I been shooting raw with the canon 5d and 1ds mark3 and then processing the images on Zoombrowser (the software that comes with the camera)

I have been reading that the processing software is pretty important, duh, is Zoombrowser any good? Should I be using something else? any advice would be great!

Adobe Lightroom has a 30 day free trial period. I personally greatly prefer it over Canon's Raw processor using a 30D.

http://www.adobe.com/downloads/

hth - John

If you want to use the Canon software, don't use Zoombrowser--use DPP (Digital PHoto Professional--here's a tutuorial site http://www.usa.canon.com/content/dpp2/index.html )that also came with your camera. You may need to upgrade--which you can find on the Canon site.

I've used a lot of RAW converters over the years---but right now I'm very happy with the Lightroom (and sometimes round trips to Photoshop) conversions.

Diane

A lot of people claim DPP is better than lightroom with Canon files, the sharpening is better, and I fancy theres slightly less noise, but it's hard to tell at the low iso I shoot at mostly.
Lightroom is easier and quicker for large numbers of images. Wayne

Agree LR has great workflow, but the colours from my 5D needed more work in LR than DPP or DXo - much improved by calibrating using the Tindeman script. Overall, I prefer LR to DPP for workflow reasons and DXo to LR for colour, but not workflow.

Incidentally, I've not calibrated LR for my 1Ds3 yet, but initial results suggest it does a better job of colour than with the 5D. I'm still trying to work out the optimum capture sharpening settings though.

Mike

Canon's DPP is far superior to Zoombrowser. But you really need to view it's online tutorials (links in a post above) to get the best out of it. It does a great job and it is free. But the adjustment sliders are crude and user interface really blows when you compare it to ACR or Lightroom. If you don't mind spending a few bucks then I'd get Lightroom. The user interface is a gem compared to DPP. I once used DPP because it was free and I was new to RAW and digital format. I was happy with it's results but I currently use ACR because I much prefer it's interface and intuitive (to me) workflow. I enjoy processing RAW more with it that I do with DPP. Your mileage may differ.

Problem is: the term "workflow" starts with "work"…

The default rendering with DPP or Canon’s Zoombrowser or even in-camera conversion is often perceived to be better compared to (the default with) a third-party Raw converter – at least in some aspects such as in particular color reproduction.

Peter

--

That was my thinking originally, until I callibrated ACR for my camera....It isn't 'work' if the UI is intuitive, it becomes fun, not work. For me DPP is work, ACR is fun. IMHO DPP's controls are crude blunt instruments compared to the myriad of fine tuning options with ACR. For me, once ACR was callibrated to my 30D, it rendered as good, if not better, than DPP or Zoombrowser.

Your mileage may differ.

I can make ACR do what I want. I can't do the same with DPP. If DPP just gives me what I want, then great. If it doesn't then I have little recourse. I have to go with ACR.

I can make ACR get close to what I want. Not always because I am still new to it. But it is easier to get consistent results than DPP. DPP seems to be like a crap shot (not the best metaphor). Sometimes I get great results, sometimes I get garbage. But I still use it whenever I don't get what I want with ACR. Sometimes it surprises me. But using it as my main converter frustrates me. But it can give good results if you take the time to learn it's nuances and quirks...I don't have that patience

I use zoombrowser since 2 years and I am happy with it. The raw processing is ok. Otherwise, maybe you will find better but you will have to pay...

As for a further comment, this one by Eric Chan is cross-quoted from the Clarity thread:

>> DPP, NX, and most of the vendor software perform non-linear hue twists that are apparently based more on the vendors' notions of what people want to see (i.e., the color rendering style) rather than being colorimetric or 'accurate'. No matrix is going to reproduce this.<<

Or, if of interest, see this recent discussion here.

Peter

--