RAW Developer - 1.8.6RAW image processing for digital cameras. |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| This Version: | |||||
| Overall Rating: | Not rated (0.0) | Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews
Troubleshooting
Usage Tips
Developer Notes
Commentary
Featured Reviews
All Feedback: 1 - 9 of 9
Consider downloading the freeware ... - Version: 1.8.2, 12/18/2008 05:50PM PST
(1 of 4 users found this comment useful)
roro01
Raw Photo Processor.
Most Recent Replies: View All 2 Replies
- Freeware RPP is just fine for some users
Excellent... 



- Version: 1.6, 11/22/2006 05:24PM PST
Rogue
I have a Fuji S3Pro, and 90% of my shots are in RAW. I have tried Adobes option and a few others. RAW Developer is by far the best IMHO. Takes a little bit of time to get use to the interface, and a few items bug me, but the output is excellent.
Gorgeous rendering 



- Version: 1.5, 5/17/2006 02:31PM PST
(1 of 1 users found this comment useful)
arodney
What this product has first of all is beautiful, clean, "film like' rendering, at least for all the RAW's I've tested from my Canon Rebel XT. I sent this product as well as LightRoom, and Aperture 1.1 some tricky files and the rendering quality of this product is noticeable superior. LightRoom is a beta and so that might not be totally fair. Aperture is getting better but no contest. Now I'm ONLY referring to the quality of the RAW rendering. For workflow, Aperture (when you don't hit it's numerous hurt me bug) is head and shoulders superior. But RAW quality is the most important consideration in my book (if you can render fast and ugly, what's the point?). There are lots of areas for improvement in this product but that should be relatively easy to do since great RAW processing is tough! Anyone that wants a link to my iDisk with comparisons, of these three products, email me (andrew@digitaldog.net) and see for yourself. Each RAW file is 22mb and I have the RAW original for download too. This isn't a "pretty picture" but one that shows a lot of warts in a RAW rendering.
Definitely a product to keep your eye on. If I could only get this level of quality with the workflow of Aperture, I'd be one happy camper.
Definitely a product to keep your eye on. If I could only get this level of quality with the workflow of Aperture, I'd be one happy camper.
Good but 



- Version: 1.4.4, 3/10/2006 08:50PM PST
(0 of 3 users found this comment useful)
swenk22_dotmac
I thought raw developer was quick and responsive and thought it may be the program I wanted to use but ended up sticking with the raw program that came with my pentax... I'm no expert but I liked the way the pentax program conversions looked compared to raw developer.
Interesting and maybe choppy work flow 



- Version: 1.4.4, 1/24/2006 06:50PM PST
portrait11
I wonder if this RAW Developer is designed for the beholden consumer or the experienced professional. When I tried RAW Developer, my priority was to investigate the actual work flow worthiness, as well as the effectiveness for the results. I found this decently priced program adaquate in it's ability to process RAW files but when I cut to the chase, the work flow is choppy and the results were less than stellar for the effort. This program loads raw files very quickly but was slow, sometimes delayed, to render curves and other adjustments to just PREVIEW large files, where much invested time can be critical for the desired outcome. All processing was much quicker. As you set up your work flow, you jump from dialog box to dialog box, which are large but can be placed independently within your monitor workspace in your own preferred order. If there is any monitor real estate left, you can view your working image file. This program packs a lot of good things. It depends on how much time you want to spend with this program to cue it to your standards. I'd wait for the upgrades to kick in before I invest my valuable time, even if the price is right.
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
Great test results against ACR 



- Version: 1.4.3, 1/4/2006 12:00PM PST
rpphoto555
After opening the same Canon raw file and making the best possible adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw and Raw Developer, wow. Adobe Camera Raw looks like mush, with much less detail, and has colors less rich and smooth. Raw Developer looks MUCH better. I might have to buy this one; too bad I missed the discount sale last month...
Great test results against ACR 



- Version: 1.4.3, 1/4/2006 11:59AM PST
rpphoto555
After opening the same Canon raw file and making the best possible adjustments in Adobe Camera Raw and Raw Developer, wow. Adobe Camera Raw looks like mush, with much less detail, and has colors less rich and smooth. Raw Developer looks MUCH better. I might have to buy this one; too bad I missed the discount sale last month...
Looks quite nice 



- Version: 1.4.3, 1/2/2006 12:47PM PST
(0 of 2 users found this comment useful)
arodney
I need to spend a lot more time comparing the quality of the conversions to other converters but this looks like a very nice, robust RAW converter. Nice UI, well designed product. Most certainly worth downloading and checking out the demo.
Worth a try 



- Version: 1.4.1, 12/23/2005 04:51AM PST
(1 of 3 users found this comment useful)
Myron Gochnauer
This is an excellent processor for raw files. It seems faster than Photoshop CS2's raw plugin, and has a very wide range of options. It offers more possibilities for B&W conversion than any of the competitors I've seen, and the sharpening is really excellent (much better than PS CS2's plugin). Batch processing is speedy and easy. Color processing appears to be very good. There really are too many features to mention in a short comment. Give it a try to see if it fits your needs. The developer has been quite responsive to suggestions and problems. Priced about like PS's original raw plugin, so it is probably fair enough.