2
Thank you for your review
Free
http://www.macupdate.com/download/19693/rawker.dmg.zip
Email me when discounted: 
Rawker is a freeware converter program for RAW files produced by digital photo cameras. It's philosophy is the good old Apple motto: "Keep it simple". It allows you to convert a single RAW file or batch process a folder of RAW files. It is also possible to specify a hot folder that Rawker scans every few seconds. When new files show up in the hot folder, Rawker automatically converts them.

Before processing any files you can modify settings that may optimize the appearance of your image(s). These settings can be saved in a file and re-loaded later.

During batch processing Rawker shows the image it is currently more...

What's New

Version 2.3.6:
  • Hardware rendering can now be enabled in Preferences.

Requirements

OS X 10.4 or later

Similar Software

Open Comparison
Suggest Other Similar Software
Leave a Review

Rawker User Discussion

Nobody has reviewed or commented on this app yet. Add your own comment and get a discussion going!
Sort by: Time | Smiles
Dkosiur Member IconReview+8
Dkosiur
+2

This program is still missing a few necessary items. There's no white balance adjustment (just tint), and there's no way to adjust the dpi settings for the saved file -- it's always 72 dpi. When I'm saving a TIFF file, for instance, I want to set it to either 240 or 300 dpi for printing.

Because blown highlights can often retain detail in one channel, it'd be useful to be able to see an RGB histogram, rather than just the luminosity-based histogram currently provided by Rawker.

Also, numeric scales on a few sliders, esp. Gamma, would be helpful.

On the whole, Rawker is useful, but not useful enough to replace any of the RAW converters I currently use (ACR, Lightroom, or Capture One).

Reply0 replies
Version 2.3.2
Rickfrog Member IconComment+0
Rickfrog
+0

Excellent app. works a whole lot better and simpler than the RAW plug-in in Adobe CS and is just as slow/fast. But the results are MUCH better!

Reply0 replies
Version 1.1.5
Anonymous Member IconReview
Anonymous
+0

This program could benefit a whole bunch from CoreImage integration. For some odd reason, this is the slowest application I've ever used for tweaking RAW files.

Reply1 reply
Version 1.1.3
Raifra (Developer)
+0

The problem with CoreImage is: it's only available since MacOS 10.4. But there are many Rawker users who still run 10.3 on their machines. So I try to support 10.3 as long as possible.

Also, current Rawker versions should run faster than the first releases.

Bye, Rainer.

Anonymous Member IconReview
Anonymous
+0

This converter works incredibly well with Kodak .DCR files from the ProBack. I've just run some test files through RAWKER. There is no detectable chroma noise, just increased sharpness, deeper shadow information and less posterization than I ever thought possible with my dinosaur of a digital back. It knocks Photodesk, Capture studio and ACR to the back of the draw in terms of the output file. I can't believe it's free. Give it a go.

Reply0 replies
Version 1.1.3
Anonymous Member IconReview
Anonymous
+0

Why on earth would you shoot in RAW, only to convert it to a narrow color space like sRGB?

Reply6 replies
Version 1.1
Anonymous Member Icon
Anonymous
+0

Advanced Photojunkies take RAW because it didn't change anything on the picture. You can say RAW is the (color) negativ off a photo. All other formats changed something with the photo before they store it. So in RAW you will have to do more things with your photo as in any other ways to store a picture.

Why must we transform a RAW to something like TIFF for manipulate the pic? That's the way the company of the camera code a picture in RAW! So Canon RAW isn't the same as Nikon RAW. Thats the problem for a converter. It must convert the different RAWs into something like a TIFF. More you can read is here: http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm and here: http://ronbigelow.com/articles/raw2/raw2.htm

Anonymous Member Icon
Anonymous
+1

Why shoot in RAW? That's a typical remark from somebody who's snapshots never go beyond red-eyed family shootings. This is an excellent application for it's price. Well done.

Steven Skoczen
+0

Both respondants have missed the point of the question.

You shoot in RAW to capture more details, and hopefully make your image look better when you HAVE to convert it to sRGB for display online.

The poster is quite correct that shooting in high-depth and processing at 16 bit doesn't make much sense if you're going to re-compress the colors back down to 8-bit sRGB and end up with the same image.

Generally though, that's not the case.

Anonymous Member Icon
Anonymous
+0

Nobody said you should always convert a RAW to sRGB. Sometimes a RAW image needs to be output in different versions. One for print, another for the web... sRGB is the only color space for the web that makes sense. If you want to take a roll of RAW images and make web images out of it, the fastest way would be to set the converter to sRGB and walk away.

There's another, more subtle point. If you put a pro behind a raw converter, the pro may be able to set up the raw converter to extract the optimal range of data to put into the sRGB file. Making it possible for the pro to make better use of sRGB than shooting in JPEG. So there is a purpose to all this.

Raifra (Developer)
+0

Color space conversion to sRGB is optional, and it's intended as an "play save" option for those not too comfortable with color management.

Everybody using (and understanding) color management should definitely uncheck sRGB conversion and assign a color space with a large gamut (in Photoshop or similar app).

Bye, Rainer.

BumbleB
+0

Not always so guys...

sRGB is a narrow color space perfect for ensuring the best results when uploading images to the web. I use it as a webdesigner.

AdobeRGB is wider, and supported by most cameras. Though, ProPhoto is a better, wider choice.

Anyway, why shoot in RAW when ending up downgrading the image, somehow, for example converting it to JPEG, sRGB? Simple:

Raw gives the opportunity to tweak and color grade and correct overexposure and underexposure, then creating a TIFF or JPEG. Had you just shot the image as JPEG in the first place, all those color and exposure corrections would look horrible.

sRGB is a wrong choice if you plan to print your image, but it's an ok choice to convert to that profile if you put your images on the web.

That's why there are different profiles: They are meant to fit their individual purposes. You can't just say: "ProPhoto is king - use it always" - that would be missing the point entirely.

user icon+1
Renzotavanti
Version 2.3.4
> 4 4

Ratings

Overall
(4)
Current Version (2.x)
(2)

Details

Downloads 19,560
Version Downloads 543
License Free
Date 08 Feb 2014
Platform OS X / PPC 32 / Intel 32
Price Free
Learn how MacUpdate Desktop makes installing apps from MacUpdate.com one-click easy.
Next time, install Rawker with 1-click

Learn how MacUpdate Desktop can install apps on MacUpdate with the simple click of the Install apps with MacUpdate Desktop icon. Plus, keep all your apps updated. Play video...