Raw Shooter revisited

[nightpiper]

hi all, i have D/L the latest RawShooter ver 1.1.1 & tried out if it has improved.

so far, bugs on AMD sys has been ironed out, i think. here r 2 pics to compare:

Rawshooter converter:

Oly Studio ver 1.2

everything is set at their default which is zero, except for compensation set to +0.3 for both software.

what do u guys think? personally, i still like the Studio. better colours esp the red shorts & pink flower pants. also the shadows that created some depth for the pic is better on Studio & skin tone looks more natural esp on the face. the Rawshooter seems a little flat.

comments & flames r welcome.

 

[apex]

Is RawShooter ver 1.1.1 a freeware program? i can't seems to find the locations to download the software.

 

[chancy]

Hello Nightpiper,

Both render colours pleasantly. For a partially colour blind me, I'm partial towards Studio, it's colours that're subjectively rich but natural looking which I itch to convert to monochrome. However, I wish to add that the Studio version has a slight pinkish cast. But coming from me, take it with a spoon of salt

Cheers,

 

[Merciless_Knight]

everything is set at their default which is zero, except for compensation set to +0.3 for both software.

what do u guys think? personally, i still like the Studio. better colours esp the red shorts & pink flower pants. also the shadows that created some depth for the pic is better on Studio & skin tone looks more natural esp on the face. the Rawshooter seems a little flat.

comments & flames r welcome.

Hi Nightpiper, wat U say is correct. Oly Studio o/p is more natural than the Rawshooter one.

 

[Evilmerlin]

But RawShooter is faster! I'm betting that if you tweak the Rawshooter abit, you'll get the same colours. Moreover, you are already working in raw so it shouldn't be that much work to up the saturation and contrast abit.

 

[nightpiper]

yep, u can tweak the Rawshooter to get great colours too. but somehow it just not quite the same as Studio. still good, i have tweaked it & played with it, its really fast as compared to Studio. there's the smoothing function (noise suppression & colour noise suppression) too so u can reduce blemish & get smooth skin. ;p i must say its pretty formidable on its own. now if only i can figure out how to output to different sizes, that wud make it better than ACR imo.

(ps. Studio has more natural colours. the red shorts & pink flowers r really as they look in reality.)

 

[tao]

I prefer the colors from studio too. More natural and balance and it has that Olympus color.

How about ACR? I am not able to get much better results compared with JPEG SHQ.

 

[nightpiper]

ACR colours is far from Studio. i think the Rawshooter is better, tried them all.

 

[tao]

ACR colours is far from Studio. i think the Rawshooter is better, tried them all.

How about C1pro? I tried the trial version... quite impressed by the settings are very daunting to me as it offers 'too much control', not good for a newbie like me.

How much is Rawshooter? FOC? Or?

 

[cookiez]

IMO, skin tone and bedsheet color a tad too redish by Rawshooter converter.
Oly 1.2 is still better :thumbsup:

 

[tomcat]

ACR colours is far from Studio. i think the Rawshooter is better, tried them all.

ACR need to be calibrated to give good colours. In my last comparison, it gave better colours than Rawshooter v1.0. Maybe Rawshooter v1.1.1's colours have improved :dunno:

 

[nightpiper]

How about C1pro? I tried the trial version... quite impressed by the settings are very daunting to me as it offers 'too much control', not good for a newbie like me.

How much is Rawshooter? FOC? Or?

it FOC, thats why the thrill. :bsmilie:

http://esd.element5.com/product.htm...geid=1&cart=1&currencies=EUR,all&noquickbuy=1

yes, c1 can be daunting, i tried the trial last time too but they didn't have proper support for .ORF files then, images has some sort of maze like texture. haven't touch it since. colour is nice too but still prefer Studio. the only problem with Studio is its speed.

tomcat:
i think the ver 1.1.1 has improved colour from ver 1.0, sorry i can't 100% confirm this since the ver 1 didn't fully function on my AMD then. however in my impression, ACR needs more tweaking to get good colours whereas this Rawshooter requires less tweaking. last time i used ACR was to test it on the esplanade shot. http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=111247 the default look of ACR is too yellowish, far cry from studio, it needs some tweaking to get it looking ok. whats your experience?

 

[tomcat]

it FOC, thats why the thrill. :bsmilie:

http://esd.element5.com/product.htm...geid=1&cart=1&currencies=EUR,all&noquickbuy=1

yes, c1 can be daunting, i tried the trial last time too but they didn't have proper support for .ORF files then, images has some sort of maze like texture. haven't touch it since. colour is nice too but still prefer Studio. the only problem with Studio is its speed.

tomcat:
i think the ver 1.1.1 has improved colour from ver 1.0, sorry i can't 100% confirm this since the ver 1 didn't fully function on my AMD then. however in my impression, ACR needs more tweaking to get good colours whereas this Rawshooter requires less tweaking. last time i used ACR was to test it on the esplanade shot. http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=111247 the default look of ACR is too yellowish, far cry from studio, it needs some tweaking to get it looking ok. whats your experience?

I hear that Capture One will be supporting E-300 in their April release of ver. 3.7 update.

It is definitely harder to tweak ACR. It must be calibrated to each camera to get the best colours out of it and the GretagMacbeth ColorChecker is need to carry out the calibration. If it is not calibrated, I think RawShooter will give better colours most of the time than ACR.