BreezeBrowser ?

[Boswell]

I have read in a number of threads that breezebrowser is the best and easiest option to use for RAW images, I am very new to this, and have been using Zoombrowser to transfer my images to my hard drive and PS CS to edit.
I have only just started to shoot in RAW, this week in fact, mainly due to the fantastic advice I have found here.
But I find Photoshop CS much easier to adjust photos in RAW format, I have downloaded the trial version of Breeze Browser 2.8 last night, and found it very difficult to use. Is this software for pro's and those who really understand histograph.
I was thought this software could download the RAW pictures from your camera as well, but i was unable to do this without converting, the main view screen was also very small in comparrison to CS, meaning the photo i was viewing was tin, compared to CS.

Is there a tutorial to explain how you download your photos from the camera ( I use a card reader, but its the same principle) and then adjust the RAW image before converting.

Boswell

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Boswell,

First off, you are mixing up two Breeze System programs. Apart from BreezeBrowser, which is for conversion, HTML generation, proofing and a bunch of other stuff, there is also DownLoader Pro. DL Pro moves images files (raw and JPG) from your camera/card reader to the PC with a bunch of options for custom naming and location.

I cannot recommend DL Pro too highly. It is an excellent piece of software whatever raw converter you choose to use.

Once the raw files are on the PC, you can use BB for conversion. I have an old article (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/06_workflow.htm) that describes how I used BB and DL with my old D30 that may give you some hints on how to get going. If you check the reviews section, you'll a bit more about DL Pro.

I have BB, PS CS, but my personal favourite raw converter is Capture One DSLR. However, if you are happy with the results from PS CS, BB conversion may not offer you anything. There are a lot of people who don't use BB for conversion, but do use for its other features like HTML gallery creation.

Neither BB nor histograms are the exclusive province of pro's. If you don't understand how to use the exposure histogram, I strongly suggest you learn. Check the links in this section (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/links/links-01.htm#Histograms).

Regards,

[scottbergerphoto]

Just my 2 cents. I found BB to be much easier to use then C1LE. I've been very happy with the results. In addition, I've read on Rob Galbraith's forum that the Canon SDK which is used by BB, gives the best quality conversion and least noise.
I will second what Roger said, you do need to understand histograms to do digital photography, especially when shooting raw.
Heres a tutorial:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-histograms.shtml
Scott

[Boswell]

Thanks for your responses guys, When i said saw converion was easier is CS than BreezeBrowser, i mean making adjustments to the image. I will see if their is a trial version of DL Pro and Capture One.

I had a look at the links you gave for histograms (no idea where i got histograph from, I must of mixed up photography with greek mythology). I think I understand it, the basics anyway. Am I right in saying that so long I do not have any lines touching the sides the image is ok, recoverable anyway. If it goes off the sides its buggered.
I know this is very basic, but is it right or have I misunderstood.

Thanks again

Boz

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Am I right in saying that so long I do not have any lines touching the sides the image is ok, recoverable anyway. If it goes off the sides its buggered.
I know this is very basic, but is it right or have I misunderstood.


Pretty much. The shape of the histogram will be determined by the luminance of the different components in the scene, but anything under-exposed might end up blocked up at the left-end and, conversely, blown highlights would hit the righthand end.

Regards,

[scottbergerphoto]

Just to add to what Roger said. If your shooting ouside on a sunny day or shooting an image that has alot of light colors, and your histogram is inside the lines but to the left, you'll have a very underexposed picture that won't look right even if you lighten it in levels. The histogram represents all the possible tones in a picture. You have to size up for yourself what tones are in your actual subject, where they should fall on the histogram, and after reviewing the histogram of the shot you just took, decide if the histogram accurately represents what you think it should. If not, adjust your exposure and try again.
Scott

[Boosting1Bar]

I find that when I work with RAW images in phsop, the colors seem very inaccurate. For instance, yesterday I opened a RAW in pshop and opened the same RAW in BB. I'm using a dual monitor system, so I was able to put the side by side and compare and the output from BB was much much better than in pshop. The colors were very blunted and out of whack in pshop. I'm not a pshop expert by any means, so this may be an issue with the color settings I have in pshop, but I read a lot about it before I set them, so I don't think that's the problem.

I'd suggest you convert a few images to tiff both from BB and from pshop and compare them. If they look the same then just use whichever program you're more comfortable with, however if they look considerably different like in my case, stick with the one they look better in and then work with them in pshop.

[scottbergerphoto]

I find that when I work with RAW images in phsop, the colors seem very inaccurate. For instance, yesterday I opened a RAW in pshop and opened the same RAW in BB. I'm using a dual monitor system, so I was able to put the side by side and compare and the output from BB was much much better than in pshop. The colors were very blunted and out of whack in pshop. I'm not a pshop expert by any means, so this may be an issue with the color settings I have in pshop, but I read a lot about it before I set them, so I don't think that's the problem.

I'd suggest you convert a few images to tiff both from BB and from pshop and compare them. If they look the same then just use whichever program you're more comfortable with, however if they look considerably different like in my case, stick with the one they look better in and then work with them in pshop.
This has has been written about on www.RobGalbraith.com. Many people feel that the Canon SDK used in BreezeBrowser gives the most accurate conversion. C1 is reported to give less detail but less noise.
Scott

[Boosting1Bar]

I'm sure its probably obvious, but I'm just learning about all this stuff so forgive the dumb question. What do you mean by the CanonSDK?

[Boswell]

Id like to know what CanonSDK is too. The thing that is confusing me is when you say convert using BB, are you making adjustments to the image in BB then converting to tiff or are you just converting to tiff in bb and then making adjustments to the tiff image in CS or some other software. By adjusting I mean changing the white balance or exposure etc.

I only ask because it does not seem very clear how to do this with BB.

I will try tonight and convert the same image, one in BB and the other in CS and see what they are like.

I had a brief look at C1 and has a similar look and feel as CS.

Boz

[yallcome]

Canon Digital Camera Software Developer Kit

I'm sure its probably obvious, but I'm just learning about all this stuff so forgive the dumb question. What do you mean by the CanonSDK?

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Guys,

The Canon SDK = Software Development Kit. This is what BB uses to convert raw images, and thus it gives essentially the same result as Canon's FVU.

Adjustments that are made in the main raw conversion window (WB, saturation, etc.) are applied during conversion. There is a separate post-processing window in BB (unlike FVU) where adjustments can be specified that will be applied, as the name implies, after conversion.

Of the tools that have been mentioned - BB/FVU, C1 and PS CS - none will work perfectly on very image. Colour and tonality will vary and - without going into issues of colour accuracy - it's a subjective view which result you prefer. Me, I like the results from C1. I posted (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/19_c1vsbb.htm) some comparison conversions not long after I got my 10D and in this comparison (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/36_etc.htm), the D60 images include a BB conversion.

Another difference between the tools is workflow. C1 is slower on an image by image basis, but is much superior for batch work because you can set conversion parameters on individual images while batch conversion contiues in the background.

Regards,

[mr_clean001]

Roger - enjoyed your website and the information you provided. Just thought I would say thanks.