Re: Test of RAW Converters

Hi George, On Sun, 29 May 2005 11:45:14 -0500, George Sinos wrote: >The three most interesting were CS2 Bridge Workflow, CS2 Camera RAW, >and CS2 exporting RAW images. They are 29MB, 14MB and 8MB. > >Here's the link: OK, thanks for that, will look at

Re: Test of RAW Converters

Russel Brown has updated his website with several demonstration videos specifically on the CS2 Raw Converter and the Bridge. They are pretty big downloads, but once you get them to your computer you can play them with Quicktime. The three most interesting were CS2 Bridge Workflow, CS2 Camera RAW,

Re: Test of RAW Converters

On 29/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >No. But thanks for the reminder. I want to do that. But your jpeg does >look quite good. Is it right out of the camera or post-processed in PS? >My comment below is in regard to jpegs that have been processed only by >the camera. Of cours

Re: Test of RAW Converters

No. But thanks for the reminder. I want to do that. But your jpeg does look quite good. Is it right out of the camera or post-processed in PS? My comment below is in regard to jpegs that have been processed only by the camera. Of course their all dependent on photographer's settings, exposure,

Re: Test of RAW Converters

On 29/5/05, Paul Stenquist, discombobulated, unleashed: >I saw some in-camera processing vs. RAW results from a Canon 20D the >other day. The jpeg results were very poor, probably inferior to those >from a Pentax. With any camera, RAW is the way to go. >Paul Paul, any news on the 1D files you g

Re: Test of RAW Converters

I saw some in-camera processing vs. RAW results from a Canon 20D the other day. The jpeg results were very poor, probably inferior to those from a Pentax. With any camera, RAW is the way to go. Paul On May 29, 2005, at 2:59 AM, Rob Studdert wrote: On 28 May 2005 at 23:22, Shel Belinkoff wrote:

Re: Test of RAW Converters

Thanks for this Shel. Looks like I'll have to get CS2. The new converter seems to do a great job of handling shadow detail, and overall resolution seems improved.. The color differences are hard to explain. I would think one could get all the images the same with some effort in each convert

Re: Test of RAW Converters

On 29 May 2005 at 17:36, John Coyle wrote: > I find this page doesn't work without MYSQL on my system - something I > refuse to have! You don't need MYSQL to view this page, it simply appears that the web server has fallen over. Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT)

Re: Test of RAW Converters

I find this page doesn't work without MYSQL on my system - something I refuse to have! John Coyle Brisbane, Australia - Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005 4:59 PM Subject: Re: Test of RAW Converters On

Re: Test of RAW Converters

On 28 May 2005 at 23:22, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > RAW shooters might find this of some interest. The author tested DDP 1.6.1 vs > Capture One LE (beta 3.7.1, with C0 generic profile) vs ACR 3.1 vs ACR 2.4. > Seems that there's a big difference between ACR 2.4 and ACR 3.1 - but judge > for > your

Test of RAW Converters

RAW shooters might find this of some interest. The author tested DDP 1.6.1 vs Capture One LE (beta 3.7.1, with C0 generic profile) vs ACR 3.1 vs ACR 2.4. Seems that there's a big difference between ACR 2.4 and ACR 3.1 - but judge for yourself ;-)) http://tinyurl.com/ddalv http://www.robgalbrait