EOS 20D and RAW Processing

Jon · #1 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 03:23 PM

Hi everyone, I am struggling with IT ...again! I have just bought an EOS20d, taken RAW shots exxactly the same as with the 300D. I looked at the shots with RAWSHOOTER and no problems. BUT I can't get to see the images in Photoshop because the 20D files are CR2 files. Does anyone know what I have to do to make ADOBE elements or Adobe CS to work please?

pxl8 · #2 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 03:44 PM

I believe you need to get a newer version of ACR from the Adobe website before it can open cr2 files.

carlj · #3 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 03:46 PM

Jon, go to adobe's website and make sure camera raw is up to date - it may not have 20d compatibility with the version you have. Just pray it's not cs2 only or the only option is to spend on a full upgrade!

Carl

Kev Lewis · #4 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 04:33 PM

use rawshooter to save the converted raw files as jpg or tif files and then open in PS CS or download the last but one version of adobe capture raw program the latest one is for CS2 only

Neil · #5 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Klewis

use rawshooter to save the converted raw files as jpg or tif files and then open in PS CS or download the last but one version of adobe capture raw program the latest one is for CS2 only

Hi

If you are unable to open RAW files then I would just turn of RAW files in the menu and only take Jpeg files until you can open RAW files directly. The Jpeg files are all about 2.5 Mb and RAW are all over 7 Mb it depends on the detail in the photo you are taking. The figures I have quoted are average of the photos I take. I have Photoshop elements 3 that came with my 20D, I would think that works with RAW files but have not had a go with it. If you want it and send your address by PM I will send it to you.

Neil.

Neil · #6 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 04:52 PM

Hi again
The reply was for Carl sorry.

Neil

carlj · #7 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 05:15 PM

Neil, can never remember which version of which opens what

Use rawshooter at home for the Minolta 5D raw - 2006 vintage has full support.

haddonite · #8 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 05:24 PM

Do most of you guys take digital photos in RAW file mode, and convert later, or do you use JPEG mode

Neil

carlj · #9 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 05:30 PM

Use raw+jpg mode, though never use the jpgs!

Kev Lewis · #10 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 05:36 PM

Raw gives you much more control of the image during processing. I would never consider going back to jpg now

Neil · #11 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haddonite

Do most of you guys take digital photos in RAW file mode, and convert later, or do you use JPEG mode

Neil

Hi Neil
Nice name. I being a belt and braces man also take in both. I do use the RAW files most; they have a 16 bit depth and have more information in them. Jpeg have 8 bit and have been processed in the camera, I must admit that some of the Jpegs look better than when I have converted them from RAW.

Neil

haddonite · #12 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 05:55 PM

Hi Neil! same name, same interests, it would seem!

Folks, I'm still ploughing through the manual (that is with the D70s), trying to get my head round some of the settings. There is a setting for RAW and JPEG together, i.e image recorded in both file formats. Is this the one I should be using, or RAW on its own

Neil

Alan · #13 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 06:03 PM

Neil, experiment and try all options. Use the one that suits you!

Neil · #14 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by haddonite

Hi Neil! same name, same interests, it would seem!

Folks, I'm still ploughing through the manual (that is with the D70s), trying to get my head round some of the settings. There is a setting for RAW and JPEG together, i.e image recorded in both file formats. Is this the one I should be using, or RAW on its own

Neil

Hi Neil

I would say RAW only, if you want more control of your files. If you are short of storage memory then Jpeg are typically only half the size of RAW files, but with less control of your final photos. As I have said I do record in both and compare the results.
Neil

carlj · #15 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 06:08 PM

Neil, am contemplating shooting just raw to free up space on memory card. But the ability to nip into highstprocessingshop and get prints there and then still remains a lure!
Carl

haddonite · #16 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 06:22 PM

The memory card in the camera is 2 gig, so I don't think space will be a problem. Like you Carl, I'll set the camera for both types, then if I mess up with the RAW images, I've got a safety net with the JPEG type.

By the way, guys, you all post great photos in the gallery!

Neil

Jon · #17 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

Hi

If you are unable to open RAW files then I would just turn of RAW files in the menu and only take Jpeg files until you can open RAW files directly. The Jpeg files are all about 2.5 Mb and RAW are all over 7 Mb it depends on the detail in the photo you are taking. The figures I have quoted are average of the photos I take. I have Photoshop elements 3 that came with my 20D, I would think that works with RAW files but have not had a go with it. If you want it and send your address by PM I will send it to you.

Neil.

Neil thanks for the offer of Elements 3, the one that came with my camera was Elements 2, (which is what I got with my Eos 300D), I uploaded it just in case there were some minor version updates, but no good. I would like to take you up on the offer of Version 3 but I think it may land you or I in trouble as I would have to mention the registration number and if it is already registered to you there could be problems?? Whatd'ya reckon? Jon

Neil · #18 (**permalink**) 15-03-2006, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon

Neil thanks for the offer of Elements 3, the one that came with my camera was Elements 2, (which is what I got with my Eos 300D), I uploaded it just in case there were some minor version updates, but no good. I would like to take you up on the offer of Version 3 but I think it may land you or I in trouble as I would have to mention the registration number and if it is already registered to you there could be problems?? Whatd'ya reckon? Jon

Hi Jon
I have just found the software; unfortunately it is also version two that came with my 20D. It has the registration number on the sleeve to install it. I have opened it but not installed or registered it, so it would not be a problem for some one to use it.

