Eos Digital Software & RAW

[skip hansen]

Any opinions one way or the other regarding the EOS Digital Software

that comes with a 20D (for example), specifically regarding RAW files?

In other words, have you found editing RAW files from your 20D that

much better than nicely exposed JPEG shots in PS...in both quality and

ease of use?

[jimstrutz]

Canon's DPP software works great, but it's also slow. Yes there are advantages to RAW. Extended exposure lattitude is my favorite.

 

Raw Shooter Essentials is *much* faster. Generally even faster that post processing a bunch of JPG images. It's also free and has some added features that make it a pleasure to use.

[KenPapai]

If you're shooting snapshots then "fine JPG mode" is more than sufficient.

<p>

If you're doing much else then RAW is the way to go; it surpasses what your camera does (in-camera) when it converts RAW to JPG. PS CS2's raw convertor is excellent -- you can ALMOST let it convert your RAWs in its automatic mode but I find it over compensates in the brightness slider about 5 to 10 in value (82 is a typical number it chooses) and it always sets sharpness to 25 and color noise remover to 25. I have to always slide those back to zero before I open my RAWs.

<p>

Ease of use answer is obvious. RAW introduces an extra workflow step. Other than that RAW conversion is extremely easy.

[ajweiss]

Ken: The sharpness is set to 25 in your camera's parameters. Set it lower and you'll be free of

moving that slider...

[andrew_carlson]

I don't have Photoshop but I've used canons file browser, tried the DPP, and a linux/dos DCRAW, PSP9, and Capture 1. All worked to convert. I shoot raw mainly to take the camera post processing out of the picture...sorry for the pun! (no I'm not)

 

My favorite is Capture One from Phase 1. Its pricey at $99 but I think it beats everything else hands down. It also has a steep learning curve but appears well worth it. Will I buy it? Probably along with PSP9. I just can't justify $700 for a tool I'm going to use < 25% of. PS CS just isn't worth that much I'm sorry.

[skip hansen]

Since I posted this, I am finding (in my initial foral into RAW files), that the EOS Software and the RAW files I am converting are superior (even without messing around with the adjustments) than the JPEG image next to it. The exposure adjustment function alone is pretty nifty. I am quickly becoming a fan of RAW files for the detailed shots. Haven't dedided yet whether or not it will be worth it when editing 400-500 wedding shots! Guess I need bigger CF cards, ie, microdrives. I'm just vary of putting that many images on a single media source, especially a mechanical device like a microdrive. If it goes south, you're screwed.

[mendel_leisk]

I'm a very new 20D owner, my first digital. Just been trying Adobe Bridge Camera Raw (or whatever it's called). With all the "auto" settings ticked:

 

Exposure

 

Brightness

 

Contrast

 

Shadow recovery

 

(going from memory, they're something like this)

 

It produced results that were improved over the Canon bundled software, almost always. Compared to Canon's EOS Viewer Utility or DPP, I'm seeing:

 

* recovered highlight detail

 

* opened shadows

 

* overall brightness adjustment (sometimes up, sometimes down)

 

* contrast adjustment (sometimes more, sometimes less)

 

Plus, it has indicators for highlight and shadow clipping. If you don't like the auto settings, untick, then adjust incrementally while watching the clipping indicators, the brightness/contrast, etcetera, until you like what you see.

 

Worth giving a try.

[alfarmer]

I tried using Photoshop CS2 to convert RAW to JPG and it looked significantly worse (at least on screen) than what the camera itself produced. Are you saying the Canon DPP software does a better job? It would have to in order to convince me to use RAW over JPG...

 

ALF