Adobe buys Raw Shooter

Heads up, lightroom beta is now out for windows!

https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=labs_lightroom


untitledau1.png


:D
 
Last edited:
Oh great, ive been a huge fan of Windows 2kpro and I see no reason to upgrade to XP at all, and this damn beta is XP only.... that sucks donkey nuts. :mad:

Guess im going to have to buy XP and install it as a dual boot option on one of my Pcs. :(
 
I'm uninstalling it, I don't like the interface, too much fluff and not enough power compared to RSE :/

Oh well, guess I will await the next ACR release with new RSE engine and use RSE until then.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/1651/12cz6.png is what it's like, 1024x768 because of remote desktop via work but you get the idea
 
DreederOcUK said:
Oh great, ive been a huge fan of Windows 2kpro and I see no reason to upgrade to XP at all, and this damn beta is XP only.... that sucks donkey nuts. :mad:
Click to expand...

Same here, don't think I'll bother
 
mrk said:
I'm uninstalling it, I don't like the interface, too much fluff and not enough power compared to RSE :/

Oh well, guess I will await the next ACR release with new RSE engine and use RSE until then.

http://img93.imageshack.us/img93/1651/12cz6.png is what it's like, 1024x768 because of remote desktop via work but you get the idea
Click to expand...

Wow it looks just like the OSX beta thats been out for months :p There's 2 great features it has over Aperture. You can save preset edits and you can dim the lights so that the interface dims around the picture.

135376979_89c08436a1.jpg


Aside from that, I don't really like it. Its quicker than Aperture but just not as nice to use. I'm currently trying out Capture 1 Pro to see if thats any good.
 
C1 pro is nice, if you have used RSE you will be right at home but of course with built in remote capture support or direct send via cable (not much use on usb1 though heh heh heh, natch)
 
cyKey said:
Wow it looks just like the OSX beta thats been out for months :p There's 2 great features it has over Aperture. You can save preset edits and you can dim the lights so that the interface dims around the picture.

Aside from that, I don't really like it. Its quicker than Aperture but just not as nice to use. I'm currently trying out Capture 1 Pro to see if thats any good.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of lightroom either, do you use Aperture then cyKey ? Currently i am moving to it as i prefer it to bibble, lightroom and adobe raw. One think thar irks me is the lack of raw files on the hdd. Unless im missing something everything is in the library file unless you export a jpg/psd/tif etc.

As a Mac user im interested in your findings - Aperture so far for me.
 
Shimmyhill said:
I'm not a fan of lightroom either, do you use Aperture then cyKey ? Currently i am moving to it as i prefer it to bibble, lightroom and adobe raw. One think thar irks me is the lack of raw files on the hdd. Unless im missing something everything is in the library file unless you export a jpg/psd/tif etc.

As a Mac user im interested in your findings - Aperture so far for me.
Click to expand...

Today I decided to give Capture 1 Pro a quick run. I didn't like it. Its "auto adjust" feature adjusts the levels and leaves images very noisy compared to Aperture. Aperture can be sluggish and slow when adding photos but if you wait its then fine to run. Its still not *as* smooth as RawShooter, which is a real shame. Its a far better package than Rawshooter just not as quick.
 
So what is the best package around now ?

I was just about to download RawShooter when I realised that it had been swallowed by Adobe, just as they did Macromedia.
 
Lightroom is in Beta stage, all the other products you're comparing it to are final versions.
Give it chance folks :)
 
Rawshooter has the edge, it looks and feelsprofessional and is ideal for enthusiasts who wnat to do raw conversion quickly but in a powerful manner, it looks like lightroom has had a dumbing down for the interface and layout to appeal more to a wider range of people because I remember when I first used RSE and though "damn, this is complicated" and now would rather use RSE than anything which resembles a "wizard" like interface.

It looks like lightroom is staying with this approach too.

Currently ACR and RSE are my top pics for anyone wanting raw conversions. RSE gets nicer coolours, noise and sharpness than ACR though usually by a long mile.

Check this iso1600m comparison out
http://www.fixit-4u.net/mrk/root/photos/camera/Tests_350D/isocomp/1600.jpg

Quite a substantial difference between the 2 and I can see why Adobe would want the RSE engine
 
SDK^ said:
It all depends how you process your images.
Your example shows ACR as having blacks that are black and not gray ;) and more saturated blues
Click to expand...


Actually there's more shadow detail in the RSE shot whereas ACR has no detail in the shadow areas :) - the side of the pritner for example is prime to this, the side is dark grey not black so RSE is more accurate to the real life version. The same for many images I found.

To get the same shadow detail in ACR I'd have to bump up shadow highlight which then would decrease the image quality more by adding mor enoise which RSE has controlled very nicely.

So in cliffs:

RSE engine is much better and the reason Adobe were interested in it :)
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
Actually there's more shadow detail in the RSE shot whereas ACR has no detail in the shadow areas :) - the side of the pritner for example is prime to this, the side is dark grey not black so RSE is more accurate to the real life version. The same for many images I found.
Click to expand...
If that is the case then you're to blame not the software. Process the images with the correect colours otherwise comparisons are pointless :)
Clearly if the colour is dark black then the grey form RSE will show more detail because it's a lighter shade ;)

Have you correctly calibrated in ACR the adjustments under the 'calibrate' tab to match your camera ?
 
Last edited:
The point I'm trying to make is no extra processing was done.. as in raw images were loaded then nothing was touched, images converted to jpeg100 or tiff. So there is no "Fault" on my part so the raw shots are converted exactly as they were shot so the comparison of a "non" processed image between the 2 converters is solid.

There is no reason to callibrate the image in ACR because the default is unprocessed and how the sensor recorded the image, adjusting anything would put the comparison pro acr or pro rse - the callibration tab also only fortonal adjustments and there is only a selection of !ACR 3.1" available. the defaults are all zero as chosen by "as shot" in the main section

Here's a better comparison


Window light used, no flash - The White balance was calculated from the white on the left eye for both which equals 7200 and a tint of +19 to keep it fair. Everything else was set to "as shot" at iso1600

You can see ACR resolves noise more blotchy and saturates colour more.

Now I do favour ACR because of it's photoshop integartion but RSE is far better at resolving colour and detail throughout the whole frame without the need to "tweak" any extra settings.

think that makes sense :)
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
There is no reason to callibrate the image in ACR because the default is unprocessed and how the sensor recorded the image, adjusting anything would put the comparison pro acr or pro rse
Click to expand...
If as you say the 'default is unprocessed and how the sensor recorded the image' then why do your examples differ ;) Clearly there is some processing going on to get the different results. From your examples RAW Shooter is clearly running some noise reduction during processing.

The reason for calibrating the sliders is to match the sensor parameters for your camera. Do a search on Google for ACR Raw calibration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom