RawShooter Essentials 2006 Released

Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,408
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
..and it's still free.

From pixmantec.com :

"RawShooter | essentials 2006, is a RAW workflow software tool that sets new standards for digital photography. It is a fully functional RAW converter which allows any level of user to get excellent results with the minimum of effort and knowledge. It provides the highest quality output and fastest conversion time for any RAW converter on the market today.

Now supports 15 additional DSLR cameras including Nikon D200 and Canon 5D!


RawShooter | essentials 2006 contains core functionality such as:

Powerful File Browser: Full support for drag & drop, shortcuts, cursor sensitive hints and tips, scalable thumbnails, customizable background color and directory management including creation / rename / deletion and defining favorites

• Image Priority: Assignment of priorities to individual or group of images

• Slideshow: Full screen slideshow of RAW images. During the editing process, individual files can be assigned priorities via the slideshow, or consigned to the recycle bin

• Dynamic Preview: True to life representation of how your converted image will look. Unlike, other previews, the dynamic preview instantly shows the effects of any changes that you make to the RAW iage, even at high magnifications

• Powerful Image Correction Tools: Image adjustment tools are provided for white balance, exposure compensation, dynamic range (fill light), shadow and highlight contrast, hue & saturation, sharpness, detail extraction, noise supression (both low frequency and color). Effects of slider based adjustments will be shown on the Dynamic Preview, no matter what the magnification

• Snapshot: Several variations of the same RAW file, all with different levels of correction applied

• Integral Color Database: Fully color managed. No direct changes are made to RAW files. Any color changes made are stored externally from the product

• Multi-threaded Batch Processing: Options such as output format (TIFF/JPEG) and automatic tagging of ICC profiles. Converts huge files in seconds with images queued for conversion in the background. Supports dual processors for maximum conversion speed"


To download, go to :

http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp
 
I've tried RSE and I still don't get it. For those who do use it is there really an improvement in output?? :confused-
 
Well dod, I think it's horses for courses. I've got RS Premium and CS2 and I've tried them both extensively. Although CS2 has probably the better work flow Adobe Bridge sucks whilst the RS browser and interface is fast. So for me RSP has it and thats what I use.

regards
 
Like stepheno I too have RS Premium but for me it doesn't work.

I keep trying it from time to time but just keep going back to ACR & CS2.
 
CS2 is deathly slow here...don't know why at all. played with memory settings and everything, could be scratch disk or ram, about to upgrade to 2gb any day though :)
 
Well I've upgraded from RSE 2005 to RSE 2006 and I don't think I can see any differences.
 
SammyC said:
Well I've upgraded from RSE 2005 to RSE 2006 and I don't think I can see any differences.
Click to expand...

Same. And I can't find anything on their site that lists any changes.

At the bare minimum, I was hoping for a quick way to pick the sharpest image from a group of similar shots. It takes ages at present.
 
I know but it's hardly something that should be a premium feature, IMO.

I hardly use RSE for anything these days except file management, white balance and occaisionally exposure. The rest can be done much better in Photoshop.
 
When you look at the screen on Premium it doesn't look a whole lot different but have a look here - it lists the new features.

regards
 
Well I think it does run a bit faster, seems to be a bit smoother on my work machine which is a bit under powered.
 
There is another option on the noise reduction part.
 
I think there is a reasonable upgrade of the engine, as in its faster and smoother etc, but I don't think there is much change on the front end.
 
It now works with RAW files from more cameras which if you are using one of the new models means that it is a major upgrade ;)
 
Oh and lets be fair...you are comparing Photoshop CS2 with a free product..not exactly a fair contest :doh:
 
fingerz said:
That guide compares premium 2006 with essentials 2006.

What we're looking for is a guide that compares essentials 2005 with essentials 2006.
Click to expand...

Fair comment :banghead:

regards
 
It's not a contest. I just take the view that when a company releases an update to some software, they ought to release documentation saying what's been upgraded since the previous version.

Rather than documentation listing the differences between said product and another (different) product.

Apart from that, the only thing I've got a gripe about is that I don't believe comparing images for sharpness should be a premium-only feature. But I'm probably biased since that's 75% of what I use RSE for.
 
dod said:
I've tried RSE and I still don't get it. For those who do use it is there really an improvement in output?? :confused-
Click to expand...

I prefer to use RSE/RSP over photoshop for RAW conversion as I find it easier to manage level adjustment.

The RSE conversion technique is very similar to photoshops RAW converter,
giving you sliders to adjust the output.
A benefit of using RSE over photoshop is you have clipping guides.

RSP is a whole lot better than both of the above IMO, as it includes
levels adjustment, using sliders.
Again with the clipping guides, to show you if your over doing your adjustments.

RSE................................RSE...............................RSP

rse1.jpg
rse2.jpg
rsp1.jpg


As you can see from the sample thumbnails, the levels adjustment in RSP comes out best.
 
