using one or the other.

The procedure I offered was about getting a RAW file into Photoshop for editing in reply to Bret’s question about whether or not an upgrade would be available to allow him to edit 20D files when his camera arrives.

Modification of the histogram, alteration to the curve and brightness adjustments are all available via Photoshop. I never said you should edit files in Irfanview, just use it’s excellent file browser to get the raw files into Photoshop for editing. You can also use Irfanview for printing unaltered or mildly sharpened images with excellent results.

"Narrow minded" and "tunnel vision" are phrases which come to mind here. There are about 16 DLLs which can be used to open a RAW file without using Photoshop. The source code to harness them is freely available off the Internet.

Windows versions since windows 95 have permitted "copy and paste" operations so for people without the latest Adobe software, Irfanview offers a medium of getting RAW files into Photoshop for editing without paying out money. If you use the FORMATs-plugin for Irfanview, the quality of the initial image is better by a quantum leap, than Adobe’s raw plugin or Canon’s own converter’s initial image and… For the most part, does away with the need for major adjustments to a RAW image for it to "look" right.

I personally use a home grown application to open client’s camera RAW files for printing, enlarging and editing. Canon’s DLLs are copyright which means you must own a Canon camera before you can use it. Other DLLs are open source and some do a remarkably good job of the task.

My business partner (a working Professional Photographer) prefers to use FORMATs-plugin for Irfanview. Without doubt, this is a better quality "raw converter" than Canon’s own. Douglas claims it’s better than capture one’s converter but not having much faith in that software, I discarded it from my early assessments for a number of reasons, not the least it’s EULA.

As for the initial screen Photoshop provides for manipulation of a RAW image? Not a single function it provides is not available in other programs and indeed Photoshop CS itself, using "Image adjustments".

You can expect to see soon, a new stand alone application from an Australian developer to open and modify RAW images in much the same way Adobe offers their "RAW conversion" which is really only a plugin when all is said and done. As for the value of shooting in RAW being lost when using Irfanview? rubbish!

Ryadia.

Modification of the histogram, alteration to the curve and brightness adjustments are all available via Photoshop. I never said you should edit files in Irfanview, just use it’s excellent file browser to get the raw files into Photoshop for editing.

Once again you are throwing away the advantage of shooting RAW in the first place. Sure you can do a conversion in Irfanview, but it will be made with a default set of values which is hardly the way to optimize an image.

And surely you know that Photoshop’s editing commands are destructive in nature. That is, every time you edit the image you are losing data. Much better to do your work on the RAW data.

Also, the RAW data is a linear gamma file with one-half of the data devoted to the brightest one stop of exposure. The conversion process changes this into a gamma corrected version which makes it much more difficult to rescue any highlights that may have been blown out.

Anyone interested in getting a thorough explanation of RAW files and ACR should read Brice Fraser’s new book, "Real World Camera RAW."

If you use the FORMATs-plugin for Irfanview, the
quality of the initial image is better by a quantum leap, than Adobe’s raw plugin or Canon’s own converter’s initial image and… For the most part, does away with the need for major adjustments to a RAW image for it to "look" right.

Now you’re getting silly again.

Annika1980 wrote:

If you use the FORMATs-plugin for Irfanview, the
quality of the initial image is better by a quantum leap, than Adobe’s raw plugin or Canon’s own converter’s initial image and… For the most part, does away with the need for major adjustments to a RAW image for it to "look" right.

Now you’re getting silly again.

No not Silly Bret.
My contention is that shooting jpg in a situation which is close to or exceeds the contrast range of the sensor, results in blown out highlights and loss of detail in the shadows. Canon clip the histogram during conversion to .jpg which mangles the contrast range further.

Shooting RAW provides a file with all the detail otherwise lost in this conversion. If you then open that file with Irfanview and copy it to the clipboard, all the detail from the original RAW image will go to the clipboard and get pasted into whatever program you intend to edit the file in. I have nothing to say about ARC.

It would seem that you think this process somehow loses some or all of the raw data. This is where we disagree. Maybe Photoshop does lose data with editing. Whatever data it loses will be indistingushible to the human eye. Moreover, there is not a process in the world which you or I can access to print all the information in an image so…

In doing the Irfanview RAW to Photoshop conversion, no data is lost until you edit the image In any event, the highlights are not lost, nor is the shadow detail.

What you say about the ARC being able to manipulate the image is losing data during the conversion too. You cannot "convert" one data format to another without altering and losing or substituting data. Oddly enough, Photoshop itself says a .jpg image, a RAW image and one cut and pasted with Irfanview are all 18.1~18.2 Megabyte files. Now *THAT* is silly!

I’m afraid on the subject of RAW conversion we will continue to disagree.

Ryadia

There is a point I think you have missed here Johan… Maybe at the start I should have made more of an explaination of the proceedure. No "conversion" of a format takes place with my method.

When you open an image, be it in Irfanview or whateverother program you can open the file in, it is not converted to anything, merely opened. This is where you, Bret and I have a difference of opinion. You and he keep saying "conversion". Probably becasue Adobe does indeed convert the image after it’s opened.

When you copy the data from one application to another using Windows clipboard, there is (according to Microsoft) no lost of data provided both programs comply with the "made for Windows" requirements. This (again according to MS) is a key benefit of Windows compared to "other " OSs.

So if you use my suggestions of how to get an image into Photoshop for editing, the image is as close to pure as you will get and from a format Photoshop does not natively support. It is Adobe Raw Converter which converts theRAW image. Irfanview and copy & Paste makes no conversion, only opens the file. From my experiments, this is a significant point. Like Douglas said, you can’t print all the information anyway so the small amount of loss from editing the image rather than converting it is insignificant.

Ryadia
——————–

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Techno Aussie wrote:

I agree with what you say here John.
Incidentally Ryadia works with me – just to clear any suggestion of

vested

interest.

One part of all this discussion that seems to have been missed by all

those

suggesting they can get better results with different software (and they probably can on a monitor) is the output devices ability to reproduce a tonal range and indeed the colour range the extracted image has to

offer.

AFAIK, only a continuous tone output device can come close to

reproducing

the whole picture. Certainly inkjet printers or an Offset press cannot.

My

Xerox cannot produce the full tonal range of a photograph – regardless

of

which application imported or converted the original image yet it pumps

out

"photographs" all day long. So the question I raise now is; Why bother

with

expensive software like Capture one, if only one type of printer can reproduce the extra detail that software is alleged to produce?

Douglas,

I appreaciate your point, but that is not the reason to use a true RAW converter, at least not for me. The reason is that you can correct things WHILE converting the file, and you do so while you still have the full 12 bits data.

A real word example: If you do not shoot in studio conditions but outdoor, you may get an image from time to time that has a contrast problem. If you open it ‘the Irfanview way’, you may end up with an image that has both some blown out highlights as well as some pure blacks. Blown out highlights and pure blacks cannot be repaired in Photoshop: you can lower/increase the brightness, but that will not recover any lost detail.

If you use a RAW converter on the other hand, you can lower the exposure a bit (say half a stop) and set a special curve to brighten the shadows. You will often find that the detail in the highlights can be recovered this way, while also keeping some detail in the shadows. The reason is that this detail *is* present in the RAW file, but you’ll loose it (you’ll clip it) if you do not change the exposure and/or other settings. Those differences *are* visible on any printer.
Of course, if you shoot in the studio all the time, there is no reason why you couldn’t control the contrast and the exposure to such extend that using RAW has no real advantages any more. In that case you may consider not using RAW at all, but shoot in TIFF. TIFF will increase the speed of your worksflow, because there’s no need for any conversion.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Ryadia_ wrote:

There is a point I think you have missed here Johan… Maybe at the start I should have made more of an explaination of the proceedure. No "conversion" of a format takes place with my method.

When you open an image, be it in Irfanview or whateverother program you can open the file in, it is not converted to anything, merely opened. This is where you, Bret and I have a difference of opinion. You and he keep saying "conversion". Probably becasue Adobe does indeed convert the image after it’s opened.

Sorry, but this is wrong. You cannot just "open" a RAW file without conversion, because a RAW file is not an RGB image at all. A RAW file is a 12 bits per pixel file, containing only ONE color per pixel. That is because the CCD does only record ONE color per pixel, and a RAW file contains the raw CCD data (that’s why it’s called a ‘raw’ file; RAW is not some kind of abbreviation like TIFF and JPEG).

In order to get to an RGB file, you HAVE TO convert the RAW file. During that conversion the color interpolation takes place, which eventually produces the RGB file (whether it’s 8 bits per color or 16 bits per color). Whether you like it or not, Irfanview also converts the RAW file, because that’s the only way you can get an RGB image out of it.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia_ wrote:

There is a point I think you have missed here Johan… Maybe at the start I should have made more of an explaination of the proceedure. No "conversion" of a format takes place with my method.

When you open an image, be it in Irfanview or whateverother program you can open the file in, it is not converted to anything, merely opened. This is where you, Bret and I have a difference of opinion. You and he keep saying "conversion". Probably becasue Adobe does indeed convert the image after it’s opened.

Sorry, but this is wrong. You cannot just "open" a RAW file without conversion, because a RAW file is not an RGB image at all. A RAW file is a 12 bits per pixel file, containing only ONE color per pixel. That is because the CCD does only record ONE color per pixel, and a RAW file contains the raw CCD data (that’s why it’s called a ‘raw’ file; RAW is not some kind of abbreviation like TIFF and JPEG).

In order to get to an RGB file, you HAVE TO convert the RAW file. During that conversion the color interpolation takes place, which eventually produces the RGB file (whether it’s 8 bits per color or 16 bits per color). Whether you like it or not, Irfanview also converts the RAW file, because that’s the only way you can get an RGB image out of it.

I forgot to add a good URL that explains what the RAW format is and what happens when you "open" it:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

The conversion thing is where we differ in opinions Johan. A MS Word document in not text until it is opened, either. Irfanview opens a CRW file ant remains a CRW file. Granted you can’t re-save it as one but it is still a CRW file. ARC opens a CRW file and then alters the composition of it while converting it to a PSD format.

Irfanview opens a CRW file and it remains a CRW file until you save it. Only then is it converted to a different format. Copying the data to the clipboard still doesn’t "convert" the data to another format. Pasting it into a Photoshop document is not converting it either, just adding data to an existing document.

All the hoo ha about this method being inferior to Adobe’s is rubbish, it’s just another way to get a RAW file into Photoshop or any other application so it can be edited. I know what you are saying about RAW data and RGB but ARC does far more lossy alteration to the image than Irfanview does. You should not lose site either of the fact that I offered this method as a way to get a RAW file into Photoshop versions before CS. It also is a simple way to get a RAW image into many other graphics editing programs which don’t support opening RAW files.

Ryadia
—————

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia_ wrote:

There is a point I think you have missed here Johan… Maybe at the

start I

should have made more of an explaination of the proceedure. No

"conversion"

of a format takes place with my method.

When you open an image, be it in Irfanview or whateverother program

you can

open the file in, it is not converted to anything, merely opened. This

is

where you, Bret and I have a difference of opinion. You and he keep

saying

"conversion". Probably becasue Adobe does indeed convert the image

after

it’s opened.

Sorry, but this is wrong. You cannot just "open" a RAW file without conversion, because a RAW file is not an RGB image at all. A RAW file is a 12 bits per pixel file, containing only ONE color per pixel. That is because the CCD does only record ONE color per pixel, and a RAW file contains the raw CCD data (that’s why it’s called a ‘raw’ file; RAW is not some kind of abbreviation like TIFF and JPEG).

In order to get to an RGB file, you HAVE TO convert the RAW file. During that conversion the color interpolation takes place, which eventually produces the RGB file (whether it’s 8 bits per color or 16 bits per color). Whether you like it or not, Irfanview also converts the RAW file, because that’s the only way you can get an RGB image out of it.

I forgot to add a good URL that explains what the RAW format is and what happens when you "open" it:
http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Ryadia_ wrote:

The conversion thing is where we differ in opinions Johan. A MS Word document in not text until it is opened, either. Irfanview opens a CRW file ant remains a CRW file.

No, you don’t seem to understand what a RAW file really is. Read that URL that a gave in my follow up message. For convenience, here it is once more: http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

The *name* may still be "name.CRW", but it is defenitely *not* a RAW file anymore. It’s an RGB file, otherwise you would not be able to see any image at all. If you really could open a RAW file just as it is, it would look very strange indeed and not like an image at all. You would only see the three primary colors red, green and blue, and only one color per pixel. You would see the Bayer pattern of the CCD in stead of the image that is interpolated during the conversion.

Granted you can’t re-save it as one but it is still a CRW file.

The reason why you can’t re-save it, is because it is converted to an RGB image and there is no way for Irfanview to go back and separate the 24 bit color information again in 12 bits primary colors. That’s why.

Irfanview opens a CRW file and it remains a CRW file until you save it.

