10D Owners - what's wrong with "File Utility Viewer" for RAWs?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by matt del vecchio, Jan 14, 2004.

  1. .....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, Jan 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. matt del vecchio

    Doug Guest

    "matt del vecchio" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ....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
     
    Doug, Jan 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. matt del vecchio

    Doug Guest


    > 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
     
    Doug, Jan 15, 2004
    #3
  4. 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/rawconverters/rawconverters.htm

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

    "matt del vecchio" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ....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
     
    Steve Hoffmann, Jan 15, 2004
    #4
  5. 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
     
    Michael Quack, Jan 15, 2004
    #5
  6. matt del vecchio

    Jack Kurtz Guest

    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:<>...
    > ....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
     
    Jack Kurtz, Jan 15, 2004
    #6
  7. matt del vecchio

    Chris Brown Guest

    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.
     
    Chris Brown, Jan 15, 2004
    #7
  8. matt del vecchio

    YoYo Guest

    matt del vecchio <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > ....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, Jan 15, 2004
    #8
  9. "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.
     
    The Black Sheep, Jan 15, 2004
    #9
  10. > 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
     
    matt del vecchio, Jan 15, 2004
    #10
  11. matt del vecchio

    Chris Brown Guest

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


    The new settings are recorded as defaults for each image if you do it in
    ACR, which is rather handy if you want to reprocess an image in the future.
    Gives you a nice base to start from, rather than having to redo everything
    to get the image how you remembered it.
     
    Chris Brown, Jan 15, 2004
    #11
  12. matt del vecchio

    dragon1964 Guest

    And some people know how to spell better than others. Spell check doesn't
    know when you have used the wrong word. For example: the word should have
    been "their" not "there."


    > 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.
    >
    >
     
    dragon1964, Jan 15, 2004
    #12
  13. i know the advantages of shooting raw.

    i am interesting in why there are 3rd party utils to do what came w/
    the cam. so far, it seems like processing speed is the number one
    answer.


    matt


    > 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.
     
    matt del vecchio, Jan 15, 2004
    #13
  14. matt del vecchio

    Guest

    In message <>,
    (matt del vecchio) wrote:

    >i know the advantages of shooting raw.
    >
    >i am interesting in why there are 3rd party utils to do what came w/
    >the cam. so far, it seems like processing speed is the number one
    >answer.


    The FVU doesn't let you bring extra highlights below the clipping point,
    unless you set the contrast way down low. At least with 1.2; I don't
    know if 1.3 fixed that.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 16, 2004
    #14
  15. matt del vecchio

    Guest

    In message <>,
    "YoYo" <> wrote:

    >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.


    I bet you'd tell Ansel Adams to stop playing in the darkroom and just
    expose the paper according to the times written in the instructions,
    right?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 16, 2004
    #15
  16. matt del vecchio

    Lisa Horton Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > In message <>,
    > "YoYo" <> wrote:
    >
    > >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.

    >
    > I bet you'd tell Ansel Adams to stop playing in the darkroom and just
    > expose the paper according to the times written in the instructions,
    > right?


    I don't think YoYo's completely off base John. I've noticed that
    digital photos taken under controlled (studio) lighting need much less
    post-processing than "in the field" shots. Like, the histogram is much
    closer to being filled across, making for a smaller levels adjustment.
    I'm not sure if I'm expressing this clearly ...

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Jan 16, 2004
    #16
  17. matt del vecchio

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Lisa Horton <> wrote:

    >I don't think YoYo's completely off base John. I've noticed that
    >digital photos taken under controlled (studio) lighting need much less
    >post-processing than "in the field" shots. Like, the histogram is much
    >closer to being filled across, making for a smaller levels adjustment.
    >I'm not sure if I'm expressing this clearly ...


    The 10D operates on semi-toy level when you shoot JPEG instead of RAW.
    RAW is not an eraser for mistakes! RAW is lower quantizaion of both
    signal and noise, and RAW is 1.6 stops more headroom in the red channel,
    1 stop in the green, and 0.9 stops in the blue on the 10D. RAW allows
    you to cut the effective ISO in half by exposing +1 higher than you
    would in JPEG. It allows you to capture in 12 bits instead of 10.5
    bits.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Jan 16, 2004
    #17
  18. matt del vecchio

    Lisa Horton Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > In message <>,
    > Lisa Horton <> wrote:
    >
    > >I don't think YoYo's completely off base John. I've noticed that
    > >digital photos taken under controlled (studio) lighting need much less
    > >post-processing than "in the field" shots. Like, the histogram is much
    > >closer to being filled across, making for a smaller levels adjustment.
    > >I'm not sure if I'm expressing this clearly ...

    >
    > The 10D operates on semi-toy level when you shoot JPEG instead of RAW.
    > RAW is not an eraser for mistakes! RAW is lower quantizaion of both
    > signal and noise, and RAW is 1.6 stops more headroom in the red channel,
    > 1 stop in the green, and 0.9 stops in the blue on the 10D. RAW allows
    > you to cut the effective ISO in half by exposing +1 higher than you
    > would in JPEG. It allows you to capture in 12 bits instead of 10.5
    > bits.


    I don't see where we're disagreeing... exactly. I didn't quite read
    things right, but I was trying to speak to the thought that if a photo
    is well shot, it needs less, or no, correcting later. I'm fighting the
    flu and my head is apparently still quite thick, as a brick even :)

    Lisa
     
    Lisa Horton, Jan 16, 2004
    #18
  19. >
    > 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.
    >

    Light up another one...
     
    Randall Ainsworth, Jan 16, 2004
    #19
  20. i think ive heard of this... is this the technique where one aims to
    keep the histo closer to the right, just below blow-out point? and why
    was this again?


    thanks,
    matt


    wrote in message

    > you to cut the effective ISO in half by exposing +1 higher than you
    > would in JPEG. It allows you to capture in 12 bits instead of 10.5
    > bits.
     
    matt del vecchio, Jan 16, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. evilaro

    Raws extensions

    evilaro, May 8, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,144
    Jürgen Eidt
    May 10, 2004
  2. Larry R Harrison Jr

    Errors Opening Coolpix 5400 RAWs in Nikon Capture 4

    Larry R Harrison Jr, Oct 16, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    741
    Larry R Harrison Jr
    Oct 17, 2004
  3. anonymous1
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    306
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,252
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. RichA

    OM-D RAWS appear to beat Panasonics

    RichA, Mar 16, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    262
    RichA
    Mar 16, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page