[Leica] PC alternatives to Lightroom???

Douglas Barry imra at iol.ie
Fri Jan 6 10:39:26 PST 2017 

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

More information about the LUG mailing list