A better job

[Bill Pierce]

I was a darkroom nut when I shot film, and I’m a computer nut now that I shoot primarily digital. Let a new image processing program come down the pike and I’ll try it, usually buying it so I can give it a full, long term workout. But I still have yet to find anything more effective than the Lightroom/Photoshop combo. I was recently clearing out the unused programs from my computer’s hard disc and moved Photoshop 2 to the trash. I think I had already moved the original, and I’ve used Lightroom since it was introduced.

No, I don’t like Adobe’s subscription policy and don’t see the constant improvements that fans talked about in the early days. (However, if I stopped buying every processing program that was introduced I’d probably be well ahead financially on the subscription policy.) No, I don’t think Lightroom does a comparable job with Fuji files (files from the only other digital cameras outside of Leica rangefinders with a bright line finder) as some of its competitors, but Iridient Developer and Iridient X-Transformer let me produce digital files in Lightroom that are as good or better than Fuji files in any other program.

But, I’m enough of an image processing junky that I’d like to know if you think there are other programs that do a better job with your photography, better by your definition, not programs you like more because Adobe has offended a lot of folks, but programs that do for you a better job. And, of course, why they do a “better” job.

 

[PRJ]

People are going to give you a bunch of programs because they use them so they think they are great.

If you are already using Lightroom/Photoshop and you aren't having any issues then stick with it. The only other program i use is Capture One because the color is better. It isn't very good at cataloging though which is what Lightroom's real purpose is. Capture One is free for a month if you want to try it. Not sure if it reads Fuji files though, but you already have that problem so no big deal i guess.....

Another alternative that is quite good, especially for people who don't want to pay for anything is Hasselblad's Phocus. It doesn't work with all raw files though. You can get the full blown version free, and it is good enough for professional Hassy use, so you can imagine the quality of it. I'd say both produce better results than Lightroom, but Lightroom wins on convenience. Phocus is good for working on film scans as well, which is nice. I haven't used it enough to go past the basic stuff, so maybe it isn't that great in the end, don't know.

I've been doing everything digital that is new in Capture One lately because the color is just plain better. I'm going to give it a whirl long term to see if it will be good enough overall.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

The thing is, Adobe is the only game in town. Full stop.

I have tried every other RAW converter out there and ALL produce inferior image quality with the RAW files from my Canon 5DmkII, as well as those from older digital cameras I once owned (Nikon D70, D200, and Kodak DCS 14N). This is especially true with the 5DmkII and high-ISO work. I often shoot at ISO-3200 and 6400 on that camera, and the sharpening and noise reduction in Lightroom CC are so far head of those in anything else, even Capture One, that the files would be unusable to me if I had to use any other editor.

It sucks paying Adobe every month, but this is my livelihood, and its just not worth throwing away image quality to save $11 a month.

 

[ptpdprinter]

Life is short. LR/PS are the industry standards, and for a reason. I have spent several years learning my way around them. I have no desire to put in the same time and effort learning other programs on the off chance they are better. I'd rather be making photographs. I am not crazy about the subscription model, but it is peanuts compared to my monthly costs for supplies and materials. Haven't been to Starbucks in years, so I can afford it.

 

[Dogman]

When I chemically processed and printed, I tried to settle on a routine and a selection of materials that gave good results without complicating the process. I didn't experiment much because consistency was more important for me than searching for what might be marginally better results.

For the last two years or so, I use Lightroom for everything. Prior to that I used whatever program came with the camera for Raw conversion and Picasa for printing. Proprietary programs like Canon's DPP and Olympus Viewer were pretty good but Picasa was a bit heavy handed yet simple (and I'm big on being simple).

I know LR catches grief for its processing of Fuji Raw files but it's fine for my purposes. It also simplifies the process and, again, that's important to me. I don't plan on jumping on the subscription model right away. I can still use LR6 for the time being. Maybe by the time I need to update, something else will be be available. If not, I guess I'll bite the bullet and do the subscription thing.

 

[willie_901]

I am not an admirer of Adobe. Their customer support is appalling.

For me the LR/PS solution has many advantages. The subscription model doesn't annoy me because I always upgraded the stand alone version(s).

The improvements with LR have been slow but steady. The most recent LR Classic CC is significantly faster on OS X High Sierra and this is the first version of LR that does not become progressively slower during long sessions using the Development Panel.

I tried other raw rendering platforms and did not see any significant advantage with XTrans raw renderings. This was not the case several years ago. Actually the FUJIFILM Camera Calibration Profiles are useful staring points. However, I do use a very different rendering workflow and Slider parameters compared to what I used for the thousands of Nikon raw files I rendered from 2007 through 2014.

I use the NIK plug-ins (mostly Silver Efex). I use to use PS regularly for selective color temperature rendering. My interests have e changed and I rarely use LR now. I will be rescanning some negatives this year so I will start to use PS more.

 

[Larry Cloetta]

The only other program i use is Capture One because the color is better.
.

