Eos D20 - RAW Images

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi - After many years using film I have recently moved to digital and
bought myself a Canon Eos D20.
I understand that to achieve optimum quality I need to shoot images in
RAW format and open them up on editing software to process them. At
this point I'd appreciate some help as although I have taken several
images in RAW + JPEG format I'm not clear as to how to open the RAW
Images.
When I connect the camera to the PC I download the Images using XP
which are listed as the JPEG Images. I have the Canon software Eos
viewer,Digital Photo professional, as well as Adobe elements 2.0 and
Photoshop ver 5.0.
Basically what i'm trying to achieve is the the best possible image
ready for printing and am not too concerned about file size etc at this
stage.
How do I access the RAW Images from the camera what steps do I then
take to achieve best possible results ?
Sorry if this is basic stuff for some but after using Fuji Velvia for
so many years RAW & TIFF etc is all new to me.
Your help is appreciated - Eos
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Eos wrote:
> Hi - After many years using film I have recently moved to digital and
> bought myself a Canon Eos D20.
> I understand that to achieve optimum quality I need to shoot images in
> RAW format and open them up on editing software to process them. At
> this point I'd appreciate some help as although I have taken several
> images in RAW + JPEG format I'm not clear as to how to open the RAW
> Images.
> When I connect the camera to the PC I download the Images using XP
> which are listed as the JPEG Images. I have the Canon software Eos
> viewer,Digital Photo professional, as well as Adobe elements 2.0 and
> Photoshop ver 5.0.
> Basically what i'm trying to achieve is the the best possible image
> ready for printing and am not too concerned about file size etc at
> this stage.
> How do I access the RAW Images from the camera what steps do I then
> take to achieve best possible results ?
> Sorry if this is basic stuff for some but after using Fuji Velvia for
> so many years RAW & TIFF etc is all new to me.
> Your help is appreciated - Eos

First, and I imagine I will be challenged on this, I suggest that RAW
does not mean better quality. What it does mean is that you will have more
opportunity to correct errors in exposure, color balance etc in post
exposure processing.

As for the second half of your question, keep in mind that most image
processing and handling programs can not handle your RAW images. I believe
the software that comes with the camera includes a program that will handle
it. I am not at all sure what it's capabilities are as I have not even
loaded it yet.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
 

jeremy

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
347
0
18,930
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jemtd.18738$4m5.12001@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
> As for the second half of your question, keep in mind that most image
> processing and handling programs can not handle your RAW images.

I am not much more help on this, but I do recall reading that not all
plugins can interpret RAW data as well as can the camera manufacturers' own
software. Apparently, not all software performs equally. How one can
determine which software works best is something that I cannot imagine.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jeremy wrote:

> "Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jemtd.18738$4m5.12001@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
>
>> As for the second half of your question, keep in mind that most image
>>processing and handling programs can not handle your RAW images.
>
>
> I am not much more help on this, but I do recall reading that not all
> plugins can interpret RAW data as well as can the camera manufacturers' own
> software. Apparently, not all software performs equally. How one can
> determine which software works best is something that I cannot imagine.
>

RAW images allow for 16 Bit processing in Photoshop; I know of no other
practical way to do this at the consumer level. PS CS has plugins to
convert RAW from most cameras. It's pretty seamless, but does require
computing power, and the will to shell out for PS.

--

John McWilliams
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>From: "Jeremy" jeremy@nospam.com

>Apparently, not all (RAW) software performs equally. How one can
>determine which software works best is something that I cannot imagine.

You can download the free trial versions of Breezebrowser, Photoshop CS and
Capture One and convert the same images with each and compare the results.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 12/7/04 12:00 PM, in article
1102442444.654951.40180@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com, "Eos"
<eos9@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi - After many years using film I have recently moved to digital and
> bought myself a Canon Eos D20.
> I understand that to achieve optimum quality I need to shoot images in
> RAW format and open them up on editing software to process them. At
> this point I'd appreciate some help as although I have taken several
> images in RAW + JPEG format I'm not clear as to how to open the RAW
> Images.
> When I connect the camera to the PC I download the Images using XP
> which are listed as the JPEG Images. I have the Canon software Eos
> viewer,Digital Photo professional, as well as Adobe elements 2.0 and
> Photoshop ver 5.0.
> Basically what i'm trying to achieve is the the best possible image
> ready for printing and am not too concerned about file size etc at this
> stage.
> How do I access the RAW Images from the camera what steps do I then
> take to achieve best possible results ?
> Sorry if this is basic stuff for some but after using Fuji Velvia for
> so many years RAW & TIFF etc is all new to me.
> Your help is appreciated - Eos
>
Some of the other replies have already given you a few of the basics
regarding doing what you want to do. I would however second the advice to
obtain the book Real World Camera Raw with Adobe Photoshop CS (by Bruce
Fraser). Even if you do not wind up using Adobe's raw conversion plug-in
the information in the book is highly informative regarding the process and
theory. You may want also want to consider, since you already own Photoshop
v. 5) upgrading to PS CS. Then be sure to download and install Adobe's
latest raw plug-in.
For a quick and dirty way of working with your raw files right now you don't
really 'need' PS or any other image editing program. You can copy the raws
from your camera to a folder on your hard drive using the EOS File Viewer;
then use Digital Photo Professional to 'process' the raws and convert them
to jpeg's or tiff's. From there you can print them yourself of have a lab
do it.
Chuck
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Joseph Meehan <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Eos wrote:
> I understand that to achieve optimum quality I need to shoot images in
>> RAW format ...

> First, and I imagine I will be challenged on this, I suggest
> that RAW does not mean better quality.

It does, really. Firstly it's 12-bit linear data, which is
objectively better.

What is perhaps more important is that JPEG data is saved in some
colour space that is much smaller than that of raw sensor data. In
order to do this, the camera has to convert out of gamut colours. At
worst, these colours are simply clipped.

Of course, if you want to print images with widely varying saturated
bright colours you'll have to change something, but it's far better to
do this at leisure when you have some control over the process.

RAW is not just about fixing errors.

Andrew.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <zsmtd.9593$714.347@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
"Jeremy" <jeremy@nospam.com> wrote:

>"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:jemtd.18738$4m5.12001@fe1.columbus.rr.com...

>> As for the second half of your question, keep in mind that most image
>> processing and handling programs can not handle your RAW images.

>I am not much more help on this, but I do recall reading that not all
>plugins can interpret RAW data as well as can the camera manufacturers' own
>software. Apparently, not all software performs equally. How one can
>determine which software works best is something that I cannot imagine.

Some people claim that Canon's software is more free of artifacts, but
Canon's software is clearly the worst for getting all the highlights.
It's RAW converters clip highlights even if you pull the exposure slider
all the way to the left. The clipped data just goes from white to grey.

--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <jemtd.18738$4m5.12001@fe1.columbus.rr.com>,
"Joseph Meehan" <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

> First, and I imagine I will be challenged on this, I suggest that RAW
>does not mean better quality. What it does mean is that you will have more
>opportunity to correct errors in exposure, color balance etc in post
>exposure processing.

.... which implies higher quality data. It is better to do all
adjustments to exposure, color balance, contrast, etc before the
conversion; and opportunity you don't get if you shoot JPEG only. You
can not retrieve deep shadows and highlights from a JPEG like you can
from a RAW file, and the data is more highly quantized and posterized in
the JPEG. JPEG artifacts will be exaggerated by changes in levels and
contrat.


--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 

Stacey

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2004
1,595
0
19,730
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

JPS@no.komm wrote:

> You
> can not retrieve deep shadows and highlights from a JPEG like you can
> from a RAW file, and the data is more highly quantized and posterized in
> the JPEG. JPEG artifacts will be exaggerated by changes in levels and
> contrat.
>


And it seems like contrast adjustments wouldn't be as effective, especially
if the image is too contrasty when saved as a jpeg to start with?

--

Stacey
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <10rdkqpjufsqr0b@news.supernews.com>,
andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:

>Joseph Meehan <sligojoe_Spamno@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> First, and I imagine I will be challenged on this, I suggest
>> that RAW does not mean better quality.
>
>It does, really. Firstly it's 12-bit linear data, which is
>objectively better.

Only in the midtones and the highlights. 8-bit 2.2-gamma-adjusted data
has far more potential precision in the deepest shadows, and for
demosaiced, intermediate values. Of course, you benefit nothing from
converting from 12-bit-linear to 8-bit-gamma2.2, because the deep shadow
precision is already lost. If the ADC converted directly to
8-bit-gamma2.2 with no more noise, it would have better shadows.



--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <33b9k5F3spt24U1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JPS@no.komm wrote:
>
>> You
>> can not retrieve deep shadows and highlights from a JPEG like you can
>> from a RAW file, and the data is more highly quantized and posterized in
>> the JPEG. JPEG artifacts will be exaggerated by changes in levels and
>> contrat.

>And it seems like contrast adjustments wouldn't be as effective, especially
>if the image is too contrasty when saved as a jpeg to start with?

The whole dynamic range of the original RAW data can't be rendered
contrasty in the JPEG; only a small range can. The rest must be less
contrasty, and may be the range you want to boost.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><