«

.....it seems are the pros or shooting stars tend to use 3rd party RAW
converters. im new to raws, and just figured using FUV to transfer
them to Photoshop would be fine.

ive also played around w/ Adobe's Camera RAW thing, and im slightly
confused... it really lets you make a lot of choices/changes to your
RAW. which raises a couple questions:

1) is this a good thing? i thought raws were supposed to be your
un-touched origs

2) why do them w/ the Camera RAW sliders instead of working w/
Adjustment Layers and Undo on TIFFs?


thanks!
matt


--
Matt Del Vecchio
http://www.semi-suave.com

"matt del vecchio" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ....it seems are the pros or shooting stars tend to use 3rd party RAW
> converters. im new to raws, and just figured using FUV to transfer
> them to Photoshop would be fine.
>
I have just started using the raw converter that comes with PSCS and it is
far far easier to use that FUV not to mention much quicker. I saw some
research (sorry cant find link) that strongly suggested that the quality of
the conversion was also better.

ive also played around w/ Adobe's Camera RAW thing, and im slightly
> confused... it really lets you make a lot of choices/changes to your
> RAW. which raises a couple questions:
>
> 1) is this a good thing? i thought raws were supposed to be your
> un-touched origs
>
> 2) why do them w/ the Camera RAW sliders instead of working w/
> Adjustment Layers and Undo on TIFFs?
>

Just use it for WB, still use PS for other adjustments.

Doug


> thanks!
> matt
>
>
> --
> Matt Del Vecchio
> http://www.semi-suave.com

> Just use it for WB, still use PS for other adjustments.
>
> Doug
>

Oh, and a bit of exposure comp if req.

The amount of 'fine tuning' you can do is pretty impressive

One of the main advantages of shooting RAW is the amount of control you have
over your image during post processing. The RAW conversion is the first step
in post processing. RAW converters that have multiple tools and slider type
adjustments allow you to fine tune your image's color, tonality and
sharpness before it ever arrives in your imaging program for end use. This
is a huge advantage for folks who don't have Photoshop's 16 bit color
processing features. See an article that has a comparative overview using
Canon 10 RAW images of Capture One DSLR, BreezeBrowser, Canon's File Viewer
Utility and Adobe's RAW converters at
http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawco...converters.htm

Cheers, Steve
http://www.sphoto.com
Photo Gallery and Digital Imaging Information.....

"matt del vecchio" <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ....it seems are the pros or shooting stars tend to use 3rd party RAW
> converters. im new to raws, and just figured using FUV to transfer
> them to Photoshop would be fine.
>
> ive also played around w/ Adobe's Camera RAW thing, and im slightly
> confused... it really lets you make a lot of choices/changes to your
> RAW. which raises a couple questions:
>
> 1) is this a good thing? i thought raws were supposed to be your
> un-touched origs
>
> 2) why do them w/ the Camera RAW sliders instead of working w/
> Adjustment Layers and Undo on TIFFs?
>
>
> thanks!
> matt
>
>
> --
> Matt Del Vecchio
> http://www.semi-suave.com

In article < >,
matt del vecchio says...

> ....it seems are the pros or shooting stars tend to
> use 3rd party RAW converters.

Not for me.

> .. just figured using FUV to transfer
> them to Photoshop would be fine.

Exactly. It is a little slow, but hey,
my double Xeon equalizes that.

--
Michael Quack <>

http://www.photoquack.de/glamour/1.htm
http://www.photoquack.de/fashion/1.htm

I think the biggest knock against the Canon File Viewer Utility is
that is sloooowwww. I was pretty pleased with the quality I got out of
it and generally thought it okay. Except for the speed.

That said, the Adobe RAW converter ROCKS. It gives you a lot more
flexibility is way way faster than the Canon software. And it allows
you to work in 16 bit color for even more flexibility.

The advantage to working with RAW files in either the Canon FVU or
Adobe RAW Converter is that RAW files have more data in them. You can
change the color balance, exposure etc and not lose and data or
quality. And you can revert to the original RAW file if you have to.
The RAW files are like your negs in that you can always reprint for a
different look or better exposure. Although RAW files are larger than
JPEGs, they are still smaller than TIFF or other file formats because
they use loss less compression.

You can achieve many of these ends if you shoot JPEGs, and editting in
Photoshop, but it can be a lengthy process. Also, JPEGs are lossy
compression. Every time you open the photo, make changes and then
resave the photo you throw away some data. Doing a Save As (instead of
simply Saving) reduces some of the quality loss but not all of it.

Your mileage may vary, but I have found that for the best quality and
most flexibility in post processing shoot RAW, when speed is
important, or storage space on your CF cards is at a premium, shoot
JPEGs.

jk

(matt del vecchio) wrote in message news:<. com>...
> ....it seems are the pros or shooting stars tend to use 3rd party RAW
> converters. im new to raws, and just figured using FUV to transfer
> them to Photoshop would be fine.
>
> ive also played around w/ Adobe's Camera RAW thing, and im slightly
> confused... it really lets you make a lot of choices/changes to your
> RAW. which raises a couple questions:
>
> 1) is this a good thing? i thought raws were supposed to be your
> un-touched origs
>
> 2) why do them w/ the Camera RAW sliders instead of working w/
> Adjustment Layers and Undo on TIFFs?
>
>
> thanks!
> matt

In article < >,
matt del vecchio <> wrote:

>ive also played around w/ Adobe's Camera RAW thing, and im slightly
>confused... it really lets you make a lot of choices/changes to your
>RAW. which raises a couple questions:

ACR doesn't perform any changes to the raw file. It simply stores the
settings you use for each image in a seperate file. This is explained in the
manual.

matt del vecchio <> wrote in message
news: om...
> ....it seems are the pros or shooting stars tend to use 3rd party RAW
> converters. im new to raws, and just figured using FUV to transfer
> them to Photoshop would be fine.
>
> ive also played around w/ Adobe's Camera RAW thing, and im slightly
> confused... it really lets you make a lot of choices/changes to your
> RAW. which raises a couple questions:
>
> 1) is this a good thing? i thought raws were supposed to be your
> un-touched origs
>
> 2) why do them w/ the Camera RAW sliders instead of working w/
> Adjustment Layers and Undo on TIFFs?
>
>
> thanks!
> matt
>
>
> --
> Matt Del Vecchio
> http://www.semi-suave.com


RAW is for those that need to keep correcting there errors. Correcting
errors in RAW files gives a much better result then correcting the errors
in JPEG files. However some don't need RAW because the photo was
taken correctly to the photgraphers like.

"YoYo" <> wrote in message
news:...

> RAW is for those that need to keep correcting there errors.
Correcting
> errors in RAW files gives a much better result then correcting the
errors
> in JPEG files. However some don't need RAW because the photo was
> taken correctly to the photgraphers like.

"Correctly" is relative. RAW gives you access to a much greater
dynamic range than out-of-camera JPEGs.

> ACR doesn't perform any changes to the raw file. It simply stores the
> settings you use for each image in a seperate file. This is explained in the
> manual.

....ok, but still question #2 - why? why adjust contrast and things
other than white balance in ACR rather than photoshop proper? is there
some advantage to messing w/ a new set of sliders over the ones im
familar with?


matt