Nemrod

[col4bin]

Puffer is correct about DPP. All RAW file formats are proprietary so software developers (Adobe, Apple) must crack the code to convert the files. DPP will always produce the best results however Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Aperture do a fine job and the differences are going to be negligible. Add to LR or Aperture the numerous presets that are available plus the DAM capabilities and one will see the advatanges. I am not knocking DPP at all. There are many photographers that use DPP but I will warn you that once you start using a more full featured program, be prepared to drop a couple hundred (or more) on software. The point shown by Puffer's post is shoot RAW if you are willing to put in the processing time. Editing compressed files (like JPEGs) usually requires editing at the pixel level and using layer masks (ala Photoshop or Elements). The learning curve is not too bad....results are visual and instantaneous and best of all non-destructive.

EDIT: all the pictures at the link in my signature were shot in RAW (picture site is still being populated....I am slow). Originals are not there but some of the shots needing a lot of work that would not have been easily accomplished with a JPEG.

 

[Puffer Fish]

I think that underwater images have such difficulty with white balance, that raw is much more valuable.

I use several different software's, but what I notice in most images, is that people (not everyone.. but a lot) have a major issue knowing what the best setting for a specific camera are. Unsharp mask, for example, takes some time to figure out what is best for a specific camera.. while the Canon software does a great job of sharping... with a slider, I suspect because it knows the camera that it is working on.

Canon's eye dropper white balance is pretty easy to use and actually works better than a temperature slider...you just might have to hit a lot of spots to get the correct one.

If I thought I could do better with the other three software's I have, I would be using one of them.

Puffer is correct about DPP. All RAW file formats are proprietary so software developers (Adobe, Apple) must crack the code to convert the files. DPP will always produce the best results however Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) and Aperture do a fine job and the differences are going to be negligible. Add to LR or Aperture the numerous presets that are available plus the DAM capabilities and one will see the advatanges. I am not knocking DPP at all. There are many photographers that use DPP but I will warn you that once you start using a more full featured program, be prepared to drop a couple hundred (or more) on software. The point shown by Puffer's post is shoot RAW if you are willing to put in the processing time. Editing compressed files (like JPEGs) usually requires editing at the pixel level and using layer masks (ala Photoshop or Elements). The learning curve is not too bad....results are visual and instantaneous and best of all non-destructive.

EDIT: all the pictures at the link in my signature were shot in RAW (picture site is still being populated....I am slow). Originals are not there but some of the shots needing a lot of work that would not have been easily accomplished with a JPEG.

 

[Gilligan]

I think that underwater images have such difficulty with white balance, that raw is much more valuable.

Canon's eye dropper white balance is pretty easy to use and actually works better than a temperature slider...you just might have to hit a lot of spots to get the correct one.

If I thought I could do better with the other three software's I have, I would be using one of them.

It made a RAW believer out of me

 

[Puffer Fish]

I did one more, just in case anyone questions the value of raw:

Before:

After:

Anyone that would like, please down load the original and see, in the jpg form, if you can get that smb on the far left, back diver to show up.

This is shot at about 85 ft, off of Panama City, fl....which is not known for it's clear water.

 

[BarryTX]

EDIT: all the pictures at the link in my signature were shot in RAW (picture site is still being populated....I am slow). Originals are not there but some of the shots needing a lot of work that would not have been easily accomplished with a JPEG.

Outstanding pictures on your site, very impressive. Thanks for pointing them out.

Barry