Printable View
Hi,
I just bought a Canon 60D. My previous digital cameras have been point & shoot which did not produce raw files.
With the 60D comes various software applications to install on my PC to process 60D photo files. I already have PhotoShop Elements 8 that I've used for years, but I've never used the raw file features. My question is should I install the Canon software, or can I do everything the Canon applications do with PhotoShop?
Thanks,
Mike
I used DDP and hated it! It's just too different from what I was using before (lightroom3Beta). If it were me, I'd stick to using Camera Raw in PS if your already comfortable with the basics rather than learning a new program from scratch and transferrng files around.
The big difference with Raw and P&S files are that the latter aready has been "adjusted", sharpened, and shunk in size. Be prepared for your Raw files to be flat,soft, and huge in size. It's up to you to make that picture sing. As a side note, don't try Lightroom3. Cuz then you'll want it and unless you have a student discount, it's kinda not cheap.
Good luck MikeA01730
andnowimbroke,
That sounds good to me. I
Hi Mike,
I generally shoot in RAW only and would recommend it. I only use JPEG when I am doing something like taking a shot for Craigs list where I take a couple of small JPEGs and post them and do not need them for anything else. Just quick and dirty and save some time. For everything else the RAW files are my negatives and I treat them as such and always make backups in case of computer failure. I would recommend you go with the RAW and process them. To your question, I always used the Canon DPP which came with your camera. I learned to do what I wanted and once you get it down it is not that bad. One important thing for me is that DPP is non-destructive, it leaves your original files as shot and you can go back in five years and start all over with it if you wish. Bryan wrote a guide which you may find helpful:
http://the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/Digital-Workflow.aspx
Having said that, DPP is not as quick sometimes as you may wish. I broke down this year and picked up Lightroom 3.3 on a cyber-week special at Amazon and I am happy with it as I continue to learn it. If you can afford the current best price of @$225 I would recommend it. I was looking at DxO Optic Pro v6.5 also, but I could not pass up the @149 deal for LR3, that is as good as I have ever seen the non-student version. You can export your images to your PSE8 from LR3 for further processing if you so desire. LR3 is also non-destructive.
Enjoy your new 60D,
Chris
Mike,
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
DPP will allow you to apply the camera settings to your RAW for processing to JPEG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
Given the step you have taken from P/S to DSLR, I think the time spent learning will be time well spent. Once you learn what you need for the Canon RAW, you will be able to use it as long as you shoot with Canon.
Chris
Mike
If you shoot in RAW, yes down load DPP for sure. DPP can read all of the in camera settings from the canon camera, where some programs will not.
IMO DPP does a better job at converting RAW files than other programs I have used. If you shoot just JPG it doesn
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
And then some, and some more and more and more.
How much more depends on which version of Photoshop you get. i.e. PS Elements, PS Lightroom, PS CS5 or CS5 Extended!
For most people PS Elements is enough, and then Lightroom gives you even more power, not just to edit but to much more, and IMHO is aimed more toward the professional photographer. But I still like it and use it quite frequently myself even though I am a photography hobbyist and far from professional.
And then there is PS CS5 which is much much more than just a photo editing application that includes other applications that work hand in hand with PS such as Adobe Bridge to organize all your images, create slide shows and then more. It also comes with ACR(Adobe Camera RAW) which is used to open your RAW files and make most adjustments and corrections to your photos much like Lightroom or and more than Canon's DPP is capable of. IMHO, it is better and more powerful than DPP, and the latest release does a perfectly fine job with Canon CR2 RAW files. Most pictures don't need to go beyond ACR into PS CS5 unless you really need to, or want to, manipulate them like you would for web sites, presentations, panoramas, composites, or to add special effects and so much more. Photoshop CS5 is a very powerful and intensive Graphic Arts application with a long and steep learning curve, but well worth it if you are into that sort of thing. However, most photographers won't need much more than PS Elements or Lightroom. CS5 Extended also allows you to work with 3D, and Animation and Video.
All great software, but can also be very expensive.
Obviously I too am not very fond of DPP. Too Limited!
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
Doesn't Camera Raw in PS have those type of settings too? I haven't used elements enough to know. I know Lightroom does and they are called Presets. It's good to use to get you going in the right direction, but I usually end up tweaking it a bit more. Once done, you can save that as a preset too. There is nothing in the camera that can't be done in the program generally speaking of course. Neutral, Faithful, Vivid, etc. should be able to be recreated with a click of a button in most programs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
All programs work noise/detail different. I'm okay with how Lightroom handled it if you chose to usethat program and PSE8 should do good also if you want to stick to it. The problem I had with Canon's DDP was it seemed clunky and had no fine tuning. The noiseknob was either at 1 or it was at 2 with nothing between and I had to apply the setting to see what it looked like. Programs like lightroom have a slider with no "stops" on it. You can move it around to whatever you want and see the results full screenwithout waiting. And just like with DDP, it's non-destructive. The one PLUS to using DDP from Canon is it's free! That can be pretty big when your talking about spending potentually another $200 on a program rather than gear or classes. Having said that, Lightroom is a great program and you'll prolly end up getting it and leave cloning to PSE8. That camera you have will be awesome for you for quite some time. Just don't read any posts on 1-series cameras or White/off-white lenses. You'll be taking pictures of pocket lint cuz that's all you'll have left.
Greg
andnowimbroke,
I thought that with raw files NO processing is done in the camera. The camera settings are noted in the raw file for DDP to process, but the processing actually occurs non-destructively in DDP on the PC. With jpeg files the same processing is done in the camera, and it
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
No Processing is done to RAW Files, All the information is stored within the Metadata attached in the RAW File. It's essentially the Digital equivalent of a negative. A Jpeg is the digital equivalent to a developed print.
Lightroom and ACR all make non-destructive adjustments to raw files just like DPP does. It records those adjustments into a Sidecar file. Photoshop CS can also make non-destructive adjustments to your files, provided you use adjustment layers, and or, open the RAW file as a Smart Object.
It's when you save those adjustments to your image, and or, save as Jpeg they become (pixel level editing) destructive changing the
original RAW image data.
FWIW, I don't rely one what the camera or cameras software thinks a picture should look according to the Metadata. I prefer to rely on my eyes. ACR and Lightroom give you more tools to work with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
Different software handles noise reduction differently. Processing the RAW images on your computer will certainly yield better results than in-camera conversion to JPG - NR is a processing-intensive function, and your computer has a lot more processing power than your camera, plus the computer can take more time than you'll tolerate when your out shooting.
I started off shooting JPGs, and I can echo the previous comment about regretting that for some images now that I've switched over to RAW shooting entirely. Start in RAW from the beginning. I've used both CS and PS Elements with Adobe Camera Raw, and DPP. The ACR for Elements is limited compared to the ACR for Photoshop CS. I settled on DPP and used that for quite some time - I liked the lens-specific corrections that it offers (which are provided by Canon; ACR has a version but it's not as accurate or comprehensive). But more recently, I switched to DxO Optics Pro. They test camera+lens combinations and develop specific corrections (the 60D is supported, you'd want to check that your lenses are supported for the 60D).
In particular, I find that it does a really good job at reducing high ISO noise. I previously tested DPP and DxO head-to-head on the same RAW images: Mini bake-off: DPP vs. DxO(noise reduction is toward the bottom of the post).
DxO has a free trial version, and the Standard version (what you need for the 60D) is on sale for $99 through Jan 15th.
Good luck!
--John
All,
Thanks to everyone for taking the time to provide so much information. You
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
Not quite. PSE cannot open RAW files - you'll need to download and install the appropriate version of Adobe Camera Raw to open the RAW files - that software converts them and hands them off to PSE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
DPP is very basic. Adobe Camera Raw will do a few other things but to me the two are more similar, not like comparing DPP to photoshop or PSE8. DPP just gives you the basics to make your picture really.
But if your saving in RAW. You can always go back and reprocess in one or the other. With DPP if you shoot RAW, you can just click and select the same settings your used to seeing in your camera and change it however you want.
You could process both side by side, Adobe Camera Raw will not read the changes you made with DPP in the RAW file. Likewise DPP will not show the changes Adobe made of the same file. So you could process it one way in DPP then do the same in Adobe and convert both and see what you think. DPP is free and it isn't hard to use, not nearly as difficult as any thing Adobe puts out. Thats what I did to decide which I wanted to use. I processed several of each in each program then compared the different pics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
One more thing to add - if you're going to shoot RAW (and I think you should), no matter what you're going to have to learn a new application. PSE is photo editing software, and that's not something that ACR,DPP,or DxO perform, really. Some RAW converters - Adobe Lightroom and Apple Aperture - add image library management to the RAW conversion package. However, those are all primarily RAW converters - they are capable of global adjustments to exposure, contrast, color, etc., and have very some limited local editing ability (cloning out dust spots, for example). If that's all you use PSE for, you can substitute one of the others (except that with ACR, PSE will still save your jpg). But, if you do selective editing with PSE - layer masks, combining the heads from 4 different group shots so everyone is smiling and has their eyes open, etc. - whichever RAW converter you choose will be an adjunct to PSE, not a replacement.
All,
One more question. If I use DDP or DxO to process my raw files and then use PSE8 to edit the files, how do the non-destructive adjustments to the raw files get into PSE8? I know the adjustments can be recorded in sidecar files, but it looks like different products use different sidecar file formats. Does PSE8 know how to read each format?
Also, once I edit a raw photo in PSE8, is all the information from the raw and sidecar files stored in the psd file?
Thanks,
Mike
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
Most likely not! I really don't know for sure. But I do know when you open a RAW file into Photoshop via Camera RAW, it creates its own sidecar file.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
I haven't used Photoshop Elements in almost a few years now, since version 6. And when I did use it, I only used it to try to post process astroimages which is a different world when it comes to processing and editing pictures.
But I think the answer to that question is that depends on exactly what you do and how you do it.
When I work on a file the first thing I do is duplicate that layer and make it a smart object so I am never really making adjustment directly to the original. Then everything I do is in additional layers or Adjustment layers. Working with Adjustment Layers and Smart Object Layers are non-destructive editing/adjustments.
Don't merge layers down and don't flatten the image layers. That way when you save your work as a PSD it saves all your work and all the layers, and then when you want to re-open the file it will load all your layers so you can continue from where you left off.
A great web site to learn more about all this kind of thing is Adobe TV.
http://tv.adobe.com/channel/how-to/elements-tutorials/
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeA01730
Photoshop cannot work with RAW files - that's ACR's job. ACR converts the RAW file into a format that Photoshop (CS or PSE) can work with, and in the process, it 'bakes in' certain adjustments (e.g. demosaicing, white balance, etc.). RAW files are edited non-destrucively, assuming they're saved as RAW - DPP just adds more metadata to the file, whereas other programs create sidecars to store those data. Photoshop can be made to edit non-destrucively, but that requires you to take the appropriate steps, e.g. creating adjustment layers as tkerr described. If you open a RAW file with ACR, then edit in Photoshop, just making changes to the background layer directly, then save as .psd or anything else, that's a destructively edited file (although the original RAW file is still intact).
If you are converting RAW images with something other than ACR, you can convert them into a lossless file type that can be opened in PSE - a 16-bit TIFF file, DNG, etc., do your editing using the full bit-depth of the original file, then save it as an 8-bit jpg if you like.