Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

RawShooter essentials 2005 update available (incl. Athlon ..

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 5:01:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

FYI

Here is the list of changes:
<http://forum.pixmantec.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/14...;

The free update is available from:
http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html

Bart
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:02:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I wonder when they will support Fuji finepix?

Any ideas

John D
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:16:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

John DH wrote:
> I wonder when they will support Fuji finepix?
>
> Any ideas
>
> John D

Not to mention the Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8400. I reported these as not
working, but did not receive any acknowledgement of my report.

David
Related resources
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 12:41:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Not to mention the Nikon Coolpix 5700 and 8400. I reported these as not
> working, but did not receive any acknowledgement of my report.

I know, and I hate moaning when the software is free.

John D
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 2:35:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Mar 2005 02:01:07 +0100, "Bart van der Wolf"
<bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote:

>FYI
>
>Here is the list of changes:
><http://forum.pixmantec.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/14...;
>
>The free update is available from:
>http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html



I can report that it works OK on a Win2K
Athlon system and on 10D RAW files.

Now, if it would also convert my G2 RAW
files, I'd be reeeaaally happy.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 8:11:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Bart van der Wolf" <bvdwolf@no.spam> wrote in message
news:42323f58$0$28976$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> FYI
>
> Here is the list of changes:
> <http://forum.pixmantec.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/14...;
>
> The free update is available from:
> http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html
>
> Bart
I'm very curious about this 'romance' you have with picmantec, Bart. Do you
favour this program because it has no automation, putting the end results in
your hands alone or is there some other reason? I downloaded it at your
suggestion and came to the conclusion it is not a photographers tool but a
computerists one.

As a photographer, I prefer not to dwell on post processing any more than I
have to. I do shoot RAW but for me, the work afterwards is a right royal
pain. I much prefer DxO because it addresses the faults in my lenses and
makes a very nice conversion of the data to an image file. The subtlety of
pastel colours is often lost in today's saturated images.

Sure some of the files could do with a touch-up in Photoshop after
conversion but on the whole, it is the closest I have come to the days when
I shot film, sent it to a lab and ordered prints from the proofs. It seems
to me that far too many programs exist now that demand so much extra
learning or personal input after the shoot as to make the art of photography
far too complicated.

Your reply is eagerly awaited.

It's actually Ryadia here.
My PC is being upgraded so I'm using daughters until it comes back.
Anonymous
March 12, 2005 8:11:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

As a "photographer" I assume that you never did any post processing in the
dark room, just printed the negatives.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 8:29:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

It has a nice sharpening algorithm but I'm completely unimpressed with the
accuracy of the RAW colorization.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:32:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <Xns9617E4D9270F0dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30>,
Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>It has a nice sharpening algorithm but I'm completely unimpressed with the
>accuracy of the RAW colorization.


I'd love to be able to try it. But unfortunately I'm one of those
folks that has been unable to persuade the program to get beyond the
registration screen.

It pops up a dialog box asking for my name, address, and email.
I click "OK", and it obviously goes out and talks to the pixmantec
servers, because I get an email almost immediately.

But that's it. Nothing else - the program just hangs, not responding.

Can anyone who has succesfully installed it tell me what is supposed
to happen next?
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:53:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

> FYI
>
> Here is the list of changes:
> <http://forum.pixmantec.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/14...;
>
>
> The free update is available from:
> http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html
>
> Bart

To those who have installed this software:
have you thoroughly checked it for spyware?
Has anyone found any spyware issues?
Free software usually comes with a catch.

Roger
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 12:01:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>Roger Clark writes ...
>
>To those who have installed this software:
>have you thoroughly checked it for spyware?
>Has anyone found any spyware issues?

I checked it with Spybot and with the McAfee programs and saw no
problems. You have to give it permission to transmit to the mother
ship to register (meaning giving it permission via the Firewall), but
after registration you can remove it from the approved list and restore
the Firewall.

> Free software usually comes with a catch.

