Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 681 times:
I gave it try when I first got my MkII as no one else supported the camera at the time.
Firstly, I would say its a big improvement over previous Canon software, but, for me at least, its not quite right yet.
In comparison to CTA (Switzerland)">BB, for general file processing operations, particularly batch operations, CTA (Switzerland)">BB is far more efficient, faster and intuitive. When it comes to RAW conversion, the Canon software is more sophisticated, but if you don't shoot RAW you have no reason to use the Canon software.
If you do shoot RAW, (as you should )I would say either the Adobe raw utility or CS1 do a better job than the Canon software ... however, there is a bit of an art to RAW conversion, so it is possible I didn't get the best out of DPP before going back to my tried and tested Adobe.
FLYBHX From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 137 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 669 times:
Colin,
I do indeed shoot raw. I'm taking longer than most people seem to to master the art of post processing though. I had a trial version of CS1 but it seemed a bit expensive for what I needed.
Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 657 times:
I would agree that CS1 is overpriced, and although very good, is a tad tricky to master. All in all I think Photoshop CS is the best solution, as while I'd concede that CS1 is capable of producing theoretically better images, in practice I found I got more consistently good results with PS as well as saving a lot of time due to an "integrated workflow".
Of course PS CS isn't cheap, but it does address all your image processing requirements and is unlikely to be superceded by anything (aside from new CS versions) anytime soon.
When I started with digital, I jumped around trying all the various packages, but I've since realised I'm better off picking one, sticking with it, and learning it thoroughly. I feel pretty confident that the time and money invested in PS will be repaid over the years ... it's the difference between getting a package to work and learning how to use a package to get exactly the results you want.
Woody001 From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, RR: 34 Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 630 times:
I found PS RAW converter easier than CS1, at the moment I'm doing back to back conversions to see which I prefer.
Although I found that CS1 gave more real life colours than PS does, maybe I need to set up the calibration tab..?
Has anyone actually done this or got any settings for the 1Dii...? Colin..?
Although it seems that I had learnt how to deal with 10D shots in PS, I now find I'm having to learn more techniques for dealing with 1Dii images.
Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 608 times:
Ian - had a play with the calibration, but never really achieved a better result with this alone - factor in all the variables (ISO range, lighting type) and producing a consistent set of profiles doesn't seem like much fun.
Personally, I prefer to accept Adobe's version and fine tune in PS. On the whole, I don't have much to complain about, though with the MKII I find shadow areas can be a shade too blue. A small adjustment on the tone curve easily fixes that.
Where CS1 really shines is on "difficult" shots in terms of lighting and colour balance ... for instance, some of my night time balloon shots were a bit of a struggle in PS, but CS1 coped with them very well. On the minus side I find some CS1 features such as sharpening and exposure compenstation far less effective and easy to use than CS ... and, as far as I'm aware, PS CS is the only tool with correction for chromatic aberration incorporated. I also like the ability to upsize from the RAW data before processing in PS - I think this produces a noticable improvement over step interpolation.
But yes, for ultimate colour fidelity, CS1 is supreme!
Bruce From United States, joined May 1999, 4946 posts, RR: 28 Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 588 times:
Adobe RAW - yuck~! I tried photoshop CS and the conversions looked horrific because it needs to be calibrated - another hole to sink more money into. But I tried RAW conversion on CTA (Switzerland)">BB, and it looks great. CTA (Switzerland)">BB uses the Canon RAW conversion routines. I never tried the Canon digital pro software though.
Bruce Leibowitz - Green Bay, WI (GRB/KGRB) - Canon 20D/100-400L IS lens
Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 580 times:
horrific because it needs to be calibrated - - another hole to sink more money into.
Not sure what you mean here. Yes, in an ideal world, monitors should be hardware calibrated, and yes it is expensive(ish) - but this is not Adobe specific, and probably only really necessary if you are following a full colour-managed image -> printer workflow and require accurate colour matching on your prints.
For onscreen work, the only necessary calibration for PS is to use the Adobe Gamma tool (installed in your control panel when you install PS) so no extra cost involved. The Adobe Gamma is probably as good a calibration as you'll get for your system without resorting to hardware tools.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 137 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
)I would say either the Adobe raw utility or CS1 do a better job than the Canon software ... however, there is a bit of an art to RAW conversion, so it is possible I didn't get the best out of DPP before going back to my tried and tested Adobe..gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2004, 529 posts, 
From United States, joined May 1999, 4946 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
