[Leica] PC alternatives to Lightroom???

[Lluis Ripoll]

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> escribió:

> 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
>