Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon Raw files and Photoshop 8.0

 
 
jpc
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2007
On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:13:07 -0600, ray <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Sat, 30 Jun 2007 03:41:50 -0700, Jonathan Renouf wrote:
>
>> Hi there,
>> I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
>> Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
>> produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
>> because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
>> required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
>> CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
>> Thanks
>> J

>
>Try ufraw or dcraw - it remains more up to date.


I second the suggestion. In addition ufraw with its plain vanilla
bilinear interpolation (you have 4 interpolations to pick from)
usually gives a cleaner raw image than CS2 when you are working with
noisy images. That's my main use for RAW, dragging the best picture
out of underexposed low light images.

jpc
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Ray Macey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2007
On Jul 2, 12:32 am, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> When you go to save, is it in 8 bits?


Yes, trust me, I've covered all the basics. It's in 8 bits, it's RGB,
it's been flattened. It also works just fine with DNG files made from
my Olympus E-300 using exactly the same process. It doesn't even
happen with all of my 400d files, but it does with others, and I have
no way of knowing in advance which ones it will work on and which ones
it won't

Ray

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2007
On Jun 30, 6:41 am, Jonathan Renouf <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> Hi there,
> I've got Photoshop 8.0 and I've just got a Canon EOS5D. However,
> Photoshop doesn't seem to recognise the CR2 raw files that the Canon
> produces. I get an error message: "Could not complete your request
> because this version of Photoshop does not supply the services
> required by this plug in module". Surely it must be possible to use
> CR2 on Photoshop 8.0?
> Thanks
> J


For all of you "I LOVE RAW", "I ONLY SHOOT RAW", "RAW RULES", AND "RAW
DOESN'T INCREASE YOUR WORKFLOW" people out there, here you go with an
example. The solution is "spend more money on new software" or "get a
converter and add a step or two". Raw on !!!!!

 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2007
On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
[snip]
> For all of you "I LOVE RAW", "I ONLY SHOOT RAW", "RAW RULES", AND "RAW
> DOESN'T INCREASE YOUR WORKFLOW" people out there, here you go with an
> example. The solution is "spend more money on new software" or "get a
> converter and add a step or two". Raw on !!!!!


What are you talking about? I bought Photoshop long before I started
to use a digital camera. (I guess many others did so too). The
software preceded shooting raw.

I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).

The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.

For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2007
On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > For all of you "I LOVE RAW", "I ONLY SHOOT RAW", "RAW RULES", AND "RAW
> > DOESN'T INCREASE YOUR WORKFLOW" people out there, here you go with an
> > example. The solution is "spend more money on new software" or "get a
> > converter and add a step or two". Raw on !!!!!

>
> What are you talking about? I bought Photoshop long before I started
> to use a digital camera. (I guess many others did so too). The
> software preceded shooting raw.
>
> I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
> at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).
>
> The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
> raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
> photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
> out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
> raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.
>
> For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
> photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"


Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not
one of them.

>
> --
> Barry Pearsonhttp://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/



 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2007
Pat wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
>>
>> I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
>> at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).
>>
>> The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
>> raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
>> photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
>> out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
>> raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.
>>
>> For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
>> photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

>
> Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not
> one of them.


Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs.
the RAW format?

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pat
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2007
On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Pat wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 2:37 pm, Barry Pearson <(E-Mail Removed)>
> > wrote:
> >> On Jul 2, 2:35 pm, Pat <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote

>
> >> I use Lightroom because it is a tool designed to handle 100s of images
> >> at a time. Whether they are raw or JPEG (or TIFFs from a scanner).

>
> >> The major tools that some of use are not dictated by whether we shoot
> >> raw. They are based on the nature of modern, in particular digital
> >> photography, especially the ease of taking LOTS of images, and trying
> >> out lots of things. But, once we have the tools, they make shooting
> >> raw EASIER than shooting JPEG.

>
> >> For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
> >> photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

>
> > Sorry. There are plenty of good questions out there, but that is not
> > one of them.

>
> Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs.
> the RAW format?
>
> --
> john mcwilliams


I have no ax to grind. I think it's a useful format for some things
and not very useful for others. It is a tool. Just like no lens is
perfect for all circumstances, neither RAW nor JPEG are right under
all circumstances. There are very few times in photography when
"always" or "never" are the right answer. There are too many
misinformed zealots in both (RAW and JPEGP) camps.

I do find it funny, though, when people discuss shooting RAW through a
P&S. Whatever floats your boat, but that's sort of like putting a
racecar motor on a skateboard. Hey, but if it works for you....

Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW
formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the
RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually,
there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away
in time.

