 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / December 2005Adobe CS vs. CS2
I am aware of the majority of feature changes. Is there any improvement in picture quality in RAW? I've seen comparisons with some other programs and it seens Adobe falls short here. No. I would not obsess on the minor differences between raw converters. There are far more important issues in image processing. > No. > I would not obsess on the minor differences between raw converters. > There are far more important issues in image processing. I agree that being able to do the work quickly, smoothly, efficiently is more important. >> No. >> I would not obsess on the minor differences between raw converters. >> There are far more important issues in image processing. > > I agree that being able to do the work quickly, smoothly, efficiently is > more important. Depends on how many images you have to process. I'm used to shooting with a 4X5 and medium format so rarely come home with more that 2-3 dozen images and out of them only 2-3 that really warrant spending much time on. I'm looking for the BEST quality I can get from the RAW file so if that means converting the RAW file in one program, editing in another and then printing with a 3rd, so be it.  SignatureStacey >>>No. >>>I would not obsess on the minor differences between raw converters. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > converting the RAW file in one program, editing in another and then > printing with a 3rd, so be it. I tend to have at least 20, often 200 jpg+raw shots with maybe a dozen 'keepers'and I'll only keep the raw files for those, sometimes not even bothering to use RAW till some day when they might be printed or published but for now it's just 'up to the web' for most of them. Are you sure you can't get similar results adjusting the default parameters in PS? You can save those defaults. SignaturePaul Furman http://www.edgehill.net/1 Bay Natives http://www.baynatives.com > I am aware of the majority of feature changes. Is there any improvement in > picture quality in RAW? I've seen comparisons with some other programs and > it seens Adobe falls short here. What camera are you using? CS2 works OK on some RAW files but doesn't on others.. SignatureStacey >> I am aware of the majority of feature changes. Is there any improvement in >> picture quality in RAW? I've seen comparisons with some other programs and >> it seens Adobe falls short here. > >What camera are you using? CS2 works OK on some RAW files but doesn't on >others.. Care to name the ones it doesn't work OK on? I know it's bang on with CR2 files. Why it even work Ok on Nikon files. ********************************************************* "I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ >>> I am aware of the majority of feature changes. Is there any improvement >>> in picture quality in RAW? I've seen comparisons with some other [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Why it even work Ok on Nikon files. I don't like the results I get from ORF's from it, olympus studio does a much better job IMHO. I suppose it works OK with them, it's just the studio conversions look better and need less PP done to them. SignatureStacey "John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message > Care to name the ones it doesn't work OK on? I know it's bang on with > CR2 files. > > Why it even work Ok on Nikon files. It depends on the file. With Fuji raw files it seems to capture more dynamic range than the Fuji converter, but loses some detail. > I am aware of the majority of feature changes. Is there any improvement in > picture quality in RAW? Yes. Camera Raw 3 is a significant upgrade. > I've seen comparisons with some other programs and it seens Adobe falls > short here. They don't. Camera Raw is as good as it gets. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.