5DII software

Well, I've been setting here with a complete system ready to go, except
for Photoshop. I'm waiting for the CS5 to become available. And then I
decided I'd just try going with the software Canon includes with the
kit. It's okay, but there's little or nothing I can do with it; it even
has a menu click for Photoshop.

So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

Then it occured to me that I'd read somewhere (here?) that the Canon
software for dealing with Canon RAW images was definitely superior to
anything else now available. Is that true? Is that the reason for the
marked difference?

That the RAW image produced by the Canon software was visibly more
contrasty is not the basis for my observations. The difference was the
very obvious increase in detail observable at 100%. It seems to me that
if the image produced by Canon software is actually what the sensor can
provide, then other software and formats really do degrade the images.

The difference between RAW and jpg is even more than between 8bit jpg
and 16bit tiff scans of a given neg. As far as I'm concerned, what I've
got is a winner for a front-end. Add Photoshop for image manipulation
and output to the Epson 3800, and I gather I'll have just about as good
as it gets for an amateur digital darkroom.

Any fool with too much money and too much time on his/her hands can
assemble this kind of gear. What isn't a part of this discussion is
what I can, or cannot, produce with it all. In any case, if I can't put
out some good work, it will definitely not be inferior equipment that
would be to blame!

BTW, I've got some P&S gear: A nice old G2 for digital, and a Barnack
Leica for film! It's a IIIF with a beautifully mark-free Summitar
50/f2. What I do is stop it down and set it at hyperfocus, and I don't
even have to use the view-finder... just ball-park it. And you know
what? It works just fine. The images are remarkably detailed and if I
spoil the size of it by adding the barn-door lens hood, the flare is
virtually taken care of.

A Barnack Leica P&S? Yup. But it's a completely different animal than
the DSLR rigs; they are apples and oranges. Any fool can "compare" DSLRs
and P&Ses 'til Hell freezes over, and such endeavors will remain a fool's
mission exactly that long.

And anyway, what are discussions of P&Ses doing in a DSLR forum?

If you got this far, thanks for reading, and comments about Canon RAW vs
jpg images (and software) would be most welcome.

Longfellow

"Longfellow" wrote in message
et...
Well, I've been setting here with a complete system ready to go, except
for Photoshop. I'm waiting for the CS5 to become available. And then I
decided I'd just try going with the software Canon includes with the
kit. It's okay, but there's little or nothing I can do with it; it even
has a menu click for Photoshop.

So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

Then it occured to me that I'd read somewhere (here?) that the Canon
software for dealing with Canon RAW images was definitely superior to
anything else now available. Is that true? Is that the reason for the
marked difference?

That the RAW image produced by the Canon software was visibly more
contrasty is not the basis for my observations. The difference was the
very obvious increase in detail observable at 100%. It seems to me that
if the image produced by Canon software is actually what the sensor can
provide, then other software and formats really do degrade the images.

The difference between RAW and jpg is even more than between 8bit jpg
and 16bit tiff scans of a given neg. As far as I'm concerned, what I've
got is a winner for a front-end. Add Photoshop for image manipulation
and output to the Epson 3800, and I gather I'll have just about as good
as it gets for an amateur digital darkroom.

Any fool with too much money and too much time on his/her hands can
assemble this kind of gear. What isn't a part of this discussion is
what I can, or cannot, produce with it all. In any case, if I can't put
out some good work, it will definitely not be inferior equipment that
would be to blame!

BTW, I've got some P&S gear: A nice old G2 for digital, and a Barnack
Leica for film! It's a IIIF with a beautifully mark-free Summitar
50/f2. What I do is stop it down and set it at hyperfocus, and I don't
even have to use the view-finder... just ball-park it. And you know
what? It works just fine. The images are remarkably detailed and if I
spoil the size of it by adding the barn-door lens hood, the flare is
virtually taken care of.

A Barnack Leica P&S? Yup. But it's a completely different animal than
the DSLR rigs; they are apples and oranges. Any fool can "compare" DSLRs
and P&Ses 'til Hell freezes over, and such endeavors will remain a fool's
mission exactly that long.

And anyway, what are discussions of P&Ses doing in a DSLR forum?

If you got this far, thanks for reading, and comments about Canon RAW vs
jpg images (and software) would be most welcome.

Longfellow


Hi!
Do you have the latest DPP edition (3.8) along with the PDF?
Personnally, I use Photoshop CS3 with the RAW photos. However, I have to use
the DNG converter first because CS3 can't read the Mark II RAW files (only
CS4 will accept the plugin).
I must admit I don't use DPP mainly because I haven't taken the trouble to
learn it. However, I know that DPP is customizable for the type of Canon EOS
you use. It recognizes the lens and if you take a sample of the dust delete
data, DPP will rid your photos of those specks automatically without having
to do so one by one.
To my knowledge, JPEG's are "developed" according to the the settings of
your camera, by the camera "onboard computer". Results are sometimes
variable, especially in certain lighting conditions. RAW format allows you
to tweak the settings after the fact, trying to approximate what you saw.
Photoshop RAW is excellent (perhaps because I'm more used to it) and allows
many possibilities of tweaking the photo.
There are things that DPP nor Photoshop RAW can't get at. That's where
Photoshop proper jumps in. Special effects and major modifications are among
these.
I'm afraid this is a bit short and incomplete explanation and I'm sure
others might be more precise and thorough.
Regards,
Marcel

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:26:17 -0500, Longfellow wrote:
: Well, I've been setting here with a complete system ready to go, except
: for Photoshop. I'm waiting for the CS5 to become available. And then I
: decided I'd just try going with the software Canon includes with the
: kit. It's okay, but there's little or nothing I can do with it; it even
: has a menu click for Photoshop.

It does, but it has some interesting capabilities in its own right. (I assume
you're referring to Digital Photo Professional, not Zoombrowser.) It has good
brightness, contrast, and color balancing capability in RAW mode and an
excellent cropping tool. Its cloning tool is rudimentary, but works well for
simple fixes. They've recently added the ability to do rotations in increments
of a hundredth of a degree. You'll have to go to Canon's Web site for the
latest update; the CD they gave you won't have it.

: So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
: Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
: between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
: have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
: supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
: If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
: seems to me.

The only reason I can think of for RAW vs JPEG is for cases where you have to
meet a deadline or show a proof, but will edit the image in RAW mode later. In
such a circumstance, there's little reason to slow the camera down with an
elaborate RAW-to-JPEG conversion. But yes, you definitely want to shoot in RAW
mode with a high-end Canon. DPP even lets you print from RAW mode, with better
results than you'd probably get printing from JPEG.

: Then it occured to me that I'd read somewhere (here?) that the Canon
: software for dealing with Canon RAW images was definitely superior to
: anything else now available. Is that true? Is that the reason for the
: marked difference?

I think I'm the one who started that thread, but I didn't really mean to go
that far. I haven't used Photoshop, for example, and it does handle Canon RAW
mode (as do several other utilities, some of them free).

: That the RAW image produced by the Canon software was visibly more
: contrasty is not the basis for my observations. The difference was the
: very obvious increase in detail observable at 100%. It seems to me that
: if the image produced by Canon software is actually what the sensor can
: provide, then other software and formats really do degrade the images.
:
: The difference between RAW and jpg is even more than between 8bit jpg
: and 16bit tiff scans of a given neg. As far as I'm concerned, what I've
: got is a winner for a front-end. Add Photoshop for image manipulation
: and output to the Epson 3800, and I gather I'll have just about as good
: as it gets for an amateur digital darkroom.
:
: Any fool with too much money and too much time on his/her hands can
: assemble this kind of gear. What isn't a part of this discussion is
: what I can, or cannot, produce with it all. In any case, if I can't put
: out some good work, it will definitely not be inferior equipment that
: would be to blame!

