Reading mode: Light Dark

Frustrations in RAW processing from T1i

Go to last post
L

LSHorwitz1

Veteran Member
Messages
2,524
Solutions
1
Reaction score
195
Location
US
I have been trying to find a reliable way of handling RAW images from the T1i but have encountered problems which I cannot explain.

The CR2 files open and edit properly in Canon's Digital Photo Professional program (latest 3.6 upgrade). Several other programs will open these files, but each seems to have serious issues with presenting the CR2 images. Some will not open it correctly at all.

Those which partially work are Corel Paint Shop Pho Proto X2, Adobe Photoshop Elements, and DxO Optics Pro. ACDSee Pro does not seem to work at all correctly, nor does Corel (Ulead) PhotoImpact X3. All CLAIM to properly handle Canon CR2 files.

Has the RAW format changed with the introduction of the T1i, or are there a lot of bugs in these CR2 converters / importers.

I would really like to be able to edit and use RAW in programs other than Canon's free utility, but NONE of them seems to work properly.

Perhaps I should be asking another question:

Is there a commercial piece of software which DOES correctly handle Canon CR2 RAW images??

Thanks for any comments and suggestions,

Larry
 
Did you check the sites for updates?

Corel is pretty lax about keeping Paint Shop Pro Photo updated correctly, but a quick look at Adobe.com shows that their Canon RAW 5.4 update includes the Canon T1!.
LSHorwitz1 said:
I have been trying to find a reliable way of handling RAW images from the T1i but have encountered problems which I cannot explain.

The CR2 files open and edit properly in Canon's Digital Photo Professional program (latest 3.6 upgrade). Several other programs will open these files, but each seems to have serious issues with presenting the CR2 images. Some will not open it correctly at all.

Those which partially work are Corel Paint Shop Pho Proto X2, Adobe Photoshop Elements, and DxO Optics Pro. ACDSee Pro does not seem to work at all correctly, nor does Corel (Ulead) PhotoImpact X3. All CLAIM to properly handle Canon CR2 files.

Has the RAW format changed with the introduction of the T1i, or are there a lot of bugs in these CR2 converters / importers.

I would really like to be able to edit and use RAW in programs other than Canon's free utility, but NONE of them seems to work properly.

Perhaps I should be asking another question:

Is there a commercial piece of software which DOES correctly handle Canon CR2 RAW images??

Thanks for any comments and suggestions,

Larry
Click to expand...
 
LSHorwitz1 said:
Is there a commercial piece of software which DOES correctly handle Canon CR2 RAW images??
Click to expand...
Adobe is the industry standard for photo editing. All the others are 2nd and 3rd string. Full Photoshop or Photoshop Elements is the way to go. With the latest ACR update for photoshop, I have never had trouble with RAW files.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
"...Has the RAW format changed with the introduction of the T1i,..."

CR2 files from the T1i are different from the CR2 files from XSi as are all CR2 files from any Canon camera. The same applies to NEF files from the various Nikon cameras.
 
CityLights said:
CityLights said:
Is there a commercial piece of software which DOES correctly handle Canon CR2 RAW images??
Click to expand...
Adobe is the industry standard for photo editing. All the others are 2nd and 3rd string. Full Photoshop or Photoshop Elements is the way to go. With the latest ACR update for photoshop, I have never had trouble with RAW files.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
Click to expand...
While it is a standard, you imply that others are second best; I don't think this is true. There are other raw processors out there that are very worthwhile looking into. Off the top of my head: DXO is one, Raw Developer, maybe graphic converter, lightroom.

The major drawback to ACR is that it's tied to photoshop - to upgrade to handle the latest cameras you have to upgrade photoshop. That's a lot of money and it surely doesn't smell right.
 
There is no standard raw file format. Raw is a general term to describe a type of file but doesn't refer to a specific encoding.

Your problem may stem from this. To you it's a canon, it's shooting raw, your other canon shot raw - it should all work. Sadly no.

But, if you update all your canon software it should all work fine. I don't know how they handle color management - so if your adjustments create an output image that's distinctly different when viewed in another program, there is a color management issue: ie: you're adjusting in one color space and viewing it in another.

I'd check your software preferences to make sure there's consistency. If your image editing program doesn't have color management (I don't think Paint does) use another one that does -it's vital to both your mages and your sanity.
 
probert500 said:
While it is a standard, you imply that others are second best; I don't think this is true.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Photoshop is much better than the rest. I understand there are personal preferences, but photoshop is the industry standard because it is simply the biggest and the best. Anytime one of the other programs comes up with something good, photoshop simply gobbles them up.
probert500 said:
There are other raw processors out there that are very worthwhile looking into. Off the top of my head: DXO is one, Raw Developer, maybe graphic converter, lightroom.
Click to expand...
Lightroom is an Adobe Product. It is a "lite" alternative to photoshop, just like elements. Unfortunately both lightroom and elements are crippled compared to photoshop for editing power.

Saying those programs are better is like saying that a volkswagon bug is better than a SUV. Yes the bug gets better gas milage, but it has 1/4 the capability.
probert500 said:
The major drawback to ACR is that it's tied to photoshop - to upgrade to handle the latest cameras you have to upgrade photoshop. That's a lot of money and it surely doesn't smell right.
Click to expand...
Mostly you can download ACR for free and upgrade. Adobe keeps ACR backwards compatable until it just isn't worth supporting anymore. I realize full blown photoshop is expensive, thats why I use elements.

I don't want to argue the point further. If you like something other than photoshop, wonderful.

Cheers!

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
Thanks all for your very helpful replies.

I now understand (but did not know this previously) that a Canon CR2 raw file is NOT a single standardized format. I had assumed that programs which previously opened raw Canon CR2 files from an XSi should__ open Canon CR2 raw files from a T1i, but I NOW understand that each Canon body has its own unique format.

This explains why previously working software stopped working, and hence my confusion.

I have, since reading your posts, downloaded and installed the new Adobe and DxO cionverter / filter, and it does indeed solve my problem for these programs. Corel does not yet offer such compatability, nor does ACDSee or Ulead for the other products I have here.

The ONLY program I have yet to find which will save the modified CR2 file out as a CR2 file and NOT convert to yet another format is Canon's DPP. All the others convert to their own format, which is then only supported (apparently) by their own software. Such proprietary and closed methods never appealed to me at all.

I wonder if anybody has an editing program which allows saving back into CR2 other than Canon? I have yet to find such a program....

Thanks once again,

Larry
 
I was not aware of this product. A bit pricey but the trial version looks very nice. Thanks for mentioning this.

Larry
 
LSHorwitz1 said:
I was not aware of this product. A bit pricey but the trial version looks very nice. Thanks for mentioning this.
Click to expand...
If you think it's pricey, then you must be looking at C1-Pro. The standard
version is very reasonable.

I used the older 3xx series for years and found it to be wonderful with
Magne Nilsen's custom profiles. The current 4-series raw converter has
excellent default profiles. I think you will find that C1 has very good
color and detail extraction. Just my opinion.

At least do the trial, so you can see if it fills your needs.

Rob

--
'Don't sneak up on it - surround it'
 
CityLights said:
CityLights said:
While it is a standard, you imply that others are second best; I don't think this is true.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Photoshop is much better than the rest. I understand there are personal preferences, but photoshop is the industry standard because it is simply the biggest and the best. Anytime one of the other programs comes up with something good, photoshop simply gobbles them up.
CityLights said:
There are other raw processors out there that are very worthwhile looking into. Off the top of my head: DXO is one, Raw Developer, maybe graphic converter, lightroom.
Click to expand...
Lightroom is an Adobe Product. It is a "lite" alternative to photoshop, just like elements. Unfortunately both lightroom and elements are crippled compared to photoshop for editing power.

Saying those programs are better is like saying that a volkswagon bug is better than a SUV. Yes the bug gets better gas milage, but it has 1/4 the capability.
CityLights said:
The major drawback to ACR is that it's tied to photoshop - to upgrade to handle the latest cameras you have to upgrade photoshop. That's a lot of money and it surely doesn't smell right.
Click to expand...
Mostly you can download ACR for free and upgrade. Adobe keeps ACR backwards compatable until it just isn't worth supporting anymore. I realize full blown photoshop is expensive, thats why I use elements.

I don't want to argue the point further. If you like something other than photoshop, wonderful.

Cheers!

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about better or worse, I said they are worth consideration. I should also add preview to the list if you're a mac user.
 
Robert Hoffman said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
I was not aware of this product. A bit pricey but the trial version looks very nice. Thanks for mentioning this.
Click to expand...
If you think it's pricey, then you must be looking at C1-Pro. The standard
version is very reasonable.

I used the older 3xx series for years and found it to be wonderful with
Magne Nilsen's custom profiles. The current 4-series raw converter has
excellent default profiles. I think you will find that C1 has very good
color and detail extraction. Just my opinion.

At least do the trial, so you can see if it fills your needs.

Rob
Click to expand...
Thamks Rob. I took your suggestion and downloaded and installed the trial. It is, as you say, an excellent program.

I have been looking for something like this, and have been also trying DxO Optics, another program which allows the imported RAW files to be edited in a manner much the same as C1. Neither allows saving the file out as a cr2. format file, but both allow .dng and .tiff and .jpg output. DxO seems to have the advantage that it allows personalization to the specific lenses and bodies I use, allowing this specific adjustments such as sharpening to be customized. It also knows about chromatic abberation and geometric errors of the lenses and allows for nice, easy corrections. I will need to play further before making an informed decision as to whether either of these is "the best" choice or if there are possibly others to consider.

Thanks again for the suggestion. It is a very fine program and one which I very well may purchase.

Larry
 
CityLights said:
Lightroom is an Adobe Product. It is a "lite" alternative to photoshop, just like elements. Unfortunately both lightroom and elements are crippled compared to photoshop for editing power.
Click to expand...
I don't entirely agree with this. I believe the Camera RAW engine in Lightroom is exactly the same as the RAW conversion engine in Photoshop. Photoshop provides more pixel level editing features (as opposed to global edits) outside of RAW conversion. Lightroom provides a much more streamlined workflow and user interface that's targeted at Photography. It's very different from Photoshop but I wouldn't call it Lite. In some ways, it's features surpass Photoshop.

I use both. I use Lightroom for the vast majority of my editing (From RAW conversion to global image tweaking). I drop into photoshop for local edits (like the rubber stamp tool).

Disclaimer - I work for Adobe so I won't try to objectively compare these to non-Adobe solutions.
 
wibbs said:
I use both. I use Lightroom for the vast majority of my editing (From RAW conversion to global image tweaking). I drop into photoshop for local edits (like the rubber stamp tool).
Click to expand...
Its nice to have both, but if you had to pick one, which would it be?
wibbs said:
Disclaimer - I work for Adobe so I won't try to objectively compare these to non-Adobe solutions.
Click to expand...
Understood. I hope that includes free access to Adobe programs.

I agree that lightroom is a streamlined product targeted at photographers, but I will go you one step further.

Lightroom is a dummied down version of photoshop. Many of the powerful editing algorithms and procedures of photoshop have been simplied into lightroom sliders. By doing that they cut out most of the power and flexibility of photoshop by making it "easy as a slider."

As far as I know every lightroom slider function can be done with various photoshop tools and procedures as long as you have the knowledge and skill to put them together. The same can not be said the other way around.

Just tell me which combination of lightroom sliders will duplicate this effect?

http://www.pbase.com/citylights/lal

I had a heck of a time, but I translated it from full blown photoshop to elements.

Don't get me wrong, lightroom has its advantage with the streamlined and simplified workflow. If I had to edit 100's of pictures from an event, I would want to do it with lightroom. But if I want to work on 1 masterpiece, it would be with photoshop. Most of the time I work on single pictures, not 100's.

Anyway, for my bang-for-the-buck I go with Elements. I can't keep up with updating full blown photoshop all the time. Elements is easier on the wallet.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.
 
It is possible since Canon's CR2 file format is nothing more than a series of jpeg images of the same photo but at various sizes together with some header info (such as EXIF data), the last one being the lossless jpeg compression (the important bits).

Perhaps it's because the full format is not published by Canon ? one can easily extract the last jpeg from a CR2 but not other extra info in order to save back to the CR2 format.
LSHorwitz1 said:
I wonder if anybody has an editing program which allows saving back into CR2 other than Canon? I have yet to find such a program....
Click to expand...
--
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
LSHorwitz1 said:
Thien
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
CityLights said:
CityLights said:
I use both. I use Lightroom for the vast majority of my editing (From RAW conversion to global image tweaking). I drop into photoshop for local edits (like the rubber stamp tool).
Click to expand...
Its nice to have both, but if you had to pick one, which would it be?
Click to expand...
For me, Lightroom hands down but I generally use it to process large numbers of photos from family functions. This workflow in Photoshop or PSE took me much longer. Additionally, I'm not nearly as good with Photoshop =)
CityLights said:
CityLights said:
Disclaimer - I work for Adobe so I won't try to objectively compare these to non-Adobe solutions.
Click to expand...
Understood. I hope that includes free access to Adobe programs.
Click to expand...
Not quite free but it certainly makes it easier to own both. I should also add that I don't work on any of the imaging products so I'm not an expert nor a representative in those areas.
CityLights said:
I agree that lightroom is a streamlined product targeted at photographers, but I will go you one step further.

Lightroom is a dummied down version of photoshop. Many of the powerful editing algorithms and procedures of photoshop have been simplied into lightroom sliders. By doing that they cut out most of the power and flexibility of photoshop by making it "easy as a slider."
Click to expand...
Don't underestimate the power in those sliders ;-). You're right though, it's not as much as is available in Photoshop.
CityLights said:
As far as I know every lightroom slider function can be done with various photoshop tools and procedures as long as you have the knowledge and skill to put them together. The same can not be said the other way around.

Just tell me which combination of lightroom sliders will duplicate this effect?

http://www.pbase.com/citylights/lal
Click to expand...
I'm not positive, but I believe some of this is in the "clarity" and the "blacks" slider. It probably doesn't give quite the control.

Some info on clarity:

http://www.oreillynet.com/digitalmedia/blog/2007/07/lightroom_11_the_clarity_tool_1.html

http://photoshopnews.com/2007/05/31/about-camera-raw-41/
CityLights said:
I had a heck of a time, but I translated it from full blown photoshop to elements.

Don't get me wrong, lightroom has its advantage with the streamlined and simplified workflow. If I had to edit 100's of pictures from an event, I would want to do it with lightroom. But if I want to work on 1 masterpiece, it would be with photoshop. Most of the time I work on single pictures, not 100's.
Click to expand...
I generally work on 10s to a couple of hundred photos. I've also never invested the time to REALLY learn photoshop.
CityLights said:
Anyway, for my bang-for-the-buck I go with Elements. I can't keep up with updating full blown photoshop all the time. Elements is easier on the wallet.
Click to expand...
It is a good value, that's for sure.
 
Photoshop is probably the one of the most difficult piece of software to master. I've been using it for some 15 years and still not getting close to where I'd like to be. despite reading many photoshop books :-(
wibbs said:
I generally work on 10s to a couple of hundred photos. I've also never invested the time to REALLY learn photoshop.
Click to expand...
--
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
wibbs said:
Thien
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top