RAINER FRAEDRICH  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.  
(Version 1.1.7)

ANONYMOUS  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  
(Version 1.1.3)

GJ  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.  
(Version 1.1.3)

STEVEN SKOCZEN  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.  
(Version 1.1.3)

ANONYMOUS  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.  
(Version 1.1.3)

RAINER FRAEDRICH  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.  
(Version 1.1.7)

BUMBLEB  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.  
(Version 2.1)