Yeah, I know the feeling. It's tough when people know you're so well equipped
that you can't plausibly blame your tools! ;^)

Bob

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:26:17 -0500, Longfellow wrote:


So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

This is a common problem with many DSLR cameras, and is in fact what
popularized the need for RAW data in the first place. This first being a
common problem on many of the earlier DSLR cameras. I sometimes think
camera makers now do this intentionally, i.e. preventing the camera from
creating decent JPG files. This way they can then dig into your wallet
three times. Once for the body and kit lens, twice to get lenses to make it
perform equal to the images of a P&S camera, and a third time with now
requiring to buy software to repair what the camera failed to do in the
first place when converting its RAW data to a useful image. Taking your
valuable time and money and now making it theirs.

Personally, I avoid all of that. I buy high quality P&S cameras where the
JPG from the camera is every bit as good as what you can do with the RAW
data from the camera. Where the sensor's full dynamic range is fully
represented within the JPG file itself. Any problems with white-balance,
blown highlights, or lost detail in shadows after that is my own fault if I
don't expose the scene properly in the first place. You know, like any real
photographer should. Snapshooters require RAW, real photographers do not.

Those who cry the RAW war-chant fall under one of three camps:

1. Really ****ty photographers.

2. Really ****ty cameras.

3 Really desperate to feel the need to belong to the wounded and crippled
snapshooter's club. Justifying what's wrong with their skills and camera by
now trying to claim the waste of time with RAW is some wonderful asset.
They do, after all, have to now justify why they "got what they paid for".
Don't they.


I forgot one more, which comprises the vast majority of them in these
newsgroups and photography forums online:

4. Role-playing pretend-photographers on the internet who found a mystical
spell that they can throw at an opponent to try to stop them in their
tracks. Unfortunately, they know nothing of the real world of cameras and
photography and just look really ridiculous to those that do.

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:26:17 -0500, Longfellow
wrote:

So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

You need to be comparing apples to apples. Are you taking your raw
processed images down to the same jpg compression level as that
produced in camera?

In article et,
Longfellow wrote:

Well, I've been setting here with a complete system ready to go, except
for Photoshop. I'm waiting for the CS5 to become available. And then I
decided I'd just try going with the software Canon includes with the
kit. It's okay, but there's little or nothing I can do with it; it even
has a menu click for Photoshop.

So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

Then it occured to me that I'd read somewhere (here?) that the Canon
software for dealing with Canon RAW images was definitely superior to
anything else now available. Is that true? Is that the reason for the
marked difference?
Your post reminded me to fire up the new DPP to see if it were any less
unusable than the previous version. Sadly canon has continued its
ability to write applications that set your teeth on edge for pure
cheesy ugly unusable horribleness.

It does have adjustments for lens distortion that Aperture lacks, but
they don't seem to work too well. To my eye, and on my screen, the RAWs
that DPP develops are in no way better than Aperture's. I could not
find any way to get them nearly as good, but that was probably because
I gave up on DPPs UI before my head exploded.

Assuming that RAW development is roughly equal between DPP, Lightroom
and Aperture, you should be making your choice on work flow. Once you
are managing more than a few thousand RAWs you need something that
makes you collection more accessible than a shoebox of negatives on top
of the wardrobe in the guest bedroom.

It looks like you have made the wrong choice in moving from Linux, so
I'll shut up about Aperture now, except to say that I need help from
Photoshop in less than 0.1% of my photos, except for panos. Photoshop
is ace for panos.

I'd say the folk on the dark side that recommend Lightroom and
Photoshop Elements are right. Lightroom gives you good asset management
and fast general adjustments, and Photoshop Elements will fix the few
that need excessive naughtiness.
snip
If you got this far, thanks for reading, and comments about Canon RAW vs
jpg images (and software) would be most welcome.

I can't understand why anyone would not keep their images in RAW.
Obviously a well exposed jpg from a well adjusted camera will be just
as good as a jpg exported without tweaking from your RAW editor, but at
what cost? You can no longer fix mistakes, or apply adjustments you
never thought of while making the shot. You can never brush sharpening,
exposure, white balance, levels, curves and so on to a jpg without
ruining it. RAW (at least the CR2s from the 5Dii) give at least +-2
stops of latitude to bring up shadows and recover highlights.

FIle size is nothing when disk space is $0.002 per 5Dii RAW. That's
cheaper than shutter wear!
What is expensive is your time. Once you have thousands of images,
keeping them organised and backed up and above all findable is costly
without the right software. DPP and Photoshop is not the right answer.

--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248

Longfellow wrote:
So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

It depends on what you decide is important. The camera can create a
jpg that looks much like the RAW is you set up the camera correctly.

Then it occured to me that I'd read somewhere (here?) that the Canon
software for dealing with Canon RAW images was definitely superior to
anything else now available. Is that true? Is that the reason for the
marked difference?

What is the difference?

That the RAW image produced by the Canon software was visibly more
contrasty is not the basis for my observations. The difference was the
very obvious increase in detail observable at 100%.

Increase contrast and sharpness in the camera and you'd get a similar
result.

It seems to me that
if the image produced by Canon software is actually what the sensor can
provide, then other software and formats really do degrade the images.

The advantage of RAW is that you can adjust things like sharpness,
contrast, saturation after you've taken the photo. With jpg you can
set all those in the camera but once the picture is taken it's set.

--
Ray Fischer

On 2010-03-21, celcius wrote:

Hi!
Do you have the latest DPP edition (3.8) along with the PDF?
Personnally, I use Photoshop CS3 with the RAW photos. However, I have to use
the DNG converter first because CS3 can't read the Mark II RAW files (only
CS4 will accept the plugin).
I must admit I don't use DPP mainly because I haven't taken the trouble to
learn it. However, I know that DPP is customizable for the type of Canon EOS
you use. It recognizes the lens and if you take a sample of the dust delete
data, DPP will rid your photos of those specks automatically without having
to do so one by one.

I noodled around with DPP, just to see what I could find. One data
window explicitly listed the camera and lens, plus aperture, shutter
speed, and ISO. I gathered that the software was getting that
information from the camera itself.

To my knowledge, JPEG's are "developed" according to the the settings of
your camera, by the camera "onboard computer". Results are sometimes
variable, especially in certain lighting conditions. RAW format allows you
to tweak the settings after the fact, trying to approximate what you saw.
Photoshop RAW is excellent (perhaps because I'm more used to it) and allows
many possibilities of tweaking the photo.
There are things that DPP nor Photoshop RAW can't get at. That's where
Photoshop proper jumps in. Special effects and major modifications are among
these.
I'm afraid this is a bit short and incomplete explanation and I'm sure
others might be more precise and thorough.
Regards,
Marcel

Thanks, Marcel.

Longfellow

On 2010-03-21, Robert Coe wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:26:17 -0500, Longfellow wrote:
: Well, I've been setting here with a complete system ready to go, except
: for Photoshop. I'm waiting for the CS5 to become available. And then I
: decided I'd just try going with the software Canon includes with the
: kit. It's okay, but there's little or nothing I can do with it; it even
: has a menu click for Photoshop.

It does, but it has some interesting capabilities in its own right. (I assume
you're referring to Digital Photo Professional, not Zoombrowser.) It has good
brightness, contrast, and color balancing capability in RAW mode and an
excellent cropping tool. Its cloning tool is rudimentary, but works well for
simple fixes. They've recently added the ability to do rotations in increments
of a hundredth of a degree. You'll have to go to Canon's Web site for the
latest update; the CD they gave you won't have it.

Aha. Yes, I'm referring to Digital Photo Professional. And its
apparent unusability is founded on my ignorance of its capabilities. As
I have not given the windows machine any knowledge of the gateway, I use
the sneakernet from the Linux box to get software from the network. I
hope it's not one of those interactive routines where the site checks the
client box for serial numbers and such. If so, I'm screwed, because at
this point, I don't want the windows machine infected, and so won't get
the update directly via that machine.

: So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
: Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
: between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
: have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
: supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
: If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
: seems to me.

The only reason I can think of for RAW vs JPEG is for cases where you have to
meet a deadline or show a proof, but will edit the image in RAW mode later. In
such a circumstance, there's little reason to slow the camera down with an
elaborate RAW-to-JPEG conversion. But yes, you definitely want to shoot in RAW
mode with a high-end Canon. DPP even lets you print from RAW mode, with better
results than you'd probably get printing from JPEG.

I've read the notion about photojournalists and deadlines, and that
makes a lot of sense. Haven't found the RAW mode print facility, or is
that on the update only? One thing is certain, and that is that the RAW
image in DPP makes the jpg look like what I imagine a one megapixel
camera might deliver. The difference between the two is just
spectacular!

: Then it occured to me that I'd read somewhere (here?) that the Canon
: software for dealing with Canon RAW images was definitely superior to
: anything else now available. Is that true? Is that the reason for the
: marked difference?

I think I'm the one who started that thread, but I didn't really mean to go
that far. I haven't used Photoshop, for example, and it does handle Canon RAW
mode (as do several other utilities, some of them free).

I guess I'll find out, because I'm awaiting CS5.

snip
: Any fool with too much money and too much time on his/her hands can
: assemble this kind of gear. What isn't a part of this discussion is
: what I can, or cannot, produce with it all. In any case, if I can't put
: out some good work, it will definitely not be inferior equipment that
: would be to blame!

Yeah, I know the feeling. It's tough when people know you're so well equipped
that you can't plausibly blame your tools! ;^)

Bob

I pre-empt that by declaring myself an old fool with too much money and
no sense at all. Most folk leave me alone after that. I shoot for
myself and am my own judge: I get there occasionally, though; there's
the odd shot that makes the grade, and that's mostly all I print now.

Today, it was eagles a-nesting. Freezing my ass off in a strong marine
wind, with the rig behind the car out of the breeze. I tell myself I'm
too old for this sort of thing, but wind up being so fascinated I hang
in there for the flight shots. Don't know if I got anything, but at
least there wasn't a crowd asking me to explain what I was doing.

Right in the middle of that exercise it started to rain, dontchaknow...
and that's where the expensive gear makes a difference. It's not
water-proof, but it sure lets me avoid getting anxious in that
situation. And that makes a huge difference: I could break down the
set-up (thanks much to quick disconnects) without worrying about whether
or not the gear was ruined in the process.

Yep, expensive gear is not just necklace jewelry.

Longfellow

On 2010-03-21, me wrote:
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 02:26:17 -0500, Longfellow
wrote:

So I've just shot some landscapes and stuff in RAW + jpg format. The
Canon software opened both, as one would expect. But the difference
between the RAW and the jpg images isn't a crack, it's an abyss!! I
have little idea about the details involved, but the RAW image is
supposed to be all the data that the sensor provides. Is that correct?
If so, then the jpg format is really crippled by the camera, or so it
seems to me.

You need to be comparing apples to apples. Are you taking your raw
processed images down to the same jpg compression level as that
produced in camera?

The file sizes and the pixel count was the same, as near as I could tell
from what DPP reported. I assumed that that equality meant that there
was no compression of the jpg.

All I did was to open both in DPP and look at the images. I have
assumed that DPP simply reads the RAW file without automatically adding
its own tweaks. I don't know how all this works, but proprietary file
formats all carry instructions on the front end, which is why they're
not readable by software that can't handle them. At least that's what
I've found in hex readouts (Linux box). Otherwise, I can imagine that
the RAW file is basically a tiff file.

Or what am I missing here?

Longfellow