Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/01/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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