The RAW plugin in PSCS. The latest version appears to be 2.4. PSCS2 was about 3.5.
Rich
The RAW plugin in PSCS. The latest version appears to be 2.4. PSCS2 was about 3.5.
Rich
http://www.pixmantec.com/purchase/downloads.asp
Looks like RAWShooter was acquired by Adobe. It said RAWShooter Essentials 2006 was freeware. You might want to check it out. A version was offered by Corel for a while, but not any longer.
Rich
All digital cameras suffer from noise. This is exacerbated when using large aperture settings, slow shutter speeds, high ASA values, shooting in low light situations or any combination. Given any of the above conditions you will get more visible noise whether you shoot in RAW or JPEG.
In general, a fast shutter speed, combined with a small aperture, in a bright sunlit situation will give you the least amount of visible noise. The use of a capable flash unit in low light situations will also do the job. You'll notice that I use the phrase "visible noise", that's because noise is always there in digital photography.
I find that it's a trade-off, between the type of shot I'm looking for and the amount of visible noise that I'm willing to accept. Having said that, there are a few excellent utilities on the market to help deal with noise, like Noise Ninja, Neat Image or Grain Surgery.
The main advantage of RAW, as Rich says, is that it is the unprocessed data direct from the camera and you would process this and save as a JPEG or whatever, leaving the original RAW image untouched.
-- Bob
hi,
doesn't the camera being used have to support the RAW format? I have 3 digital camara (not expensive ones) and none support RAW fromat that I can see. The only camaras that support the RAW fromat are some of the high end newer ones..right
Jim
Yes Jim, you're correct. The digital RAW format is, at the moment, mainly offered by medium to high-end digital SLR cameras from the likes of Canon, Nikon etc.
One thing I forgot to mention about the RAW format is that it contains, in general, far more image information than an equivalent JPEG. Although, in practical terms, for the average photographer the difference is negligable IMO.
Last edited by stratocast; 25 November 2006 at 01:07 AM.
-- Bob
Bookmarks