Why is Kodak Software So Great?

Tom Maxwell · Oct 3, 2002

This is a serious question. I hear people saying all of the time just how great the Kodak software is. I have been trying to figure out just what it is that makes the Kodak software so much better than the other manufacturers software. I do not own a Kodak camera so I have not seen the software in operation. I did download Photodesk from the Kodak site last night and took a look at the menus. It doesn't really look all that much different than Nikon Capture III. It has all of the standard raw adjustments in it such as exposure, curves, white balance, noise reduction, etc. But I could not see where it would be any better than Nikon Capture III.

What is it that I am missing that prompts others to claim that the Kodak software is that much better.

Again, I am looking for flames, just a serious discussion on the software.

Tom Maxwell · Oct 3, 2002

alfred_schiele · Oct 4, 2002

Hi

No flames? (-; Ok.

Without having seen the Kodak software myself up to know but using NC3 I think it is simply a myth... I heard Kodaks RAW conversion works much quicker, but I don't know. If yes, this could be a big advantage over NC3, as batch converions NEF's is really slow... But in the end, what is expensive and exclusive simply must be better, especially when people judge who never looked at the cheap junk used elswhere... (;

It reminds me a bit on all the PS actions squeezing 5% more out of something you can do yourself as well without such things. I don't think this is really important as well... at least not to me.

regards, A. Schiele

Peter69322 · Oct 4, 2002

"But in the end, what is expensive and exclusive simply must be better"

I'm interested in this question, and one thing that impressed me was that photodesk is a free download to anyone, you don't even need to own a kodak.NC2 cost me $200, and so will NC3, not good. I also have the impression that Kodak's software is much better implemented on the Mac, including OSX, which means a lot to some of us....Peter

alfred_schiele said:
Hi

No flames? (-; Ok.

Without having seen the Kodak software myself up to know but using
NC3 I think it is simply a myth... I heard Kodaks RAW conversion
works much quicker, but I don't know. If yes, this could be a big
advantage over NC3, as batch converions NEF's is really slow... But
in the end, what is expensive and exclusive simply must be better,
especially when people judge who never looked at the cheap junk
used elswhere... (;

It reminds me a bit on all the PS actions squeezing 5% more out of
something you can do yourself as well without such things. I don't
think this is really important as well... at least not to me.

regards, A. Schiele

pixelpirate · Oct 4, 2002

Im not getting involved in a comparison but a couple of points
The software thing is two parts -firmware and software

The DCS cameras have evolved over a period of time and we get load of feedback good & bad , So the Pro14n and the dcs software actually owe a lot of their design to the existing DCS users ( good job guys).

One of the key concerns was buying a camera and then in six months a new model comes out and has better features . To this end the firmware ( read camera operating system ) can be upgraded by the user . For example the original users of DCS 760 did not have the ERI-jeg . By loading the latest software firmware their cameras now have this funtion.Note to all DCS users if you download new software make sure you upgrade the firmware too.

However the Raw file format is the same, so one of the good reasons to store RAW files is when we improve the software you can take you old files and open them using the new software . Bit like being able to process all you films in the latest developer.

Last but not least all the software camera manager, photodesk, photoshop plug ins for PC and Mac are all in the box and upgrades on the web
phil

Digital Capture Technical development manager ( sorry its a job title thing) just read kelbley's euro buddy

Tom Maxwell · Oct 4, 2002

Thanks Phil, I appreciate the information and it confirms my thoughts.

I agree that the software should be included with the cameras. This is something that Nikon users have been screaming about for years. Maybe one day as the competitive pressures increase, Nikon will have a change of heart on their software position. However, when initial capital outlay for a DCS 760 system including software is compared to that of the D1X plus software, they are both in the same ballpark. Ongoing software upgrades would go to the Kodak system.

Secondly, I do agree that in this day and age, a firmware downloadable camera should be the standard. At least in these high end devices. There is no reason a camera should have to go back to the shop to get a firmware upgrade. So far this has not been a big issue for Nikon cameras but there is potential for issues in the future that downloadable firmware would address more easily than a trip back to the shop.

I do recognize a plus in having the firmware and software integrated. Although I don't see this as a big competitive advantage for Kodak. As far as I know, the raw file format has not changed for Canon or Nikon files so any postprocessing software changes should be compatible with the exiting file formats. Probably a wash here at this time.

Finally, since I have had no real responses to my original question, I can only assume that claims by Kodak users that Kodak's post processing is "far superior" is not really supported by facts If nobody can or is willing to articulate why they think or know the Kodak software is better than Canon's or Kodak's, then I can only assume that if there are differences they are probably superficial and not significant improvements that would support a "far superior" claim. Heck, I am not even looking for a comparision, just tell me what features and functionally of the software make its users think it is "far superior" then I can compare those to what I know about Capture III.

Thank you very much Phil for your response. I appreciate the discussion.

Kevin Allen · Oct 4, 2002

Peter said:
alfred_schiele said:

Hi

No flames? (-; Ok.

Without having seen the Kodak software myself up to know but using
NC3 I think it is simply a myth... I heard Kodaks RAW conversion
works much quicker, but I don't know. If yes, this could be a big
advantage over NC3, as batch converions NEF's is really slow... But
in the end, what is expensive and exclusive simply must be better,
especially when people judge who never looked at the cheap junk
used elswhere... (;

It reminds me a bit on all the PS actions squeezing 5% more out of
something you can do yourself as well without such things. I don't
think this is really important as well... at least not to me.

regards, A. Schiele

Click to expand...

I demoed the Kodak software and despite it being the worse demo I have ever had (the guy doing it not the product) you could not help but be impressed at the exposure adjustment possible . Much more than I have seen in the Nikon capture. This alone is why I was going to hand over my money for a 760. But I decided this sales man was not going to get the order so I held back (glad I did now). Also if you check out http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=13&SUBMIT=Go you will find most praise the response and support that Kodak offers.

I feel that if you buy into Kodak, you buy more than a camera you buy a system designed for photographers. Just look at the active presence here in this forum of Jay and Phil, that must prove something.
Kevin

pixelpirate · Oct 5, 2002

hi tom

The feature that comes up as a big plus in feedback is thre review funtion -this allows the user to review all raw files in a full screen image in a second an image or so -very fast compared with other programs - this also has the tagging funtion so the user can sort out of focus/ bad images very quickly.

The software has some real inovations - I'll get the software team to post in future with tips
phil

alfred_schiele · Oct 6, 2002

Hi

Peter69322 said:
"But in the end, what is expensive and exclusive simply must be
better"

This sentence was highly sarcastic at all... 8)=

I really would appreciate all manufactueres would put their RAW conversion software into the camera packages for free without any triccy restrictions.

Peter69322 said:
I'm interested in this question, and one thing that impressed me
was that photodesk is a free download to anyone, you don't even
need to own a kodak.NC2 cost me $200, and so will NC3, not good. I
also have the impression that Kodak's software is much better
implemented on the Mac, including OSX, which means a lot to some of
us....Peter

I used a Mac years ago, but I can not really tell what was better than with a PC. The Mac was much more expensive an so were accessories and most software while offers to choose from were less. I switched to PC today, maybe I am not perfectly happy too, but most is much cheaper. Don't know about OSX, maybe it is better today, but I still find Mac's too expensive compared to their computing power.

But in the end what counts to me personally is the ability of such software to manipulate RAW and I doubt the Kodak software will help wit Nikon NEF's... does it? Then I would give it a try...

Regards, A. Schiele

Rick Boden · Oct 7, 2002

phil fennessy said:
The feature that comes up as a big plus in feedback is thre review
funtion -this allows the user to review all raw files in a full
screen image in a second an image or so -very fast compared with
other programs - this also has the tagging funtion so the user can
sort out of focus/ bad images very quickly.

I recently had the opportunity to try out the software and I think this quick review is an outstanding feature. Being able to edit full screen raw files quickly without having to first go through a lengthy conversion process is for me a HUGE plus.

Rick

Guy Mancuso · Oct 7, 2002

alfred_schiele said:
alfred_schiele said:

"But in the end, what is expensive and exclusive simply must be
better"

Click to expand...

