Free RAW Processing Software from Corel.

Corel is offering FREE (not TRIAL or LE) software for processing Digital Camera files in "RAW" format.

I have been using CoreDraw for 13 years (Version 3 on my 386), and have been well satisfied with their product. I recently made the decision to upgrade to a more sophisticated DSLR Camera (Canon 20D), and want to use the capability of processing RAW images. I was ready to switch to Adobe for this, but discovered that Corel is now offering this feature. I haven't processed a RAW file yet (I will order my camera tomorrow). I was hoping that some here who already shooting and processing RAW would want to evaluate Corel's FREE program, and offer a comparison between Adobe and Corel.

It is available for "FREE" download here:
http://www.corel.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Corel3/Trials/DownloadContainer&trkid=cdgsae01

Corel buy them out?

Ah well, either way, it's a pretty decent product.

Personally, although I have it installed, I don't use it for RAW conversion as often as I use the Nikon software.

More because I'm used to the Nikon program than for any other reason.

You can't beat the price though :P

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0502/05022015corel_rawshooteressentials.asp

There may be some problems with the link I posted in the OP.
If anyone is interested in downloading this program,
GOOGLE "Corel Free Raw Software"

Some of the promo says "Free Trial", but at the download site it says:

"Note that this is a fully functional FREE product, not a limited-time trial version. It has a regular retail value of $49 and is comparable to other camera raw software costing hundreds of dollars. For more information, visit www.pixmantec.com".

...are you talking about garden-variety Nikon Viewer/Editor, or Nikon Capture?

While I don't know the latter, I would definitely recommend Adobe (or give this Corel product a try), rather than NVE, which really doesn't do a very good job converting RAW to JPEG. You can do a lot more with a converter like Adobe's Camera RAW (which I understand is now included in Photoshop Elements 4.0, for those who don't want to spring for CS2).

It seems to to a better job of RAW conversion than Adobe or Pixmantec from my experience.

I use it on occasion but I am more familiar with Photoshop.

Damn. I'm still stuggling with figuring out how to remove the damn lens cap on mine. Are you getting a lens or two?.... Will give ya' same recommendation I gave to Blue': stick with one lens for awhile to learn the camera. If you have a Canon lens question just ask... I have "a few".

For free this is an awesome RAW processor.

I only have Adobe Elements which I don't use much so I'm probably not the one to give you a good comparison. But..... I immediately found this Corel RAW thingee very easy to use. I took one of my really bad (have a few of em) photos and ran it through this to see what it'd do. I was impressed. Liked the shadow and highlight contrast adjustments, the fill flash, and the detail enhancement tuning. It has all the rest of your standard stuff.... my only complaint would be the lack of "fine detail" for certain adjustments.

It also has something pretty nice.... a "quick fix" adjustment for indoor and outdoor shots. The noise fix worked well... etc, etc. Every "test" I ran it through did pretty damn good.

When you get your 20D you'll get a Canon Professional software thingee for RAW processing. I definitely prefer the Corel over the Canon software but you'll have at least 2 to work with so you can play around and make your own comparisons.

Also... regarding RAW with the 20D. You can't shoot in RAW in the "auto" (landscape, portrait, etc) modes. You can only get RAW files using the "creative zones".... aperture priority, shutter priority, manual, etc

I guess that they assume that anyone using those modes doesn't have the ability or time to deal with raw. It's crap. I need to download that 300D crack. Or just save up for a pro camera. I need some decent lenses first, my $90 sigma is soft - big surprise.

How odd....that RAW isn't offered in "auto"! Most of the pictures I've wanted to "re-process" over the last year are those quick "One-time-Only Hip Shots" in AUTO. (Maybe this can be fixed with a downloadable firmware upgrade?)

I've been following the posts from Blue-in-AK, and she seems very happy with the 20D. I'm ready to step up, and am excited about the new capabilities offered by this camera, but have very little experience in the DSLR market. The number of different options are mind boggling.
I'm still looking at the Nikon D200. What is your opinion of the D200?

I chose only one lens to get started (EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS OSM Lens). It is my understanding that this lens is optimized for the Canon EOS camera, and will NOT fit any other cameras, but is a great "all purpose" lens for this camera. I will be shopping for a good MACRO lens first (I LOVE "up close") (suggestions?), but eventually want a good wide angle (10-20 Sigma?), and a Tele lens.

I have "pre-ordered" the 20D from "17th St Photo" in New York. They have everything in stock, and promise to ship on my authorizing phone call. I have never dealt with 17th St Photo. They have good reviews, and the prices look pretty good. If you know another reliable supplier that offers better prices, let me know.
This is what I have on "pre-order".
Any suggestion are appreciated!



I am still seriously looking at the Nikon D200 (which is backordered at 17St Photo), and may change my mind at the last minute.

Thanks!
Bob
St Paul

It looks like it was designed to compete with (and better?) the Canon 20D. But... I'm sold on Canon. Canon just seems to be more "photog friendly". I was recently reading a magazine article about a National Geographic photographer that went 100% digital and he picked Canon. Pretty strong endorsement.

"You may" be able to shoot in RAW (I've never tried it) using the "P" (kinda auto mode) in the "creative zone". I just checked.. YES when you use the "P" mode it will let you go easy/auto and you can shoot in RAW. But.... you're really limited with easy/auto. I only shoot in "priority" or "manual" these days.

I only own one Sigma lens. An ultrawide angle prime. It's very slow to focus and I usually switch to manual. But I like it. Can't speak for other Sigma lenses.

Wide Angle. I still 100% recommend the Canon EFS 10-22mm. It's more money than the Sigma but it's light weight, very sharp. I won't link snaps from my personal site (had a bad experience awhile back), so I can only offer these you've already seen that were taken with the 10-22mm





Macro? The Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro is a no-brainer. Sharp. Fairly fast. Good all round' everyday lens... (again, those you've already seen)..







Zoom? Anything with IS. If you want to drain your bank account get an "L" zoom. This was taken HANDHELD at 400mm with fixed IS (I'm still learnin' panning IS) Check out the crop...





The Nikon looks like a dynamite camera but I say... save some money and get the 20D. Use the money you save to get one GOOD lens. My "favorite" walk about lens is the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 "L" (macro). Sorry.. no examples. I can dig some up if you want to see?

Or... stick with what you have. Don't buy anything. I've always been very impressed with your photos.

Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 "L"
Man, I looked long and hard at this lens. I even asked the guy at 17th St Photo about this lens.
It costs 1/3 more than the 17-85 IS f4, but seems worth the price. I will eventually buy a wide angle that will overlap with 24mm bottom of the "L" lens.
Would you buy the "L" lens instead of the EOS lens?
I can see that sometine in the future, I will be "moving up" to other cameras, and the 24-70"L" lens seems more portable than an EOS lens.


I am curious about the Canon EOS lenses. Would I be giving up anything by using a lens that is NOT dedicated to the EOS? The guy at 17th St said the only real difference is that the EOS is shorter and lighter.

I still haven't had time to sort all my PA snaps, but here is one taken with the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L... (ISO 400 full 2 pt exp comp)



Any time you can afford an "L" lens you're better off. They will probably outlast your camera and they have amazing re-sale value down the road if you want to upgrade or change. But... they are HEAVY to carry around. Even the short zoom 24-70 is heavy. You know you have this around your neck after a couple of hours.

That's what I took that "postcard" of Anchorage with and the other pictures out at Eagle River, both the frost and the more distant shots. You can get pretty close with it because it does have macro function although it isn't dedicated macro like that 100 mm F. Gordon and Raging keep trying to sell me. I liked the Sigma 10-20 also, but I need to practice with it to get the exposure right. I haven't done much with the 70-300 yet, but I like the IS a lot. L series lenses look fabulous, but I'm not that rich.

