Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/01/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I use Capture One version 8, in my opinion is much better than LR, I use LR only with my B&W scans due to the facility to remove unlimited dust spots. Lluis El 6/1/2017 6:37, "Peter Klein" <boulanger.croissant at gmail.com> escribi?: > Douglas: I use Capture One. A "light" version came with my M8. I soon > purchased the Pro version and have stuck with it through many upgrades. > Like Lightroom, C-One is considered a fully professional tool, and keeps up > with support for virtually every significant camera made. Also, C-One can > be purchased outright--unlike Adobe's rental model, which I oppose on > principle. The recent versions have layers and layer masks, so you can do > local exposure/contrast/color adjustments, cloning and (to a limited > extent) "healing." The C-One layers are not as advanced as Photoshop's, > but C-One does 98% of what I've ever needed. > > For the remaining 2%, I use Picture Window Pro, *after* I've done my RAW > work. PWP has a generic RAW converter, which requires a lot more manual > work to get the basic conversion right than Capture One or Lightroom. The > latter two have built-in profiles for most cameras. PWP's RAW processor is > basically a GUI interface to DCRAW, which is built into program. You have > to figure out the settings on your own, or use someone else's recipe. > > Personally, I would not use PWP for its RAW converter. I use it for what > my RAW converter don't do or don't do as well. PWP's RAW can work well, > but I find it better suited to people who are more interested in the > technical minutae of RAW conversion than in actually taking pictures. Such > people can do as well with it as with Lightroom or C-One, but I'm not one > of them. PWP's RAW converter enabled me to learn a lot about how RAW > converters work, and to play with RAW files from new cameras. But > inevitably, when Lightroom or C-One come out with a camera profile, often > with help from the camera maker, it always is quite a bit better than what > I can do with PWP. > > Before C-One had layers and layer masks, I did my initial global work > (affecting the whole image) in C-One. Then I saved the file as a 16-bit > TIFF. Then I'd work on the TIFF in PWP, doing local adjustments with masks, > cloning, and such. Today, I usually find C-One sufficient. And I've still > got my copy of PWP for the occasional esoteric stuff that C-One doesn't do. > > I will not get into a holy war about whether C-One or Lightroom is better. > As with all complex tools, which one is better depends on what you need to > do. For most of us, either will do quite nicely. I'd say that if you are > serious about RAW work, you owe it to yourself to have one of the two. > C-One is probably less expensive in the long run. If you have an esoteric > need, your best bet is to do a Net search of that feature and look for > reviews or user comments that mention the feature and the programs of > interest in depth. > > Also note that Fuji X-Trans files have some special processing > requirements. The consensus I've read is that Capture One is somewhat > better than Lightroom for Fuji files, especially for landscapes with lots > of green in them. Each handles the colors a little differently. You might > want to research that further. There's also SilkyPix, which is what Fuji > recommends. But that means using something that is very different from > everything else out there, and might not be the best for any other camera > make. > > Jonathan Sachs, the author of PWP (and also the co-author of the original > Lotus 123), just discontinued development on PWP. The final version is now > available for free here: > <http://dl-c.com/> > > Since PWP is a mature, full-featured image editor, I see no reason not to > have it if you need a good general purpose image editor. IMHO it's *much* > better than any of the other free or low-cost programs out there. I chose > it over Photoshop and Photoshop Elements years ago. (Of course, if Elements > is fine for you, look no further). PWP's major downsides are: > > (1) It does not do layers, so you have to save several versions of > your image if you want to go back and change something. > (2) Its user interface is a little different from most Windows > programs, which annoys some people. > > Hope this helps! > > --Peter > > > > I have been using Picture Window Pro 7.0 for some time, and it does > > fine, but is being discontinued. I own my software, but there will be > > no more updates for new cameras. At present, it does not support RAF > > files from the X-T2, which I have been considering. It works fine with > > RAF files from the X-E1. That is why I was exploring LR. > > > > Jim Nichols > > Tullahoma, TN USA > > > > On 1/5/2017 4:59 PM, Douglas Barry wrote: > > > Having never shot a RAW file since I discovered my Fuji X100S files > > > were not compatible with my old LR nearly four years ago, I'm > > > wondering are there any low cost PC alternatives to Lightroom that > > > would enble me to import Fuji RAW and convert to Tiff as I need the > > > resolution for printing?? JPGs don't cut it for larger sizes. I'd like > > > to hear from anybody who is using alternative PC software to import > > > RAW files and how it's working for them. > > > > > > I'm also buying a Sony A7ii so it would be useful if it could do the > > > same trick with Sony RAW files. I do little manipulation so I'm happy > > > to use my existing PSE software which can deal with Tiffs easily. > > > > > > Douglas > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >