For Rawshooter Users

Model Mike · Jun 27, 2006

Godfrey said:
The
results I'd seen from it were nothing that couldn't be done just as
well in PSE + Camera Raw or Silkypix or any of several other RAW
conversion applications.

Godfrey, I'll defer to your better judgement as regards quality. However, the best feature of RSP is the uncommonly good user interface which makes it such fun - and productive - to use compared with other converters. It also has a brilliant image preview. Everytime I start the thing up, it gives me a rush of pleasure (gosh that sounds kinky

).

Apart from the fact that RSP users may be left high and dry - it seems a crying shame that such a good UI is to disappear altogether with only the underlying engine subsumed into another piece of Adoby bloatware - at least I'm assuming that will be the case. I hope I'm wrong.

Mike

Reuben0 · Jun 27, 2006

Model Mike said:
Apart from the fact that RSP users may be left high and dry -

RSP users are being left high and dry.

If you actually read the Adobe press release it says that RSP is being discontinued and there will be no further camera compatibility updates.

--
Cheers,
Reuben0

Rob22315 · Jun 27, 2006

is fill flash. I use RSP and SP about 50/50 now. RSP has better workflow, SP gives easier results. Sometimes SP overdoes already saturated colors too.

RG

John Bean (UK) · Jun 27, 2006

Rob22315 said:
is fill flash. I use RSP and SP about 50/50 now. RSP has better
workflow, SP gives easier results. Sometimes SP overdoes already
saturated colors too.

It does. Fortunately you can very easily selectively tune the individual colour bands for both saturation and hue using a very nicely designed tool.

The "fill flash" is a nice feature I first came across in the Foveon raw converter that ships with Sigma SLRs. It's useful in a converter if you're not going to do any further editing with (say) Photoshop, but since I usually do it isn't any big deal to me.

--
John Bean

PAW 2006 Week 25:

Iindex page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

KL Matt · Jun 27, 2006

Model Mike said:
However, the best feature of RSP is the uncommonly good user
interface which makes it such fun - and productive - to use
compared with other converters. It also has a brilliant image
preview. Everytime I start the thing up, it gives me a rush of
pleasure (gosh that sounds kinky ).

Can't agree with you more. I would prefer to use Bridge for the PS integration, but I simply don't have the time to waste waiting for an enormous program with substandard usability to load and consume all my RAM.

-Matt

Edvinas · Jun 27, 2006

Model Mike said:
What a great shame. Let's hope they continue to provide new camera
support for the Premium version.

They won't. In an official Adobe press release they say that RSP is discontinued. In Pixmantec forum Pixmantec informed its users that there will be no more any camera compatibility updates or bugfixes neither for RSP nor for RSE.

I feel sorry for all those who spent their money on special price RSP and CE bundle recently -- I almost purchased it too...

--
Edvinas

DS_Dave · Jun 27, 2006

Yeah, I treid it a few times. What I didnt like is the "sharpening" that it applies - looks okay at "fit on screen" size, but looking at 100% view to see what I had to play with, it was awful - blotchy and ugly.

ACR 3.x, CS2, and bridge (and Picasa 2 for quick viewing etc) and Im set really.

Dave

Cideway said:
Godfrey said:

At the risk of being called names, this is no big deal to me.

Click to expand...

I agreee with you Godfrey.

I tried to use RSE once, found it to be utter rubbish, clunky to
use, and not intergrated, for my purposes using ACR+Bridge and PS
has a far more usefull, for both organisation and post processing.
--
'No sir, I don't like it!'
-Mr Horse, The Ren & Stimpy Show

GMT +9.5

--
GMT +9:30
http://www.colourpixels.net
Click on Dave on the menu

photographer reborn · Jun 27, 2006

I'm angry. Maybe the images from RSP looks a bit overprocessed and the rendition of colours is not the best (I prefer C1 or SP skin tones), but I really like the user interface and workflow of RSP so I paid for a license. Now, what are my options for upgrade? Surely I had to buy and expensive and resource-consuming Adobe software and pay for upgrading.

At least I didn't buy the colour engine... but I was on the point of buying it!

Maybe SP is another option... but I have to pay $100!!

I'm really angry !!

--
Javier.

