Canon RAW software

[Jim_Larson]

Oh, its not the CONVERSION time that is the issue.

It is accessing the menu commands to do color balances, curve adjustments and what not that I perceive to be tedious. But I may be all wet on this one. . . . .I will be trying CS2 in month, and I will see for myself how fast things can be done.

[Joseph_Ferrari]

I've tried them all and find the Adobe product provides a very productive workflow that yields excellent final results. But I still use ZoomBrowser as a first step in the selection process; the drag and drop facility in ZoomBrowser allows me to copy raw files from original folder to a working folder for Camera Raw.

[BrianTao]

[ QUOTE ]
It is accessing the menu commands to do color balances, curve adjustments and what not that I perceive to be tedious. But I may be all wet on this one. . . . .I will be trying CS2 in month, and I will see for myself how fast things can be done.

[/ QUOTE ]
Adobe Camera Raw is rather poor in this regard... no keyboard shortcuts to do any of the adjustments, which means you'll have to aim-click-drag with the mouse for everything. Really slows things down. Also, the Bridge+ACR combination, like DPP, is modal: they separate browsing from editing, forcing you to jump between the two modes. Programs like C1, Bibble and Raw Shooter combine browsing and editing in a seamless interface. They are unquestionably much more efficient than ACR or DPP.

ACR and DPP have the advantage that the software is "free" (assuming most people already own Photoshop and a Canon camera), and they do get the job done, so most people are content to live with the limitations. But if you need to correct 500+ photos per hour, neither ACR nor DPP will cut it.