No, it doesn’t, because that is technically impossible. Here’s a quote from that URL: "RAW conversion is then defined as the way to interpolate the missing other colors in the RGB image." You simply *cannot* get an RGB image if you don’t convert (read: if you don’t interpolate the colors to RGB).

Only then is it converted to a different format. Copying the data to the clipboard still doesn’t "convert" the data to another format. Pasting it into a Photoshop document is not converting it either, just adding data to an existing document.

It’s already converted to moment you see an RGB image on your screen. There simply is no other way. Do read that URL, please.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Ryadia,

Perhaps this metafor helps to understand the difference between an RGB image and a RAW file:

If an RGB image is like an omelet, then the RAW file is the eggs (the ‘raw’ ingredients). ACR, Irfanview, Canon are all cooks, each of them has a different way of making an omelet and you can debate about the question who does the best job. You cannot debate the question if you need to break eggs, and that is what you do. You claim that Irfanview can make an omelet without breaking eggs.

The reason why Irfanview cannot ‘save as’ a RAW file is also simple: it would be like asking the cook to turn an omelet into raw eggs again.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

From: Ryadia

What you say about the ARC being able to manipulate the image is losing data during the conversion too.

No it isn’t because ACR works on the RAW data BEFORE conversion to the gamma-corrected color space.

I’m afraid on the subject of RAW conversion we will continue to disagree.

At least until you understand what is happening. Your Irfanview method is converting the file to RGB using a default set of settings. Others have tried to explain this to you better than I can. I suggest you read up some more on this.

On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:31:42 +0200, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Ryadia_ wrote:

The conversion thing is where we differ in opinions Johan. A MS Word document in not text until it is opened, either. Irfanview opens a CRW file ant remains a CRW file.

No, you don’t seem to understand what a RAW file really is. Read that URL that a gave in my follow up message. For convenience, here it is once more: http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

Johan, you come up with some great links 🙂

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia_ wrote:

No, you don’t seem to understand what a RAW file really is. Read that URL that a gave in my follow up message. For convenience, here it is once more: http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

Brett Douglas (and to some degree you) seem to have this strange notion that adjustments to the image’s quality after getting it into an editing program is some how not taking advantage of all the RAW data. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My inital suggestion of how to get a RAW file into Photoshop versions earlier than CS is entirely valid. Your notion that I have no understanding of what I do for a living is way off target.

Ryadia

Ryadia wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia_ wrote:

No, you don’t seem to understand what a RAW file really is. Read that URL that a gave in my follow up message. For convenience, here it is once more: http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

Brett Douglas (and to some degree you) seem to have this strange notion that adjustments to the image’s quality after getting it into an editing program is some how not taking advantage of all the RAW data. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Sigh. If you open a RAW file the ‘Irfanview way’, you’ll get a standard conversion that you cannot adjust and end up with a 24 bits image in Photoshop. Consequently you’ve lost 12 bits before you could do any editting at all. If you use a proper RAW converter, you can adjust the conversion itself *and* you can end up with a 48 bits image in Photoshop. Yeah, right, nothing could be further from the truth…

Because you were silent for more that two days, I thought you finally learned your lesson. I thought you finally understood. It seems I was wrong: you still don’t understand it. Sorry, but I have no desire to start all over again. Have it your way. Raw converters are useless, and the earth is flat too. Maybe one day I’ll write the book "RAW for Dummies". If I do, I’ll send you a free copy.

My inital suggestion of how to get a RAW file into Photoshop versions earlier than CS is entirely valid.

Nobody ever said it is not *valid*. Of course it is valid, because it works. All that was said is that it doesn’t give you the advantages that RAW gives when used with a proper conversion tool. It gives you 8 bits editting, versus 12 bits editting in a RAW converter.

Your notion that I have no
understanding of what I do for a living is way off target.

I have never said that you have no understanding of what you do for a living. What I did say is that you have no understanding of the RAW format. You demonstrate that quite clearly. How else could you claim that Irfanview does not convert a RAW file upon opening? However, I know many capable photographers who do not understand RAW either. That doesn’t make them less capable as photographers.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

I have never said that you have no understanding of what you do for a living. What I did say is that you have no understanding of the RAW format. You demonstrate that quite clearly. How else could you claim that Irfanview does not convert a RAW file upon opening? However, I know many capable photographers who do not understand RAW either. That doesn’t make them less capable as photographers.

Johan…
I’ll refain from personal insults here. You’d do well to do the same. It is possible to have an Irfanview opened (converted in your description) image as a 48 bit file which can be edited with all the same functionality as ACR does. You just don’t know how to do it so you start putting shit on me. Stop it.

Ryadia

It is possible to have an Irfanview opened (converted in your description) image as a 48 bit file which can be edited with all the same functionality as ACR does. You just don’t know how to do it so you start putting shit on me. Stop it.

Oh really? I’d like to see your results when you attempt to change the White Balance of an image. You might be able to approximate ACR’s Luminance Smoothing and Color Noise Reduction controls with some very time-consuming effort, but ACR’s controls are faster, less destructive, and much more effective than anything you could do in Photoshop after the fact.

From: (Johan W. Elzenga)

Have it your way. Raw converters are useless, and
the earth is flat too. Maybe one day I’ll write the book "RAW for Dummies". If I do, I’ll send you a free copy.

(I think he’s already got one.)

From: Ryadia

Brett Douglas (and to some degree you) seem to have this strange notion that adjustments to the image’s quality after getting it into an editing program is some how not taking advantage of all the RAW data.

Gee, I wonder how we got that idea?
Oh yeah, because it’s a fact!

Think about what you are saying. If what you claim is true, there would be no need for RAW data in the first place!
Why do you think the RAW format exists, anyway?

You’d do just as well to shoot in JPG mode. This would give you the same results as your Irfanview conversion technique.

Ryadia wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

I have never said that you have no understanding of what you do for a living. What I did say is that you have no understanding of the RAW format. You demonstrate that quite clearly. How else could you claim that Irfanview does not convert a RAW file upon opening? However, I know many capable photographers who do not understand RAW either. That doesn’t make them less capable as photographers.

Johan…
I’ll refain from personal insults here. You’d do well to do the same.

You don’t understand the RAW format (or at least didn’t until I pointed you to that URL). That’s not an insult, it’s a fact.

It is possible to have an Irfanview opened (converted in your description) image as a 48 bit file which can be edited with all the same functionality as ACR does.

OK, so Irfanview can open in 48 bits. Fine. I stand corrected on this point (and, contrary to you, I admit that). Will it also correct for chromatic abberrations, as ACR can do in ‘Advanced’ mode? Will it correct clipped highlights resulting from slight overexposure?

You just don’t know how to do it so you
start putting shit on me. Stop it.

The problem is that you keep doing that yourself. What’s wrong with you ‘Technoaussies’ anyway? First it was Douglas who insisted that one should assign a printer profile to an image coming out of a digital camera. Practically the whole world told him he was wrong, but he insisted he was the only one who knew it right. Now it’s you, insisting that RAW conversion isn’t needed or does not have any benefits, and again there seems to be nobody who agrees with you. Can’t you just accept that you are only human and so you can make a mistake?

BTW, you don’t need to answer this, I give up on you.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/

Now I have to disagree with this. If making your adjusts before the file is finally loaded in to Photoshop and converted to RGB data was the same as making your adjustments in Camera Raw then Adobe would not have went to the trouble of creating Camera Raw to start with. They would have just added the RAW formats a standard open file option and left it at that, making you make corrections with Levels, Curves, etc. This is not what Adobe or Camera Raw does. Camera RAW allows you to edit your RAW images before they are converted to anything. They are edited as the RAW data from the CCD or in the case of the 20D from the CMOS sensor, once those changes are made the RAW data with your corrections is then converted to RGB.

Just because a program like irfanview lets you open RAW images doesn’t mean that when you edit them in the program that it is editing the RAW data, during the opening process irfanview could be converting it to RGB data at which point the changes you make are just like using Levels or Curves in Photoshop on a JPG, BMP or PSD file.

Do you honestly think Adobe would have a couple of hundred thousand dollars developing the Camera RAW plug-in just so you can edit your RAW images like any other image? Do you think camera makers would have went to the trouble to add a RAW mode to their cameras just so the images could be edited like a common JPG? I don’t think so.

Now with all of this said, I went and looked at the irfanview web site and if you look at the file formats supported you will see the Canon CRW format is supported. You do have to download the plug-in for this format to be supported and that plug-in requires quite a few of Canon’s dlls to work. This leads me to believe that infranview IS indeed working directly with the RAW data and not converted RGB data.

The page I looked at is: http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm

John

and other formats"Ryadia" wrote in message

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

Ryadia_ wrote:

No, you don’t seem to understand what a RAW file really is. Read that URL that a gave in my follow up message. For convenience, here it is once more: http://www.outbackphoto.com/handbook/rawfileprocessing.html

Brett Douglas (and to some degree you) seem to have this strange notion that adjustments to the image’s quality after getting it into an editing program is some how not taking advantage of all the RAW data. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My inital suggestion of how to get a RAW file into Photoshop versions earlier than CS is entirely valid. Your notion that I have no understanding of what I do for a living is way off target.
Ryadia

John Doe wrote:

Now with all of this said, I went and looked at the irfanview web site and if you look at the file formats supported you will see the Canon CRW format is supported. You do have to download the plug-in for this format to be supported and that plug-in requires quite a few of Canon’s dlls to work. This leads me to believe that infranview IS indeed working directly with the RAW data and not converted RGB data.

The page I looked at is: http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm
John

At least someone has the foresight to investigate before passing judgment… Unusual for this group!

Ryadia

"Ryadia" wrote in message

John Doe wrote:

SNIP

The page I looked at is: http://www.irfanview.com/plugins.htm
John

At least someone has the foresight to investigate before passing judgment… Unusual for this group!

Thanks for the generalization…

Just for the fun of it, having used this possibility with IrfanView ‘for ages’ when browsing the files, how do you set the black point and white point before gamma adjustment when reading the Canon CRWs? Speaking of Gamma, how do you set it before conversion? How do you adjust the White balance before conversion to gamma adjusted 8-bit/channel space? Speaking of which, what colorspace is the conversion in? You do realize that the result of the ‘black box’ conversion is in 8-bit/channel mode? Do you understand what happens to an 8-b/ch image when you adjust tonebalance?

Bart

From: "Bart van der Wolf"

Just for the fun of it, having used this possibility with IrfanView ‘for ages’ when browsing the files, how do you set the black point and white point before gamma adjustment when reading the Canon CRWs? Speaking of Gamma, how do you set it before conversion? How do you adjust the White balance before conversion to gamma adjusted 8-bit/channel space? Speaking of which, what colorspace is the conversion in? You do realize that the result of the ‘black box’ conversion is in 8-bit/channel mode? Do you understand what happens to an 8-b/ch image when you adjust tonebalance?

Irfanview can do all of these things perfectly every time. The question is, "How do it know?"

"Annika1980" wrote in message

From: "Bart van der Wolf"

Just for the fun of it, having used this possibility with IrfanView ‘for ages’ when browsing the files, how do you set the black point

and

white point before gamma adjustment when reading the Canon CRWs? Speaking of Gamma, how do you set it before conversion? How do you adjust the White balance before conversion to gamma adjusted 8-bit/channel space? Speaking of which, what colorspace is the conversion in? You do realize that the result of the ‘black box’ conversion is in 8-bit/channel mode? Do you understand what happens

to

an 8-b/ch image when you adjust tonebalance?

Irfanview can do all of these things perfectly every time.

No, it can’t and it doesn’t.

To get back more on topic, try converting a Raw file with a shot of a landscape with cloudy sky where the clouds are exposed such that the clipping warning on the camera display is just triggered (approx. 1/3rd stop ‘overexposure’).

Now convert with IrfanView to TIFF or PNG and look at the histogram, clipping of the 255 bin is apparent, and unavoidable since there is no conversion control in IrfanView. We will assume the image is in sRGB colorspace, but we have no way of knowing whether any camera preferences (if available) have been used. The result is by the way an 8-bit/channel file.

Now do the same with ACR, also converting to an 8-b/ch sRGB file of the same native resolution, but lower the exposure by whatever amount is needed to avoid highlight clipping (ALT or OPTION key pressed to preview the clipping). Besides differences in color balance, sharpening, etc. there is no clipping.

Try converting an outdoor, e.g. landscape+cloud, shot that was "accidentally" shot with Tungsten color balancing. IrfanView will render it with that wrong "as shot" color balance. ACR will allow to select the correct color balance while converting. If the conversion w as to an 8-b/ch output, that will a allow much better starting point for final color balancing/tone scaling.

Bart

"Ryadia" wrote in message

There’s an interesting thing here about Canon’s RAW files and how you edit them. Before I bought PS, CS I had only version 7 without the RAW plugin

and

Adobe had (very conveniently) dropped the plugin from their site. The

Ryadia

Posted on Tuesday, September 28
San Jose, CA — Adobe Systems Incorporated (Nasdaq:ADBE) has announced an update to the Camera Raw Plug-in, extending raw file support in Photoshop