|
kevanrobitaille
Jan 11, 2008, 7:30 PM
Post #1 of 28
(8128 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
Are there any free software/shareware programs that will convert RAW to JPEG? I know photoshop does this, which I dont have and am not about to buy...I just need simple straight converstions. Does anyone know of anything?
|
|
|
|
|
splattum
Jan 11, 2008, 8:06 PM
Post #2 of 28
(8116 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 4, 2005
Posts: 6
|
Canon Digital Professional, It comes with all canon camaras that shoot raw, maybe you can get a copy from someone
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 11, 2008, 8:41 PM
Post #3 of 28
(8108 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
ditto for the Nikon Equiv
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 12, 2008, 1:51 AM
Post #4 of 28
(8090 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
kevanrobitaille wrote: Are there any free software/shareware programs that will convert RAW to JPEG? I know photoshop does this, which I dont have and am not about to buy...I just need simple straight converstions. Does anyone know of anything?
Ditto, Sony, Pentax, Olympus.
As far as free converters that don't come with the camera.
RAW Therapee is free and excellent, although slow, and seems to offer too much for my neandrethal brain to comprehend.
RAW Shooter Essentials can still be found, and if you've ever used a trial version of Adobe Lightroom, you get a good idea why Adobe bought it....it's same damn program (obviously upgraded).
Beyond that I believe Picasa will convert RAW. Also, Paint.net, and while not free, or as quickly updated as Adobe, Paintshop Pro typically does 90-110% of what Photoshop does (the 110% is because some things it actually does better, or was ahead of PS for a while) but typically can be found for less than $50 or even $25 after rebates. I got a copy for my sister off the clearance shelf, with a valid rebate, Corel actually paid me to buy it after the rebate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Jan 13, 2008, 7:27 PM
Post #6 of 28
(8047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
Thanks - Ill check some of those out.
I have the D70, but didnt notice it coming with anymore software other than PictureProject - which doesnt do the converstion. Maybe I missed a whole disc and its in a drawr somewhere. Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jan 14, 2008, 6:08 AM
Post #7 of 28
(8030 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
kevanrobitaille wrote: Thanks - Ill check some of those out. I have the D70, but didnt notice it coming with anymore software other than PictureProject - which doesnt do the converstion. Maybe I missed a whole disc and its in a drawr somewhere. Thanks again.
You can go download the plug-in for PS on the Adobe site. If you have CS2 or higher, yo also get the bridge with it and that makes life easier.
|
|
|
|
|
knieveltech
Jan 14, 2008, 7:10 AM
Post #8 of 28
(8021 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1431
|
IrfanView seems to do a good job if you want to do large batch conversions.
|
|
|
|
|
elnero
Jan 16, 2008, 8:59 PM
Post #9 of 28
(7903 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 1, 2006
Posts: 191
|
Not totally free, but I bought some sandisk extreme 3 SD cards, i think the CF cards have it too, but they came with a serial number for 'capture one' raw conversion software, normally $100. So if you need another memory card, its an option.
|
|
|
|
|
dlew308
Jan 17, 2008, 11:07 PM
Post #10 of 28
(7849 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 7, 2007
Posts: 37
|
http://bibblelabs.com/
free for 2 weeks trial :)
|
|
|
|
|
rocice
Jan 24, 2008, 3:11 PM
Post #11 of 28
(7680 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2006
Posts: 10
|
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/
Works well as standalone or with Gimp...
|
|
|
|
|
kevanrobitaille
Jan 26, 2008, 10:11 PM
Post #12 of 28
(7609 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 5, 2004
Posts: 113
|
Ok so I just tried RAW therapee... and it doesnt seem to support .NEF files.
I shouldve mentioned, my RAW files are all in .NEF format.
So what'll work? Ive tried IrfranView before too, and No dice.
|
|
|
|
|
hhelbein
Jan 26, 2008, 10:47 PM
Post #13 of 28
(7605 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2007
Posts: 112
|
Well, you've got some free, open source suggestions, so why not try them out? I just looked at the Ufraw link above, and it says it supports NEF format.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 27, 2008, 4:21 AM
Post #14 of 28
(7577 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
kevanrobitaille wrote: Ok so I just tried RAW therapee... and it doesnt seem to support .NEF files. I shouldve mentioned, my RAW files are all in .NEF format. So what'll work? Ive tried IrfranView before too, and No dice.
