[Leica] PC alternatives to Lightroom???

Fri Jan 6 06:41:21 PST 2017

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>
> 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
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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