I just got a new canon rebel T1i, and brand new to the DSLR world. Question: is the canon included software necessary? I already plugged the camera in my mac and the pictures downloaded flawlessly with iphoto, without having installed any of canons software yet. If Im going to eventually get adobe elements, what does the included software do? The instruction manual advises me to install the software, but is it really necessary?
If you are using iPhoto as a tool to sort images that is fine, and I wouldn't really recommend the Canon software to compete with it. The real use of the supplied software is in its raw image converter. One thing you must consider is that Canon makes Digital Photo Professional strictly for its own cameras, making it potentially the best software available. While DPP does a very nice job of working with Raw files, in my honest opinion if you end up grabbing Elements, which is a very capable application, Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) will work just fine for manipulating cr2 files. Despite being an approximation compared to the Canon software, the usability and interface associated with ACR simply puts DPP to shame as a whole.
On the other hand, if you are shooting JPG then I would say DPP is essentially useless. Though you should be shooting raw either way. :P
I will say however, that many capable photographers fully rely on DPP and create beautiful images with it. Plus, its free! My advice would be to install DPP and at least check it out, as well as grabbing the free demo of PSE and seeing which is for you. Its a win-win situation.
Jordan
Others please chime in if I am incorrect on this one.
As I understand it, The one of the real advantages of DPP is that it reads and applies all of the exif data. For example: if you set your camera picture style to custom sharpness, contrast etc, then DPP is the only common software that will apply those settings to a raw format. I'm not sure if it applies those settings to Jpeg or not. I also find that the noise reduction in DPP is far better than ACR (Adobe Camera Raw); which is used in most of your Adobe products.
Confirmation on this is appreciated, it's been confusing for me.
Bob
Originally Posted by bob williams
What is unique about DPP is that it gives you the option to use what your camera has set in it. All other raw converters take the raw image, obviously, and have essentially nothing done to it. While you can make many modifications to the image, it will start out plain. DPP gives users the options to apply the exact Canon picture styles to raw images, just as they would be applied to jpg images shot with the camera.
Jordan
Do you capture images in RAW format? If so, DPP handles them better than iPhoto or Adobe, IMO. If you shoot in JPG, you don't need DPP - but you should install EOS Utility. The EOS Utility allows you to specify the lenses for which optical corrections are stored in the camera - these are applied to JPG images (look in your manual for Peripheral Illumination Correction). If you shoot RAW, the corrections are also applied - but only by DPP, not by any other software which handles .cr2 files.
IMO DPP is the best program for working with Canon RAW files after that if you want to do anything else you can convert to TIFF or JPEG and import them into what ever other program you use. I do 99.8% of all my editing in DPP. The only thing I do in any other program is in PSE 7 take my JPEG conversions and batch process them for the web to include reducing them to 700 or 800 pixels on the long side and add a watermark. I have played around do other things in PSE 7 but like I said most of the time I can do everything I want to do in DPP. As long as youget it right in camera you shouldn't need much else IMHO.
I bet my reply starts some debate as if we have not seen it here already.
Why shoot raw. I never do. If you capture your image with correct exposure you do not need raw. JPEG work flow is easyer and quicker.
I have never loaded DPP. I use PSE 5. My customers love my work.
Check out the 6 lies of photography . Lie #3 is about raw vs jpeg.
Bottom line, the computer, camera, etc.. are all tools. Shooting basics still apply with digital as with film.
Mark
Mark
Mark, you definitely will start something with this...[]
I've seen that 6 lies of photography before. It has some good points, but "Lie #3" isn't one of them.
RAW shooting gives you latitude that a jpg cannot (since it's a "cooked" image, with the camera throwing away lots of data right out of the box).
Let the debate begin!!
I cannot argue with you saying that under the correct conditions JPGs produce images of any worse quality than raws.
I have a few reasons why I choose to shoot raw I suppose...
1. I am not always entirely sure of exactly what my conditions are, haha. If I was working in a studio situation at all times setting my own lighting conditions and shooting static subjects I would maybe use JPG. As it happens though, I am not, if I am outdoors (or moving from indoor to outdoor and vice-versa) and lighting conditions are changing often I would rather worry about my subject than my white balance for instance.
2. Raws are not compressed. I want to know that I am getting as much out of the camera as possible, I just wouldn't feel right having files that I know are already modified before I even get a look at them.
3. Memory is cheap, and getting cheaper all the time. While it may seem frightening that raw images are often 5-6 times the size of their JPG counterparts, I don't see it as much of an issue. With portable hard drives always coming down in price, we all have TB of data storage at our disposal at a very reasonable price considering what we pay for gear.
4. The recovery of detail from raw images continues to amaze me. Obviously we all aim to get the right shot the first time, but from time to time mistake happen, and I just feel that shooting raw provides a get out of jail free card. Why wouldn't I use it?
I am sure others could add other reasons for their choice, but this is all that comes to mind for me at the moment. Do understand I am in no way against the choice to shoot JPG alone, and I know many images have been and will continue to be captured this way. Maybe you JPG folks are just braver than me. []
Jordan
OK, I'm in the process now of installing the software. However, I am not installing the image browser, since I want to continue using iphoto, is this correct?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote