I tried out RAWstudio a couple times through the past year or so. I had to try it, because I knew how much time it could conceivably save me. Both times, though, the image quality of the output JPG was horrible in comparison to UFRaw. So, it would save time, but my photos looked nasty.
Then, I noticed some slick JPG output on the MeetTheGIMP videocast when Rolf (the host) gave RAWstudio a test run. It looked so much better than mine. What was I doing wrong? So, I decided I would give it another try, and I am glad I did.
Turns out, I had not loaded my camera’s color profile. Why the default is so dull, I cannot tell you…probably some complicated programming reason. Anyway, once I had loaded my Nikon D100 color profile, all was beautiful. Well, at least, all was as expected.
That was the last step. From there on out, I have been in RAWstudio almost daily.
To add the profile, just go to the Edit menu and choose “Preferences”. Once there, choose the “Color” tab (pretty easy, huh) and open your camera’s color profile into the “input profile” selection. Actually, I had tried that much before, but it took me a while to realize that I need to check that “Enable color management (experimental)” box to make the color settings work. Experimental sounded dangerous, but it worked just fine.
And if you are wondering where to find your camera’s color profile so your RAW conversion program can accurately read your RAW photo files, I would just do a little searching online. I found mine through the aforementioned UFRaw Color Management page. That same page also has links to other pages but really, I would suggest just searching for your camera model and “color profile download”. That should do it.
Is RAWstudio more for keeping track of pictures? I have iPhoto and it does great with it and I do all my editing in CS4 Photoshop. I have hesitated to download RAWstudio because I was not seeing any advantages.
Interesting mix: iPhoto and CS4…the everyday and the powerhouse. Of course, they just fulfil different needs. Do you have Aperture, or just Photoshop? Just wondering. RAWstudio is like a poor man’s Aperture.
If you shoot JPG, then you would not use RAWstudio. I only shoot in RAW (no nasty JPGs) and thus have to have software that will help me convert to JPG. There are several open source (free) programs out there that will do the job, but RAWstudio focuses on workflow, meaning, helping me go through large numbers of RAW photos quickly.
Yeah that’s one of the beauty’s of iPhoto is that it does import RAW and seperates it out into “Events”, which are automatically done by date taken. Then you can move them to albums easily. It’s very easy to us and move photos to other programs. I’m guessing this is what your talking about when it comes to “workflow”.
No I got a really, really, really good deal on Photoshop, but Aperture is out of my price range.
Well, I am glad you got a great deal on Photoshop…that is one of the only ways it would be worth buying. Oh, and I did not mean to say Aperture (the Apple software), but Lightroom (the Adobe software). So, do you have Lightroom or just Photoshop? I do not think you have Lightroom bundled with CS4, but have to buy it seperately.
I cannot quite tell…do you shoot RAW or JPG? I had no idea iPhoto would handle RAW. That is great. Picasa does, technically, but it does a horrible job in my experience. I only use Picasa for organization.
Workflow? Basically (though I should write a dedicated post for this), workflow is the ability to “work through” masses of photos, cull the needless, and just spend time on the keepers (imagine 20 similar shots, and wanting to spend time on one or two of them and not even bother with the rest). Lightroom seems to be the king there. Aperture does it too. RAWstudio is a weak, but free, option in the same category. I can work through the photos, but RAWstudio does no organization of photos like Lightroom and Aperture.
I just started shooting in RAW the last couple of times. There are shots that are stilling HQ JPG. I’ve been playing with a couple of options on the camera. There is RAW+JPG and NEF(says it’s RAW). Most of those that I posted are RAW+JPG, though I am not entirely certain what that means.
I still think that some of my lack of clarity has to do with the lens. Maybe it’s the megapix but I just don’t think so. ISO is 1600. By the way, when will you discuss ISO?
I’m going to the Hill Country and should have the opportunity for some great shots. Hopefully I’ll be able to put my edumication to good use 😉
Hmm…do I comment here or just write a post with those answers? I will just start writing and see.
NEF is just Nikon’s RAW file format. “RAW” is the general term for the camera’s raw image information it gathers from the sensor. RAW+JPG just means that it saves two files, the RAW image and the (camera-processed) JPG image. That can come in handy if you need to use the photos immediately and do not have time to process the RAW.
“Lack of clarity”, huh? Well, that could be anything. Shooting ISO 1600 on a D70, though, you will certainly not have clarity even at its best! My D100 and your D70 have very similar sensors (maybe the same) and I will not go above 800 unless there is no other choice! Really, I do all I can to stay at ISO 200. 400 and 800 have obvious noise, and above 1000 is I-had-no-choice noise levels.
Of course, lack of clarity can be other stuff. Do you have all the focus points turned on? Your camera might be focusing in the wrong place (because they are stupid, remember) and the image is just blurry. Of course, in that case, something would be in focus. It could also be a cruddy lens, but I doubt that. That is the most blamed, but least guilty factor for lack of clarity.
If you are worried about the quality difference in megapixels, I have a pretty controlled example of the quality difference in megapixels.
http://www.chinacoop.net/photoblog/faq/quality-difference-between-6mp-and-12mp
Note, though, these kinds of comparisons are never as good as field experience, seeing and knowing the difference in quality over a period of time and in many different shooting situations.