Raw Files Free Software

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

In article <1114780829.730706.136520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
scubatv <scubatv@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Would anyone know of availabe free software for viewing RAW files?
>
>I DL the trial version of Capture One, but can't figure out how to get
>it working.
>
>Thanks,
>Jon
>


IrFanView (http://irfanview.com/) works fine for all the raw formats I
know of. When you d/l it make sure you get the plugins.

The price is right.


--
a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m

Don't blame me. I voted for Gore.

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

"scubatv" <scubatv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1114780829.730706.136520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
>
> Would anyone know of availabe free software for viewing RAW files?
>
> I DL the trial version of Capture One, but can't figure out how to get
> it working.
>
> Thanks,
> Jon
>
http://www.pixmantec.com/products/ [...] tials.html

Very nice program

Jim

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

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:05:29 -0600, in rec.photo.digital "Sheldon"
<sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>"scubatv" <scubatv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1114780829.730706.136520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

>> Would anyone know of availabe free software for viewing RAW files?
>>
>> I DL the trial version of Capture One, but can't figure out how to get
>> it working.

>Just download Nikon View. It's free, much simpler than Capture and gives
>you a few adjustments as well. I bought Capture and the manual is the size
>of a phone book. It does have a lot of features, however, and some
>magazines place it on the same shelf as Photoshop, although I think
>Photoshop is much better. Many people like Nikon View better than the
>software that now comes with new Nikons.

Umm, he said Capture One, not Nikon Capture. You are assuming a bit much.

----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

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

"Ed Ruf" <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:3vi571lrbpjk6gsmj98qa5hrrk85ihkuu3@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:05:29 -0600, in rec.photo.digital "Sheldon"
> <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>>"scubatv" <scubatv@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1114780829.730706.136520@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Would anyone know of availabe free software for viewing RAW files?
>>>
>>> I DL the trial version of Capture One, but can't figure out how to get
>>> it working.
>
>>Just download Nikon View. It's free, much simpler than Capture and gives
>>you a few adjustments as well. I bought Capture and the manual is the
>>size
>>of a phone book. It does have a lot of features, however, and some
>>magazines place it on the same shelf as Photoshop, although I think
>>Photoshop is much better. Many people like Nikon View better than the
>>software that now comes with new Nikons.
>
> Umm, he said Capture One, not Nikon Capture. You are assuming a bit much.
>

My mistake. I guess I saw that he "downloaded" a trial version, and I just
saw the word Capture and made some assumptions.

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

"scubatv" <scubatv@yahoo.com> writes:

> Hello,
>
> Would anyone know of availabe free software for viewing RAW files?
>
> I DL the trial version of Capture One, but can't figure out how to get
> it working.

I use UFRaw, which is a plugin for GIMP to view/edit E-1 RAW files:
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

It is based on David Coffin's free program dcraw to decode RAW files:
http://www.cybercom.net/~dcoffin/dcraw/

A different GIMP plugin (Raw Photo) is:
http://ptj.rozeta.com.pl/Soft/RawPhoto/

Gimp is available from:
http://www.gimp.org

If you want to decode the EXIF information, use EXIFTOOL:
http://owl.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/

All of these are free software, both in terms of cost, and in terms of freedom
to modify the programs, since the source is available.

--
Michael Meissner
email: mrmnews@the-meissners.org
http://www.the-meissners.org

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

On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:21:07 -0000, in rec.photo.digital Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>Check out Pixmantec's 'Raw Shooter Essentials', now in beta and free.

FWIW, I've found it's auto WB feature just plain misses the boat.
Not even close.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

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

Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 20:21:07 -0000, in rec.photo.digital Bubbabob
><rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:
>
>>Check out Pixmantec's 'Raw Shooter Essentials', now in beta and free.
>
> FWIW, I've found it's auto WB feature just plain misses the boat.
> Not even close.
> ----------
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html
>

Who would use auto white balance in software? At that point in the
workflow you're supposed to be using your eyes and your brain.

My main problem with it is the lack of a gamma/midpoint control, relying
instead on controls to bend the uppen and lower ends of the curve
independently.

The sharpening algorithm is remarkable and damned fast for a non-USM
method that gives results very similar to deconvolution, which usually
takes about 20 times longer on my computer.

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

On Sun, 01 May 2005 01:21:55 -0000, in rec.photo.digital Bubbabob
<rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote:

>Ed Ruf <egruf_usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> FWIW, I've found it's auto WB feature just plain misses the boat.
>> Not even close.

>Who would use auto white balance in software? At that point in the
>workflow you're supposed to be using your eyes and your brain.

If you'd climb down off your high horse you might realize there may be
situations it's warranted. Not every photograph is art, and needs to be
tweaked to the nth degree.There are other reasons to photograph things,
such as for the purpose of documentation.

I need to document the installation and chronological state of a half
million dollar scramjet engine installed in a multi-million dollar test
facility. The model is mostly made of high conductivity copper, not an easy
subject to photograph. For safety concerns the "natural" lighting in the
facility doesn't illuminate the model enough so use of the flash is
required. The facility lighting can be a mix of protected fluorescents and
explosion proof incandescents. Add the camera flash to this mix and you
have an ever changing illumination temperature depending on the field of
view of a specific photo. I've found batch processing in Nikon Capture
using the auto WB calculation does a quite acceptable job on maybe a 100
photos per week.It would be foolish to spend any more time on these.

Given I'm doing this on taxpayers $$, you might actually have a stake in
this and care that I've used my brain and have found the least "expensive"
solution to the problem at hand. Then again, maybe not.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Phot [...] index.html

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

"David Hardin" <davedude46@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>
> "Bubbabob" <rnorton@_remove_this_thuntek.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns964892046A48Adilfjelfoiwepofujsdk@216.168.3.30...
>> Check out Pixmantec's 'Raw Shooter Essentials', now in beta and free.
>
>
> I tried Raw Shooter as an alternative to Breezebrowser and Canon DPP.
> While it has some interesting features, I found that the converted
> files, when opened in PS or ACDSee did not match the colors on the
> screen in Raw Shooter. They tended to be more muted and shifted white
> balance.
>
> For now I'm sticking with Breezebrowser.
>
>
>

As I work in Adobe98 space, I don't use ACDsee to view color critical
material. Do you have PS properly set up to display files in their
appropriate color spaces or are you doing some sort of color space
conversion upon opening the file? I don't see any shift at all when I
open my Raw Shooter converted files in PS. What output color space did
you choose in Raw Shooter?

Since you're seeing the image in Raw Shooter before it's trimmed to fit
an output color space it's possible you're seeing some difference if
you've exceeded the gamut of your output space. Perhaps RS modifies its
displayed image to match the output space you've chosen. The
documentation doesn't get into this.

I don't recall BreezeBrowser giving you any control over the conversion,
just like IrfanView.