RAW therapee should support NEF, shoot it supports PEF and DNG.
My guess is you are using it wrong. You need to open the folder via the browser at the bottom of the screen then open the file via the thumbnails, if I remember corectly, been a while since I've used it.
|
|
|
|
|
crimping_bum
Jan 27, 2008, 5:42 AM
Post #15 of 28
(7571 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2005
Posts: 30
|
Not to be mean . . . .
but if you are shooting in RAW format, and you don't have photoshop, Then you have no business shooting in RAW. Even though everyone says RAW is better than JPEG (Which is only true if you are a poor photographer and cannot attain correct white balance or exposure, or if you are creating an HDR image) you will not benefit from the advantages of RAW if you do not have the tools necessary to properly manipulate the images. My advice, go buy Adobe Photoshop or Aperture by Apple and use those programs to manage your RAW files. Otherwise just shoot in JPEG. You will get 3 times the number of images on a memory card with compressed JPEG files anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 27, 2008, 10:44 AM
Post #16 of 28
(7557 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
crimping_bum wrote: Not to be mean . . . . but if you are shooting in RAW format, and you don't have photoshop, Then you have no business shooting in RAW. Even though everyone says RAW is better than JPEG (Which is only true if you are a poor photographer and cannot attain correct white balance or exposure, or if you are creating an HDR image) you will not benefit from the advantages of RAW if you do not have the tools necessary to properly manipulate the images. My advice, go buy Adobe Photoshop or Aperture by Apple and use those programs to manage your RAW files. Otherwise just shoot in JPEG. You will get 3 times the number of images on a memory card with compressed JPEG files anyways.
Not to be mean but thats just retarded. Sorry to say that but while I've heard some really dumb things, that takes the cake.
8bit compressed jpegs vs. 12-14 bit RAW (or 16bit tiffs with the extra grey layer). Do the math on the gradiations before you reply back.
Yeah, I want 3x more compressed 8 bit files over 1/3rd as many high quality images that make the most of my sensor.
As far as photoshop, if you do everything properly in RAW conversion you only need PS (or ANY editing program) to sharpen and maybe not even that with some raw programs.
Sure you can get technical with layers, and layer mask, and adjustment layers, on dodging and burning, but those are beyond the scope of what most people do unless they really want to do it.
He could pick up elements, gimp (now color managed and totally free), Paint.net, or Paint Shop Pro (often near free after rebates).
And when he does, he won't have bunch of low dynamic range, compressed and clipped 8 bit jpegs on his hard drive.
Never understood people who bicker over what sensor is in their camera and then shoot JPEG which makes just about every camera equally poor.
|
|
|
|
|
crimping_bum
Jan 27, 2008, 11:45 AM
Post #17 of 28
(7551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2005
Posts: 30
|
Dude, It wasnt an argument about technology or how data is stored. A true photographer who would devote his time to learn about the advantages of using more technically complex and possibly more rewarding file formats, would surely spend an equal amount of time in learning the proper techniques of exposure and reading light. What Im saying is there simply is no substitute for the basic principles of what constitutes a good photograph. If you are a good photographer than you can shoot in JPEG and make stunning and beautiful images. And if you need to resort to using a file format that will make up for your photographic shortcomings in post then you need to work on becoming a better photographer, not just a good computer software user.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 27, 2008, 4:54 PM
Post #18 of 28
(7529 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
crimping_bum wrote: Dude, It wasnt an argument about technology or how data is stored. A true photographer who would devote his time to learn about the advantages of using more technically complex and possibly more rewarding file formats, would surely spend an equal amount of time in learning the proper techniques of exposure and reading light. What Im saying is there simply is no substitute for the basic principles of what constitutes a good photograph. If you are a good photographer than you can shoot in JPEG and make stunning and beautiful images. And if you need to resort to using a file format that will make up for your photographic shortcomings in post then you need to work on becoming a better photographer, not just a good computer software user.
Well, I'd debate this equally idiotic statement, but with my meager skills, and my RAW format, I am have to leave to shoot the AHL All-Star game very soon.
Perhaps one day I will learn how amazing a finalized compressed 8bit low dynamic range file is and then I can be considered a good photographer.
usually when people have a chance to reread what they wrote and think about how stupid it is they retract or at least try to minimize the original statement, you on the other hand seemed to out do yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
rocice
Jan 27, 2008, 11:33 PM
Post #19 of 28
(7507 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 10, 2006
Posts: 10
|
Show I shot NEF and you should really try
http://ufraw.sourceforge.net
16 bit and it will work as a plug-in in Gimp......
|
|
|
|
|
crimping_bum
Jan 28, 2008, 12:03 AM
Post #20 of 28
(7501 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 18, 2005
Posts: 30
|
pico23 wrote: Perhaps one day I will learn how amazing a finalized compressed 8bit low dynamic range file is and then I can be considered a good photographer.
It sounds like you consider a photographers worth by the kind of equipment and technology that he can use. What about the theory that the creative thought, intentions, idea, and execution are some of the more important factors that create and artist or photographer. If you consider your photography merely a medium for objective documentation of the world than thats fine. But if you consider your work to be art in any way shape or form then surely you must know that its not the camera that is important but the person behind it. And good artists are even better when they utilize all of the technology and equipment out there to make improve their work, without using it as a crutch or replacement for the artistic merit of their images.
so, are you a an artist or a documentarian?
|
|
|
|
|
macblaze
Jan 28, 2008, 12:03 AM
Post #21 of 28
(7499 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 23, 2005
Posts: 807
|
crimping_bum wrote: Dude, It wasnt an argument about technology or how data is stored. A true photographer who would devote his time to learn about the advantages of using more technically complex and possibly more rewarding file formats,
File formats aren't complex...they just are. You don't need to know anything except RAW has more info than TIFF, TIFF has more info than jpeg and JPEG (Quality 12) has more info than JPEG (Quality 5)
crimping_bum wrote: would surely spend an equal amount of time in learning the proper techniques of exposure and reading light. What Im saying is there simply is no substitute for the basic principles of what constitutes a good photograph.
I totally agree, but these days a photographer ain't worth spit if he doesn't know his equipment/software.
crimping_bum wrote: If you are a good photographer than you can shoot in JPEG and make stunning and beautiful images.
Yah, but they won't hold if you try to do much with them and they certainly won't be beautiful or stunning if you need to have ALL the information in order to retain the detail (think many many tones...).
crimping_bum wrote: And if you need to resort to using a file format that will make up for your photographic shortcomings in post then you need to work on becoming a better photographer, not just a good computer software user.
JPEG is a lossy format. That means you loose something. No amount of skill or knowhow can retrieve something you threw out.
With the low price of storage these days, why would anyone not shoot RAW on the off chance it might make your image look a bit better.
|
|
|
|
|
guangzhou
Jan 28, 2008, 12:51 AM
Post #22 of 28
(7492 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 27, 2004
Posts: 3389
|
crimping_bum wrote: Not to be mean . . . . but if you are shooting in RAW format, and you don't have photoshop, Then you have no business shooting in RAW.
Crap here. I shoot NEF and can do all my editing in Nikon's editing software. I can also use various other editing software if I choose too.
In reply to: Even though everyone says RAW is better than JPEG (Which is only true if you are a poor photographer and cannot attain correct white balance or exposure, or if you are creating an HDR image) you will not benefit from the advantages of RAW if you do not have the tools necessary to properly manipulate the images.
Actually, RAW is better, most pros agree on this. The pros that avoid RAW often do so because of speed issues, not file quality. Shooting raw means that you camera's buffer fills up more quickly. For climbing and other slower sports, RAW works just fine.
The original post was about finding a free software that works well. Sounds like he was looking for the proper tools to edit. Photoshop is a great program but they are others out there. Some people just can't afford PS these days, so they settle for alternatives.
Even pros who understand white balance inside and out still shoot RAW. Raw helps with both extremes, the highlights and the shadow, which JPG compression often compresses out.
In reply to: My advice, go buy Adobe Photoshop or Aperture by Apple and use those programs to manage your RAW files. Otherwise just shoot in JPEG. You will get 3 times the number of images on a memory card with compressed JPEG files anyways.
Already spoke about software. I will agree, you get three times more images on the card shooting JPG, but that's because each file has a third the information in it. Personally, I prefer to have all of that on hand when I do need it.
crimping_bum wrote: Dude, It wasnt an argument about technology or how data is stored. A true photographer who would devote his time to learn about the advantages of using more technically complex and possibly more rewarding file formats, would surely spend an equal amount of time in learning the proper techniques of exposure and reading light.
I am not sure, but I think that this is what this post was about, learning and finding software to help this photographer become more proficient at using the tools he has at his disposal.
Most professional photographers I meet and talk with spend an extreme amount of time learning new technicalities of the photography work. Most are already proficient at the basics too.
In reply to: What Im saying is there simply is no substitute for the basic principles of what constitutes a good photograph.
The unfortunate truth is that in today world, post process is an important part of photography. A photographer who isn't proficient with photoediting software will not be successful unless he farms out the editing.
RAW also allows a photographer to push the post processing envelope while on sight. Some photographer who are expert and pro, take shots on site while planning the post processing in their head. They know ahead of time that the image they want is possible in camera, so they shoot accordingly.
In reply to: If you are a good photographer than you can shoot in JPEG and make stunning and beautiful images. And if you need to resort to using a file format that will make up for your photographic shortcomings in post then you need to work on becoming a better photographer, not just a good computer software user.
I agree that you can make great images shooting in JPG, but most professional photographers today shoot RAW. A few exception come from high speed sports photographer like the pros at football games, but more and more NASCAR and Motor bike races re shot using RAW by the pros.
Scenic and wedding photographers mostly shoot RAW too. Personally, when I shoot climber, I shoot in RAW. My post processing is fairly simple. A basic levels and saturation adjustment and I normally move on. on some occasions, I process more.
Last week I sold a scenic shot to hospital. A lab I used took my 10 MP Nef file and processed the images to be 10 feet by 35ft. Looked fine according to them. The lab said they were able to make such alarge conversion because they had a RAW file. They doubted they could have with a JPG.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 28, 2008, 12:59 AM
Post #23 of 28
(7488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
If you're converting straight up, way not just shoot in JPG?
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Jan 28, 2008, 9:39 AM
Post #24 of 28
(7455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
dbrayack wrote: If you're converting straight up, way not just shoot in JPG?
If nothing else, there is the exposure/wb issue. yep, being a great in camera photographer is great, I agree. Heck out of a roll of 36 slides I can expose 30 on the button. So what...!!!! Do a get an award. Where is my medal? I'd actually rather have a stamp.
Point being I'd rather get the shot to 1/3 stop and the wrong WB and correct it losslessy later than masturbate over my settings.
If I needed it 110% corrrect in camera I'll load provia and be on my way!
Don't lose sight of the fact that Crimp is an idiot praying on a legit post to try to make himself feel like a great photographer.
Yeah, no one agrees more than me that stuff should be done right in the camera, but I'm not hard ass enough to reject the advantages of digital, however slight they might be.
|
|
|
|
|
dbrayack
Jan 28, 2008, 10:14 AM
Post #25 of 28
(7453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 1260
|
pico23 wrote: dbrayack wrote: If you're converting straight up, way not just shoot in JPG? If nothing else, there is the exposure/wb issue. yep, being a great in camera photographer is great, I agree. Heck out of a roll of 36 slides I can expose 30 on the button. So what...!!!! Do a get an award. Where is my medal? I'd actually rather have a stamp. Point being I'd rather get the shot to 1/3 stop and the wrong WB and correct it losslessy later than masturbate over my settings. If I needed it 110% corrrect in camera I'll load provia and be on my way! Don't lose sight of the fact that Crimp is an idiot praying on a legit post to try to make himself feel like a great photographer. Yeah, no one agrees more than me that stuff should be done right in the camera, but I'm not hard ass enough to reject the advantages of digital, however slight they might be.
I shoot Raw exclusively, but if he's just looking for a free tool to convert raw to JPG, he's not adjusting white balance or any of that....
You can spend 12 bucks and get two 18% gray cards and white balance off that...
if you want to do it correctly, but lightroom.... =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