Decisions....decisions....
Love those two shots.

For instance, I'm a dedicated WordPerfect user - it's all we use for our court transcripts; keep that Microsoft Word out of here -- I don't even have it on my computer, it's such a stupid program. And I've been pleased with PaintShop Pro which seems to do everything PhotoShop does for a fraction of the price. I downloaded the processing program that came with my Canon but I'll probably still do most of my "fixing" with the PaintShop. Would I also need this "RAW" program, or does anybody know if it's already included with PaintShop Pro 8?

I am delighted to find another dedicated Corel user. We are a much maligned minority on the graphics forums. (YES...YES....YES, I already know that all the "cool" professional Graphic artists use Adobe.....That's because they all use MACS!). I like Corel, and have used their Software for over 12 years (version 3). After 12 years, I can functionally use their software at about 3% of its capability.

I agree with you on WordPerfect. It is my preferred Word Processor (Version 8).
I downloaded the "trial" version of WordPerfect 12 (30 days free). I like it, and will buy the upgrade. I often compose text in WP, and then copy it to CorelDraw for creating anything that uses more than a few words of text. I DO keep a working copy of WORD so I can easily distribute to the unwashed majority.

At few years ago, Corel was offering a version of Linux. I was hopeful that they would be able to offer cheap versions of LinuxCorelDraw and LinuxWordPerfect to "transfer" customers. I would have said "good-bye" to MicroSoft forever. I bought CorelLinux, but it quickly fell by the wayside. (Such is life).


Corel has 30 day "trial" versions of CorelDraw12, and Paint Shop Pro at the website. I DLed them a few days ago.
I did NOT find a RAW capability in CorelDraw12, or the trial version of Paint Shop Pro which DID list the option of "saving" to RAW. I saved a pic to RAW, but was unable to re-open it in Paint Shop Pro, Corel Photo Paint, OR Raw Shooter.
My understanding to date is that RAW must be preprocessed in RawShooter, then exported to either Paint Shop Pro, or PhotoPaint as a TIFF file. (I could be wrong here; I've only been playing with the Trial Versions for a couple of days.)


Adobe is also offering a 30 Day Trial Version of their software. I originally though I would be "making the switch" for the ability to work in RAW. I tried Adobe PaintShop Pro for a couple of days, but didn't really like it. When I found Corel RawShooter I had no reason to switch.

I am going to buy the upgrade for CorelDraw Suite12. The price is good, and it seems to be stable, fast, and offers some interesting new tools.
I am also going to upgrade to WordPerfect12 (from version 8) for the same reasons.

I will probably also buy the Corel Paint Shop Pro10. I was hoping that it would be an unnecessary and redundant version of PhotoPaint12, but it appears to offer some options that are different from PhotoShop, and customized for Digital Photography. I'm still looking at the differences. Any info on the differences between Corel Paint Shop Pro, and Corel PhotoPaint is appreciated.

Bob
St Paul

PS: I love your photos, and love awesome natural beauty of Alaska.
I am tempted to move there just for the photos.

If you're from St. Paul, you wouldn't have ANY problems with our weather, at least as long as you stayed in Southcentral or Southeast, which really have very temperate climates (a little rainy in Southeast). It's 41 here right now. And actually I see a little sun highlighting on the clouds right at the moment, very dramatic, but I'm sure it would be gone if I tried to go out somewhere "scenic" to take a shot. It does tend to be a bit gloomy this time of year, but it's a small price to pay for Alaska's other benefits. Maybe I'm a bit antisocial or something, but the thing I personally like best about Alaska is that it's 1/5 the size of the rest of the US and only has 600,000 people or so. It's really a great place to live if you like the outdoors. I've been here 30 years.

And, of course, there's always this:

The fish ain't bad either! :+

:blush: