RAW Processing

[Jon]

Does anyone have any particular strong views regards RAWSHOOTER, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop CS.
I use RAWSHOOTER quite a lot (the freebie that is) and I can get good detail in the dark and light elements, but I seem to be getting fairly good with Photoshop, so I keep mixing and matching and can't decide if I am just wasting time! Anyone out there got a view?

[digi]

Originally Posted by Jon

Does anyone have any particular strong views regards RAWSHOOTER, Photoshop Elements and Photoshop CS.
I use RAWSHOOTER quite a lot (the freebie that is) and I can get good detail in the dark and light elements, but I seem to be getting fairly good with Photoshop, so I keep mixing and matching and can't decide if I am just wasting time! Anyone out there got a view?

I use Rawshooter Pro, much better than Adobe RAW converter in my opinion, but I am sure many will disagree. Its personal choice.

[carlj]

Jon, Rawshooter Essentials is supposed to have a "watercolour" effect on the out of focus parts of photos. Never used pro as above, but must admit that for a free download, essentials can't be beaten.

[pxl8]

I noticed the watercolour effect in RSE/P as well. Even with all the noise reduction and sharpening turned off RS is still doing some processing and as a result loses some of the finer details which isn't so good for macro work. I also found RS a bit flat by default and the auto-exposure has a tendancy to over-use the fill light.

For me Capture One gives the best results and the lite version is priced the same as RSP. For Canon users the next release of DPP is supposed to include noise removal so it might be worth waiting for that before making any decisions.

[MalcolmX]

i find as a photographer that raw essentials does the job if i use raw ,however i know that a photo taken as a large jpeg will not be distinguishable from a raw converted to tiff at a4. imho raw is a tool designed for professionals with a very heavy work load and the need to sell prints. i think that the raw has been hyped up somewhat as it implies that you can take a photo any how and correct it in raw ,this makes for lazy photographers. my own view is that the photo is created in the camera and not in the computer.(sorry for the soap box).if you do use raw only correct white balance if you are going to proceed to photo shop if not most of the parameters in raw will give you a good print so long as your monitor and printer have matching profiles (raw assumes monitors and printers correctly profiled)

[digi]

Originally Posted by MALCOLMX

i find as a photographer that raw essentials does the job if i use raw ,however i know that a photo taken as a large jpeg will not be distinguishable from a raw converted to tiff at a4. imho raw is a tool designed for professionals with a very heavy work load and the need to sell prints. i think that the raw has been hyped up somewhat as it implies that you can take a photo any how and correct it in raw ,this makes for lazy photographers. my own view is that the photo is created in the camera and not in the computer.(sorry for the soap box).if you do use raw only correct white balance if you are going to proceed to photo shop if not most of the parameters in raw will give you a good print so long as your monitor and printer have matching profiles (raw assumes monitors and printers correctly profiled)

RAW is the digital negative and allows correction of exposure, white balance and many other things. Its not designed specifically for professionals nor does it make lazy photographers. If you ever used film and I assume as a photographer you did, you will know that despite the photo being taken in camera the negative was processed afterwards, the same as RAW does for the digital print.

[carlj]

There are a number of "wet" darkroom processes purely for correcting photos, many of which are replicated in digital. Considering the lack of input I had with film, other than composing, focussing and shooting, I find the amount of control digital offers to be enlightening. I endeavour to take the best shot I can in camera, and try not to overdo the post process work.

[Alan]

Had a look at Rawshooter, but it seems it doesn't run on Windows 98 - which I'm still running. Can you still get older versions? If not any recommendations for other raw software for Win 98?

[digi]

Originally Posted by Alan

Had a look at Rawshooter, but it seems it doesn't run on Windows 98 - which I'm still running. Can you still get older versions? If not any recommendations for other raw software for Win 98?

I think you might be struggling here most RAW convertors only work with XP or Win2000