As for the person who asked "why shoot jpg". Well if they can't
figure it out, they should go and do so. RAW is not the answer to all
questions all of the time -- and neither is JPG.




 
Reply With Quote
 
John McWilliams
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2007
Pat wrote:
> On Jul 2, 3:45 pm, John McWilliams <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>> Other than the expense of it all, Pat, what axe do you have to grind vs.
>> the RAW format>>


> I have no ax to grind. I think it's a useful format for some things
> and not very useful for others. It is a tool. Just like no lens is
> perfect for all circumstances, neither RAW nor JPEG are right under
> all circumstances. There are very few times in photography when
> "always" or "never" are the right answer. There are too many
> misinformed zealots in both (RAW and JPEGP) camps.
>
> I do find it funny, though, when people discuss shooting RAW through a
> P&S. Whatever floats your boat, but that's sort of like putting a
> racecar motor on a skateboard. Hey, but if it works for you....
>
> Archivally, I have some reservations about the proprietary RAW
> formats. Just due to volume, JPG is here to stay. But some of the
> RAW formats will go the way of the PIC format and such. Eventually,
> there will probaby be a standard RAW format so that issue will go away
> in time.
>
> As for the person who asked "why shoot jpg". Well if they can't
> figure it out, they should go and do so. RAW is not the answer to all
> questions all of the time -- and neither is JPG.


Thanks. I agree with what you say, with the exception of ridiculing
shooting RAW in a (good) non-DSLR.

--
john mcwilliams
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Macey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2007
On Jul 3, 4:37 am, Barry Pearson <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
>
> For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
> photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"


Well one reason is that said tools will not always be able to handle
RAW formats from newer cameras. CS2 will not deal with my 400d RAW
files nor with many DNG conversions of said 400d RAW files. I'm
running a trial of CS3 at the moment, but when that runs out, many of
my RAW files will be out of reach until such time as I upgrade to CS3
(not happening any time soon).

Of course, you could argue that this means I don't have the tools
outlined in your rhetorical question, but the tools become a moving
target if you upgrade your camera body even semi regularly.

I'm not trying to start this whole stupid debate again, but I've
discovered from first hand experience in the last week or so that RAW
is not always smooth sailing, so hopefully that answers your question
of at least why why I shoot JPEG

Ray

 
Reply With Quote
 
Barry Pearson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-03-2007
On Jul 3, 4:01 am, Ray Macey <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 4:37 am, Barry Pearson <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > For people with the tools that take advantage of the nature of digital
> > photography, (whether raw or JPEG), the question is "why shoot JPEG?"

>
> Well one reason is that said tools will not always be able to handle
> RAW formats from newer cameras. CS2 will not deal with my 400d RAW
> files nor with many DNG conversions of said 400d RAW files. I'm
> running a trial of CS3 at the moment, but when that runs out, many of
> my RAW files will be out of reach until such time as I upgrade to CS3
> (not happening any time soon).


I've used DNG for years without problems, so have others. Even if I
didn't use CS3 and Lightroom, that would not be a problem for me. I
don't know why you are having problems.

> Of course, you could argue that this means I don't have the tools
> outlined in your rhetorical question, but the tools become a moving
> target if you upgrade your camera body even semi regularly.


See above. It wasn't a rhetorical question - I believe that too often
the question "why shoot raw?" is posed, when "why shoot JPEG?" is
often a better question.

The perception has grown that shooting raw is hard, or needs special
tools, or is perhaps only useful for special occasions, etc. But with
modern workflow tools, like Aperture and Lightroom and probably
others, the difference between shooting raw and shooting JPEG becomes
minimal - except for the easier taking of raw photographs, and for
post-processing the extra flexibility, and often quality, available
with raw.

I believe this trend towards making raw at least as easy as JPEG will
continue.

> I'm not trying to start this whole stupid debate again, but I've
> discovered from first hand experience in the last week or so that RAW
> is not always smooth sailing, so hopefully that answers your question
> of at least why why I shoot JPEG


I shot 115 JPEGs in February. I had strict time constraints and they
had to be used out of the camera for immediate projection. That is the
first time I've found a positive answer, for me, to my question. I
don't say there is never a reason - but I do believe that for many
people raw makes a better default.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Canon G9 RAW, same as Canon 300d RAW? Al Dykes Digital Photography 8 11-12-2007 08:45 AM
Transferring RAW files from a Canon d10 to Photoshop CS riseling@gmail.com Digital Photography 2 01-22-2006 06:53 PM
Canon RAW format and Photoshop 6 Editor www.nutritionsoftware.org Digital Photography 6 11-24-2003 02:23 AM
Photoshop Album and Canon RAW Svein Olav Steinmo Digital Photography 4 08-06-2003 03:08 PM



Advertisments