Prev: So this is what America has come to?
Next: Pentax filing small camera patents?
From: Doug McDonald on 20 Jun 2010 08:27
On 6/19/2010 3:36 PM, Pete wrote:
> On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:
>
>> Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
>> for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
>> changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
>> file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
>> heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
>>
>> Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
> I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
> superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
> images for decades). What gives?
>

If he specializes in waterfalls photographed in the direct sunlight, he
does not use Canon's "digital photo professional" raw converter.

I get over one stop of better detail in the shadows by using Adobe's
raw to jpeg converter (or dcraw), because I can expose more by that much,
without blowing the highlights in the final file. Of course, other
converters may do as good a job.

Doug McDonald
From: Pete on 20 Jun 2010 10:29
On 2010-06-20 13:27:56 +0100, Doug McDonald said:

> On 6/19/2010 3:36 PM, Pete wrote:
>> On 2010-06-19 21:16:44 +0100, Doug McDonald said:
>>
>>> Huh? Canon's raw converter is quite inferior to Adobe's, at least
>>> for the 30D I own. In particular, Adobe does a far better job on
>>> changing the exposure before conversion from raw to gamma-corrected
>>> file. Canon's software appears to convert to gamma-correct, complete with
>>> heel and toe, BEFORE correcting exposure. This leads to clipped whites.
>>>
>>> Neither Adobe nor dcraw do this.
>>>
>>> Doug McDonald
>>
>> The debate over hardware is stupid, but this is a major software issue.
>> I'm all Nikon, a friend is all Canon, HW and SW. Both of us can produce
>> superlative images (mine is only a hobby, he's been living off Canon
>> images for decades). What gives?
>>
>
> If he specializes in waterfalls photographed in the direct sunlight, he
> does not use Canon's "digital photo professional" raw converter.
>
> I get over one stop of better detail in the shadows by using Adobe's
> raw to jpeg converter (or dcraw), because I can expose more by that much,
> without blowing the highlights in the final file. Of course, other
> converters may do as good a job.

Thanks for the explanation, Doug.

--
Pete

First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: So this is what America has come to?
Next: Pentax filing small camera patents?