Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/01/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Douglas, I use both. The only issue (apart from the lack of intuitiveness of C1) is that with LR you can open your files in CC (or PS I guess), as a smart layer. For me this is important as I can go back and correct "development" issues that may arise when I post process in LR. C1 does not do that. I find CC to be a critical workflow tool and the ability to return to make raw file adjustments in LR or Adobe Camera Raw along the way is very helpful. YMMV, Bob PS, I'm tending now more toward LR as there is an unsupported Adobe plug-in that will correct the light falloff from WA lenses, especially shifted ones. Perhaps not as good as C1's fully supported Lens Cast Calibration (LCC) function, but good enough for many images. That ability (to correct fall off) is also critical for me. Bob Adler www.robertadlerphotography.com *"Capturing Light One Frame At A Time"* On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Douglas Barry <imra at iol.ie> wrote: > Thanks to everybody for all their suggestions which I've kept for > reference. I better clarify that I DO use LR, but it is ancient - version > 1.3 - and the only reason I haven't upgraded to enable me to shoot and > download RAW is because I dislike the rental idea, but that's just me as I > prefer to own things. Anyway, it's blown up in my face three and a half > years later, as I can't get decent 20x16 prints that are needed for an > exhibition from the fine jpgs I currently get from the camera. > > That said, as Frank pointed out, it appears that I'll get Capture One with > the A7ii, so I can wait the couple of weeks to try that out. SilkyPix which > Peter also mentioned have good offers and I'll download that afterwards. > > Thanks everybody > > Douglas > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "piers at hemy.org" <piers.hemy at > gmail.com> > To: "Leica Users Group" <lug at leica-users.org> > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 3:49 PM > Subject: Re: [Leica] PC alternatives to Lightroom??? > > > > And I agree with both Gerry and Tina, having used LR since version 1, and >> its predecessor RawShooter. Intuitive and flexible both. But if you >> insist, >> take a look at Corel AfterShotPro. >> >> Piers >> >> On 6 Jan 2017 2:41 p.m., "Tina Manley" <tmanley at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >