RAW Critique

[DavidEccleston]

Mark, yes Elements has RAW conversion, but they do very few updates per yearly release of Elements. If you buy a new camera, you likely have to buy a new Elements just to get access to the latest RAW converter (and potentially just sit and wait the for next Elements to be released to ensure you get the converter you need).

I also never got Elements to auto download the updates (it always said there were no updates available, which wasn't true). You need to track down the download link and download it yourself... all the links I checked about RAW 7.4 being added to PSE 11 give manual download links for CC, CC2014, and CS6. I didn't see any Elements download link. I think PSE10 needed a special elements-only download. Anyway, there were posts on the Adobe help forums about "how to I update my PSE11 to Raw 7.4, so perhaps one of those has the link you would need.

The ACR 7.4 update adds T5i support, but I have no idea if T5 is there... they just list additions, not the full list of supported cameras. If T5 was released after the T5i, then it's a pretty safe bet that PSE11 won't support it.

[Kayaker72]

Playing around with the RAW vs JPEG comparison. On my 5DIII, I save RAW to the CF card and JPEG to the SD card. So, I went back to a recent shot that I knew I had underexposed. I then used the "auto" tool to adjust exposure which selected:


Then I applied those same settings to the RAW image. Looking at just the cockpit of my kayak, there is a substantial difference in the amount of detail.


Processed from JPEG


Processed from RAW


Neither is great, and you can see where data is completely lost in the image. But, definitely more data is available (and in need of noise reduction) in the RAW file.

[Zach]

David: the first thing in trying to get raw was look for a downloadable link from adobe and with no luck I might add, I even posted on canon's forum and they just said to get a newer elements, that's when I gave up for awhile and then later I found the dng converter.

Brant: first thanks for taking the time to take samples, second I can't see the pic's just a little "x"

[HDNitehawk]

Zach, why not do a free trial of LR6?
Or might I suggest, if you can find a copy of LR5 / LR4 and give it a try.

Since they give no discount for buying LR6 anyone with an old version could sell or give it to you.
This is what Adobe's EULA says.

"If you purchase a new license, rather than upgrade your old software, you are permitted to transfer your old license—that is, as long as you did not purchase the original license with a volume licensing arrangement."

Check first and make sure that the version you get is new enough to support your camera.

My opinion, an old version of LR will be better than what you are trying to do.

[Kayaker72]

Brant: first thanks for taking the time to take samples, second I can't see the pic's just a little "x"

Right....and one "x" has more detail and noise

Ok...I am not sure what is going on. I can see everything on my computer, but then I checked it from my work computer and all I see are the "X"s.

Then I tried to add the images again to the original post, and it won't save the changes.

So, here they are...hopefully....

"Auto" corrected of the JPEG file in LR6:


The correct JPEG with shadows/exposure brought up:



And the RAW file with the same changes made in LR6:




I am intentionally targeting a known weak spot of this generation of Canon's sensors, shadow detail/noise. From what I've seen, the sensors from the 7DII and 5Ds (r) are better with shadow detail. But I also looked at a properly exposed waterfall. It was better, but I would still say there was more detail in the RAW file.