RawShooter essentials 2005 update available (incl. Athlon fix)

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Bart van der Wolf, Mar 12, 2005.

  1. Bart van der Wolf, Mar 12, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I'm very curious about this 'romance' you have with picmantec, Bart. Do you
    favour this program because it has no automation, putting the end results in
    your hands alone or is there some other reason? I downloaded it at your
    suggestion and came to the conclusion it is not a photographers tool but a
    computerists one.

    As a photographer, I prefer not to dwell on post processing any more than I
    have to. I do shoot RAW but for me, the work afterwards is a right royal
    pain. I much prefer DxO because it addresses the faults in my lenses and
    makes a very nice conversion of the data to an image file. The subtlety of
    pastel colours is often lost in today's saturated images.

    Sure some of the files could do with a touch-up in Photoshop after
    conversion but on the whole, it is the closest I have come to the days when
    I shot film, sent it to a lab and ordered prints from the proofs. It seems
    to me that far too many programs exist now that demand so much extra
    learning or personal input after the shoot as to make the art of photography
    far too complicated.

    Your reply is eagerly awaited.

    It's actually Ryadia here.
    My PC is being upgraded so I'm using daughters until it comes back.
     
    one million pics, Mar 12, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bart van der Wolf

    John DH Guest

    I wonder when they will support Fuji finepix?

    Any ideas

    John D
     
    John DH, Mar 12, 2005
    #3
  4. Bart van der Wolf

    Arthur Small Guest

    As a "photographer" I assume that you never did any post processing in the
    dark room, just printed the negatives.
     
    Arthur Small, Mar 12, 2005
    #4
  5. Bart van der Wolf

    Douglas Guest

    I hardly think you could have read the post properly, Arthur. Having a lab
    process the film and provide proofs from which to order prints from
    ....carries with it the hint of a suggestion that maybe the "Photographer" is
    a Photographer and not a lab technician.

    Somehow I can't see sitting in front of a computer making adjustments and
    corrections to a photo which on film would have required the shot to have
    been made correctly in the first place, as being a Photographer. In the days
    before Digital SLRs, Photographers lived or died (professionally speaking)
    by their ability to get it right in the camera.

    Even today, Photographers have the ability film shooters don't have to see
    the results of the shot instantly and re-shoot it if it's wrong. Film
    shooters had to use quite expensive Polaroids to get this opportunity.
    Photoshop is a less than good photographer's way out of a lot of problems
    they should never have gotten into in the first place.

    D
     
    Douglas, Mar 13, 2005
    #5
  6. Bart van der Wolf

    Bubbabob Guest

    It has a nice sharpening algorithm but I'm completely unimpressed with the
    accuracy of the RAW colorization.
     
    Bubbabob, Mar 13, 2005
    #6
  7. Bart van der Wolf

    John Francis Guest


    I'd love to be able to try it. But unfortunately I'm one of those
    folks that has been unable to persuade the program to get beyond the
    registration screen.

    It pops up a dialog box asking for my name, address, and email.
    I click "OK", and it obviously goes out and talks to the pixmantec
    servers, because I get an email almost immediately.

    But that's it. Nothing else - the program just hangs, not responding.

    Can anyone who has succesfully installed it tell me what is supposed
    to happen next?
     
    John Francis, Mar 13, 2005
    #7
  8. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Mar 13, 2005
    #8
  9. Bart van der Wolf

    JPS Guest

    In message <d10mpa$sjr$>,
    This happened to me, also. I got the wrong e-mail, though. Rather than
    a "thanks for registering" message, I got the initial invitation to
    download the program again, with a link. The program seemed to be
    unresponsive, so i killed it. I did this twice, and finally, the third
    time, I just let the program sit for about 20 minutes with its
    hourglass, and finally a message popped up saying registration was
    unsuccessful, and when I clicked "OK", the program opened up. I haven't
    closed the program yet, so I don't know what happens next.

    I don't think that they have their server worked out right, just yet.
    When I originally requested the program from the website, I got no
    e-mail back until regular business hours the next day, as if the e-mail
    was sent by a human (or a human rebooting or powering up a computer).
    --
     
    JPS, Mar 13, 2005
    #9
  10. Bart van der Wolf

    John DH Guest

    Nothing found with my usual anti-virus and spyware kit. I don't think there
    is a catch with this software as such. I rather think the author is letting
    it go free for a while, hopeing that folks like ourselves report back with
    bugs, ie beta testing. Already, from this thread alone, there are a number
    of issues that need to be sorted before they can reasonably ask money for
    it.

    John D
     
    John DH, Mar 13, 2005
    #10
  11. Bart van der Wolf

    John DH Guest

    Are you using XP SP2? I found that after upgrading my machine to SP2, I
    found all sorts of problems including similar instances like yours. I went
    back to XP SP1 and everything returned to normal. I also wonder if your copy
    was corrupted in the download, have you tried to download again?

    John D
     
    John DH, Mar 13, 2005
    #11
  12. Bart van der Wolf

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Roger Clark writes ...
    I checked it with Spybot and with the McAfee programs and saw no
    problems. You have to give it permission to transmit to the mother
    ship to register (meaning giving it permission via the Firewall), but
    after registration you can remove it from the approved list and restore
    the Firewall.
    The main programmer wrote the basic code for Capture One before going
    off on his own, I think he's trying to capture market share quickly and
    also getting the benefit of thousands of free beta software users'
    inputs. Looks like he'll offer a more fully featured version for $$
    later (probably with interpolation, rotation, CMYK support, custom
    profiling etc, similar to Capture One's $500 Pro version). This free
    version of RSE looks a lot like the $99 Capture One LE program, with a
    similar feature set but just enough subtle improvements to make it very
    enticing. There is little question that he's going after Capture One's
    customers (and doing a good job of it so far).

    Also he's in partnership with Corel and supplying this converter in a
    deal with Corel Paint Shop Pro, so this isn't your typical hobbyist
    offering a half-baked freebie.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Mar 13, 2005
    #12
  13. Bart van der Wolf

    andrew29 Guest

    A good digital camera has a Dmax of something like 3.5, corresponding
    to a dynamic range of a bit more than 10 stops. The Dmax of a colour
    print is maybe 1.5 on a good day. So, somehow you have to compress
    the dynamic range of the real world into somthing that can actually be
    printed, and that's where the printer's expertise comes in.

    In the days before Digital SLRs, this adjustment was done by the
    scanner operator.

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Mar 13, 2005
    #13
  14. Bart van der Wolf

    John Francis Guest

    No - SP1 (plus several security updates).
    It fails the same way with the initial (1.0) download,
    and with the new (1.1) version.
     
    John Francis, Mar 13, 2005
    #14
  15. Yes, checked and found to be clean.
    Yes, the catch is that is isn't going to be full featured, the payware
    version will be. It is a product made by former Phase One staff, which
    may also be the reason for the delays Phase One suffered adding
    Windows support for their v3.6 update of Capture One (I already heard
    a rumor a long time ago that they had to recode part of C1 due to a
    programmer quitting).

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 13, 2005
    #15
  16. Bart van der Wolf

    Douglas Guest

    Actually Andrew...
    In the days before Digital, this adjustment was not possible without making
    a negative 'mask' for a transparency and it was all done in a chemical
    environment. A contact print of the trannie made on mono film and then
    printed through an optical enlarger. Not something many photographers
    actually did because it was a specialised process and just as time consuming
    as taking the photo in the first place.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas, Mar 13, 2005
    #16
  17. I'd assume it's something particular about your setup (firewall
    prevents installation time validation?), or perhaps it assumes XP SP2.
    After downloading you should just fill in your registration details
    and click next for each default choice presented. Send them a message
    to their support forum, they'd probably want to solve it.

    Bart
     
    Bart van der Wolf, Mar 13, 2005
    #17
  18. Bart van der Wolf

    andrew29 Guest

    Well, that's what happens if a wet print is your target, but okay.
    So, you know that making adjustments is necessary, and you know that
    it was necessary long before the advent of digital. Then why did you
    say

    Are we just quibbling about the definition of the word "Photographer"
    meaning someone who only shoots? So that when someone is making a
    print they aren't being a Photographer?

    Andrew.
     
    andrew29, Mar 14, 2005
    #18
  19. Bart van der Wolf

    Alan Adrian Guest

    When I was a lad, I did this kind of thing in a darkroom... I thought of
    myself as a photographer then...

    In my Photo club, there are a bunch of analogue photographers who don't
    shoot slide... They send in their film and let the machine return it
    properly colour balanced to neutral grey.... I allow that they are
    photographers, but they need to learn how to expose an image so that the
    machines do a decent job of it.

    The Pinnacle of achievement is of course slide film, where the range of
    latitude after the shot to fix things is less... (unless you know how and
    are part of an elite bunch.. )

    But how is someone stacking filters onto the front of a camera lens more of
    a "photograper" than someone who does it after the fact... regardless of how
    he does it?

    If you want to join a club where only images shot a certain way, and
    developed a certain way, and printed a certain way are considered
    acceptable, then you need to start one with a complicated title me
    thinks.... Perhaps "Real Photographers who manipulate their images in the
    Camera" would do for a start.

    Maybe there's a call for camera manufacturers to start an image security
    standard so that people strutting around with the "no digital manipulation"
    (while using a digital camera... <snicker> =) mantra can have "proof" that
    they didn't do anything to the image but print it from the camera...

    Honestly... what a bunch of crap. The best digital photographers out there
    IMHO know how to use the camera, understand depth of field, exposure and
    composition.... and aren't afraid to finish the job on the computer... If
    we all want to start little clubs where this process is sanctioned, but
    "that one" is not... then we will all belong to a lot of tiny clubs of
    one...

    Al...
     
    Alan Adrian, Mar 14, 2005
    #19
  20. Bart van der Wolf

    Searching_ut Guest

    I too find I can't register it. Every time I try, I get the download link
    sent to my e-mail. I tried turning off my firewall, virus protection etc and
    can't get it to work. I re-downloaded and installed the program etc. but
    can't get it to let me register. If you let it try for around 10 minutes,
    you'll eventually get an error message and be able to use the program until
    you exit out of the program. Then you have to go through the process again.
    As for the program itself, I seem to get better results from both CS, and
    C1, so can't see myself desiring to put up with all the bugs for now.

    For what it's worth

    Jeff
     
    Searching_ut, Mar 15, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.