The main programmer wrote the basic code for Capture One before going
off on his own, I think he's trying to capture market share quickly and
also getting the benefit of thousands of free beta software users'
inputs. Looks like he'll offer a more fully featured version for $$
later (probably with interpolation, rotation, CMYK support, custom
profiling etc, similar to Capture One's $500 Pro version). This free
version of RSE looks a lot like the $99 Capture One LE program, with a
similar feature set but just enough subtle improvements to make it very
enticing. There is little question that he's going after Capture One's
customers (and doing a good job of it so far).

Also he's in partnership with Corel and supplying this converter in a
deal with Corel Paint Shop Pro, so this isn't your typical hobbyist
offering a half-baked freebie.

Bill
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 4:59:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In message <d10mpa$sjr$1@reader1.panix.com>,
johnf@panix.com (John Francis) wrote:

>In article <Xns9617E4D9270F0dilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30>,
>Bubbabob <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>>It has a nice sharpening algorithm but I'm completely unimpressed with the
>>accuracy of the RAW colorization.
>
>
>I'd love to be able to try it. But unfortunately I'm one of those
>folks that has been unable to persuade the program to get beyond the
>registration screen.
>
>It pops up a dialog box asking for my name, address, and email.
>I click "OK", and it obviously goes out and talks to the pixmantec
>servers, because I get an email almost immediately.
>
>But that's it. Nothing else - the program just hangs, not responding.
>
>Can anyone who has succesfully installed it tell me what is supposed
>to happen next?

This happened to me, also. I got the wrong e-mail, though. Rather than
a "thanks for registering" message, I got the initial invitation to
download the program again, with a link. The program seemed to be
unresponsive, so i killed it. I did this twice, and finally, the third
time, I just let the program sit for about 20 minutes with its
hourglass, and finally a message popped up saying registration was
unsuccessful, and when I clicked "OK", the program opened up. I haven't
closed the program yet, so I don't know what happens next.

I don't think that they have their server worked out right, just yet.
When I originally requested the program from the website, I got no
e-mail back until regular business hours the next day, as if the e-mail
was sent by a human (or a human rebooting or powering up a computer).
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
March 13, 2005 6:09:52 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Arthur Small" <asmall1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:SBEYd.89171$H05.71940@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> As a "photographer" I assume that you never did any post processing in the
> dark room, just printed the negatives.
I hardly think you could have read the post properly, Arthur. Having a lab
process the film and provide proofs from which to order prints from
....carries with it the hint of a suggestion that maybe the "Photographer" is
a Photographer and not a lab technician.

Somehow I can't see sitting in front of a computer making adjustments and
corrections to a photo which on film would have required the shot to have
been made correctly in the first place, as being a Photographer. In the days
before Digital SLRs, Photographers lived or died (professionally speaking)
by their ability to get it right in the camera.

Even today, Photographers have the ability film shooters don't have to see
the results of the shot instantly and re-shoot it if it's wrong. Film
shooters had to use quite expensive Polaroids to get this opportunity.
Photoshop is a less than good photographer's way out of a lot of problems
they should never have gotten into in the first place.

D
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 7:14:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Nothing found with my usual anti-virus and spyware kit. I don't think there
is a catch with this software as such. I rather think the author is letting
it go free for a while, hopeing that folks like ourselves report back with
bugs, ie beta testing. Already, from this thread alone, there are a number
of issues that need to be sorted before they can reasonably ask money for
it.

John D
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 7:21:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Are you using XP SP2? I found that after upgrading my machine to SP2, I
found all sorts of problems including similar instances like yours. I went
back to XP SP1 and everything returned to normal. I also wonder if your copy
was corrupted in the download, have you tried to download again?

John D

> I'd love to be able to try it. But unfortunately I'm one of those
> folks that has been unable to persuade the program to get beyond the
> registration screen.
>
> It pops up a dialog box asking for my name, address, and email.
> I click "OK", and it obviously goes out and talks to the pixmantec
> servers, because I get an email almost immediately.
>
> But that's it. Nothing else - the program just hangs, not responding.
>
> Can anyone who has succesfully installed it tell me what is supposed
> to happen next?
>
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 8:33:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital Douglas <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

> "Arthur Small" <asmall1@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:SBEYd.89171$H05.71940@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>> As a "photographer" I assume that you never did any post processing
>> in the dark room, just printed the negatives.

> I hardly think you could have read the post properly, Arthur. Having
> a lab process the film and provide proofs from which to order prints
> from ...carries with it the hint of a suggestion that maybe the
> "Photographer" is a Photographer and not a lab technician.

> Somehow I can't see sitting in front of a computer making
> adjustments and corrections to a photo which on film would have
> required the shot to have been made correctly in the first place, as
> being a Photographer.

A good digital camera has a Dmax of something like 3.5, corresponding
to a dynamic range of a bit more than 10 stops. The Dmax of a colour
print is maybe 1.5 on a good day. So, somehow you have to compress
the dynamic range of the real world into somthing that can actually be
printed, and that's where the printer's expertise comes in.

In the days before Digital SLRs, this adjustment was done by the
scanner operator.

Andrew.
Anonymous
March 13, 2005 9:34:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <d11paa$qge$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
John DH <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote:
>Are you using XP SP2? I found that after upgrading my machine to SP2, I
>found all sorts of problems including similar instances like yours. I went
>back to XP SP1 and everything returned to normal. I also wonder if your copy
>was corrupted in the download, have you tried to download again?

No - SP1 (plus several security updates).
It fails the same way with the initial (1.0) download,
and with the new (1.1) version.

>
>> I'd love to be able to try it. But unfortunately I'm one of those
>> folks that has been unable to persuade the program to get beyond the
>> registration screen.
>>
>> It pops up a dialog box asking for my name, address, and email.
>> I click "OK", and it obviously goes out and talks to the pixmantec
>> servers, because I get an email almost immediately.
>>
>> But that's it. Nothing else - the program just hangs, not responding.
>>
>> Can anyone who has succesfully installed it tell me what is supposed
>> to happen next?
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 12:19:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net>
wrote in message news:423445EA.6050802@qwest.net...
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
>> FYI
>>
>> Here is the list of changes:
>> <http://forum.pixmantec.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/14...;
>> The free update is available from:
>> http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html
>>
>> Bart
>
> To those who have installed this software:
> have you thoroughly checked it for spyware?

Yes, checked and found to be clean.

> Has anyone found any spyware issues?

None.

> Free software usually comes with a catch.

Yes, the catch is that is isn't going to be full featured, the payware
version will be. It is a product made by former Phase One staff, which
may also be the reason for the delays Phase One suffered adding
Windows support for their v3.6 update of Capture One (I already heard
a rumor a long time ago that they had to recode part of C1 due to a
programmer quitting).

Bart
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 2:45:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:D 1213r$3a$1@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <d11paa$qge$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> John DH <nospammJohn@celticgods.co.uknospamm> wrote:
>>Are you using XP SP2? I found that after upgrading my machine to
>>SP2, I
>>found all sorts of problems including similar instances like yours.
>>I went
>>back to XP SP1 and everything returned to normal. I also wonder if
>>your copy
>>was corrupted in the download, have you tried to download again?
>
> No - SP1 (plus several security updates).
> It fails the same way with the initial (1.0) download,
> and with the new (1.1) version.

I'd assume it's something particular about your setup (firewall
prevents installation time validation?), or perhaps it assumes XP SP2.
After downloading you should just fill in your registration details
and click next for each default choice presented. Send them a message
to their support forum, they'd probably want to solve it.

Bart
March 14, 2005 10:54:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
news:1138uac9v0a5uc6@news.supernews.com...

> A good digital camera has a Dmax of something like 3.5, corresponding
> to a dynamic range of a bit more than 10 stops. The Dmax of a colour
> print is maybe 1.5 on a good day. So, somehow you have to compress
> the dynamic range of the real world into somthing that can actually be
> printed, and that's where the printer's expertise comes in.
>
> In the days before Digital SLRs, this adjustment was done by the
> scanner operator.
>
> Andrew.

Actually Andrew...
In the days before Digital, this adjustment was not possible without making
a negative 'mask' for a transparency and it was all done in a chemical
environment. A contact print of the trannie made on mono film and then
printed through an optical enlarger. Not something many photographers
actually did because it was a specialised process and just as time consuming
as taking the photo in the first place.

Douglas
Anonymous
March 14, 2005 1:50:06 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Douglas <decipleofeos@yahoo.com> wrote:

> <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote in message
> news:1138uac9v0a5uc6@news.supernews.com...

>> A good digital camera has a Dmax of something like 3.5, corresponding
>> to a dynamic range of a bit more than 10 stops. The Dmax of a colour
>> print is maybe 1.5 on a good day. So, somehow you have to compress
>> the dynamic range of the real world into somthing that can actually be
>> printed, and that's where the printer's expertise comes in.
>>
>> In the days before Digital SLRs, this adjustment was done by the
>> scanner operator.

> Actually Andrew...

> In the days before Digital, this adjustment was not possible without
> making a negative 'mask' for a transparency and it was all done in a
> chemical environment. A contact print of the trannie made on mono
> film and then printed through an optical enlarger.

Well, that's what happens if a wet print is your target, but okay.

> Not something many photographers actually did because it was a
> specialised process and just as time consuming as taking the photo
> in the first place.

So, you know that making adjustments is necessary, and you know that
it was necessary long before the advent of digital. Then why did you
say

> > Somehow I can't see sitting in front of a computer making
> > adjustments and corrections to a photo which on film would have
> > required the shot to have been made correctly in the first place,
> > as being a Photographer.

Are we just quibbling about the definition of the word "Photographer"
meaning someone who only shoots? So that when someone is making a
print they aren't being a Photographer?

Andrew.
Anonymous
March 15, 2005 4:13:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I too find I can't register it. Every time I try, I get the download link
sent to my e-mail. I tried turning off my firewall, virus protection etc and
can't get it to work. I re-downloaded and installed the program etc. but
can't get it to let me register. If you let it try for around 10 minutes,
you'll eventually get an error message and be able to use the program until
you exit out of the program. Then you have to go through the process again.
As for the program itself, I seem to get better results from both CS, and
C1, so can't see myself desiring to put up with all the bugs for now.

For what it's worth

Jeff
March 20, 2005 12:39:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

JD wrote:
> Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
>> FYI
>>
>> Here is the list of changes:
>> <http://forum.pixmantec.com/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/14...;
>>
>>
>> The free update is available from:
>> http://www.pixmantec.com/index2.html
>>
>> Bart
>
>
> I've been experimenting with it for the last couple of hours and am
> impressed.
>
> It would be nice to have direct access to levels via the histogram though.
Since the latest update (Athlon fix and fix on support for some formats)
its finally usable for me. It makes a pretty good impression. Somehow
the resolution on my 300D files is slightly different. I wonder why that
is. It is missing one row and one column.

Andre

--
----------------------------------
http://www.aguntherphotography.com
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:49:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"JD" <jd@notataol.net> wrote in message
news:71__d.25744$OU1.23695@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
SNIP
> I've been experimenting with it for the last couple of hours and am
> impressed.
>
> It would be nice to have direct access to levels via the histogram
> though.

Who knows, they might save that for the payware version ...
But you can instruct it to immediately open the conversion in your
editor, as soon as it's done. On a 16-bit/channel conversion that will
still produce good enough results, assuming the editor is also 16-b/ch
capable. Just hold back on the sharpening if you need to resize later.

Bart
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:57:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
>
> "JD" <jd@notataol.net> wrote in message
> news:71__d.25744$OU1.23695@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> SNIP
>
>> I've been experimenting with it for the last couple of hours and am
>> impressed.
>>
>> It would be nice to have direct access to levels via the histogram
>> though.
>
>
> Who knows, they might save that for the payware version ...
> But you can instruct it to immediately open the conversion in your
> editor, as soon as it's done. On a 16-bit/channel conversion that will
> still produce good enough results, assuming the editor is also 16-b/ch
> capable. Just hold back on the sharpening if you need to resize later.
>
> Bart

Anybody with enough balls to not use a text menu gets my vote.
!