0
\$\begingroup\$

I'm fairly new to photography, and I've been trying out a few image editors, and I stumbled upon one issue: any program that can read Canon's raw files, except Canon's Digital Photo Professional, doesn't display the raw images as I intended them to be. Canon's software is the only one that's able to interpret my image settings I set in camera, like contrast and saturation, while any other program seems to disregard these settings. I have tried Picasa, Lightroom, and now I have GIMP with UFRaw. My camera is Canon 400D (or Rebel XTi in US I think, 10MP model). Is there any solution to it, or do I have to stick with configuring RAW files in Canon DPP and then converting the image to e.g. JPEG before using other editors?

Thanks, Radek

Improve this question
\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think any answer here would have to be per-converter, not in general. \$\endgroup\$
    – mattdm
    Nov 20, 2012 at 17:58
  • \$\begingroup\$ Honestly, I prefer to see a general one. Otherwise we may end up with a matrix of questions for all combinations of cameras and converters! \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Nov 20, 2012 at 18:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Heres a list of Convertors you might want to look at: DPP, Capture One Pro, Phocus, Adobe Camera Raw (Photoshop, Lightroom) The industry favorite in my circles is Capture One. Though I find people using a combination of all of these programs from testing,shooting,jpg previews and post. \$\endgroup\$
    – underarock
    Nov 28, 2012 at 18:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
\$\begingroup\$

Replace any camera brand in your question and the issue and answer will still be the same. There was someone asking about the same thing for Fuji a few days ago.

The manufacturer converter often is programmed with the same conversion as the camera while third-party software have to roll their own. You are always likely to see a difference. Even with Lightroom's As Shot option, to me it looks dramatically different. You have to find a software which can produce the look you like. On most you can make the workflow efficient by creating a Preset that applies the same settings to images as they are imported.

Improve this answer
\$\endgroup\$
2
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ok, thanks for your answer! So, is my second option, converting to JPG before post-processing, any viable, or is it better in general to edit on RAW? \$\endgroup\$
    – andrus108
    Nov 20, 2012 at 22:23
  • \$\begingroup\$ @andrus108 - There is another option and that is to convert to a high bit-depth format like TIFF 48-bits (16 bits-per-component) it has the WB and demosaic baked-in (unlike RAW) but keeps all the precision of your RAW images (which are 12-bit and 14-bits on some cameras). JPEG is certainly viable for minimal edits but if you do things like play with curves, particularly in the dark areas, go for higher bit-depth. \$\endgroup\$
    – Itai
    Nov 20, 2012 at 22:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.