Which Canon RAW converter ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 29, 2003.

  1. I just tried to compare images converted by Canon FVU and
    Photoshop CS. The Photoshop converter really sucks.

    The colors are much worse than the FVU, it also alters the image,
    and has more details in the shadows, and the histograms shows how
    my dark image with highlights has been centered closer to the
    middle in the histogram, yet the result is worse.

    dcraw also produces better images.

    So is there any reason to use the import in PS ?
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 29, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Povl H. Pedersen

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >From: "Povl H. Pedersen"

    >I just tried to compare images converted by Canon FVU and
    >Photoshop CS. The Photoshop converter really sucks.


    I had exactly the opposite experience ... I never got good results with Canon's
    FileViewer and consider it one of the sorriest programs I've ever used, but was
    able to get excellent tiffs from the CS converter from the start. But I know
    Photoshop well.

    >The colors are much worse than the FVU


    How is your color management set up? What is your RGB working space, and do
    you have a calibrated monitor? Are you converting to profile when you open the
    file?

    >it also alters the image


    That's the whole point of using Photoshop, you can control the "alteration" and
    get the best possible tiff from your base RAW file.

    >and has more details in the shadows


    Most people consider this a GOOD thing ...

    >So is there any reason to use the import in PS ?


    Use FVU if you feel you get better results with it, but most people agree that
    FVU is terrible and Photoshop is a big improvement. I'm guessing you have a
    problem with your color management flow.

    You might also download the free Breezebrowser RAW converter program and see if
    that does a better job for you. And a lot of people like the Capture One
    converter but it's not cheap.

    Here's some info on Adobe's earlier RAW converter plug-in, a lot of the info is
    still useful for the CS version ...
    http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/camera-raw.shtml

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Dec 29, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Povl H. Pedersen

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    Povl H. Pedersen <> wrote:
    >I just tried to compare images converted by Canon FVU and
    >Photoshop CS. The Photoshop converter really sucks.


    Can't say that's my experience. Of the raw convertors I've tried with the
    10D, I'd say that the Canon convertor was the worst of the lot. Slow and
    poor output. dcraw is somewhat better, but the interpolation algorithm does
    tend to introduce artifacts. Photoshop is based on dcraw, AIUI, but uses its
    own interpolation algorithm, and gets pretty good results IME. I tried a
    demo version of the new cut-down Capture 1, and didn't really get on with
    it, although the image quality was good - comparable to the Photoshop
    convertor, and I can see that if you do this stuff for a living, it would
    probably work out really well.

    In addition to being slower than all the others, and providing significantly
    fewer configuration parameters for conversion than Photoshop and Capture 1,
    Canon's convertor (at least with 10D images) has a broken 16 bit export mode
    - the lowlight detail isn't actually there.

    >The colors are much worse than the FVU,


    How do you mean? If they look "dull", then this may well be a colourspace
    issue in your setup.

    >it also alters the image,


    How do you mean? The raw convertor is what produces the image from the raw
    file, which isn't really an image to start with. What is it that you see
    being "altered"? If you mean that the output doesn't look the same as the
    embedded JPEG, then that's sort of the point of shooting raw...

    >and has more details in the shadows,


    Indeed it does - see the above comment about 16 bit export in FVU. However,
    I'm struggling to see why this is a *bad* thing.

    >and the histograms shows how
    >my dark image with highlights has been centered closer to the
    >middle in the histogram, yet the result is worse.


    You will get best results if the histogram occupies the full range
    available. Photoshop's convertor provides more scope for doing this than
    FVU. YMMV.

    >dcraw also produces better images.


    This may be a matter of personal preference, but whilst dcraw's output is
    certainly better than FVU's, I don't like the interpolation artifacts it's
    prone to, and it won't output AdobeRGB.

    >So is there any reason to use the import in PS ?


    If you prefer FVU, then by all means don't let anyone here stop you using
    it. Just be aware that most people seem to express the opposite preference,
    when asked. In fact, you're the first person I've seen that actually prefers
    FVU. Personally, I could never go back to it.
     
    Chris Brown, Dec 29, 2003
    #3
  4. Povl H. Pedersen

    Mark B. Guest

    "Bill Hilton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    <snip>
    > You might also download the free Breezebrowser RAW converter program and

    see if
    > that does a better job for you.


    Actually, it's not free but there is a trial version you can download.

    > And a lot of people like the Capture One
    > converter but it's not cheap.
    >


    I use BreezeBrowser and Capture One (Limited Edition). Each has their place
    for me; I use BB for downloading from the card, organizing, browsing, quick
    conversions, and creating HTML pages. I use Capture One for most
    conversions.

    Mark
     
    Mark B., Dec 29, 2003
    #4
  5. Povl H. Pedersen

    Christian Guest

    Povl H. Pedersen wrote:

    > I just tried to compare images converted by Canon FVU and
    > Photoshop CS. The Photoshop converter really sucks.
    >
    > The colors are much worse than the FVU, it also alters the image,
    > and has more details in the shadows, and the histograms shows how
    > my dark image with highlights has been centered closer to the
    > middle in the histogram, yet the result is worse.


    BreezeBrower uses the Canon libraries and I find it does an excellent job.
    I haven't tried Photoshop CS or C1.
     
    Christian, Dec 29, 2003
    #5
  6. Povl H. Pedersen

    PeterH Guest

    try Capture One if you have a digital SLR - go to
    http://www.pictureflow.com/CaptureOne/Pages/C1-Main.html



    "Povl H. Pedersen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I just tried to compare images converted by Canon FVU and
    > Photoshop CS. The Photoshop converter really sucks.
    >
    > The colors are much worse than the FVU, it also alters the image,
    > and has more details in the shadows, and the histograms shows how
    > my dark image with highlights has been centered closer to the
    > middle in the histogram, yet the result is worse.
    >
    > dcraw also produces better images.
    >
    > So is there any reason to use the import in PS ?
     
    PeterH, Dec 29, 2003
    #6
  7. On 2003-12-29, Chris Brown <_uce_please.com> wrote:
    >>The colors are much worse than the FVU,

    >
    > How do you mean? If they look "dull", then this may well be a colourspace
    > issue in your setup.


    Well, what happens is that I have part of a brick wall in shadows in
    the sample, as well as some snow and clear skies. The grey stuff between
    the bricks became reddish 3-5% more red than GB, enough to see.

    And the white balance is different between them all, even though
    it is supposed to use camera white balance. So at least the colors
    are different.

    >>it also alters the image,

    >
    > How do you mean? The raw convertor is what produces the image from the raw
    > file, which isn't really an image to start with. What is it that you see
    > being "altered"? If you mean that the output doesn't look the same as the
    > embedded JPEG, then that's sort of the point of shooting raw...


    Mostly the color mentioned above I think, and the shadows,
    commented below.

    >>and has more details in the shadows,

    >
    > Indeed it does - see the above comment about 16 bit export in FVU. However,
    > I'm struggling to see why this is a *bad* thing.


    It isn't, or is it ? Depends on more things.
    If you want a larger dynamic range to represent the
    highlights and shadows (as photoshop seems to do), then
    it will hurt the midtones, which will have a smaller range.

    You can't get it all.

    >>and the histograms shows how
    >>my dark image with highlights has been centered closer to the
    >>middle in the histogram, yet the result is worse.

    >
    > You will get best results if the histogram occupies the full range
    > available. Photoshop's convertor provides more scope for doing this than
    > FVU. YMMV.


    Sure. PS is way better for post processing.

    >>dcraw also produces better images.

    >
    > This may be a matter of personal preference, but whilst dcraw's output is
    > certainly better than FVU's, I don't like the interpolation artifacts it's
    > prone to, and it won't output AdobeRGB.
    >
    >>So is there any reason to use the import in PS ?

    >
    > If you prefer FVU, then by all means don't let anyone here stop you using
    > it. Just be aware that most people seem to express the opposite preference,
    > when asked. In fact, you're the first person I've seen that actually prefers
    > FVU. Personally, I could never go back to it.


    I hate the speed of FVU, but it gives fair pictures.
     
    Povl H. Pedersen, Dec 29, 2003
    #7
  8. Christian <> wrote in message news:<>...
    >
    > BreezeBrower uses the Canon libraries and I find it does an excellent job.
    > I haven't tried Photoshop CS or C1.


    Would it be difficult to write a Photoshop plugin based on the Canon
    DLLs? I think the plugin were only a small layer that called the Canon
    DLLs, but I know neither the exported functions nor how to build a PS
    plugin.
    But I think it should be doable, especially as there is an Irfanview
    plugin that uses the Canon DLLs.

    Juergen
     
    Juergen Weber, Dec 29, 2003
    #8
  9. Povl H. Pedersen

    Yip Yap Guest

    (Juergen Weber) wrote in message news:<>...
    > Christian <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > >
    > > BreezeBrower uses the Canon libraries and I find it does an excellent job.
    > > I haven't tried Photoshop CS or C1.

    >
    > Would it be difficult to write a Photoshop plugin based on the Canon
    > DLLs? I think the plugin were only a small layer that called the Canon
    > DLLs, but I know neither the exported functions nor how to build a PS
    > plugin.
    > But I think it should be doable, especially as there is an Irfanview
    > plugin that uses the Canon DLLs.


    If you are curious about the Canon DLL's, you
    should get a copy of the Canon SDK. It's free
    and simple to get. You fill out a form on the
    Canon web site and they'll email you back.

    -- Yip
     
    Yip Yap, Dec 31, 2003
    #9
  10. Povl H. Pedersen

    Bo Stevens Guest

    On 31 Dec 2003 09:34:29 -0800, Yip Yap wrote:

    > If you are curious about the Canon DLL's, you
    > should get a copy of the Canon SDK. It's free
    > and simple to get. You fill out a form on the
    > Canon web site and they'll email you back.
    >
    > -- Yip


    Link?

    Thanks
    Bo
     
    Bo Stevens, Jan 5, 2004
    #10
    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:
    377
    badgerfish
    Jul 30, 2003
  2. tom mears

    Alpha-release of Raw converter (Canon CRW) for dSLRs

    tom mears, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    2,336
  3. Jan Werbiñski

    Fuji S2 raw EX converter - which profile?

    Jan Werbiñski, May 17, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    502
    Bill Hilton
    May 17, 2004
  4. Steve Silverman

    Which RAW converter?

    Steve Silverman, Jun 24, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    527
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
    Jun 25, 2006
  5. Al Dykes

    Canon G9 RAW, same as Canon 300d RAW?

    Al Dykes, Nov 11, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    495
    John Bean
    Nov 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page