Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Correct Digital Processing?  (Read 2715 times)
scubarob639
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 45


« on: November 16, 2005, 10:23:56 PM »
ReplyReply

What is the best way to process Canon raw images. I have DPP, EOS utilty, P.S. elements 3.0.  All three have a raw converter and all three have sharpening, contrast adjustments.  Any reason to use more then one of these programs? Is one raw converter better then another?  Till now i've used DPP exclusively, but i'm not that happy with the results.

Any thoughts would be appreciated,

Rob
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #1 on: November 16, 2005, 11:43:56 PM »
ReplyReply

They're all a little different.  Pick one you like.  But you should probably get a feel for how they all work.  Sometimes an image that is giving you a lot of trouble in one will be easy as pie in another.
Logged
jani
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1604



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 17, 2005, 03:07:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I suggest looking at the section on RAW converters in DPreview's Canon EOS 5D review.

It should be relevant regardless of which Canon camera you have.

- DPP 2.0
- Dynamic range
Logged

Jan
lester_wareham
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


WWW
« Reply #3 on: November 17, 2005, 07:17:44 AM »
ReplyReply

I am using a 20D and was very pleased with DPP which I think has a lot going for it, particularly the sharpening. I also like the ability to save some clone stamp operations in the RAW data which is a bit more memory efficient than using PS and saving a 16bit TIFF.

Having said that I am almost exclisivly using CS2/ACR now. However I sharpen in PS (not ACR) using the blended layer method as it is the only way I can get similer quality to DPP.

What is it you don't like about DPP?
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2005, 07:25:10 AM »
ReplyReply

And here's a vote for RSP.  It boils down to personal taste and what you're familiar with.  At this point I don't think there's a concensus - but I've used ACR, C1 lite and have settled on RSP from Pixmantec.
Logged
gmitchel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 18, 2005, 08:31:31 AM »
ReplyReply

I have been using Adobe Camera Raw.

It is not perfect. It continues to improve, however.

The others are not perfect, either. Adobe watches their market and incorporates popular features from other RAW converters within an upgrade or two (and appears to be more willing to do so, than the competitors).

The camera profiles in ACR are so-so. I would say that's the biggest weakness relative to C1 or the latest release of RSP. You can tweak them for your particular camera easily enough if you own a Macbeth CC Card.

I do not let the RAW converter sharpen or remove noise. I prefer NeatImage Pro+ for noise removal. I use my own sharpening scripts for sharpening. So those are features I do not need in a RAW converter.

I do use ACR II to remove color casts in most cases and adjust the dynamic range.

I used to allow ACR to adjust nothing except white balance. I prefered adjustment layers for adjusting dynamic range, etc. But I can start off easily enough reworking an image in ACR II, and there are advantages to adjusting exposure, etc. prior to aplying a gamma curve.

I do not feel the need to have a bunch of RAW converted TIFFs cluttering up my harddrive. I like how ACR integrates right inside Adobe Bridge and opens my images right inside Photoshop.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad