Recommendation for RAW program

Discussion in 'Photoshop' started by Steven Wandy, Jun 4, 2005.

  1. Steven Wandy

    Steven Wandy Guest

    I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times
    on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program
    and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS
    utility? Thanks
     
    Steven Wandy, Jun 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. From: "Steven Wandy" <>

    | I have two Olympus cameras (E1 and E300) and have only tried RAW a few times
    | on each, using PSCS to do the conversions. Anyone using a different program
    | and feeling their results/ease if use were better than they got out of PS
    | utility? Thanks
    |

    Adobe PhotoElements
    Paint Shop Pro
     
    David H. Lipman, Jun 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. You could try Raw Shooter Essentials from Pixmantec. It's free. I
    happen to like the Adobe Raw Converter better, however.
     
    briansgooglegroupemail, Jun 4, 2005
    #3
  4. Steven Wandy

    Stacey Guest


    I've tried several RAW converters for my E300 and IMHO nothing comes close
    to Olympus studio 1.2/1.3. The PSCS leaves the colors too bland for my
    taste and doesn't render them very well. Compare the results to a in camera
    jpeg shot at the same time and you'll see what I'm talking about. They
    loose the "Olympus color" which is why I bought this camera to start with.

    Using the 'high function' converter in studio on E300 files (don't use the
    'high speed' on these), false noise set to 6-8, set WB To taste and the
    rest at their defaults gives wonderful colors, good highlights and shadows,
    while holding the sharp details. Don't confuse this with the "master"
    converter that came with the E300, that one is awful. Studio has an option
    to save the files and then open PS etc so it's not hard to incorporate it
    into your workflow. Also lets you choose from sRGB, aRGB or ProRGB and tags
    the files so PS knows what to do with them, master doesn't do this..

    Besides this there are several other neat editing features like distortion
    and shading compensation that read the exif data and apply the perfect
    amount automatically. Neat stuff.

    It's available as a free download/trial version so give it a try and see
    what you think. B&H has the full version for $100. It's WELL worth checking
    out.
     
    Stacey, Jun 4, 2005
    #4
  5. Steven Wandy

    Bill Hilton Guest

    Steven Wandy writes ...
    You can download Capture One 3.7 Pro and try it for 30 days, then LE
    for another 15 days and buy LE if you like this program, for $99. I
    don't know about the Oly bodies, but with Canon Pro cameras I get
    better results with C1 than with the Canon or Adobe software.

    You can also download Rawshooter Essentials 1.1.3 (written by the same
    guy who did Capture One), it's free right now as they try to get a new
    company up and running. For many images it does a better job for me
    than Capture One, and did I mention it's free ...

    Run some test images thru each converter and compare to see which looks
    best to you.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jun 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Steven Wandy

    birdman Guest

    If you have only used it a few few times it seems unlikely you adequately
    understand the functions of the Adobe raw converter. Before purchasing any
    other RAW converters you would probably be best off going through some of
    the turtorials you can find on the web about how to use the advanced
    functions of the Adobe converter. It is also imprortant to develop a work
    flow such that you anticipate what image processing you would want to
    perform in the raw converter and what image processing would better be done
    in Photoshop.While I believe shooting RAW is the only way to go with dSLR
    images none of the raw converters alone are a substitute for what can better
    be accomplished with traditional Photoshop tools.
     
    birdman, Jun 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Steven Wandy

    Pete D Guest

    Have you tried the latest version?
     
    Pete D, Jun 4, 2005
    #7
  8. Steven Wandy

    Pete D Guest

    As opposed to the actual colours that it should have captured, you sound
    like some of the Canonites, "I like my Canon because the colours are much
    brighter and more saturated", I thought a camera was supposed to capture
    what was actually there?
     
    Pete D, Jun 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Steven Wandy

    Ira Solomon Guest

    I don't know about the Oly e-1, but I have found only 3 converters so
    far the work with e-300 Raws: Photoshop ACD 3.1 and the 2 Olympus
    products.
    On my machine Raw shooter shows the thumbnails, but when I want to
    actually do something, it starts to open the image and then goes away.
    In the previous version it gave an error message and then ended. In
    this one it simply disappears.

    I have had the same problem with a number of image managers which
    claim to support e-300. I get nothing or only thumbnails.

    If anyone has gotten others to work with the e-300 I'd like to know.

    Thanks.

    Ira Solomon
     
    Ira Solomon, Jun 5, 2005
    #9
  10. Steven Wandy

    RK Guest

    I agree this is a fine program, but it does not want to run on one of
    my computers with an Athlon chip. It happens to be the one on which I
    do most of my editing.
     
    RK, Jun 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Steven Wandy

    Ed Ruf Guest

    The original release had a problem with Athlons, however the last few
    updates run fine on my XP3200+.
     
    Ed Ruf, Jun 5, 2005
    #11
  12. Steven Wandy

    Neil Ellwood Guest

    The Gimp works with Raw files.
     
    Neil Ellwood, Jun 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Steven Wandy

    Hecate Guest

    Not since Dagurre did his first o-type. :) A camera captures what you
    want to it to capture, in the way you want to capture it. It's
    dependent on lens choice (e.g. Nikon lens have always been considered
    slightly "warmer" than other makes) film choice (are you a Velvia
    person or do you prefer Kodachrome reds?) how you process the film,
    the amount of time you leave the film in the film bath, what you do
    with the film afterwards i.e. post-processing (or alternatively all
    the options given with digital film and then digital post-processing)
    and, finally, if you print it, on what paper, in what way and with
    what chemicals/inkjet inks/etc.

    So, the short answer to your question is: Nope, not in 150+ years...
    ;-)

    --

    Hecate - The Real One

    Fashion: Buying things you don't need, with money
    you don't have, to impress people you don't like...
     
    Hecate, Jun 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Steven Wandy

    patrick Guest

    [snip]

    The camera *does* capture what is there. It is the camera that records what
    is *real*!

    The problem is that our brain -- our visual interpretor -- does not!

    The camera records. Our brain interprets.

    Our brain is a wondrous computer that sees the same colors under extremely
    varying light conditions: tungsten, florescent, sun, shade, etc. "Yes, I
    realize that this scene is bathed in a strange light and the colors being
    reflected are contaminated by that light, but I'll compensate for its
    effects and present it to you as it would be under 'normal' lighting
    conditions." Our brain really -- truly! -- does this remarkable task.

    However, the camera sees these colors only as reflected by the ambient
    light. It's dumb. We're smart -- much to our chagrin when it comes to
    dealing with the camera's output as the source for our photo editing.

    So camera makers, film makers, lens makers, photo editors, et alii, second
    guess to the best of their ability in an attempt to reconcile the conflict
    betwen what the camera records as the real world and what we expect to see
    in our virtual world.. There is no way they can satisfy everyone's biases as
    to what is 'real'.

    We are privileged in having been admitted to deal with this awesome aspect
    of our being.

    We should be pollaxed by the wonder of our vision! Don't fight it. Stand in
    awe of it. Deal with it with the tools at hand.

    Robert Service got it right:
    "I wish that I could understand
    The wondrous mystery of my hand."

    Good luck! . . . . patrick
     
    patrick, Jun 6, 2005
    #14
  15. Steven Wandy

    Stacey Guest

    Bingo, you win the prize!

    Interesting that the films marketed as "accurate" never sold well.
     
    Stacey, Jun 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Steven Wandy

    digiboy Guest

    when I did my thesis on the memory of color I came across this problem:
    ie our memories of color are not accurate. You can try this for
    yourself by taking a sample of a 'blue' sky, and look at it in
    isolation. I proposed that 'amamteur films' would record in a manner
    that was pleasing to the viewer (and that includes making skin tones
    nice) and 'pro films' that would record more accurately.

    The truth is that as their is no such thing as color, only a
    pshyco-perception, and as everyone sees differently, because the ratio
    of dyes in the optic sensors vary from person to person, all you can do
    is get a result that you personally fins pleasing.

    Just my 2p worth.

    DB
     
    digiboy, Jun 6, 2005
    #16
  17. Steven Wandy

    Alan Browne Guest

    Portra 160NC et al, sell by the truckload. Likewise the Fuji 'people'
    films (NPS, Astia), Provia, etc...
     
    Alan Browne, Jun 6, 2005
    #17
  18. Steven Wandy

    KatWoman Guest

    never liked Velvia or Kodachrome, used Ektachrome for 20 years or more.
    Nicer pushes, better skin tones, no articficial bright reds, quicker and
    local processing.
     
    KatWoman, Jun 6, 2005
    #18
  19. Steven Wandy

    KatWoman Guest

    forgot to add we did switch to Fuji Provia towards the end of using film.
    (only used transparency films no negative films)


     
    KatWoman, Jun 6, 2005
    #19
  20. Steven Wandy

    Pete D Guest

    But there is the problem isn't it, digital is not film. You do not have the
    choice to swap from Kodachrome to Velvia, you are "stuck" with the sensor
    that the camera was built with, my point being that "I" am thinking that it
    would be better to try and capture what is actually there and then do your
    "film" adjustments in PS or whatever program you use. If your camera does
    "things" to the captured image can you undo them if you need to? Of course
    with all D-SLR's you have the ability to make some changes in camera but you
    should be careful what you ask for because you just might get it and regret
    it after.
     
    Pete D, Jun 6, 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.