Canon Raw Image Converter for 10D

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Ted Rogers, Apr 24, 2004.

  1. Ted Rogers

    Ted Rogers Guest

    Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files. I have tried
    setting up an action in Photoshop but it takes so long.......

    Thanks

    Ted
    Ted Rogers, Apr 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Ronnie McKinley, Apr 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ted Rogers

    jriegle Guest

    I wonder if Irfanview can do this with the Canon plugin?


    "Ted Rogers" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files. I have

    tried
    > setting up an action in Photoshop but it takes so long.......
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Ted
    >
    >
    jriegle, Apr 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Ted Rogers

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Ted Rogers"

    >Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files.


    Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99. You can only batch 20 files at a
    time with this version (with more expensive versions you can do more) but the
    resulting tiff files have better image quality than the other converters I've
    tried (Canon's Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS RAW converter).

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 24, 2004
    #4
  5. dy (Bill Hilton) wrote in message news:<>...
    > >From: "Ted Rogers"

    >
    > >Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files.

    >
    > Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99. You can only batch 20 files at a
    > time with this version (with more expensive versions you can do more) but the
    > resulting tiff files have better image quality than the other converters I've
    > tried (Canon's Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS RAW converter).
    >
    > Bill


    Truly amazing that Canon rips you off like this.
    George Preddy, Apr 24, 2004
    #5
  6. "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > >From: "Ted Rogers"

    >
    > >Does this exist? I want to be able to batch-convert raw files.

    >
    > Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99. You can only batch 20 files at

    a
    > time with this version (with more expensive versions you can do more) but

    the
    > resulting tiff files have better image quality than the other converters

    I've
    > tried (Canon's Zoombrowser, BreezeBrowser and Photoshop CS RAW converter).
    >
    > Bill

    -----------------------------
    So Bill...
    Broad reaching statements like "better image quality" are of no value to
    anyone trying to decide on a program. Can you by any chance elaborate on it
    please?
    What is it better than and how do you quantify quality?
    Douglas
    Douglas MacDonald, Apr 24, 2004
    #6
  7. Ted Rogers

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >> "Bill Hilton" <> wrote
    >>
    >> Get the Phase One Capture One LE for $99 ... the resulting
    >> tiff files have better image quality than the other converters
    >> I've tried ...


    >From: "Douglas MacDonald"
    >
    >So Bill...
    >Broad reaching statements like "better image quality" are of no value
    >to anyone trying to decide on a program.


    So Douglas ... since we gave the URL where one can download a free trial
    version for 15 days I just figured people who are interested would try it for
    themselves and make a decision based on comparing results on their images ...
    http://www.c1dslr.com/ in case you missed it. You can also download the SE
    version and use it for another 15 days and then the Pro version and use IT for
    30 more days, giving you up to 60 days of unrestricted evaluation time.

    >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than ...


    Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are much
    better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software or
    Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives you a
    built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow' has
    lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as Astia
    and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the 'Film
    High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to Velvia. The
    default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.

    Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1 are
    smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to have a
    bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem to show
    more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's really
    noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors from the
    defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll have to
    pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was already
    included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.

    These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with other
    cameras YMMV. Try it and see.

    > ... and how do you quantify quality?


    Since it's a *visual* art I just look at them and do a direct comparison :)
    Download a copy and see for yourself.

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 24, 2004
    #7
  8. Ted Rogers

    Lisa Horton Guest

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    >


    >
    >
    > >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than ...

    >
    > Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are much
    > better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software or
    > Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives you a
    > built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow' has
    > lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as Astia
    > and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the 'Film
    > High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to Velvia. The
    > default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.
    >
    > Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1 are
    > smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to have a
    > bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem to show
    > more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's really
    > noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors from the
    > defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll have to
    > pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was already
    > included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.
    >
    > These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with other
    > cameras YMMV. Try it and see.


    Wow, that sure is a ringing endorsement for C1 Bill. Although I gave it
    a superficial trial and didn't care for it, I think I'll take another
    look based on your praise.

    Lisa
    Lisa Horton, Apr 24, 2004
    #8
  9. "Lisa Horton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    >
    > Bill Hilton wrote:
    > >

    >
    > >
    > >
    > > >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than

    ....
    > >
    > > Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are

    much
    > > better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software

    or
    > > Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives

    you a
    > > built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow'

    has
    > > lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as

    Astia
    > > and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the

    'Film
    > > High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to

    Velvia. The
    > > default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.
    > >
    > > Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1

    are
    > > smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to

    have a
    > > bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem

    to show
    > > more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's

    really
    > > noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors

    from the
    > > defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll

    have to
    > > pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was

    already
    > > included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.
    > >
    > > These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with

    other
    > > cameras YMMV. Try it and see.

    >
    > Wow, that sure is a ringing endorsement for C1 Bill. Although I gave it
    > a superficial trial and didn't care for it, I think I'll take another
    > look based on your praise.
    >
    > Lisa

    -------------------
    I had no success at all with the demo I downloaded. I thought it was
    particularly difficult to understand and just as hard to use. I have used
    Irfanview for some time now to open thumbs in directories full of CRW files
    and used the "open with external editor" choice to edit selected files in
    Photoshop CS.

    Before I got PS8 I used to copy a file to the clipboard and open it with PS
    6.0 (I never had PS7) and paste it into a new document.

    I am happy with this setup, even with PS's new browse function I still use
    Irfanview. What I have difficulty with is when there are descriptions of
    "better" "best" and "Smoother" without quantifying 'than what'? Quite
    frankly here... I can not tell the difference between a photo converted with
    Irfanview and one converted with C1.

    But then I have a problem telling the difference between photos edited with
    Photoshop and those edited with Photopaint too. So I think at the end of the
    day, C1 would have to allow me to actually see a difference in a 16"x20"
    print (which it doesn't) before I'd be willing to look at it again. I was
    curious how Bill quantified his global descriptions... Now he has, I am
    still not convinced he is right.

    Douglas
    Douglas MacDonald, Apr 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Lisa Horton <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > Bill Hilton wrote:
    > >

    >
    > >
    > >
    > > >Can you by any chance elaborate on it please? What is it better than ...

    > >
    > > Sure ... I see two major improvements in the tiffs, first the colors are much
    > > better with the C1 "Film Standard" than with either the Canon software or
    > > Photoshop CS RAW converters, using the default values. C1 also gives you a
    > > built-in choice of three film type tone curves, the 'Film extra shadow' has
    > > lower contrast with more muted colors, more like a portrait film such as Astia
    > > and closer to the defaults I'm getting from Zoombrowser and CS, and the 'Film
    > > High Contrast' has more saturated colors, perhaps more similar to Velvia. The
    > > default 'Film Standard' is somewhere in-between.
    > >
    > > Even more important to image quality (to me) is that the tiffs from C1 are
    > > smoother in the out of focus areas compared to CS and ZB, which seem to have a
    > > bit of cross-hatching or mosaicing when compared to C1 files, and seem to show
    > > more detail in finely detailed areas. You can see this at 100% and it's really
    > > noticeable at higher magnifications. These two things (better colors from the
    > > defaults, smoother looking files) are why I prefer C1, even though I'll have to
    > > pay $249 for the SE version for the camera I use while RAW support was already
    > > included with CS ... C1 is THAT much better, for me anyway.
    > >
    > > These results are for our 6 Mpix Canon 10D and 11 Mpixel Canon 1Ds, with other
    > > cameras YMMV. Try it and see.

    >
    > Wow, that sure is a ringing endorsement for C1 Bill. Although I gave it
    > a superficial trial and didn't care for it, I think I'll take another
    > look based on your praise.


    Wow, all that cash just for ok RAW software, and I thought the SD9 was
    a barn burning good deal before all that.
    George Preddy, Apr 25, 2004
    #10
  11. Ted Rogers

    Lisa Horton Guest

    George Preddy wrote:
    >


    >
    > I thought


    It's good to try new things!

    Lisa
    Lisa Horton, Apr 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Ted Rogers

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: Lisa Horton

    > Although I gave it a superficial trial and didn't care for it,
    > I think I'll take another look


    Hi Lisa,

    Here are some links to sites comparing C1 output to various other solutions.
    They are seeing pretty much what I'm seeing. Note these sites were linked from
    the C1 Help files (Addendums > Useful Web Links > RAW converter comparisons) so
    obviously not an unbiased source, but here they are. If someone has links
    showing the opposite (that the Canon converter or CS does better) I'd like to
    see them too, but I haven't come across any links showing that.

    http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20503&gal_col=2 ... and especially his
    'conclusions' page at ...
    http://www.lashier.com/home.cfm?dir_cat=20521&gal_col=7

    http://www.photographics.at/Canon_Phaseone/1ds_phaseone.html (especially the
    text in the left column)

    http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/19_c1vsbb.htm
    http://www.chaddahlquist.com/software/convertor.jpg
    http://pictureflow.com/CaptureOne/Pages/C1-Comp-JD.html (this guy is affiliated
    with Phase One, note)

    Be sure to set up the color management page (Workflow > Show Color Management
    Settings) and assign your monitor ICM profile at the bottom of this dialog box,
    since C1 is color managed.

    If you want to see a small crop from one of my files I'll send you part of an
    Canon 1Ds owl shot showing eye detail and showing the out of focus background
    with both C1 and CS. That conversion was enough to convince me, but you should
    be able to see it in your 10D files too. I recently convinced a friend on the
    r.p.technique.nature NG to try C1 LE with her 10D and this is what she wrote
    back ... "I tried it on a couple of shots, and I was AMAZED at how much better
    the
    conversion was than ZoomBrowser. I have decided to get the LE version at the
    next paycheck."

    Bill
    Bill Hilton, Apr 25, 2004
    #12
  13. Lisa Horton <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > George Preddy wrote:
    > >

    >
    > >
    > > I thought

    >
    > It's good to try new things!


    But not when the new things are pricey add-on RAW software, required
    because your DSLR manufacturer is totally incompetent when it comes to
    digital.
    George Preddy, Apr 25, 2004
    #13
  14. In rec.photo.digital dy (Bill Hilton) wrote:

    > I recently convinced a friend on the
    >r.p.technique.nature NG to try C1 LE with her 10D and this is what she wrote
    >back ... "I tried it on a couple of shots, and I was AMAZED at how much better
    >the
    >conversion was than ZoomBrowser. I have decided to get the LE version at the
    >next paycheck."



    FWIW .. I'm now using the C1 Rebel program with my Canon 300D. Having been
    previously using the free bundled Canon software which came with the 300D.
    There is IMO no comparison, the C1 (Rebel in my case) software is just miles
    better. So good it has reinstated my support of the RAW file, I was about to
    just ditch RAW in favour of jpg. Not now as with the C1 software one can
    instantly see the benefits of RAW.





    --
    Ronnie
    Ronnie McKinley, Apr 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Ted Rogers

    Crownfield Guest

    Lisa Horton wrote:
    >
    > George Preddy wrote:
    > >

    >
    > >
    > > I thought

    >
    > It's good to try new things!


    and thus you win "The Laugh of the Day Award" !!

    thanks.

    >
    > Lisa
    Crownfield, Apr 25, 2004
    #15
  16. Steve Hoffmann, Apr 26, 2004
    #16
    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. Steve Hoffmann

    RAW converter comparisons with Canon's 10D

    Steve Hoffmann, Jul 29, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    364
    badgerfish
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. Keith Kuttler

    Canon 10D 1.4 x converter problem (autofocus)

    Keith Kuttler, May 7, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    854
    George Preddy
    May 8, 2004
  3. David Ellis

    10D overexposure and adjust in PS raw-image converter?

    David Ellis, May 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    18
    Views:
    500
  4. Al Dykes

    Canon G9 RAW, same as Canon 300d RAW?

    Al Dykes, Nov 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    471
    John Bean
    Nov 12, 2007
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    752
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page