Spending way too much time, on too many and widely varied web sites, I have heard this a lot over the last couple of years, mostly concerning files generated by Sony or, especially, recent Leica processing engines. And it tends to come from people who, when presenting results, present work which actually does demonstrate noticeably "better color". And by better color I mean, more natural, realistic, and rich, as opposed to more saturated and over-clarity-slidered. The evidence has been enough to convince me there is something there, but not enough to convince me, yet, to take more years learning a completely new system. Yet.
On the other hand, it is certainly possible that the results I am (undoubtedly) seeing with Capture One are just due to the fact that those showing those results are just better at using software, by and large, than those people using the "industry standard." And even those people getting those results with Capture One tend to feel it is somewhat "clunky" in operation as compared to LR/PS.
Perhaps it is an alternative worth looking at again, for those who haven't.

 

[Ronald M]

Does a musician buy a new violin every month or a cabinet maker a new table saw. NO.

Nothing is perfect so you learn to use what you have to the best advantage.

Two things I don`t like are the profusion of new things I don`t even know about and can`t use and the time it takes to find and learn them.

Non support of older mac OS so when you upgrade it does not support the PS you have.
Or the reverse. So there is a constant swing to upgrade one or the other and then you find the computer can`t be upgraded so you get a new one. I use one for PS only, then
keep it off line. Works mostly.

LR and catalog stinks. Way too complicated and you can lose things and it does nothing PS & bridge can not do. I already know how PS works. Every try to learn LR ends is disaster. I get it mostly, but something hidden shows up.

 

[stompyq]

Spending way too much time, on too many and widely varied web sites, I have heard this a lot over the last couple of years, mostly concerning files generated by Sony or, especially, recent Leica processing engines. And it tends to come from people who, when presenting results, present work which actually does demonstrate noticeably "better color". And by better color I mean, more natural, realistic, and rich, as opposed to more saturated and over-clarity-slidered. The evidence has been enough to convince me there is something there, but not enough to convince me, yet, to take more years learning a completely new system. Yet.
On the other hand, it is certainly possible that the results I am (undoubtedly) seeing with Capture One are just due to the fact that those showing those results are just better at using software, by and large, than those people using the "industry standard." And even those people getting those results with Capture One tend to feel it is somewhat "clunky" in operation as compared to LR/PS.
Perhaps it is an alternative worth looking at again, for those who haven't.

I gave up on LR halfway through 2017 when I bought a Fuji X100F. The old standalone LR 5 I was using wouldn't process the Fuji RAW files and I was forced to either abandon LR or buy that stupid subscription model (and be held hostage by adobe). I decided to try capture one and eventually moved completely from LR to C1. So I ended up reprocessing nearly all the images from 2017 in C1. The transition was very easy and I prefer the edits and the colors from C1 over LR.

That being said PS is a completely different matter. I miss the seamless transitions from LR to PS and back. I now have to export from C1 and then open the TIFF file in PS. PS is the only game in town as far as I'm concerned. If you can get away without it (I can't) then C1 is a fantastic alternative.
Unfortunately, as much as I hate it, I will eventually have to cave in to adobes subscription model. PS CS6 which I use will not last me forever

 

[Peter_S]

Capture One Pro 11.

Switched from LR, no regrets - all Leica files (M Monochrom, M9, X1). Its abilities are somewhere between LR and PS. I have less need for external editing (particularly b/w) than I had in LR. Initial rendering in C1 is subjectively better than in LR, and if I need more work, I have more options than in LR. C1 film presets are good. Not for the actual "film look" (I shoot film, too), but fast edits.
Still, if I do need it, SEP is perfectly usable with C1.

I prefer the Sessions in C1 over catalogues in LR, but I seem to be among the few who do. May be because we got so accustomed to the catalogue thing (which surely works).

Print finishing was easier in LR, however. So is working with scans - but C1 gets the job done (save for b/w scans, they need conversion).

I do not really miss PS (I use GIMP for the odd job that C1 does not get done).

Wish I had switched earlier. That said, LR is great.

 

[Darthfeeble]

For Fuji Xtrans files, I've found that the difference between LR and other programs is negligible. Possibly the Capture One program might be enough better but i just can't get going with the interface. So then, I was drug kicking and scratching into the subscription program and while I don't like that, it seems to be the best game in town. I bought Capture One, and it has yet to update to my X-E3 and it looks like I have to pay for an upgrade to get there. Fooey on that!

 

[Pioneer]

I have no idea if there is anything better. For the past several years I have been using Photoshop and have slowly, painfully, learned to do the things I need to do. I am not about to go through that process again. My cameras and printers play well with Photoshop so that is good enough for me.

I did try Lightroom, even took a couple of classes on it. Not for me.

I do have GIMP and I do fiddle around with it once in awhile. If I do reach the point where Photoshop 6 no longer works I'll begin the painful process all over with that program.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Then I purchased first FujiDigital camera ten+ years ago it has RAW file and crappy software to deal with it. Couple of years later I switched to Canon DSLR and RAW files where supported not only by LR, but windows. I remember how here at RFF, in 2017 someone still complained about FujiDigital RAW files issues. To me it is clear STOP sign. I don't need digital camera from manufacturer who can't figure our how to make RAW file right for more than one decade.