Don Allison · Jun 27, 2006

I took the advice of several on this forum and still use RSE for processing from RAW. RSE just looks so much better on my screen than PSE4, which is utter garbage in many respects IMO (but I won't get into what is wrong with this software at this time). The trick is to correct for "light" environment only in RSE. For example, if I'm outside, I will correct to "Outdoors Medium". This is the only processing I do in RSE before batch saving as a TIFF file. I then go into PSE4 and do all image processsing, and only because it's the sole program I have at this time. That being said, I do like the PSE4 "Shadow/Hilite, Layers and Sharpening" features. It might take a while to get the final image, but it all works out in the end, and thanks to RSE at the outset. Just rambling, but I do plan to RSE into the future...however, from what this forum has said about Silypix, one must get one's hands on this it would seem. Just a little less than 2 cents at this time. Don
--

'Nothing could-be-finah-than-to-be-in-Carolina-in-the-morninnnnnn...'

Wagga · Jun 27, 2006

I think I got done twice by Pixmantec:

1. When I discovered that there was a color engine to buy (I didn't).

2. Now, Pixmantec's site is closed, no explanations at all to the customers.

I think that the whole thing is unethical.

--
Wagga [Jean]

[UTC/GMT +2 hours]

CharlieDIY · Jun 27, 2006

SWEngineer said:
If you keep your eyes & ears open, occasionally Adobe provides an
upgrade path to the full PS. At least this was my experience as a
registered PSE2 users. After several lost opportunities, I finally
took the plunge and upgraded. I paid about 1/2 the full retail
price, straight from Adobe.

Ouch. Half price currently is about $280, give or take. There are a couple lenses I'd like that cost about that, and that will last me to the end, which Adobe won't. I'm using Paintshop Pro X, for which I paid, IIRC, $50 plus $10 shipping.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

CharlieDIY · Jun 27, 2006

Wagga said:
I think I got done twice by Pixmantec:

1. When I discovered that there was a color engine to buy (I didn't).

2. Now, Pixmantec's site is closed, no explanations at all to the
customers.

I think that the whole thing is unethical.

--
Wagga [Jean]

In today's world, that's business as usual.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

Smo · Jun 27, 2006

You know you can just convert to DNG, right? Then RSE will support whatever comes for quite a while.

Barry Pearson · Jun 28, 2006

Smo said:
You know you can just convert to DNG, right? Then RSE will support
whatever comes for quite a while.

RSE only supports DNGs where it supports the native raws. It is a restriction in their DNG support - much discussed and complained about in their forums.

John Bean (UK) · Jun 28, 2006

CharlieDIY said:
Ouch. Half price currently is about $280, give or take. There are a
couple lenses I'd like that cost about that, and that will last me
to the end, which Adobe won't. I'm using Paintshop Pro X, for which
I paid, IIRC, $50 plus $10 shipping.

I'm not defending Adobe's prices Charlie, but it really isn't as simple as that. If all you need is a straightforward image editor for "touch-up" processing then Photoshop is a huge overkill. In fact for many tasks PSP is an overkill too... especially when there are free editors that do a very good job.

Adobe has the inexpensive Photoshop Elements (PSE) for those who need only the basics, and although I freely admit PSP is probably a better buy than PSE it's unreasonable to compare either with Photoshop CS2 - unless you ignore all the features of Photoshop that allow it to command the price. If you don't know what these features are... then you don't need Photoshop CS2 ;-)

Is it worth the price? Well the people who buy it think it is, otherwise Adobe would be out of business.

I'm always puzzled by this attitude to software. When you buy a camera do you pick the cheapest you can find that does the job, or do you buy the one you like best even if its not the cheapest? Why is software any different?

--
John Bean

PAW 2006 Week 25:

Iindex page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April): http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

RoscoT · Jun 28, 2006

John Bean (UK) said:
CharlieDIY said:

Ouch. Half price currently is about $280, give or take. There are a
couple lenses I'd like that cost about that, and that will last me
to the end, which Adobe won't. I'm using Paintshop Pro X, for which
I paid, IIRC, $50 plus $10 shipping.

Click to expand...

I'm not defending Adobe's prices Charlie, but it really isn't as
simple as that. If all you need is a straightforward image editor
for "touch-up" processing then Photoshop is a huge overkill. In
fact for many tasks PSP is an overkill too... especially when there
are free editors that do a very good job.

Adobe has the inexpensive Photoshop Elements (PSE) for those who
need only the basics, and although I freely admit PSP is probably a
better buy than PSE it's unreasonable to compare either with
Photoshop CS2 - unless you ignore all the features of Photoshop
that allow it to command the price. If you don't know what these
features are... then you don't need Photoshop CS2 ;-)

Is it worth the price? Well the people who buy it think it is,
otherwise Adobe would be out of business.

I'm always puzzled by this attitude to software. When you buy a
camera do you pick the cheapest you can find that does the job, or
do you buy the one you like best even if its not the cheapest? Why
is software any different?

--
John Bean

PAW 2006 Week 25:

Iindex page: http://waterfoot.smugmug.com
Latest walkabout (4 April):
http://waterfoot.smugmug.com/gallery/1348582

The problem with PSE is that to use any of the more advanced features, you must do so in 8 bit mode. This reduces the variation of color you can manipulate, which can effect the final outcome. Much fewer plug ins, and no actions. For very basic editing, it works fine. I bit the bullet and bought CS (just before CS2 cameout).

It still would be nice to have an upgrade price path for those who start with the entry level product. It might just keep people who out grow PSE and baulk at $600 for CS2 in the Adobe camp. Even Microsoft has upgrade pricing form Works to Office.
--
Rosco
Terminal Stage LBA
http://www.pbase.com/roscot

CharlieDIY · Jun 28, 2006

John Bean (UK) said:
CharlieDIY said:

Ouch. Half price currently is about $280, give or take. There are a
couple lenses I'd like that cost about that, and that will last me
to the end, which Adobe won't. I'm using Paintshop Pro X, for which
I paid, IIRC, $50 plus $10 shipping.

Click to expand...

I'm not defending Adobe's prices Charlie, but it really isn't as
simple as that. If all you need is a straightforward image editor
for "touch-up" processing then Photoshop is a huge overkill. In
fact for many tasks PSP is an overkill too... especially when there
are free editors that do a very good job.

Adobe has the inexpensive Photoshop Elements (PSE) for those who
need only the basics, and although I freely admit PSP is probably a
better buy than PSE it's unreasonable to compare either with
Photoshop CS2 - unless you ignore all the features of Photoshop
that allow it to command the price. If you don't know what these
features are... then you don't need Photoshop CS2 ;-)

Is it worth the price? Well the people who buy it think it is,
otherwise Adobe would be out of business.

I'm always puzzled by this attitude to software. When you buy a
camera do you pick the cheapest you can find that does the job, or
do you buy the one you like best even if its not the cheapest? Why
is software any different?

Software is different for the reasons you stated: CS bundles in about 200 features I don't need, and PSE, at least in the PSE 2 that I have, is lacking in a few, and clumsy in others. PSP X has too many features, too, but I don't mind ignoring half the program if I've paid less than half the bucks.

Actually, I pick cameras first for how they can handle the job, second for the one that handles best, and third, for price. That usually results in considerable savings.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

magicone · Jun 28, 2006

I just got the following e-mail today:
http://www.bibblelabs.com/press/pr20060627.html

If you don't have or don't want Adobe, you can upgrade to Bibble for a little less for a limited time.

I am very disappointed with this move by Adobe. I use Corel Draw / Photo Paint and just upgraded to their X3 suite. I thought Corel bought Pixmantec a year or two ago. The biggest downside of all of this is there will be no future RAW support for any of the newer Pentax cameras unless you get Adobe. I for one was planning to get the 10mp camera when it comes out later this year.

It looks to me like it might be time to try out something new...

Comments???

magicone · Jun 28, 2006

I agree with you, at least I was lucky and recently just purchased PSP for $59 instead of the full price. The only thing is, is that I really like the program. Its a shame it will go. It will not be any good to me the nest time I buy a new DSLR (Pentax 10mp).

Barry Pearson · Jun 28, 2006

magicone wrote:
[snip]

magicone said:
I am very disappointed with this move by Adobe. I use Corel Draw /
Photo Paint and just upgraded to their X3 suite. I thought Corel
bought Pixmantec a year or two ago. The biggest downside of all of
this is there will be no future RAW support for any of the newer
Pentax cameras unless you get Adobe. I for one was planning to get
the 10mp camera when it comes out later this year.

[snip]

In fact, Adobe had provided the potential solution to your problem, but Pixmantec didn't implement it. If it had been Silkypix that ceased instead of Rawshooter, you wouldn't have that problem.

Obviously, I'm talking about support of cameras via DNG even where the native raws are not supported. Products that do this (Silkypix, LightZone, etc) provide photographers with an extra degree of protection, either in case they cease or in case a photographer doesn't want to buy an upgrade.
http://www.barry.pearson.name/articles/dng/dng_not_native.htm

For Rawshooter Users

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts