Why BreezeBrowser ?

[gthorn]

I have just had another look at BreezeBrowser V2 and I still don't see what I would use it for ? I mean, I have the new Canon RAW Converter, Thumbsplus, Photoshop, Ulead PhotoImpact and Corel PhotoPaint.

To get my pictures onto the PC, I use the USB interface with the latest Canon software to automatically transfer my pictures from the camera into a folder which ThumbsPlus opens by default. The pictures are also automatically erased on the camera (D30) so I never have to remove the CompactFlash card (512MB).

From Thumbsplus, I can launch the Canon raw convertor to convert the file to 16bit tiff, and then I launch the editing software to work on the picture.

The only hangup I have with this arrangement is that the Canon raw convertor is sloooooow and doesn't use the original raw filename (CRW_1234.CRW should be converted to IMG_1234.TIF or similar)

How can BreezeBrowser improve this for me?

Regards

Graham

[Rudi]

Graham,

instead of listing all the differences, why don't you try out the demo version of BreezeBrowser and see if you like it? It won't cost you a thing, and if you don't like it, don't use it... :)

I use BreezeBrowser in combination with Downloader, and find it much easier than using the supplied Canon software. YMMV... you might prefer doing things the way you're doing them now, but you won't know which you prefer until you try it out for yourself.

BreezeBrowser really comes into its own if you convert lots of photos - the Canon software has an annoying tendency to move files around and converting always seemed like a lot of work to me (but then I haven't tried the latest Canon converter, even though I did download it - I'm happy enough with BreezeBrowser and don't really feel like wasting time trying to find out if the software has been improved to my satisfaction. What's the point of that, when I know that BB already works exactly the way I expect).

A bit long-winded, but there you go... :D

[gthorn]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I have downloaded tried (I used the words "had another look") BreezeBrowser hence my question. If it's just for converting, then I think the latest Canon utilities are a better option. i.e. I can automatically transfer the pictures into a predefined folder, erase them in the camera, and launch the CRW converter against the files. (I don't actually like Canon software, but it has come a long way from the software I got when I bought the camera.)

All I need now is a front end to the convertor to keep the file names similar to what they were when they came out of the camera. i.e. CRW_1234.CRW must become IMG_1234.TIF. I will be attempting to write one over the weekend.

Graham

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Graham,

Downloader, the free companion program to BB, which Rudi mentioned, takes care of downloading files from the camera/card reader. It does stuff like optional auto delete files, copies files to folders based on dates, creation of EXIF data in a separate text file AND it doesn't rename image files.

BB does conversion, JPG extraction, HTML generation and some processing. As far as I can gather there are some BB users who go straight from the camera to the web with DL+BB.

I don't use the processing features because I use LinearSharpen and I am using FrontPage for my web site with my own gallery structure.

One thing that BB is not is an image database.

Assuming that I had a bunch of images taken on 12 July 2002 and I was going to process them all, my workflow would be:

1. Plug in D30 to USB port.

- XP would recognise this as a camera event and DL would start DL

- DL would automatically:
- download image files to a folder ../2002/07/10
- delete image files from camera
- start BB at the new folder
- close

2. I would go to BB choose raw conversion and:
-choose "convert all". Settings would be copied from previously as 16-bit linear TIFF.
-I would specify target folder ../2002/07/10/raw, which BB would create for me.
- go and have a drink while conversion went on :)

3. I would start Photoshop
- Check preferences in my action LinearSharpenMenu
- File>Automate>Batch to process images in ../raw
- Go and have another drink :D

4. Come back and have a look at the finished results.

Elapsed time obviously depends on the number of images, but actual keyboard time? 5 minutes or so.

You should give BB and DL another chance.

Cheers,

[gthorn]

Roger

Up to your point 2. the Canon utilities are much the same. The files don't get renamed during the downloading process, it's only the subsequent RAW converter that does that.

I'll check BB again.

BTW, I haven't managed to get the LinearSharpening working. I end up with a picture that's been over brightened and over sharpened. Like I mean it's completely unusable ! Obviously I'm doing something wrong, but the instructions seem very straightforward, so I just don't know what the problem is.

I also found that it takes quite a bit of time and it appears that lot's of things seem to get repeated.

I am using PS 6.0 and have a pretty good PC. I'm also supposed by be a fairly competent programmer. Maybe I'm just getting old :-(

[Roger_Cavanagh]

gthorn wrote:
BTW, I haven't managed to get the LinearSharpening working. I end up with a picture that's been over brightened and over sharpened. Like I mean it's completely unusable ! Obviously I'm doing something wrong, but the instructions seem very straightforward, so I just don't know what the problem is.

The obvious thing you could be doing wrong is not converting to linear TIFF. As I recall there a check box hidden in preferences for linear in RIC. The linear image will be very dark, so if you're starting with images that look OK, that is the problem.

I also found that it takes quite a bit of time and it appears that lot's of things seem to get repeated.

That is true. LS is not the fastest thing on the planet, but you can set it up for batch operation and go and have a pint while it does its stuff. It's not the exactly the same stuff being repeated, but variations of settings on the same commands

... Maybe I'm just getting old...

Aren't we all? :) Still age brings the wisdom to know that attractive women are not all under 25. :D

Cheers,