This sentence was highly sarcastic at all... 8)=

I really would appreciate all manufactueres would put their RAW
conversion software into the camera packages for free without any
triccy restrictions.

alfred_schiele said:

I'm interested in this question, and one thing that impressed me
was that photodesk is a free download to anyone, you don't even
need to own a kodak.NC2 cost me $200, and so will NC3, not good. I
also have the impression that Kodak's software is much better
implemented on the Mac, including OSX, which means a lot to some of
us....Peter

Click to expand...

I used a Mac years ago, but I can not really tell what was better
than with a PC. The Mac was much more expensive an so were
accessories and most software while offers to choose from were
less. I switched to PC today, maybe I am not perfectly happy too,
but most is much cheaper. Don't know about OSX, maybe it is better
today, but I still find Mac's too expensive compared to their
computing power.

But in the end what counts to me personally is the ability of such
software to manipulate RAW and I doubt the Kodak software will help
wit Nikon NEF's... does it? Then I would give it a try...

Regards, A. Schiele

I have not read this whole string but i will give you my take on photodesk2 first it's free more important you cans select all or just a few images make imediate corrections before you render it. Say for example you shot with various light situations say tungsten and daylight you could give imediate color balance to those certain photos.Also if you have a moire issue the software doe's a nice job of removal quickly. Not using any Nikon software not sure what can and can't do always went straight to photoshop using the D1. What made me buy the 760 over the D1x camera was mostly the software and I thought better image sensor. I believed and still do to do all the production after the shoot and not in camera is the way to go. a digital neg that can be filed raw and come back to and make changes for different uses. Plus the software helps with production. I really like it bottom line and Kodak keeps improving it Photodesk in December

alfred_schiele · Oct 8, 2002

Hi

All is a matter of money you can invest too. The Kodak 760 is very expensive in my eyes, compared to D100 for instance and it seems to be easy to me for Kodak to add their software for free.

Handling in software is an important point. What I dislike most in the end with NC3 is the conversion time it takes for each RAW file, even on a relatively quick computer. How quick is Kodaks RAW conversion? The selection action you describe is sure more comfortable but NC3 also has a batch mode which is a must to get somehow productive at all.

In general I set comfortable with shooting RAW most of the time as well for the benefits you describe.

I think using photoshop with an appropriate RAW import plugin isn't very comfotable to do basic adjustment (depending on the import plugin with restricted functionallity) to lots of images with few effort. Exactly for this I use the NC3 software and not PS. In this sense it doesn't really matter wether NC3 is good, best or the top

But you can - as always - complain about the extra expense (that was with kodak already done when buying the camera...) with such software.

Regards, A. Schiele

Guy Mancuso said:
Guy Mancuso said:

I have not read this whole string but i will give you my take on photodesk2 first it's free more important you cans select all or just a few images make imediate corrections before you render it. Say for example you shot with various light situations say tungsten and daylight you could give imediate color balance to those certain photos.Also if you have a moire issue the software doe's a nice job of removal quickly. Not using any Nikon software not sure what can and can't do always went straight to photoshop using the D1. What made me buy the 760 over the D1x camera was mostly the software and I thought better image sensor. I believed and still do to do all the production after the shoot and not in camera is the way to go. a digital neg that can be filed raw and come back to and make changes for different uses. Plus the software helps with production. I really like it bottom line and Kodak keeps improving it Photodesk in December

Click to expand...

Guy Mancuso · Oct 8, 2002

The conversion time to render is about 6 seconds with my laptop but that might be my computer and of course one at a time. Using a Sony Vaio GRX570 with 512 mg of ram. And yes the 760 was very expensive but it is a older generation then the D100 and people have paid 23,000 for a 460 years ago I know I did.It truly is what your most comfortable with also and how you work. I do commercial work tethered most of the time so my image load is useally minimal because i delete the junk and only keep the best as i shoot.But i really do like the Kodak software and it seems I am not alone in that assesment. You do have a lot of control and Photodesk 3 will be here in 2 months and that can only get better. Guy

alfred_schiele said:
All is a matter of money you can invest too. The Kodak 760 is very
expensive in my eyes, compared to D100 for instance and it seems to
be easy to me for Kodak to add their software for free.

Handling in software is an important point. What I dislike most in
the end with NC3 is the conversion time it takes for each RAW file,
even on a relatively quick computer. How quick is Kodaks RAW
conversion? The selection action you describe is sure more
comfortable but NC3 also has a batch mode which is a must to get
somehow productive at all.

In general I set comfortable with shooting RAW most of the time as
well for the benefits you describe.

I think using photoshop with an appropriate RAW import plugin isn't
very comfotable to do basic adjustment (depending on the import
plugin with restricted functionallity) to lots of images with few
effort. Exactly for this I use the NC3 software and not PS. In this
sense it doesn't really matter wether NC3 is good, best or the top

But you can - as always - complain about the extra expense (that
was with kodak already done when buying the camera...) with such
software.

Regards, A. Schiele

alfred_schiele said:

alfred_schiele said:

I have not read this whole string but i will give you my take on photodesk2 first it's free more important you cans select all or just a few images make imediate corrections before you render it. Say for example you shot with various light situations say tungsten and daylight you could give imediate color balance to those certain photos.Also if you have a moire issue the software doe's a nice job of removal quickly. Not using any Nikon software not sure what can and can't do always went straight to photoshop using the D1. What made me buy the 760 over the D1x camera was mostly the software and I thought better image sensor. I believed and still do to do all the production after the shoot and not in camera is the way to go. a digital neg that can be filed raw and come back to and make changes for different uses. Plus the software helps with production. I really like it bottom line and Kodak keeps improving it Photodesk in December

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rick Boden · Oct 8, 2002

alfred_schiele said:
Handling in software is an important point. What I dislike most in
the end with NC3 is the conversion time it takes for each RAW file,
even on a relatively quick computer. How quick is Kodaks RAW
conversion? The selection action you describe is sure more
comfortable but NC3 also has a batch mode which is a must to get
somehow productive at all.

Playing with Kodak's Raw conversion, I found it fairly quick. But to me, conversion time would not be so much a factor because of the "Review" mode mentioned earler. Because you can quickly and easily see your Raw images in full screen mode, you only have to convert the ones that you plan to use and you can leave the others in Raw for storage or deletion.

This is a great concept. Does the Nikon or Canon software have this feature? I didn't see it in the Fuji programs.

Rick

alfred_schiele · Oct 8, 2002

Hi

Guy Mancuso said:
The conversion time to render is about 6 seconds with my laptop but
that might be my computer and of course one at a time.

Is this the loading time per file only or is it the time rendering a true total output file with all filtering, noise removal etc.?

With NC3 the final (batch) conversion with all processing takes in a rough guess about 1min per image on my machine, 1.8Ghz, 1GB Ram... And I feel this is really slow.

Guy Mancuso said:
Using a Sony
Vaio GRX570 with 512 mg of ram.

Guy Mancuso said:
And yes the 760 was very expensive
but it is a older generation then the D100 and people have paid
23,000 for a 460 years ago I know I did.It truly is what your most
comfortable with also and how you work. I do commercial work
tethered most of the time so my image load is useally minimal
because i delete the junk and only keep the best as i shoot.

$23.000 is simply out of my reach, regardless how perfect the software or how good the camera is 8)=

I used to sort out my bad shots without dignity as well but I sometimes keep some as "bad examples" or for later experiments... I know very well that the key in getting the best is a combination of skills and hard self criticism, even as a non pro.

Guy Mancuso said:
But i
really do like the Kodak software and it seems I am not alone in
that assesment. You do have a lot of control and Photodesk 3 will
be here in 2 months and that can only get better.

Let's see how things go on. Maybe I join the Kodak club some time and can judge better then.

Just for curiosity I found that on my dealers web site (who sells most Kodak stuff) all informations and offers about D100 have disspeared. Maybe because this camera and software is too bad, generated too much trouble (or does give not enough profit) compared to the kodaks?... This just made me think...

Regards, A. Schiele

alfred_schiele · Oct 8, 2002

Hi

Rick Boden said:
Playing with Kodak's Raw conversion, I found it fairly quick. But
to me, conversion time would not be so much a factor because of the
"Review" mode mentioned earler. Because you can quickly and easily
see your Raw images in full screen mode, you only have to convert
the ones that you plan to use and you can leave the others in Raw
for storage or deletion.

This is a great concept. Does the Nikon or Canon software have
this feature? I didn't see it in the Fuji programs.

Nikon includes a viewing software with the camera kit, but it is slow as well and the conversion qulity of its full size preview is worse to the "real" editor program which runs separately and costs some extra bucks...

Viewers like ACDSee are lightyears quicker...

Regards, A. Schiele

Richard Katris · Oct 8, 2002

Tom Maxwell said:
This is a serious question. I hear people saying all of the time
just how great the Kodak software is.

I don't know, but after six other scanners, I have to admit that the software for the RFS3600 is the best scanner software I have ever used, and I was not particularly impressed with the Silver Soft offerings for the Nikon, Miinoltas, Canon, or Epsons I have used. Lack of digital Ice or an equivalent on the 3600, is the biggest problem with that scanner. Colors and control on the scans is the best and most accurate from any of the ones I have used. LS2000, various QuickScans, and Filmscan 200, 2450, and FS4000 included. I can get the best colors, out of the scanning software on the Kodak.
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Mike Greer · Oct 8, 2002

I must confess that after playing with Photo Desk, I simply do not see why Kodak users think that it is so superior. Note, I like what I saw. Could easily see myself using it if I had a Kodak camera. But what I saw I can do just as easily with BreezeBrowser ($35) or Yarc Plus ($49) for Canon cameras. I'm not saying Breeze or Yarc is superior. I'm just saying that I can do the same thing.

With regard to quick RAW previews, that depends on what's in the RAW file. Canon embeds JPEG files in the RAW file. Dpedning on the camera, embedded JPEGs are of different sizes. With the 1D, one has many options. These embedded JPEGs display with lightning speed so you have the same options available to you (quick preview to decide which to use) have with Photo Desk.

Rick Boden said:
alfred_schiele said:

Handling in software is an important point. What I dislike most in
the end with NC3 is the conversion time it takes for each RAW file,
even on a relatively quick computer. How quick is Kodaks RAW
conversion? The selection action you describe is sure more
comfortable but NC3 also has a batch mode which is a must to get
somehow productive at all.

Click to expand...

Playing with Kodak's Raw conversion, I found it fairly quick. But
to me, conversion time would not be so much a factor because of the
"Review" mode mentioned earler. Because you can quickly and easily
see your Raw images in full screen mode, you only have to convert
the ones that you plan to use and you can leave the others in Raw
for storage or deletion.

This is a great concept. Does the Nikon or Canon software have
this feature? I didn't see it in the Fuji programs.

Rick

Rick Boden · Oct 8, 2002

Mike Greer said:
With the 1D, one has
many options. These embedded JPEGs display with lightning speed so
you have the same options available to you (quick preview to decide
which to use) have with Photo Desk.

Hi Mike,

How big are the previews? The Kodak previews are fast and they fill the screen making editing decisions very easy. If the Canon delivers screen sized fast previews, then that is good too. If they are small, then I wouldn't compare to PhotoDesk.

Rick

Guy Mancuso · Oct 8, 2002

I am sorry I was out for a while but to make the changes in preview mode is all most immediate and about 6 seconds to render it with alot of changes but this all relative to computing power, ram and such. Bottom line it is a fairly fast piece of software that really helps move production along and the previews are a good size to make quick corrections. I like it
Guy

Richard Katris said:
Tom Maxwell said:

This is a serious question. I hear people saying all of the time
just how great the Kodak software is.

Click to expand...

I don't know, but after six other scanners, I have to admit that
the software for the RFS3600 is the best scanner software I have
ever used, and I was not particularly impressed with the Silver
Soft offerings for the Nikon, Miinoltas, Canon, or Epsons I have
used. Lack of digital Ice or an equivalent on the 3600, is the
biggest problem with that scanner. Colors and control on the scans
is the best and most accurate from any of the ones I have used.
LS2000, various QuickScans, and Filmscan 200, 2450, and FS4000
included. I can get the best colors, out of the scanning software
on the Kodak.
Richard Katris aka Chanan

Why is Kodak Software So Great?

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Kevin Allen

Guest

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts