Raw and post-processing years later

[SteveF]

Ok, so I'm not exactly a raw shooter - don't judge me!

For long enough I've been told that raw shooters will be able to go back to their files and re-process them with newer and advanced software for better results.

I've tried this with Canon DPP on files from my 10D from 2003, some files from my 1Dsmk2 from 2006 and haven't really found the files can be improved.

For instance, the Auto lighting optimiser is greyed out on many files, and other boxes are too. Is this just the fact that the original files just don't have the future mapped out so they will not be able to cater for future developments?

This isn't a raw vs anyone augument it's just a view on this raw development scene.

[Shadowman]

Hi Steve,

I think you will still need the original converter or an optional one that is backward compatible such as a DNG converter to be able to get the files to the post-processing stage. Not familiar with the AUTO lighting optimizer, is this a Canon RAW processing function?

Just read about the function, similar to Nikon's D-Lighting feature for shadow detail.

[Mike Buckley]

For long enough I've been told that raw shooters will be able to go back to their files and re-process them with newer and advanced software for better results.

That's true for both raw shooters and jpeg shooters so long as the original jpeg SOOC was maintained. However, in both cases, there will always be certain limitations. In the case of raw files, the new post-processing capabilities that require the camera to have embedded a related technology will only work with the files captured by cameras that in fact did that. As a different example, the newly released Dehaze tools are examples of post-processing technologies that will improve old raw and JPEG files regardless of the camera or scanner used to create the digital file.

[proseak]

Third party software continues to improve but maker's own tends not to. In Canon's case at least, you may find that not all DPP versions work properly on all .CR2 files. I quit using it very quickly, and now use Adobe or DxO, both of which get better all the time.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Steve,

I think John is on the right track with regard to the nature of the 'problem'.

As he says; Nikon cameras have something called Active D-Lighting which is an in camera feature that can be used to improve jpgs at the time of shooting. The same feature is also available in Nikon's PP software for use on RAW captures, so they are mimicking what can be done in camera - the same is true of a few other in camera processing features.

It therefore doesn't surprise me that Canon has something similar and I could understand how the software might not support the feature if the original camera didn't have that feature (as Mike suggests), even if there's no technical reason why it couldn't be done. However; there may also be file compatibility issues (as Peter mentions).

I also agree with Peter's suggestion that long term, you're probably going to be better off with software from someone other than the camera manufacturer. I do still use Nikon's software to download, cull and star-rate my images, but never use it for processing, that's always done in PS CC these days (or Elements previously).

The concept of 'repeating' camera processing features in proprietary software has some value for their customers (e.g. when first moving from jpg to RAW workflow), but there comes a point when most people find the need to 'move on' to a better specified (and supported) image editor.

I think you have now reached this stage, but you'll really need to learn how to do stuff for yourself, rather than rely on 'Auto' - however, I'll admit to previously using ACR's 'Auto' to get me started, then tweak from there. Like most things 'Auto', you'll get a vanilla result, to really improve images usually needs the personal touch applied with knowledge, understanding and lots of practice.

Many editors have 'free trial' periods of 30 days, so make the most of those, try a few and see which you get on with. Just be aware that there'll be far more third party support (e.g. books, training courses and YouTube videos) for the more well known ones.

Good luck with the hunt, Dave