I have old stand alone LR which works with Win 7 now just as it worked years ago and I have tried current in 2016 LR, it was crashing, slow garbage. So, I'm not looking for any alternatives at this time. Old LR works, computer works. My Leica, Canon RAW files are supported.

 

[RichC]

The thing is, Adobe is the only game in town. Full stop. [...] even Capture One, that the files would be unusable to me if I had to use any other editor.

Have to disagree, Chris! Capture One 11 is superb, and its local adjustments using masks on layers leave Lightroom in the dust for ease of use and quality. This means less work in Photoshop - which is not only more convenient but increases image quality as you're working on the raw data rather than a bitmap image.

Yes, Capture One isn't cheap but its worth the money: designed primarily for Phase One's cameras costing up to $50,000, its users expect similar performance from their software, so I can safely so it's good enough for me...!

That said, Lightroom is very good (excepting its masks and local adjustments) - and things that Capture One does better won't matter to many folk.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Have to disagree, Chris! Capture One 11 is superb, and its local adjustments using masks on layers leave Lightroom in the dust for ease of use and quality. This means less work in Photoshop - which is not only more convenient but increases image quality as you're working on the raw data rather than a bitmap image.

Yes, Capture One isn't cheap but its worth the money: designed primarily for Phase One's cameras costing up to $50,000, its users expect similar performance from their software, so I can safely so it's good enough for me...!

That said, Lightroom is very good (excepting its masks and local adjustments) - and things that Capture One does better won't matter to many folk.

No, its not. Sorry. Try shooting some high-iso work and see the difference in fine detail resolution. Capture one doesn't even come close to Lightroom. I can get rid of the noise in LR without losing fine detail, where in C1 is gets smeared. This is a well-known weakness of C1. Even at low-ISOs, the sharpening and noise reduction in C1 is primitive compared to Adobe, but the images are good looking since they have no noise to begin with.

I've compared them extensively, and its itsn't even close. C1 also renders colors too warm with my camera. Some people like what that does to skin tones, but I prefer accurate color that I can choose to adjust.

 

[David_Manning]

I guess I'm the only one who extensively used, and misses, Aperture from Apple. Seems I bet wrong twice...Aperture has been replaced by the consumer-friendly Apple Photos app, and Nik SilverEfex will be going away, too.

I love b&w using my RAW files, so I'm trying to learn a new tool...I bought the subscription models of PS and Lightroom Classic. Still trying to come to grips with LR...I think I like the grain engine, but getting to a good starting point is more difficult.

 

[ptpdprinter]

...Nik SilverEfex will be going away, too.

DxO bought Nik Collection from Google and is re-releasing it.

https://nikcollection.dxo.com/

 

[David_Manning]

That's good news, but I wonder if it'll be compatible with LR, PS, etc.

Fingers crossed.

 

[RichC]

No, its not. Sorry. Try shooting some high-iso work and see the difference in fine detail resolution. Capture one doesn't even come close to Lightroom. I can get rid of the noise in LR without losing fine detail, where in C1 is gets smeared. This is a well-known weakness of C1. Even at low-ISOs, the sharpening and noise reduction in C1 is primitive compared to Adobe, but the images are good looking since they have no noise to begin with.

I've compared them extensively, and its itsn't even close. C1 also renders colors too warm with my camera. Some people like what that does to skin tones, but I prefer accurate color that I can choose to adjust.

I have an Adobe CC subscription for work, so have the latest Lightroom - in addition to Capture One. Like you, I did extensive testing - with one exception: high ISO, as I never shoot faster than ISO 400. I'll take what you say about noise reduction in Capture One, as I don't have noise in my low-ISO images! But I disagree about Capture One's sharpening: Imfound it as good as Lightroom's, at least for images without noise. Anyway, certainly for low-ISO images, I can't fault how Capture One handles photos.

As for colour, I think both Lightroom and Capture One suck! I've always preferred the colour in the raw converters provided by Canon and Nikon - the only good thing about those programs!

I 100% agree with you about Capture One's colour - far too warm and saturated for my tastes. I'm currently using the import settings for an early Canon instead of the Nikon D800E default - which gives cooler, less saturated colours.

Proof? Here's a thorough review by someone where you can easily see example comparisons between the two programs using images you can pull "live" sliders across: http://www.digitalbristles.com/capture-one-pro-beats-lightroom-except-where-it-doesnt/. It's for the older Capture One 9, but I found the same results for my tests with Capture One 10 and 11 - except that Capture One had pulled further ahead of Lightroom on features and occasionally performance in some areas (notably local adjustments).

Digital cameras and raw converters never give accurate colours by default - just like film colours aren't true - so I don't bother trying for real-life colours but instead go for what I like, which tends towards the cool desaturation of overexposed films like Portra 400.

 

[kbb]

Bill, Would you share your thoughts on the sharpening settings you employ in Iridient Transformer Fuji-X raw conversions? I am having trouble making Iridient Transformer match the detail/sharpness look of the Photo Ninja default settings for Fuji-X raw files.