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 agree with Gerry. LR is very intuitive, fast, works with all of my plug-ins, and is a great cataloging system that I use to find any photo in my 900,000+ files in seconds. Tina On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Gerry Walden <gerry.walden at icloud.com> wrote: > Just a warning to the wise for Douglas. If you have converted images to > .dng files using Lightroom then Capture One will not recognise them. It > will recognise native .dng images from Leica digital cameras though. I have > to agree with Lluis that I think it is better as a raw converter but it is > no where near as intuitive as Lightroom, and for me the advantages of LR > outweigh the disadvantages of C1. I have been on the Photographers plan for > some time now (more or less since it was introduced) and really don?t > understand the reluctance of people to sign up. Adobe support is very good > and C1 support can be slow. > > Gerry > > > On 6 Jan 2017, at 13:57, Lluis Ripoll <lluisripollphotography at > > gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > 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 > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- Tina Manley www.tinamanley.com tina-manley.artistwebsites.com http://www.alamy.com/stock-photography/3B49552F-90A0-4D0A-A11D-2175C937AA91/Tina+Manley.html