Raw plug-in or convert to tiff??

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Onepercentf, Nov 8, 2003.

  1. Onepercentf

    Onepercentf Guest

    I have just bought a Canon 10D. I am wondering whether it is worth getting the
    Photoshop Raw plug-in (ok I know it needs a bit of tweaking to recognise the
    Canon 10D), or even upgrading to Photoshop CS (which I am told includes a raw
    facility which supports the 10D). Alternatively, as the Canon software
    transfers raw files into tiffs and into photoshop, isn't processing tiffs in
    photoshop just as good?
    hope someone can shed some light on this. Many thanks.
     
    Onepercentf, Nov 8, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Not as good.
    Check the Adobe site for info on what RAW can do.
    You can't get the separate plugin anymore. However, the RAW in CS is
    better than the plugin and you get all the other benefits of CS for only
    $70 more than the plugin alone was.
     
    Charlie Dilks, Nov 8, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Onepercentf

    gr Guest

    I did some recent tests between RAW and TIFF, using an Olympus C-5050 zoom
    camera. Here's what I wrote in that thread...

    I've done some much better tests, and now it's quite clear that RAW format
    shows much more detail in the shadow areas than an 8-bit TIFF can show in
    the same image. This is on an Olympus C-5050 camera.

    This time I used the very same image for comparison. The RAW image, and the
    8-bit TIFF which was converted from the RAW image using the in-camera
    conversion process. This is equivalent to taking the picture in TIFF format,
    but it eliminates any differences due to a change in the image from once
    picture to the next. I also used no sharpening in the conversion, so that
    the RAW image and TIFF image would be identical in sharpness.

    After brightening both images by 50% and enhancing contrast by 50%, there is
    a remarkable difference in detail in the shadow areas. The RAW image shows
    far more detail at 100% zoom. Trees that simply don't show up in the TIFF
    image are visible in the RAW image. If anyone wants to see the comparison,
    I'd be happy to e-mail the results.

    Until now, I didn't think shooting in RAW would be that much better than
    high-quality JPEG (or TIFF). Since the difference is so apparent on the
    C-5050, I imagine it's very apparent on a dSLR like the 300D.

    Of course, it's still better to use auto-bracketing to give yourself
    properly exposed images to combine in software later. Then you don't have to
    worry about dragging detail out of shadow areas. But, if you can shoot only
    one frame, then RAW is by far the best choice.
     
    gr, Nov 8, 2003
    #3
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.