Sorry Neil

MalcolmX · #19 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 08:42 AM

if i may i would like to add a an opinion . raw for most amateurs is a bite of a red herring . certainly it gives more post processing power to your photograph . this may be what some professionals need particularly in the publishing world . however if you are a photographer rather than a computer operator a jpeg take on the largest setting when printed at a4 with the recommended sharpening will be indistinguishable from a raw converted to tiff (with the same parameters applied ) without the workflow attendant with raw .
i take about 250 shots at a session and i do not want to spend hours in front of the computer correcting white balance contrast etc that i could easily have got right in the camera m my camera produces a large raw file and i get about 50 shots on a 1 gig card which i download in the field ,i did start of with raw files abut the work flow time for me was prohibitive and i have switched back to jpeg. i do however back up to a CD and an external hard drive before i start any work on the files.
the best and easiest raw converter is raw essentials which will give a conveted file that can be printed directly with the camera software (canon)
i hope this is some help

pxl8 · #20 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 09:11 AM

I agree to a point but there will be differences between the two, the raw software will give better sharpening/noise reduction. It will also have a noticable affect on the tonal curves of the data. This is without changing any values for exposure, WB, etc.

Of course not everyone will notice those differences so you could argue it's a pointless exercise. Of course those who do see the difference will notice the lost potential.

But, regardless of how much or little post work you do, being happy with your results is all that really matters.

digi · #21 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 09:35 AM

For wildlife photgraphy my average shot per session is 200-300 and for aviation around 400-500. You don't process every single image you use batch processing.

Jon · #22 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

if i may i would like to add a an opinion . raw for most amateurs is a bite of a red herring . certainly it gives more post processing power to your photograph . this may be what some professionals need particularly in the publishing world . however if you are a photographer rather than a computer operator a jpeg take on the largest setting when printed at a4 with the recommended sharpening will be indistinguishable from a raw converted to tiff (with the same parameters applied ) without the workflow attendant with raw .
i take about 250 shots at a session and i do not want to spend hours in front of the computer correcting white balance contrast etc that i could easily have got right in the camera m my camera produces a large raw file and i get about 50 shots on a 1 gig card which i download in the field ,i did start of with raw files abut the work flow time for me was prohibitive and i have switched back to jpeg. i do however back up to a CD and an external hard drive before i start any work on the files.
the best and easiest raw converter is raw essentials which will give a conveted file that can be printed directly with the camera software (canon)
i hope this is some help

Macolm eight months ago I would have said exactly the same thing, and to some extent I can still agree. I have an A3 shot of a Robin and whic is also a selective enlargement so the actual magnification was enormous and this was a JPEG. I started thinking why bother with RAW because if the image is well exposed then the JPEG will almost certainly be satisfactory. I have however taken JPEGS and RAW of similar things and you do get more detail with RAW files. I was convinced when I saw a family shot, I took one quickly for convenience and then I bored everyone and asked them to wait while I took another. When I looked at the JPEG is was good, I was entirely happy, when I looked at the converted RAW I could see detail in the material of the clothing that just was not there in the JPEG. I fully take your point though, unless you actually compare the two, the chances are you will be entirely happy with the JPEG. My trouble is I always want to know how I can make a shot better so I am now entirely "converted", no pun intended! There is no escaping the the fact that RAW is alwys capable of providing the opportunity to provide a better image. Jon

carlj · #23 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 09:46 AM

Loss of detail is a problem with lossy compression. For most shots to 7x5, not really a problem. But looking at some of the shots on here, the loss would destroy some of the fine details shown.

MalcolmX · #24 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 10:57 AM

i think what i am trying to say is that when you are new to a camera or new to photography you can get bogged down with the technicalities and not enjoy the photography.
certainly we could have a long debate about rawvjpegvtiff about sharpening ccd sizes and printing but it may boor the pants of a lot of members . one point i would make is that if you don't get the detail in at the time of capture then you wont get it in later .jon did you do your enlargement from photo-shop or did you use an enlarging programme (eg fractiles)

Neil · #25 (**permalink**) 16-03-2006, 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

i think what i am trying to say is that when you are new to a camera or new to photography you can get bogged down with the technicalities and not enjoy the photography.
certainly we could have a long debate about rawvjpegvtiff about sharpening ccd sizes and printing but it may boor the pants of a lot of members . one point i would make is that if you don't get the detail in at the time of capture then you wont get it in later .jon did you do your enlargement from photo-shop or did you use an enlarging programme (eg fractiles)

Hi

I would just like to say that I agree with you totally. One can always have a look at RAW later and should not forget about it completely.

Neil