31st July 2004, 04:04 PM
C1 Pro, Breezebrowser, etc... How r they fantastic?
I understand some people use these softwares as part of their digital workflow...
Just curious: Why would you buy another extra software when the provided RAW image converter (when you buy a digital cam) by Canon, Nikon, etc can do the conversion, and thereafter it's just a matter of using Photo-editing such as Photoshop, etc to adjust whatever contrast, colour, etc?
Are there any advantages to using softwares like Breezebrowser, C1, etc?
31st July 2004, 04:17 PM
Breezebrowser and Capture 1 are just some of the software people use to convert RAW data to jpg or tif. It really depends on teh individual. Some prefer this while others prefer that. Most of teh 3rd party software allow you to manipulate the data more than the software that come with the camera. You can also do batch processing. I find this feature to be a plus.
31st July 2004, 04:19 PM
I was told different OEMs use different algorithm to treat the raw data. some claim their algorithm is better than others resulting in better conversion from the point of lesser noise, etc, etc..
Some have a selection of curves for different applications, etc..
31st July 2004, 04:24 PM
Ok, maybe batch processing is one thing.... But from an amateur point of view, all that is needed is let the RAW converter do all the conversion (while you do something else!). When it's done, open all the images one by one in say Photoshop and do the necessary adjustments, save it as jpg. Isn't it supposed to be that simple? Of course, unless you're a pro, shoot like 500 images a day, and time = $, then maybe... ?
Originally Posted by jbma
31st July 2004, 06:59 PM
Third party raw conversion softwares may have extra features which could speed up and/or improve their workflow significantly so much so that users feel are worth the money spent to buy and use them instead of the free one that comes with the camera.
Going by your rationale, why use Photoshop (which costs 10 x more than Breezebrowser would) when the camera also comes bundled with free photo-editing softwares like Adobe Photoshop Elements 2, etc?
And extrapolating the discussion, would be there any point in asking why some people feel the need to buy a Mercedes, Ferrari or Rolls Royce when a Toyota Corolla will get them from Point A to Point B just as effectively?
Ultimately, everything boils down to availability of choice, individual needs & requirements and affordability. When the answer to all 3 is YES, then people will exercise their freedom to choose to buy whichever product they want or need.
That's life !
31st July 2004, 07:37 PM
If you're not a pro, you can still shoot events/weddings for people and amass a few hundred shots that need processing. A good RAW converter more important for non-pros because us non-pros make all sorts of mistakes that need RAW to correct.
Originally Posted by David
Time ALWAYS = $ , whether you are a 'pro' or not.
I like breezebrowser a lot.
31st July 2004, 11:23 PM
Thanks for all the replies...
But I really hope to get more specific advice and answers... Sure, anyone can buy Mercedes, Ferraris, etc... People do that bcos of speed, exhiliration, status, looks, handling etc... That's motoring. In Photography, very often some people buy brand new gears, use once or twice, then leave them as white elephants or sell at a loss after less than a week.
But my post here is more about the practical aspects of the 3rd party softwares. Not for eg, buy it bcos you have $ to splurge. Someone mentioned about RAW conversion being 'better'. In what sense is that so? So far, I can only think of batch processing as having that edge... I know there should be a few more, else you guys won't spend that extra cash! Hope to be enlightened.. Thanks!
31st July 2004, 11:33 PM
You need to try these out yourself David and compare. Only then would you know the benefit of using 3rd party software. It's not about having money to splurge but more on needs. I find that processing my shots with Capture 1 is about half the time then if I use Canon's. That is good enough reason for me.
31st July 2004, 11:42 PM
If you want basic post processing like white balance or exposure correction, C1 does it more efficiently. You can go through your images while C1 converts them in the background. Furthermore, you can output 3 sets in jpeg or tiff and in diffierent sizes at the same time. Most of the 3rd party conversion tools are designed for these basic post processing only and they do it much more efficiently than PS. Beyond that, you have to use PS.