Yes, there is plenty of Canaan software but I have no interest in using
it since I have no interest in using any of the camera's settings which
diddle with the JPEGs (what Canaan calls "picture style"). I just did
compare the embedded JPEG (default camera settings except for WB) with
the default ACR conversion at the same WB and they look almost identical.
I moved to ACR very quickly because of the problems I had with Minolta
raw conversion software both Minolta and third party. ACR is much
easier to use and, frankly, does a better job. I don't see any need to
learn multiple apps when ACR is performing to my full satisfaction.
Chuck Norcutt
Joel Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Chuck Norcutt
> <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Oh, but we do see JPEG output. It's not clear to me what Bridge does
>> but, if you use Breeze Browser or its clone, FastStone, both display the
>> embedded JPEG when displaying a Canon raw file. Therefore, what you see
>> is the camera's version of the image according to the camera's settings
>> at the time of the shot. Strange, I've never done an ACR conversion
>> exactly according to the camera's settings and then compared the ACR
>> conversion with the camera's embedded JPEG. Something else to add to
>> the "to do" list. :-)
>
> DeepPeeve won't do that with Studio or Master when they review an E
> camera because they say the output simply matches the jpg. Of course,
> that's only if you change no settings in the raw converter, but
> whatever ...
>
> Isn't there some sort of Canaan software? If you want to do the kind
> of thing we've been doing, compare the jpg with Canaan raw development
> at camera settings and then with ACR. That would broaden the
> discussion a bit.
>
> Joel W.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|