My RAW files look bad.

[serge c]

<i>This is because the ones that look good out of the box have already been tampered with...,</i><p>Any RAW file displayed on screen as an image has been processed in some way. The logic behind starting with an unuseable image that has no resemblance to the actual scene and requires a lot of post-processing completely escapes me.

[steve foster]

Hi Serge,

 

Just so as you know I am not married to Rawshooter, and your opinion is valid. However regarding the "starting point" if you feel inclined go to the pixmantec web site and look at some of the links to do with this issue. It is explained alot better than I could. The reason I found myself buying this piece of software initially is the high praise it gets from all the photo press. Here in the UK it is rated the best in "I think" all the magazines. So to me not only do I like it but a thousand pro photogrpahers can't be wrong. Obviously if you don't like it then fair enough. But I do think you should try and let people make their own minds up before telling them to un-install it. Megan I am sure would have better results if she visited the forum and asked for help.

[thomas_sullivan]

I tend to agree with Emre......high ISO and underexposed image. RAW forgives a whole lot, but you still have to follow the <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/expose-right.shtml"><u>expose to the right</u></a> (of the histogram) philosophy if you want the darker tones to be as noiseless as possible. and yes, I understand that means shooting even slower to get the right exposure, but it's what must be done. Believe me, shooting at ISO 1600 and exposing to the right will look BETTER than iso 800 underexposed.....especially in low light situations. If you are already doing this......I too, think the answer is to stop using RawShooter. I did the same set of Youth Hockey pics (RAW, iso 1600, canon 20d) in both RawShooter 2006 (the free one) and Photoshop RAW, and PS dealt with the shadows/dark clothing noticeably better than RS. I won't swear to it, but I think getting the RAW plug in for your elements would be the best option.....assuming the commenter above is correct that it exists......I don't know one way or the other.

[thomas_sullivan]

...oh, by the way....not to completely knock RawShooter.......it tromps on PS Raw when batch processing images.

[serge c]

OK, I'm sorry. Got a little carried away. I recognize a lot of positive aspects of Rawshooter. I guess every converter has it's strong and week points.