Evaluating RAW editors

Hi,

I have been looking at RSE, C1 Pro and the bundled canon Raw editor and learning about RAW ( as my PS will not open CR2 files even after insalling the new update).

To be honest I dont really see whats so special about the changes that you can make to your image with RAW editors. Why not just use Adjust and the many options for brightness, levels, curves etc on the Photoshop console with TIFF files.

From the way I read all these posts, I was expecting to be able to make a dark photo lighter but still looking realistic rather than washed out etc. Seems no diff from editing tiffs.

Be honest.... alternations in RAW arn't that ground-breaking! And with RSE and C1 they seem to lack a history panel or good undo commands too.

Thats my moan of the day! Simon

There's a lot more data available in the RAW file than in a JPG, so any adjustments you do come out with higher quality images. It takes knowledge, experience, and practice to get the best out of your RAW editor.

CS2 will support the 350D before too long i'm sure.

In order to get your images into TIFF format you still have to use a RAW converter of some kind to make your TIFF.

There isn't anything out there that will save a really poorly exposed image. In my experience you can save up to about a stop and a half on either side. However, if your highlights are blown you won't get them back. There is no detail to work with.

In both C1 and RSE you can always revert to back to the original file and start over. It may not seem like ground-breaking but try doing to a JPG out of camera what you are trying to achieve with a RAW file and you will see some very dramatic opportunities to improve your image.

I use both C1 PRO and RSE and they both work very well. C1 has more options but when RSE brings out their paid version of this program they will undoubtedly match or exceed the functionality of C1. I never did start to use the Canon converter as I was happy with what I had. The RAW converter that came with the 10D kind of left a bad taste in my mouth about Canon's software. I like to be able to batch run the RAW conversions on the fly so this took Adobe's converter off of my horizon. I understand that CS2 now lets you batch.

RAW shooting is not for everyone. It takes some time to get used to getting your conversions done right but once you get the hang of it, you will not want to go back to shooting JPG

CS2 (and Elements 3) has supported the 350D RAW since May 2005 with the ACR 3.01 plugin and/or DNG a standalone program downloaded free with 3.01. ACR 3.01 will not work with CS but I believe DNG works universally.

Due to the new Adobe Bridge, the CS2 RAW plugin goes into a different folder than in the past and according to the Adobe forums many people mistakenly install it incorrectly.

Follow the instructions on the download page and it works. It has and continues to work for me since it was released.

Jim

syburn,

One thing I did with my RAW converter (DPP) just last weekend. I changed the white balance on 80 pictures from Auto WB to shade. Three clicks, 80 images, done.

Can you do that with Photoshop?

thats about the main reason i shoot RAW. even snaps because its so easy to adjust multiple files in one go.
I was over the park at the weekend and shot about 100 RAW files using AWB.
loaded them all into C1, adjusted the first one to get the WB correct then applied it to most of the others. ended up with 72 jpegs all with a consistant colour balance. took about 1 min.
doubt even PSCS2 can do it that quickly.

Dave.

Being honest..
Alterations in the RAW converter ARE goround breaking!
There are a host of adjustments that C1 and RSE have that are not found in PS.. (well maybe CS2 has some form of knock off them but I don't have CS2 yet to know)
Even with a cursory dabble in C1 I was convinced that it could help me get more from my RAW files than just a straight conversion to TIFF and then PS manipulation.. but the more I use these tools the more profound the results have been.

Three quick examples of what RAW converters have that PS doesn't do so well.

1: Selectable Parameters: Open a RAW file In BreezeBrowser.... now in the drop down you can select any of the in camera shooting profiles availble.. regardless of what you actually had the camera set to.. and see the effects live on the preveiw screen before selecting whoch parametrs to start with as a base.
Try that in PSCS

2. Open a RAW file in any Converter Other than Breezebrowser
Switch between As shopt White balnce and a host of other selectable presets, plus define your own using temprature sliders and tone control. This is a converter only trick. Sure you can use and eyedropper in PSCS and muck with color in all the sliders.. but nothing so easy, seemless and repeatable as a RAW converter.

3. Saturation (and here's a doozy) Open an image in RSE or C1, and start pushing color saturation.. How far can you go? You can push to your hearts content with out any harsh artifacts.
Convert the same file to Tiff without any saturation in the RAW converter and use PSCS to boost saturation.. in this case you can only push so far before it goes all to hell..

Exactly. its not just about minor changes but big changes without loosing quality.
The only thing i find is missing in C1 is that you cant preview at full res at all magnifications like you can in RSE but RSE has no crop or straighten tool which i find i use all the time.

Dave.

Remember a RAW converter is just that - its not supposed to be a full post processing package. All you are doing is adjusting /converting the as-shot data from the sensor. If you want to crop/straighten/add bells and whistles use PS.

And RSE has a snapshot facility so you can create as many variations on your RAW file as you like and convert the one you lilke best. It saves all the settings in a small .RSW file.

Thanks everyone - I think I need to give these softwares more time and I have mangaed to get my Photoshop to except cr2 files so now Im ready to rock!

What a Great help you all are on this forum!!!!

Simon

Syburn,

When I first tried RAW a couple of months ago I kept switching around CS2,DPP,Capture One,Breezebrowser,Raws​hooter etc trying to find the "BEST" converter.
To be honest I was stuggling with the RAW format until I just decided to stick with one converter. I chose ACR but that choice is not important.

My advice would be choose one and forget about the others and learn to get good results with the RAW format. There will be plenty of time later to compare converters, just get up close and personal with one converter first.

Hope that helps.....

Very good advice Mapollo!

I cut my teeth on ACR.. I had started playing C1 at the time but when the ACR plug in for PS7 came out I grabbed it and used it almost exclusively.

PS was just so much more familiar to me it was easier to get my feet wet with RAW using that. I might suggest this for any RAW newb if you allready have CS.

It was some time before I went back to trying C1 and realized the benifits.. but the learning curve is steeper and less familiar. It pays off.. I would not give up C1 or RSE for just ACR now.. but I would still say as a learning tool ACR may be the best route.
And of course he bundled software is much more capable than it was historically.. DPP is a big improvement over "zoom browser"

bump

Yes it can. open all photos in camera raw, adjust white balance, then with all photos selected and corrected image displayed , choose white balance select tool and slect the an appropriate point in the image. All images are corrected. It even corrects the images in the background while you go back into photoshop to work on other images.

Personally I still didn't get any good enough explanation why RAW would be so much better. Those explanations which I found until now goes like this:
1. You can set WB later on - Yes I agree, but I can always set correct custom WB while shooting already. Only exception for this is when shooting wedding for example, and you are jumping in and out all the time. For this I agree raw is better since you don't have time to change wb every 3 shoots. But most of people here don't shoot weddings or do they?
2. You can set correct exposure later on - Yes I agree, but I can always set correct exposure while shooting already
3. You get uncompressed file with raw, while jpeg is compressed and has lower quality - This is only real argument for raw against jpeg.
I have feeling that raw is for most of people just excuse for being lazy and not bother to set your camera right when shooting. If someone else has some other arguments why raw is better then jpeg I would really appreciate them.