I've been using the now discontinued "Rawshooter Essentials" raw processing/conversion freeware for years now. As I haven't had experience with any others (besides the poor conversion software included with my *ist DS Pentax DSLR). I was wondering if there would be a benefit to switching to another raw processor. Could I have some opinions/recommendations?
P.S. - I don't know if this matters or not, but I will probably soon be upgrading my processing software from Photoshop Elements 4 to the latest Photoshop Elements 7.
I've been using the now discontinued "Raw Essentials" raw conversion freeware for years now. As I haven't had experience with any others (besides the poor conversion software included with my *ist DS Pentax DSLR). I was wondering if there would be a benefit to switching to another converter. Could I have some opinions/recommendations?
P.S. - I don't know if this matters or not, but I will probably soon be upgrading my processing software from Photoshop Elements 4 to the latest Photoshop Elements 7.
Funny, I've been considering the same lately.
As to Elements, you'll still be stuck in 8 bit processing (what that means to you is unknown, to me it just is restrictive but may not truely matter).
I believe you mean Rawshooter Essentials so I assume you are Windows based.
You need to state your operating system.....
I found this helpful (though not all conclusive)....... The very Basics
Many here seem to like DxO (which is not cheap BTW) but I need to warn you that it's antipiracy methods are unacceptable to .... err.... me...and are added to your system and NOT removed even with a trial version...... Does it still use PACE protection?: Open Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review
I think I'll pass. Previous versions of DXO used the PACE anti-copy system at its very most aggressive levels.
Many people, myself included, consider PACE to be essentially a rootkit, impairing your system permanently, and near impossible to remove fully. That's a lot to sacrifice for a software trial.
To be fair to DxO.......... http://help.dxo.com/faq/index.php?ac...035&artlang=en
though this, from the horses mouth, is a bit damning.......
If you format your hard disk or simply reinstall your system, there won't be any persistent Pace files.
Sounds fun huh........
I love sales talk...... what does that REALLY mean?
Pace has been used with Optics Pro version 3, version 4 and version 5. So far, no major issues have been reported.
Of course, PS Elements 7 includes a version of Adobe Camera Raw to process raw images. I don't believe that it's the same full version of Camera Raw that's included in the full Photoshop CS4, but will still probably suit your needs. If you're on a Mac, then the current version of Elements (6 for Mac) includes a full version of Camera Raw CS3.
Funny, I've been considering the same lately.
As to Elements, you'll still be stuck in 8 bit processing (what that means to you is unknown, to me it just is restrictive but may not truely matter).
I believe you mean Rawshooter Essentials so I assume you are Windows based.
You need to state your operating system.....
[/COLOR]
Yes, I meant Rawshooter Essentials, & have edited my original post to reflect this. My operating system is Windows XP. What is restrictive about being stuck in 8 bit processing? I'm not fully committed to Elements 7, & certainly would be open to suggestions for other processing software. I'm leaning towards Elements 7 primarily because previous Elements software is all I've had experience with. I am working more with B&W lately than I previously have, if that helps with any recommendations you might make.
If you're planning on getting Elements, then I don't see any reaosn to get a separate RAW "converter". Elements will already perform nondestructive proesisng via ACR, and in the cases where you need to do additional editing that cannot be done via ACR, you should be able to take the processed RAW file directly into the Elements editor - no "conversion" needed until you finally save the file from Elements.
Yes, I meant Rawshooter Essentials, & have edited my original post to reflect this. My operating system is Windows XP. What is restrictive about being stuck in 8 bit processing? I'm not fully committed to Elements 7, & certainly would be open to suggestions for other processing software. I'm leaning towards Elements 7 primarily because previous Elements software is all I've had experience with. I am working more with B&W lately than I previously have, if that helps with any recommendations you might make.
Well the 8 vs 16 bit thing is an arguable point to be honest. But to put it into the terms I understand.... RAW files are generally at least 10 bit, nowadays 12-14 is becoming common. IF you just use a RAW editor and process to completion then the final process to 8 bit compressed jpg is "good enough" for the most part. IF you export as 16bit TIFF you 1)don't use lossy compression (jpg loses info) 2)Don't truncate your colors due to going from 10-14bit color down to 8 bit. 3)You generally are going to "finish" your processing.
Eventually you will probably convert to jpg anyways but it gives you leeway.
Where 16bit is supposedly superior to 8bit is in gradations (ie sky, water) and will prevent posterization...
Actually just read this but remember there are counter-arguments.......
RAW, JPEG and TIFF. What they are and when to use them.
Anyways as to Elements there are alternatives that do process 16bit files, and are roughly the same price...
I use Corel Draw Suite (Contains photpaint which has 16bit capacity) but I usually go 1 generation back and get it real cheap...
No doubt that *working* in 16-bit is slightly better than 8. Bit JPEG only supports 8 bits per channel, as do most monitors and printers. So the end result is only going to be 8 bit unless you only output TIFF and output to true 16 bit per channel devices. So really, all that working in 18 bits buys you is fewer round off errors. It's worth working with 16 bits for that reason, especially if you are making large scale changes to an images, but not really all that big a deal most of the time.
BTW, I have no idea the extent which Elements does or does not support 16-bit processing. I'd imagine the RAW processing component - ACR - does.
Raw Therapee is a great program to try out. It is freeware for RAW processing, and it works quite well. The free part is nice because you can try it and if you don't like it, nothing's lost.
This could be a good program in combination with Elements if you find that ACR isn't flexible enough for you. You could use Raw Therapee for your RAW processing and Elements for any additional (localized) edits that can't be made with RAW Therapee.
No doubt that *working* in 16-bit is slightly better than 8. Bit JPEG only supports 8 bits per channel, as do most monitors and printers. So the end result is only going to be 8 bit unless you only output TIFF and output to true 16 bit per channel devices. So really, all that working in 18 bits buys you is fewer round off errors. It's worth working with 16 bits for that reason, especially if you are making large scale changes to an images, but not really all that big a deal most of the time.
BTW, I have no idea the extent which Elements does or does not support 16-bit processing. I'd imagine the RAW processing component - ACR - does.
Just some more info, looks like Elements starting w/ 7 has limited 16bit support so it's not totally 8 bit BTW. I stand corrected.
Corel photpaint is similar w/ many but not all "functions" supported in 16bit (at least up to Draw Suite x3. It does support LAB and CMYK).
A really good article by "the Digital Dog" Andrew Rodney: The Bit-Depth Decision - Digital Photo Pro | DigitalPhotoPro.com
Raw Converters
Adobe ACR v4.1
Adobe Lightroom v1b
Bibble Pro v4.9d
Helicon Filter v4.5
Silkypix v3.03
DxO Optics Pro v4.1
Silverfast DCPro v6.5
LightZone v2.0.5
Raw Therapee v2.1.1
ACDSee Pro
additions:
UFRaw and GIMP
PentaxPhotoLab
EXCERPT form above article:
That's one of the problems with an 8-bit workflow. You never know for sure where any image may be reproduced nor do you know for sure how the file may be edited. Note that when printing your high-bit images out of Photoshop, there's no reason to convert the file to 8-bit because using the Print with Preview command will do this for you on the fly.
On the other hand, say you're shooting 500 widgets on a white seamless that will be printed on a 133-linescreen press for a parts catalog. The final size of all images is 2x2. Is it prudent to work in a high-bit workflow where each image is twice the normal file size and you'll never output the documents again? Probably not, but it's your call.
What if the image you captured is so stunning that you plan to include it in your portfolio or sell it as a large fine-art print? Discarding the additional data your camera was able to record would be ill advised. You don't know where you'll reproduce that image in the future nor on what output device. If you examine the recent history of desktop printers, in just a few years we've seen an amazing increase in image quality, color gamut and fine reproduction detail (dithering). Imagine the quality of digital printers we'll have at our disposal in just five years. Does it pay to discard data that may be useful in the foreseeable future?
This thread provides a bunch of software suggestions too, many of which handle RAW.
RAW files are generally at least 10 bit, nowadays 12-14 is becoming common. IF you just use a RAW editor and process to completion then the final process to 8 bit compressed jpg is "good enough" for the most part. IF you export as 16bit TIFF you 1)don't use lossy compression (jpg loses info) 2)Don't truncate your colors due to going from 10-14bit color down to 8 bit.
The gist of this is true (16bit TIFF preserves much more of the original image data finer steps, and is thus higher quality), but I'll add the technical note that the bit depth of RAW and converted formats are not directly comparable. In particular, a converted 16bit TIFF does not necessarily contain all of the data of the original 12bit RAW due to color space, gamma and white balance conversions. It certainly contains enough for all practical purposes though.
In general an editor that works in 16/48bit formats will allow you to make large changes while maintaining higher quality results, whether on screen or printing.
...(besides the poor conversion software included with my *ist DS Pentax DSLR). ...
This 'poor' software produces the best colors in terms of RAW conversion. Adobe software packages produce very POOR colors if you use the default settings.
Anyway this is my observation.
This 'poor' software produces the best colors in terms of RAW conversion. Adobe software packages produce very POOR colors if you use the default settings.
Anyway this is my observation.
I tried it only briefly years ago as a digital newbie when I first obtained my *ist DS. I'll go back & give it another shot. (Although the version I have has probably been updated & improved by now).
PentaxPhotoLab (uses SilkyPix 2.0 engine)
LightRoom/ACR Same engine somewaht different interface
SilkyPix
PentaxPhotoLab is capable of excellent results but the user interface is so bad that many abandon the program.
SilkyPix 3.0 is very very good if a little idiosynchratic in its user interface. It produces the best colors and is now much simpler to learn with the book that has been published for it.
Lightroom/ACR is a very good program and I think it will help you save many poor exposures. With the new "Camera Standard" profiles it now produces color renditions much closer to Pentax jpg's and PhotoLab. The rendering engine is teh same in both programs. Bridge and ACR are very competent.
I find myself using LR for most of my work and SilkyPix for my nature photography in order to get some of the colors it can produce.
I work in prophoto color space until I am ready to output. If I am going to do additional adjustment in CS4 the photo stays in that color space. If I am going to print, I out put 16 bit tiff in Adobe RGB to print from Qimage to my Canon I9900.
I can see the difference in my prints between Adobe RGB and sRGB and 8 and 16 bit. Smoother transitions and more subtle colors.
If I need jpg they are output in RGB and must be in 8 bit.
I have worked with Bibble (and still do sometimes), PhaseOne and Lightroom, ACR and ofcourse tried the Pentax Software.
The Pentax Software is not bad and I would use it, if I was to convert some holiday snopy now and then. PhaseOne was great, but got somewhat aged, compared to Lightroom. The current version 4.2 seems to be much better, but doesn't run under Mac OS X 10.4 (and I refuse to uzpgrade to 10.5), so it is out of the game for me. Bibble is a really good package which is quite fast and produces very good results. it comes bundles with good noise reduction plug-ins etc.
ACR is capable. but really a stumbling stone when it comes to large numbers of files. This is the reason, why I finally settled with Lightroom. The current 2.x version is just amazing. The very limited number of editing tools is very well implemented and I am wondering how I ever coped without the gradient mask. Also, its catalogueing and indexing functionality is quite competent.
I switched from being a Photoshop/ACR user most of the time to being a 90% Lightrrom user and only use Photoshop, when I need layers and masks and more local image manipulation.
but remember there are counter-arguments.......
