Reading mode: Light Dark

1Ds with photoshop CS - first impressions......

Go to last post
I've had my 1Ds for about two weeks now. Even though I've never used C1 I am fairly impressed with Adobe CS's RAW capabilities. I've been able to easily salvage images that are 1.5-2 stops under/overexposed.
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
 
Photoshop Cs is a good improvement - also with respect ot speed - esp. for the picture folder...... and other nice features as in their website described. I like it really.... except for the raw converter.
jasonthompsonaz said:
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
llaupi ...

I am also quite impressed with CS. I've been usiing Capture 1, myself, but using CS for the whole process makes the workflow quite smooth. Pictures look better than I've been able to do with PS before. I've only been using it for a day but, so far, I am quite impressed with what they have done!! I've upgraded from Ver6 so it was WELL worth the money!!

Barry
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
--
Barry in Frederick, Md.
 
I don't entirely agree the softwares are different. You can take the Adobe image and process it further in PS and get as good or better. C1 or the choice in settings has chosen to sacrifice shadow detail a choice not yet made on the PS converted image. You can reach the same outcome with either it's just the process is different to get there.

Scot Perry
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
 
I have been on sitting on the sidelines regarding C1... now that Adobe CS is out, is it really worth $500? I guess I should probably download a demo copy.
Scot Perry said:
Scot Perry
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
I've tried the demo version of c1 and the images don't look any better than they do from canon's file Viewer Utility. The only advantage is that the preview is full size and faster. The conversion time is not faster at all.
 
If you're a pro, why wouldn't you want the best software available for the job. You can bet your top competitors will be using it.

I can't even comprehend how you can say that C1 images don't look any better than the Canon FVU, or ACR for that matter. Every comparision I've seen done on RAW converters, C1 wins hands down.

With all due respect Michael, you must not of learned how to use C1 properly. How many images did you convert using the demo? Did you give it a fair chance?

It's not that I don't like Photoshop, I've been using it for over 10 years, but when it comes down to producing the highest quality RAW conversion, C1 is the software I will use.

As for the price of $500 for just a RAW converter, if you want the best that's the price you pay. If my business was full-time photography, I wouldn't even think twice about making such a purchase. It would pay for itself in the first month with time saved and better quality images.
Michael Martin said:
I've tried the demo version of c1 and the images don't look any
better than they do from canon's file Viewer Utility. The only
advantage is that the preview is full size and faster. The
conversion time is not faster at all.
Click to expand...
 
I too have tried the capture one and feel the price is way out of line $500 for a converter when everything from within C1 is now available in Photoshop CS. As I stated I tried the demo and was not impressed because of the difficulty in learning how to use C1. Now with the Photoshop coverter within 5 minutes anyone can learn how to get great results. I have had nothing but great things to say about the user friendliness of the Photoshop converter and my results were far superior to using C1 or the Canon Converter. My results are all that is important and I am sure C1 does a great job as well but I don't have 6 months to learn how to use it either, I want results that are predictable now without having to use 5 different programs learning each one.
Michael Martin said:
I've tried the demo version of c1 and the images don't look any
better than they do from canon's file Viewer Utility. The only
advantage is that the preview is full size and faster. The
conversion time is not faster at all.
Click to expand...
 
If you do event photography and shoot thousands of images a week and many of them will be keepers it is probably worth it (you may not have to even use PS at all). If you shoot less and cherry pick images to be processed I don't think C1 is necessary as PS can do all and more but slower. If you have a D60/D30 it is a great asset for getting natural color and adobergb files and it's cheaper.

That's my 2 cents I just don't think original posters samples where a fair comparison depending on your workflow requirements.

Scot
jasonthompsonaz said:
Scot Perry said:
Scot Perry
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I would suggest that you loosen your tie, relax and take another look. The ability to FIX so many areas of the photograph before its converted provides even the very best photographers with a tool that they have never had before. It doesn't matter if its C1 or Adobe RAW. The Canon utility is next to worthless in my opinion.

Bob
Michael Martin said:
I've tried the demo version of c1 and the images don't look any
better than they do from canon's file Viewer Utility. The only
advantage is that the preview is full size and faster. The
conversion time is not faster at all.
Click to expand...
 
I totally agree with you that C1 or Adobe RAW are not for those high volume photographers. However, it is nice to have the file in both RAW and JPEG. You never know when shooting which single image of those thousands is going to be extraordinary and its nice to have the RAW file to process properly.
Scot Perry said:
That's my 2 cents I just don't think original posters samples where
a fair comparison depending on your workflow requirements.

Scot
jasonthompsonaz said:
Scot Perry said:
Scot Perry
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575

In landscapes I could hardly detect differences though......

Look here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54573
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
llaupi said:
....and I am amazed - except for the raw peocessor - adobe still is
weak for challenging picture. [...]
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/54575
Click to expand...
Sorry, it says that I can't access it, so it's useless. In any case, if I want to read other forums, perhaps I'll do that of my own accord... is there any new information here or are we not in danger of blogging up our own rears?

I'm not sure if the actual business end of the RAW conversion's seen any changes from 7.01. It's certainly easier to use, and integration with the file browser makes a lot of sense. It feels better, and I feel that I'm getting better results out of it, but perhaps that's just because I already paid for it.

I tried capture one when it first came out and didn't like it much. I'm pleased that it's still there and happy that others can make it sing and dance.

I can't see what the fuss is about maintenance releases. Pay your support, get an upgrade.

--
Phil
http://www.wigglesworld.btinternet.co.uk/
 
I agree Canon utility is useless and almost forget it exists having used Breeze Browser since my D30, D60, 10D (short lived) and now with my 1Ds. I also will continue to use it even if I were to get Adobe Raw or C1 as it has certain qualities I have become dependent on customizable web page generation and on the fly slide show for two.

Scot Perry
Robert Bedwell said:
Bob
Michael Martin said:
I've tried the demo version of c1 and the images don't look any
better than they do from canon's file Viewer Utility. The only
advantage is that the preview is full size and faster. The
conversion time is not faster at all.
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