Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Canon RAW

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
August 16, 2005 10:24:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a contact
sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.

Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party RAW
converters here. Just curious.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com

More about : canon raw

Anonymous
August 16, 2005 11:24:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:D bqMe.18715$Oy2.3682@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
> anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
> selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a
> contact
> sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
>
> Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party
> RAW
> converters here. Just curious.
>


Mark,

Look into RAW Shooter, it's free and also look at Capture One. I use
Capture One and like it a lot. I'm not a big Photoshop user.

--

Rob
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:15:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <dbqMe.18715$Oy2.3682@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party RAW
> converters here. Just curious.

It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and interface
I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like switch apps, so
it's handier.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Related resources
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:17:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message

> It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and interface
> I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like switch apps, so
> it's handier.

Thanks Brian. I have Photoshop 6. I don't think there's a RAW converter in
there, but I'm gonna check just in case. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:36:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <yRrMe.19454$Yx1.913@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> > It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and interface
> > I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like switch apps, so
> > it's handier.
>
> Thanks Brian. I have Photoshop 6. I don't think there's a RAW converter in
> there, but I'm gonna check just in case. :) 

I think they started the RAW converter as a plug-in for versions 7 and
above. CS has it built in.

If you can, you might want to upgrade to CS2, or maybe Elements 3 if you
don't use a lot of fancy PS functions. I'd try out a demo version
first.

Personally, I think CS is worth the upgrade for three things:
RAW support
Shadow/highlight tool
Improved healing brush tool
Magnetic lasso

Ok, four things.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:47:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d6c135a1dfcd86098985d@news.verizon.net>,
Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

> In article <dbqMe.18715$Oy2.3682@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> > Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> > all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party RAW
> > converters here. Just curious.
>
> It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and interface
> I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like switch apps, so
> it's handier.

Yeah, Photoshop CS and RAW go very well together. It has a browse mode
that if quick and painless.

RAW seems useless, but it's not. And the use of a film contact sheet is
comparable to RAW. You use a contact sheet to determine darkroom
exposure. You use RAW to determine digital exposure.

RAW files have much more information in them then tiff or jpeg so you
have a greater range of adjustments with less loss or information.

If you are serious with your digital work it is something I think you
should learn.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 12:58:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> If you can, you might want to upgrade to CS2, or maybe Elements 3 if you
> don't use a lot of fancy PS functions. I'd try out a demo version
> first.
>
> Personally, I think CS is worth the upgrade for three things:
> RAW support
> Shadow/highlight tool
> Improved healing brush tool
> Magnetic lasso

I really mostly dodge and burn only. Sometimes boost colors a bit.
Actually I use Corel and just keep PS around just in case. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:58:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:24:09 GMT, "Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com>
wrote:

>Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
>anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
>selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a contact
>sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
>
>Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
>all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party RAW
>converters here. Just curious.

Try CS2 with Bridge far better...
********************************************************

"A nice man is a man of nasty ideas."

_Introductions to History of the Reformation_
Jonathan Swift
1667-1745
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:22:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" wrote:
>
> Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
> anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
> selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a contact
> sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
>
> Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party RAW
> converters here. Just curious.
>
Congratulations! I did the same, with my 300D, once a RAW man, always a
RAW man. {:-)

I have tried the converter in PSE3, but I felt that it didn't do as good
a job as Canon's ZoomBrowser. Even though ZB is a bit clunky, I think
the conversion process, together with the choices for modifying the
image, like assigning color space, color balance/degrees K, exposure
compensation etc., is better than in PSE3. With the Canon RAW data
being at least partly encrypted (apparently a big problem with Nikon
files), I would imagine that PS would have had to reverse engineer their
converter, whereas the Canon's own converter would have the advantage of
employing the exact algorithm.

Just my opinion, others may disagree.

Colin D.

PS: Although ZB version 4.n came with the camera, I now use ZB version 5
which I downloaded from the canon website.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:26:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:D bqMe.18715$Oy2.3682@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
> anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
> selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a
> contact
> sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
>
> Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party
> RAW
> converters here. Just curious.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
>
>

I think DPP is very good, the built in edge sharpener provides gentle
capture sharpening without increasing noise in the flat areas. I also like
the interface. I don't use the EOS Viewer much. The ACR sharpener is a bit
harsh so I convert without sharpening and use USM with an edge mask and or
edge filter sharpening.

Things that are better in ACR are shadow and highlight clipping, this is a
major think missing from DPP. Also the crop adjustments show up in
thumbnails and the thumbnails accurately reflect even extreme adjustments to
the RAW conversion settings. Another irritation with DPP is than thumbnails
and previews don't reflect cropping and spotting corrections which only show
up in the respective tools and the output.

ACR tend to be warmer and more saturated than DPP, neither good or bad just
different. Thumbnail generation is very slow in ACR but final conversion is
about the same. ACR is a bit more natural to deal with multiple files with
similar exposure and white balance although this can be done in DPP.

What I miss with ACR compared to DPP is being able to clone stamp out dust
spots in the RAW file on macro shots rather than having to convert to TIFF
or PSD.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 2:59:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:yRrMe.19454$Yx1.913@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> "Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
>
>> It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and interface
>> I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like switch apps, so
>> it's handier.
>
> Thanks Brian. I have Photoshop 6. I don't think there's a RAW converter
> in
> there, but I'm gonna check just in case. :) 
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
>
>

IIRC, Adobe has the RAW converter for download at their website. It was
included in my Elements 3 setup. Adobe are also offering software that will
convert image files to their DNG format.

Sonrise
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 3:23:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:ZrsMe.18755$Oy2.10941@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>> If you can, you might want to upgrade to CS2, or maybe Elements 3 if you
>> don't use a lot of fancy PS functions. I'd try out a demo version
>> first.
>>
>> Personally, I think CS is worth the upgrade for three things:
>> RAW support
>> Shadow/highlight tool
>> Improved healing brush tool
>> Magnetic lasso
>
> I really mostly dodge and burn only. Sometimes boost colors a bit.
> Actually I use Corel and just keep PS around just in case. :) 
>
> --
> Mark

The tools that Brian mentioned really are worthwhile.
Anonymous
August 17, 2005 3:50:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Lester Wareham wrote:
> "Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
> news:D bqMe.18715$Oy2.3682@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> > Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
> > anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
> > selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a
> > contact
> > sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
> >
> > Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> > all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party
> > RAW
> > converters here. Just curious.
> >
> > --
> > Mark
> >
> > Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> > http://www.marklauter.com
> >
> >
>

Also GIMP in Linux has a RAW convertor. I am not sure what the status
of the RAW convertor is in GIMP for Windows. GIMP in Linux works fine.
GIMP for linux is a little behind the power curve. (I have problems
with printing in GIMP for Windows in XP.) I end up saving the file,
and then using another program to print with.

However, I am doing more and more in Linux, since GIMP is there. A
program called FL-Photo is in Linux that is similar to Picasa in
windows. The only real problem I have is large format printing in
Linux. 13x19 inch prints don't come out properly.

roland
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:30:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
> "Brian Baird" <no@no.thank.u> wrote in message
>
>> It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and
>> interface I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like
>> switch apps, so it's handier.
>
> Thanks Brian. I have Photoshop 6. I don't think there's a RAW
> converter in there, but I'm gonna check just in case. :) 

Just write one. It'll only take you half an hour or so. ;-)

-Mike
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 1:30:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Mike Warren" wrote

> > Thanks Brian. I have Photoshop 6. I don't think there's a RAW
> > converter in there, but I'm gonna check just in case. :) 
>
> Just write one. It'll only take you half an hour or so. ;-)

In Delphi all things are possible. :) 

Hey, I have the Canon SDK. Maybe there's a RAW converter in that stuff.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 18, 2005 11:58:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

You will find that the raw converter in PS CS or CS2 is very good. CS2 is
better, IMHO.

There are a variety of third party converters out there. The Canon one is
awful, again IMHO. Capture One has excellent products too.

Steve
"Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com> wrote in message
news:D bqMe.18715$Oy2.3682@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
> anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
> selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a
> contact
> sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
>
> Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
> all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party
> RAW
> converters here. Just curious.
>
> --
> Mark
>
> Photos, Ideas & Opinions
> http://www.marklauter.com
>
>
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 1:29:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Steve Dell" <stevedell@comcast.net> wrote in message

> There are a variety of third party converters out there. The Canon one is
> awful, again IMHO. Capture One has excellent products too.

Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter that is
awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:06:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <R47Ne.20773$Yx1.18382@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter that is
> awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?

Mostly clunky, but I find the output from ACR to be nicer.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:03:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter
that is
> > awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?
>
> Mostly clunky, but I find the output from ACR to be nicer.

http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/adob...

Based on that link ACR seems to have a lot of things I would just use
Photoshop for.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 6:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <D5bNe.21041$Yx1.11938@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> Based on that link ACR seems to have a lot of things I would just use
> Photoshop for.

Well, that's the point. You're in Photoshop, so why bother leaving it?
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 10:30:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <MPG.1d6eecaa954ff0859898b8@news.verizon.net>, no@no.thank.u
says...
> In article <R47Ne.20773$Yx1.18382@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
> e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> > Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter that is
> > awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?
>
> Mostly clunky, but I find the output from ACR to be nicer.
>

There are more and more alternatives to using the Canon software every
day, but Adobe has the best one.

(Raw Shooter Essentials is a good one)
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 4:09:48 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Mr. Mark wrote:
>>> Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon
>>> converter that is awful? Is it lacking important features or is it
>>> just clunky to use?
>>
>> Mostly clunky, but I find the output from ACR to be nicer.
>
> http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/adob...
>
> Based on that link ACR seems to have a lot of things I would just use
> Photoshop for.

One thing I like is the shadow and highlight clip warnings. I don't think
that can be done in the Photoshop window.

-Mike
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:26:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > http://www.sphoto.com/techinfo/rawconverters/pages/adob...
> >
> > Based on that link ACR seems to have a lot of things I would just use
> > Photoshop for.
>
> One thing I like is the shadow and highlight clip warnings. I don't think
> that can be done in the Photoshop window.

But you can see the histogram move around. Besides, I don't like a warning
for something I'm probably doing on purpose. :) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 19, 2005 5:27:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > Based on that link ACR seems to have a lot of things I would just use
> > Photoshop for.
>
> Well, that's the point. You're in Photoshop, so why bother leaving it?

To save the $1,500 that it would cost to purchase CS2 ;) 

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 20, 2005 2:15:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <g7lNe.21392$Yx1.12953@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> > Well, that's the point. You're in Photoshop, so why bother leaving it?
>
> To save the $1,500 that it would cost to purchase CS2 ;) 

It's not that much!
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:07:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> > To save the $1,500 that it would cost to purchase CS2 ;) 
>
> It's not that much!

1,200 + tax

Close enough.

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:20:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <ZZTNe.47683$dJ5.27968@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
e.cartman@southpark.com says...
> > It's not that much!
>
> 1,200 + tax
>
> Close enough.

That's if you buy the whole suite. If you get just Photoshop it's about
$600 - or you can upgrade from a previous copy for about $150.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 3:43:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:24:09 GMT, "Mr. Mark" <e.cartman@southpark.com>
wrote:

>Last night I entered the world of RAW for the first time. I won't shoot
>anything else again. It kinda reminds me of the film process in a way -
>selecting images to convert to TIFF is like selecting images from a contact
>sheet to print. I really didn't know what I was missing.
>
>Is the RAW converter that came with my 20D good enough? It seems to have
>all the stuff I'd want, but I've noticed others talking about 3rd party RAW
>converters here. Just curious.

No, get Photoshop CS2.


**********************************************************

"A combat photographer should be able to make you see the
color of blood in black and white"


David Douglas Duncan
Speaking on why in Vietnam
he worked only in black and white
http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/online/ddd/
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 9:09:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter that
> is
> awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?

It is clunky and quite slow even on a reasonably fast machine, Pentium 4, 3
gigahertz, 1.5 gigs of RAM.
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:05:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> That's if you buy the whole suite. If you get just Photoshop it's about
> $600 - or you can upgrade from a previous copy for about $150.

I often wonder if these upgrade offers are valid for previously pirated
software. <g>

--
Mark

Photos, Ideas & Opinions
http://www.marklauter.com
Anonymous
August 21, 2005 10:49:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:36:41 GMT, Brian Baird <no@no.thank.u> wrote:

>In article <yRrMe.19454$Yx1.913@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
>e.cartman@southpark.com says...
>> > It's good enough for most things, but I prefer the output and interface
>> > I get using Adobe's RAW converter. I also don't like switch apps, so
>> > it's handier.
>>
>> Thanks Brian. I have Photoshop 6. I don't think there's a RAW converter in
>> there, but I'm gonna check just in case. :) 
>
>I think they started the RAW converter as a plug-in for versions 7 and
>above. CS has it built in.
>
>If you can, you might want to upgrade to CS2, or maybe Elements 3 if you
>don't use a lot of fancy PS functions. I'd try out a demo version
>first.
>
>Personally, I think CS is worth the upgrade for three things:
>RAW support
>Shadow/highlight tool
>Improved healing brush tool
>Magnetic lasso

Don't forget Bridge or Smart Sharpen.


*****************************************************

".......... Here is a burden
We are not fit for. We are not like Romans and Britons
- natural world-rulers,
Bullies by instinct - but we have to bear it.
Who has kissed Fate on the mouth, and blows out the lamp
- must lie with her."

"Historical Choice"
Robinson Jeffers
from "Double Axe"
Anonymous
August 22, 2005 12:07:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Steve Dell wrote:
> > Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter that
> > is
> > awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?
>
> It is clunky and quite slow even on a reasonably fast machine, Pentium 4, 3
> gigahertz, 1.5 gigs of RAM.

I did not care for the Canon Raw converter either.
I found it not very user friendly. I would clunky is a good way to
describe it.

However, I did not find it slow, just horrible to use. At the time I
tried to use it I had 512 meg of memory. I have a 2.4 gig celeron
processor.

So if you are finding programs running slow you may want to check for
spyware with ad-aware, spybot search and destory, and spyware blaster.
These are free program. They normally clean up a PC. Also, cleaning
out the junk files from your PC, and defraging the hard drive speeds it
up.

roland
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:08:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

piperut wrote:
>
> Steve Dell wrote:
> > > Thanks for the recomendations. What is it about the Canon converter that
> > > is
> > > awful? Is it lacking important features or is it just clunky to use?
> >
> > It is clunky and quite slow even on a reasonably fast machine, Pentium 4, 3
> > gigahertz, 1.5 gigs of RAM.
>
> I did not care for the Canon Raw converter either.
> I found it not very user friendly. I would clunky is a good way to
> describe it.
>
> However, I did not find it slow, just horrible to use. At the time I
> tried to use it I had 512 meg of memory. I have a 2.4 gig celeron
> processor.
>
> So if you are finding programs running slow you may want to check for
> spyware with ad-aware, spybot search and destory, and spyware blaster.
> These are free program. They normally clean up a PC. Also, cleaning
> out the junk files from your PC, and defraging the hard drive speeds it
> up.

I would like to make, indeed, to stress the point that although the
Canon RAW converter - ZoomBrowser, is generally classed as clunky and
slow, that is not the criteria on which I would judge it. The real
question is, what sort of a job does it do on RAW images, and IMHO it is
better than other converters, including Elements 3, that I have tried.

For one thing, Canon - and Nikon, for that matter - encrypt part of the
RAW file structure, and since neither of those camera makers divulge the
encrypting algorithms, third-party converter programmers are forced to
reverse-engineer the encryption techniques found in the RAW images.
Further, if the camera maker should change the encryption at any time,
these third-party converters may not work properly - this is the Sigma
problem that forces them to re-chip their lenses to suit newer cameras.

Zoombrowser, for all its perceived unfriendliness (which disappears when
you get to know the program) is written by Canon, contains the proper
decrypting software, and does, IMHO a better job with RAW images.

After I've gone to the trouble of finding, composing, and shooting
images in RAW mode, I don't want to spoil the results by using
third-party converters.

YMMV, and good luck to you.

Colin D.
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:02:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Colin D" <ColinD@killspam.127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:430A68F4.1748E7F6@killspam.127.0.0.1...
SNIP
> For one thing, Canon - and Nikon, for that matter - encrypt part of
> the
> RAW file structure, and since neither of those camera makers divulge
> the
> encrypting algorithms, third-party converter programmers are forced
> to
> reverse-engineer the encryption techniques found in the RAW images.

That is not entirely true. The Raw data is not encrypted, it is merely
compressed. What may be encrypted (or more likely not documented for
outsiders), is some of the Maker notes info. The EXIF data obviously
has to comply with the standard, so that also isn't encrypted. AFAIK,
only Nikon recently started to encrypt the white balance data, that's
all.

Bart
Anonymous
August 27, 2005 12:52:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> So if you are finding programs running slow you may want to check for
> spyware with ad-aware, spybot search and destory, and spyware blaster.
> These are free program. They normally clean up a PC. Also, cleaning
> out the junk files from your PC, and defraging the hard drive speeds it
> up.

Thanks for the ideas about spyware and the like. I've been pretty diligent
about making sure that those creatures are not invading my PC. I've used
Adaware and others to rid me of these issues. I don't think that's the
problem though. I will defrag over night tonight to see if that helps.

Steve
!