[Leica] PC alternatives to Lightroom???

Fri Jan 6 07:49:11 PST 2017

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>
> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information