Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RAW Converter Suggestions  (Read 25655 times)
Kevin Gallagher
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 233



WWW
« on: December 07, 2008, 07:10:17 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi all, a friend has just ordered a Digital Rebel XTI outfit as a gift for his wife. The camera ships with a Canon RAW file utility and I was wondering what the consensus was on it's usefulness and whether Bibble or another 3rd party app would be more desirable. Since I am a Nikon shooter and a Nikon Capture user I am not familiar with the included Canon software. Thanks!!! Kevin
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: December 07, 2008, 11:54:52 AM »
ReplyReply

She should try it.  The conversions it produces are good.  The workflow is a matter of taste.
Logged
jdemott
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 434


« Reply #2 on: December 07, 2008, 01:36:36 PM »
ReplyReply

The included Canon DPP software does a nice job with conversions and offers a limited menu of adjustments.  For a new user not familiar with raw conversions it may be just what she needs.  Users who want to make a wider range of adjustments may find it too limiting.  There are some helpful video tutorials on the Canon website that provide step-by-step instructions for the DPP software.  The software seems to run just as advertised on my Mac system.
Logged

John DeMott
NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #3 on: March 05, 2009, 05:52:20 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jdemott
The included Canon DPP software does a nice job with conversions and offers a limited menu of adjustments.  For a new user not familiar with raw conversions it may be just what she needs.  Users who want to make a wider range of adjustments may find it too limiting.  There are some helpful video tutorials on the Canon website that provide step-by-step instructions for the DPP software.  The software seems to run just as advertised on my Mac system.

Sorry, where can I find these video tutorials? - I looked on Canon USA and Canon UK websites
Logged
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6730


« Reply #4 on: March 05, 2009, 05:57:40 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: NigelC
Sorry, where can I find these video tutorials? - I looked on Canon USA and Canon UK websites
Nigel,
Try here : http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?ac...&fromTips=1
Logged

Francois
NigelC
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 515


« Reply #5 on: March 05, 2009, 06:21:24 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: francois

Thanks
Logged
Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 05, 2009, 08:51:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Canon's DPP relies heavily on "Picture Styles". It doesn't process an image without one selected in the Raw interface tab. You can modify and edit these picture styles, using the Picture Style Editor available here.

Another great raw converter is Raw Developer. The demo is available here. The demo is fully functional and leaves a small watermark on the image until you've registered the software.

Between these two programs, I find Raw Developer gives better results than DPP when a good ICC camera profile is used (which means spending more money). I also really like it's sharpening algorithms. What I don't like is its file browser.

If a good ICC camera profile isn't available, then Canon's DPP is a great tool. Free, too!
Logged

~ CB
Peterretep
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 85


WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2009, 12:05:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I use DPP a lot. I find it produces better colors most of the time, occasionally I use ACR also.

>>>Canon's DPP relies heavily on "Picture Styles". It doesn't process an image without one selected in the Raw interface tab. You can modify and edit these picture styles, using the Picture Style Editor available here.

My understanding of the Picture Style choices is that Neutral is no Picture Style applied to the raw files. I guess my photography has no style because I always use Neutral.  

Good luck,
Peter

Architectural Photography by Peter Montanti, www.mountainphotographics.com
Logged

Chris_Brown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 766



WWW
« Reply #8 on: March 06, 2009, 08:58:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Peterretep
My understanding of the Picture Style choices is that Neutral is no Picture Style applied to the raw files.
It would be nice to see results when Picture Style is set to "None", but that's not possible. After messing around with Picture Style Editor it was obvious that the Neutral style applies a tone curve. Unfortunately, it's impossible to edit that curve.

My hope for a future release of the Picture Style Editor is that all adjustment parameters would use numeric inputs in addition to their graphic inputs. As it is now, it's impossible to know quantitatively how much of a change has been made to any of the parameters.
Logged

~ CB
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 1217


« Reply #9 on: March 06, 2009, 08:14:54 PM »
ReplyReply

I personally like Phase One's Capture One RAW convertor 4.6x and 3.7x  (Canon 1D Mk2, 1Ds Mk 2, 10D, G10).  But I've also used Adobe PS ACR (CS3 version) as well.

I haven't used Canon DPP because I'm not a fan of Canon's workflow.

Adobe PS Elements is an inexpensive entry to RAW conversion and more beginner-friendly than PS CS 3 or 4.

Paul



Logged

AdrianW
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 40


« Reply #10 on: March 08, 2009, 09:33:56 PM »
ReplyReply

Canon DPP produces very good conversions IMO, and since it's free with all Canon dSLRs I'd start there in the first instance.

DPP has gained some useful lens aberration correction options in the more recent versions; assuming you're using Canon lenses. So, make sure you download the latest version to get those (choose your OS from the dropdown first).

The only area where DPP falls down IMO is when attempting to recover coloured highlights on overexposed images, where grey tends to prevail. Silkypix does a far better job on that sort of thing, even if the UI is slightly strange. ACR is somewhere between the two in highlight performance terms. Of course ACR only comes with Photoshop, which makes it far from free. Silkypix is cheaper, but still even that's 150USD.

Don't forget that there are also free trial versions of the Adobe options too though; Lightroom is particularly popular at the moment.

At the end of the day everyone has their own preferences of RAW conversion software though; I suggest you try anything that seems interesting, and hopefully you'll find something you like!
« Last Edit: March 08, 2009, 09:42:25 PM by AdrianW » Logged
James R
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 260


« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2009, 12:57:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Try Picasa from Google.  I believe it is free and has many well designed tools.  She should try a few freebies, such as DPP and Picasa.  Then she can go with the one that works best for her.
Logged
jamesn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 16


« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2009, 09:30:11 AM »
ReplyReply

You really should download and try the free trial of DXO.  
I have a 20D Canon and DXO  has modules for most of
the lenses that I use.  The differencesbetween jpgs
produced by the camera and raw files processed by
DXO are stunning.  Most shoots can be batch processed
with just a few preference settings.
Logged
Ben Rubinstein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1733


« Reply #13 on: March 19, 2009, 07:52:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Doesn't ACR come with elements?
Logged

David Hufford
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2009, 12:32:22 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: pom
Doesn't ACR come with elements?

It does, but to the best of my knowledge it is a somewhat simplified version.
Logged

*Never fall in love with anything that can't love you back*
dhancock
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 136



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 22, 2013, 06:50:44 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm guessing that your friend doesn't take hundreds of pictures regularly, so DPP will probably work best for him. He'll likely want to photograph with JPEG (http://danielhancockphotography.com/uncategorized/raw-v-s-jpeg/) anyway, unless he really gets into photography.
Logged

DanielHancockPhotography.com

Don't stop shooting!
robgo2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 335


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 04, 2013, 10:23:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Photo Ninja.  Unmatched image quality without a boatload of fancy features.  Try it, learn it, compare it to others, and you will see.

Rob
Logged
Fine_Art
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1056


« Reply #17 on: March 14, 2013, 10:52:21 PM »
ReplyReply

Raw Therapee 4.0.10.1

Its a big jump from the last version. Check out the new advanced noise reduction by RGB or LAB color!
Logged
Misirlou
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #18 on: March 20, 2013, 05:23:30 PM »
ReplyReply

I concur. DxO is especially good for getting the most out of less than perfect equipment. Take a good raw file from a 20D and even the lowly the 18-55 kit lens, and DxO will knock your socks off.

With higher grade lenses, and more recent sensors, Lightroom can get a lot closer to DxO, but I still run anything I'm going to print through DxO first, then do printing, cataloging, etc. with Lightroom.

I haven't used DPP in years. Last I tried, it produced very nice raw file conversions, but that's just about all it could do. It didn't have the organzing tools and unlimited nondestructive tweaking capability of Lightroom, or all the lighting manipulation possibilities from DxO. But, I haven't tried recent versions, and they may have improved since then.
Logged
JhnMhn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #19 on: May 14, 2013, 09:55:40 PM »
ReplyReply

Another vote for Raw Developer (now named Iridient Developer 2.1). It gives very high quality conversions. Camera profiles are much improved and very good now, noise reduction ability is quite good, and its sharpening options are exceptional. Price is reasonable @ $75.
I'm not associated with Iridient, just been using it for several years and much prefer the quality of conversions to ACR/Lightroom.
www.iridientdigital.com
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad