better to use the RAW plugin that comes with Photoshop CS or the one that came with my camera's File Viewer utility? using CS is definitely an extra step but if its worth it then thats fine with me. Camera is a Canon G3

I hardly ever shoot RAW (yeah yeah I know I should) but as far as I can remember I was able to get better results with CS plus do some extra adjusting/manipulation that other software can't do.

But you'll have to wait for freakyclean to answer this better.
He's whatcha might call a RAW Master ;)

Photoshop CS does a better job, though as you said more time consuming.

:)

:::sighs:::: i knew he was gonna say that. damn computers.

I was just about to post a question along the lines of this thread, so I went ahead and stuffed in here as well. Anyways, I've been finding myself adusting contrast and saturaton in my RAW photographs and I've started to wonder if I should even do it using Photoshop's RAW plug-in or do it the old fashion way using adjustment layers. I'm begining to think using the plug-in is a waste of time since adjustment layers can do the same things and I can have more control over them, and they aren't permanent. I was just wondering what anyone else thinks about this.

It is better to do them in the RAW plug-in, at least to a certain level where minor tweeking in PS will suffice. You have more data available to you in the RAW converter than you would in a PS files. That is the whole reason to shoot RAW in the first place instead of Jpeg or Tif.

That being said it really depends on what you are using the files for. If you are just using them on screen then it probably doesn't matter for most images where you convert them.

:)

Thanks for the info, it makes sense to use a combo of both techniques to achieve the best results instead of simply relying on one or the other.

phase one software created a tool called "capture one" which I assume to be the best raw tool out there.
Even new RAW functions in PS CS2 are not as good as capture one is!