Thanks for that Matt, I've always wondered what the visual difference would be in RSP.
 
Joe T said:
I dont expect free software to be perfect. :)
Click to expand...

If Pixmantec want to take on Adobe they're gonna have to do a bit better, though. Camera Raw might be crap at the moment but it's not gonna stay that way for long. There's millions of dollars behind it, not to mention the fact that there's a good reason why Photoshop has dominated the market.
 
To be fair, they're only taking on Adobe WRT Camera RAW, and when RSE first came out (was it about 10 months ago?), the amount of people that took to it and praised it as a long overdue thing was quite impressive.

Bear in mind that Photoshop only have the image editing market dominated, and that means that alot of people use Camera RAW simply because it's there.

It may have millions of dollars behind it, but unless it separates camera raw out of photoshop and into a standalone, then RawShooter will always have that edge, and the appeal to non photoshop users.

OK RSE has its flaws, but for a free tool, it's chuffing brilliant.
I personally didn't shoot RAW until RSE came out. It has given me the opportunity to easily put RAW as part of my workflow. With Camera RAW, I could never take to it.
Unfortunately, there are only a couple of other viable alternatives...Breezebrowser, which, although cheap(ish), it's still quite primitive.
Then you have Capture One, which you require a couple of mortgages for :D
So RSE IMO has done a damn fine job of bridging the gap and making available a tool that we photographers have needed for a long time.
As far as the upgrades to 2006 go...I've just reformatted so I have a 14 day trial of Pro. I'll tell you how good Essentials is, in 14 days :D
 
thanks for the illustration Matt :thumb:
 
What I don't like about RSE is that it leaves it's own kind of artifacts on an image, I've included an extreme example to show what I mean but I find they are always there to some degree. You'll probably need to increase magnification to 200% to see what I mean properly here.

artifacts.jpg
 
A kind of canvas paper effect Sammy

artifacts2.jpg
 
I've just found a similar issue with RSE. I think it's something to do with de-mosaicing algorithm they use. The problem with this is, on my camera, it accentuates the noise rather badly. It's a shame really, as I've only just started using it and found the workflow with it very logical and speedy. Camera raw seems very clunky by comparison. There is an LE edition of Capture one, but it doesn't support my camera. And DxO optics does't support it's raw format. Only jpeg. riddle me that one then!
 
Steep said:
What I don't like about RSE is that it leaves it's own kind of artifacts on an image, I've included an extreme example to show what I mean but I find they are always there to some degree. You'll probably need to increase magnification to 200% to see what I mean properly here.

artifacts.jpg
Click to expand...

The example shown has slight sharpening applied by auto in RSE.

If you move the sharpness and detail extraction sliders to the left (-50), you do not get the artifacts shown in your example.
And it will match PS CS RAW conversion.
 
So does this only happen on Jpegs or Tiffs too?
 
Matt said:
The example shown has slight sharpening applied by auto in RSE.

If you move the sharpness and detail extraction sliders to the left (-50), you do not get the artifacts shown in your example.
And it will match PS CS RAW conversion.
Click to expand...

Matt I used the software on it's default settings, I agree that you can remove the artifacts by not using the sharpening features but what then is the purpose of having those features if they only ruin an image?

Steve again agreed, but if using the software on it's default settings is 'oversharpening' then the software is at fault.
I have converted the same image using RSE and BreezeBrowser (which uses adjustable unsharp mask) on it's default settings and the difference is very noticable.

I'm disappointed because I was hoping to be able to use RSE in future, Breezebrowser is excellent but they have a nasty habit of making you pay for even minor upgrades if they occur more than 1 year after purchase date, which means I may be stuck at some point in the future.
 
This has got me interested, Steep because I can't say I've ever noticed this. So, just to satisfy my curiosity, I did a totally unscientific test. I took a random photo and gave it full sharpening in RSP. Then took a crop and I'm darned if I can see anything other than what I would expect to see. Or am I missing something?

Sharpened Original

test-02.jpg


Sharpened Crop

test-01a.jpg


regards
 
RSP? perhaps that's the difference, there certainly doesn't seem to be the same problem in your pics. :(
 
This is lifted from the Rawshooter user guide.

This default value indicates that RAWShooter applies a slight amount of sharpening to the displayed dynamic preview image, which is defined according to the individual DSLR raw file.
Click to expand...

It has a default sharpen built in for each camera that it supports.
It is supposed to be set at the optimum setting for conversion as default.
If you do not wish to apply sharpening at the RAW stage move the sliders to the left so it gives a reading of -50.
 
There is also a toggle in the Convert tab that lets you switch off all sharpening I think.
 
I just got rawshooters premium, and using a laptop, ive found a huge difference in speed of converting the raw files, the quickness of images opening in RSP compared to cs raw, just working out a suitable workflow, but so far im quietly impressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top