PDA

View Full Version : Raw Shooter's | Premium 2006 hints and tips



aparmley
05-30-2006, 05:28 PM
a long long time ago I downloaded and tried Raw Shooters Essentials and while it was an interesting interface I really was more used to ACR.

Just lately I decided to download and try their premium offering to see how I liked it. The added functionality is definately an improvemnt over the Essentials version of yesteryear.

So lets have it - Who out there is using this very affordable [$59.99 deal right now] product and who has some Hints/Tips/Tricks to share with us. . .

Here is a simple trick I like to use to help increase contrast with out really clipping the highlights and shadows as much as standard contrast increase will.

with the curves/levels tab selected, grab the black point triangle [there are three triangles at the bottom of the histogram] increase it a little bit, its default setting is 0, I usually increase it between 2-10 [its dependent on the exposure], and then I like to lower the highlight [white] point slider the same amount I increased the black point slider [default setting is 255].

Thats just one trick I have right now that I can remember. . . I love being able to copy and paste white balance settings or any other setting you want to transfer from an already edited RAW file. Its so quick and effortless. gotta love the magnifier [loopish], alt-m independent of your view. Lots of good useful features found in this product. . .

Bluedog
05-30-2006, 07:36 PM
Andy _ RawShooter Premium is the Bomb! Maybe its my Viewsonic ProSeries LCD Monitor but using the keystroke: Alt+S brings up the Full Screen view and it really shows the true detail in your images _ of course the Esc key closes it out.

Norm in Fujino
05-30-2006, 09:04 PM
I never liked RSE's color performance with Olympus RAW files (I uploaded a test here about a year ago). However, I bought RSP when it first came out and got an outlaw camera definition file for it from an acquaintence, and that helps, but it still isn't as good (or as expensive) in most cases as Silkypix for me. One of the most serious shortcomings IMO is the "video" look that can result from using the fill light function. Don't know how else to describe it, but it reminds me of images taken with a video camera. You have to be very careful to hold off on that slider.
Color performance with other manufacturers' RAW files may be much better, I dunno.

Vich
05-31-2006, 12:11 AM
I use it mainly because I'm lazy. But I got release 1.0 and have been using it since.

I can "apply to all highlighted" for exposure changes, WB, etc. etc. Just alt/a to highlight all photos in the folder, and click the icon to paste those changes.

I like having levels, but it's not near as powerful as photoshop's. I do simple quick changes, but nothing too drastic.

Vibrance color change is nice.

The Crop features are very full featured. Also love the photo-tilt slider right next to the crop. I wish it had an ICON to actually apply the crop rather than leaving it grayed out, but still it's wonderful.

The toggling between slide-show and edits is nice.

For me; the number 1 feature I like about RSP and RSE is the photo sorter. That little 1 2 3 Trash. Having it on the slide show is the Bomb! Just do a quick viewing of everything and bingo, all the trash is gone. Or, sort all the ones taken in the same light and bingo, apply WB to all. etc.

aparmley
05-31-2006, 02:06 PM
I Agree Vich and Toney - The full featured slide show is wonderful. . . Being able to flag, rank and trash images while in the slide show mode - as well as being able to copy and paste WB and any other edits - is very powerul stuff. I've been editing images with RSP and then doing what I normally do in ACR and Photoshop CS2 and for RAW conversions the images are nearly identical. So far I'm pleased - I'll keep using CS2 for its robust and powerful features but for RAW conversion I think I'm going to pick up RSP and use that - it makes the workflow alot more intuitive and powerful. . .

Vich
05-31-2006, 02:38 PM
I Agree Vich and Toney - The full featured slide show is wonderful. . . Being able to flag, rank and trash images while in the slide show mode - as well as being able to copy and paste WB and any other edits - is very powerul stuff. I've been editing images with RSP and then doing what I normally do in ACR and Photoshop CS2 and for RAW conversions the images are nearly identical. So far I'm pleased - I'll keep using CS2 for its robust and powerful features but for RAW conversion I think I'm going to pick up RSP and use that - it makes the workflow alot more intuitive and powerful. . .
Curious to see how CS2 and RSP compare as far as color and IQ.

I had a color space problem with CS RAW converter and stopped using it after the first try (and several unsuccessful hours trying to correct it).

I have cringed on occassion at the rendetion results, particularly on levels tweaking. I continue to use RSP just because I'm too lazy (and don't understand) the bulk edit features in CS. I can PP an entire 300 photo session in about 1 hour. All sorted, enhanced, and uploaded, and even selected prints. Then I spend 3 or more hours in Photoshop on the few I want to tweak there (or that weren't in RAW ... yuck!). I have an old session with 800 JPG photos that need serious editing. I've put that off for 3 months now. In RAW (using RSP), it would be no problem at all. Maybe 2 hours.

So; am I sacraficing quality a little for the ease of use?

aparmley
05-31-2006, 06:30 PM
Curious to see how CS2 and RSP compare as far as color and IQ.

I had a color space problem with CS RAW converter and stopped using it after the first try (and several unsuccessful hours trying to correct it).

I have cringed on occassion at the rendetion results, particularly on levels tweaking. I continue to use RSP just because I'm too lazy (and don't understand) the bulk edit features in CS. I can PP an entire 300 photo session in about 1 hour. All sorted, enhanced, and uploaded, and even selected prints. Then I spend 3 or more hours in Photoshop on the few I want to tweak there (or that weren't in RAW ... yuck!). I have an old session with 800 JPG photos that need serious editing. I've put that off for 3 months now. In RAW (using RSP), it would be no problem at all. Maybe 2 hours.

So; am I sacraficing quality a little for the ease of use?


I'll see if I can help you out - I've been working on some images that I have edited in both applications - I'll add a foot note to this afterwards - My goal was to see if RSPs conversion quality competes with ACR's. Now, I still plan on doing any other edits in CS2 - probably sharpening, black and white conversion, other effects.

Footnote - I just kinda loose my focus cause Im caught up in the features of RSP. . .LOL.

Anyway - I'll try to finish that up as soon as possible so you can see what I am seeing . . .

aparmley
06-01-2006, 09:20 AM
So here are three images [older] that I shot RAW and converted using RSP and ACR [Adobe Camera RAW] - I tried to keep the conversion as simple as possible. I used the same point as my white balance point of reference, I only added a slight curves enhancement to each [3,252; in both RSP and ACR]. Thats all I did. The ACR images came out looking like they had Haze over them - which oddly enough, was my complaint about RSP when I first got it. I then realized I was comparing a simple conversion in RSP to a totally tweak conversion in ACR - So that motivated me to do this conversion test only adjusting what could be repeated in both RSP and ACR. . . its a simplistic conversion sure, but it shows the difference in the software. . . RSP seems to convert Raws more to my liking.

The images: 3 images, 2 versions each for a total of 6 images. ACR is first and RSP is second.

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72789399-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72788406-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72789381-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72788687-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72788342-L.jpg

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72789514-L.jpg

The only explanation as to why the differences are so noticable is because the curve adjustment in RSP has to be more sensititve than the one in ACR - thus more contrast.

Bluedog
06-01-2006, 09:48 AM
Having used RSE/RSP for little over a year now is the very reason I haven't spent the funds on CS2 for handling RAW conversions. And doubt I'd ever scratch the surface of CS2 for my post processing needs that Elements can't take of for now.

aparmley
06-01-2006, 11:15 AM
Having used RSE/RSP for little over a year now is the very reason I haven't spent the funds on CS2 for handling RAW conversions. And doubt I'd ever scratch the surface of CS2 for my post processing needs that Elements can't take of for now.

This would be very true of myself if I hadn't happened upon a version of CS2 -;). I think I'll be droppin the $60 bucks for this RSP. :D

Vich
06-01-2006, 11:23 AM
Seeing that haze in CS2, I hate to say it, makes me feel good. :D

The green seems oversaturated on your RSP shots, and even oversharpened. Only a little levels? No contrast or color changes?

Of the two, I'd also choose RSP.

I've also wondered if some software might optimize for screen viewing (rather than printing). I have a big difference between my prints and screen view.

I've wondered occassionally if my haze troubles with the 24-105L have really been RSP, however since it's not a uniform problem it's surely the lens.

Example: http://flashme.smugmug.com/photos/72530300-S.jpg
Of course; the sun being 35 degrees off front has caused this one, albiet more severe than I'd expect.
Notice how the right side seems OK and the left is all hazy. Definately a lens deal (esp. considering the CA in lower right). Hopefully Canon finds a problem and repairs it.

Overall; I have also been very satisfied with RSP when I don't apply edits (other than color temprature). The newer features of RSP (like levels) does seem to do things differently than Photoshop CS and that difference has made me minimize RSP changes and do them in CS.

The bottom line though is I need color corrected monitor before I can complain much since PP is paramount to groping in the dark when done on a typical over brightened, inconsistantly contrasted, LCD laptop screen. Shoot, even my web programming colors don't show the same when viewed on several different LCD monitors - basically I have to stick to about 150 basic colors.

Thanks for the posts. Great help!

aparmley
06-01-2006, 11:40 AM
Seeing that haze in CS2, I hate to say it, makes me feel good. :D

The green seems oversaturated on your RSP shots, and even oversharpened. Only a little levels? No contrast or color changes?


Yep - just WB and Curves adjustment.

Vich
06-01-2006, 12:35 PM
Yep - just WB and Curves adjustment.
Took another look. Maybe it's just the eye makeup job that gave me the oversharpened idea. Was the subject actually like that?

Photos 5/6 (with WhiBal) show dramatic problem with CS2 finding proper black point.

I download and printed 4 shots (1/2, 5/6) and must say skintones are much more natural on RSP. The CS2 looses a lot of contrast. At 52K per shot none were great, but does still show colors although I printed on good paper.

1/2 the RSP seems cooler (more blues).

3/4 I liked the paler green that CS2 gives, but that doesn't mean its correct.

aparmley
06-01-2006, 02:00 PM
Took another look. Maybe it's just the eye makeup job that gave me the oversharpened idea. Was the subject actually like that?


She uses that glittery stuff - so that might be the cause of that. looks haloish.

The main thing is that the RSP images look more natural to me. . . more accurate.

aparmley
06-01-2006, 11:54 PM
I took a few snapshots today before I went to work so I'd have another group of images to process using RSP throughout the whole workfow, cardreader input, organization, tagging, ranking, deletions, editing, and batch processing.

Holy Cow!

I haven't read the manual so I just stumbled upon this functionality. Check it out in the images below. . .

heres the before; check out the snapshot tabs, 1,2,3,4 -

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72911575-L.jpg

ya ya ya - thats nothing new got something else? Yes I do, check out the snapshot tabs now -

http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72911561-L.jpg

Pretty freakin sweet! Ya - Ok I admit I didn't know you could rename them - If that added functionality to help you better compare little tweaks isn't enough, when you batch process your images you can have that snapshot name saved as part of your file name - like "IMG_9875_Curves" - it does this for you! Wow! thats freaking awesome!

So anyway - another RSP processed example - It was so easy to do with snapshot's renaming ability and even easier to keep track of via its filename appending abilities as well. . .

Original file WB corrected [Cropped]:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72911543-L.jpg

Levels-only adjustment:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72911250-L.jpg

Curves-only adjustment:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72912242-L.jpg

Curves adjustment + slight bump in vibrance setting:
http://parmley.smugmug.com/photos/72911936-L.jpg

The differences aren't huge - but they are noticable

Bluedog
06-02-2006, 04:44 AM
The differences aren't huge - but they are noticable.

Thats why I love RSP _ one to point out also is the ability to make changes and see the adjustments take affect while doing so and not waiting for your program to complete the task. In other words: Instant

Andy you should compile a paper tour pretty good at giving details ... ;)

add this: I process all my work as 8 bit TIFF's then resize and make any needed USM tweaks via Photoshop.

aparmley
06-02-2006, 09:05 AM
Thats why I love RSP _ one to point out also is the ability to make changes and see the adjustments take affect while doing so and not waiting for your program to complete the task. In other words: Instant

Andy you should compile a paper tour pretty good at giving details ... ;)

add this: I process all my work as 8 bit TIFF's then resize and make any needed USM tweaks via Photoshop.

You know I also read this morning in the manual that Sharpness 0 is not what I thought it was - Its actually the default RSP sharpening, -50 is when RSP applies no sharpening and when your pictures are loading, especially in slideshow mode, that half second load/bump up in sharpness is actually sharpness 0 at work. . .

Bluedog
06-02-2006, 09:10 AM
Andy you should compile a paper tour pretty good at giving details ... ;)



YOUR


I should learn how to proof read before hitting the Submit Reply button ... :(

Vich
06-02-2006, 10:06 AM
Bluedog - why 8 bit TIFF and not 16 bit (besides not wanting 50MB per photo)?

Andy - You sure that bump is sharpening applied? I merely assumed it was a low-res then hi-res. Sort of "here's sort of what it looks like, but crappy view, and if you give me a couple of seconds I'll show you the complete version with all the pixels, colors, and settings fully processed and transmitted." I get the delay even when "apply sharpening" isn't checked.

Also; do you know why the sharpening slider is always grayed out? I don't see any difference when I slide it and didn't think much about it since I'd rather use a fuller featured USM mask anyway.

aparmley
06-02-2006, 12:31 PM
Bluedog - why 8 bit TIFF and not 16 bit?

Andy - You sure that bump is sharpening applied? I merely assumed it was a low-res then hi-res. Sort of "here's sort of what it looks like, but crappy view, and if you give me a couple of seconds I'll show you the complete version with all the pixels, colors, and settings fully processed and transmitted." I get the delay even when "apply sharpening" isn't checked.

Also; do you know why the sharpening slider is always grayed out? I don't see any difference when I slide it and didn't think much about it since I'd rather use a fuller featured USM mask anyway.

I can't be 100% sure that little bump up in resolution is only sharpening, it might also be as you said, low res hi res - but I do notice when I shoot large aperture shots that my point of focus goes from soft to tack sharp each time and I also compared it to the image in bridge and its not nearly as sharp in bridge - so there is sharpening being applied - your thumbnails have this bump up as well - its just easier to see soft go to tack sharp with full screen slide show.

Noise/sharpening is always greyed out [but totally adjustable] when you are at a zoom % that is less than 100% - hit ctrl tab [qucik 100% zoom] and you'll notice they aren't greyed out any more.

Toney - Ya - I'm guilty of typos left and right - I knew what you were saying - and thanks I've been doing this really fast and slopppy! see what I mean!

Vich - I thought that apply sharpening check box was for when you process your photos, do you want to apply RSPs default, or your adjusted, sharpening - thats what was bothering me about all this - I thought, I left the sharpening at 0 and why do I have a choice to apply it or not - thats when I hit the manual. So, I assume the apply sharpening check box is for when you actually process your RAW image - much like the other selections on that tab.

BTW - I paid for my license key today. This thing is way to valuable to keep on trying it especially if it goes back up to $99.

Bluedog
06-02-2006, 03:11 PM
Bluedog - why 8 bit TIFF and not 16 bit (besides not wanting 50MB per photo)?

For that reason _ honestly to my aging eyes 8 bit is serving the purpose.

aparmley
06-02-2006, 07:56 PM
For that reason _ honestly to my aging eyes 8 bit is serving the purpose.

How about your non pro print press requirements too! Damn - 50MB files - crap'son! forget it! :D 8 bit would work for me too! Well - unless there was an added DR benefit of editing that 16 bitter but once it was edited I'd convert to jpeg and delete the big boy.


Hey - the only thing I haven't be able to figure out yet is when you import images from your memory card can you automate that process more?

I want to be able to define a default folder so I don't have to keep adjusting the path each time and then I want it to be able to create a new folder so I don't have to! I'm gonna go ask this over at pixmantec.com/forums.