A brief and abortive foray into other raw processors

In my career- I have heard "That's Impossible" many times. I came in on the end of the WW-II generation at the Lab. "The difficult we do today, the impossible might take longer".
I'll add to that: "the Difficult we do today, for the Impossible- I use Fortran." I started there 46 years ago this month. I "unretired" today, asked to work on a new project. If you can solve a big problem that no one else has solutions- no one cares what programming language is used.

Why do Jedi Masters use Fortran?
"In Fortran, there is no TRY. There is only DO". Some of my "users" refer to me as Master Yoda. I think they are referring to my age...
 
Archiver said:
I've been using Lightroom 4.4 for many, many years. I missed buying a license key for Lightroom 6, which means that LR4 is the last standalone version of Lightroom I can access, unless I brave the high seas. It's been pretty good, doing more or less what I want it to do, and I know it inside out. The only problem is that cameras that came after the Panasonic LX7 are not supported, which means using Adobe DNG Converter to transform later raw files into something LR4 can handle. This creates another layer of work that I have borne with for years, but I finally wondered if any other raw processor will give me the same or better look as LR4.

Well.

Two prominent options are Raw Therapee and Capture One Pro. RT is freeware, with a slightly clunky interface and a surprising number of options that LR4 seems to lack. C1 has a subscription and standalone payment process, both of which are quite expensive. As of Dec 2024, C1 standalone is $549 USD, and subscribing for a year is about $300 USD. Yuck.

I tried both programs with a number of files from my Leica M9, Panasonic GX85, G9 and S5, which are my most used cameras. After a couple of hours of adjustments and experimentation, it seems that C1 Pro does a better job that Raw Therapee with these files in terms of colour and exposure adjustment, and Raw Therapee uses an awful HSV colour channel implementation that is nothing like the HSL slider feature of Lightroom. The images were acceptable, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out how to tweak HSV the way I wanted.

Most critically, LR4 gives me effortless and pleasing adjustments to M9 files, where both C1 and RT require a lot more fiddling. Oddly, raising M9 file exposure in LR4 results in a bright and attractive image, but it isn't the same with RT or C1.

So I'm sticking with LR4 for now, although I'll try Luminar later. I am attempting to slowly wean myself from Adobe and their subscription model, and their use of you assets to train AI.

Back to editing the Christmas images. Have a great new year, everyone!
Click to expand...
Actually, Archiver, Lightroom 5.7 is the last standalone version of LR - I have it on my P.C. for this reason.

I got mine from England I think, on eBay, a number of years ago and it may be available somewhere still - I have not checked. I am not sure what differences there may be between your version of LR and version 5.7........... I suspect very little so it's probably academic for you, though others may care to look for it. I had no desire to pay monthly fees either so for me it was a no-brainer. The only slight disadvantage is that this older version of LR does not support some later camera's versions of RAW files. But this can be overcome by using Adobe RAW converter to convert these files to DNG format first then importing those DNG files into LR 5.7. A bit clunky because of this added step but far better than paying monthly fees and being a constantly a slave to Adobe. And in any event, DNG is a ubiquitous / universal format that pretty well every image editor can open as far as I know.

I run my LR 5.7 with both the old Nik Suite (which was available free for a number of years as "abandon ware") and also with Corel Paintshop Pro (PSP) version 2019 as plugins to LR. Both of these software suites can run in standalone mode (i.e. without using LR if desired) but I have them configured to run as "plug ins" to LR as I say. This allows me to drop into these plugins any time I need their extra capabilities and then save the resulting image back into LR when those edits are completed. This is useful as in effect LR can continue to be used as the management and database tool for my images even if many of the edits have been completed via plugins. Typically, I use LR initially to handle the primary / basic edits - color, tone, contrast, exposure - and then drop into these other programs for additional artistic "window-dressing" before taking them back into LR once editing is complete, as mentioned above.

One advantage of Corel PSP is that it is very like an older version of Adobe Photoshop and I find it simpler to use than Photoshop, though somewhat less powerful - though having said that it is still powerful enough for most of my needs. I mainly use PSP because it supports "layers" functionality and this facility can be extremely useful sometimes and for certain edits. In addition, I have also configured Nik suite to run as a plugin under Corel PSP as well as LR. This is useful quite often - when any plugin is run directly under Lightroom, Lightroom creates a copy of the image to be edited each time. If I wish to perform multiple edits using say, Nik Color Efex, then Nick Analog Efex and then Nik Silver Efex for example, should I do this directly from Lightroom I would have three additional copies of the base image - an extra one each time I invoke one of these plugins. This is not always a good way to work. But if I instead drop into Corel PSP from LR then drop from Corel PSP into any (or all) of the Nik plugins from PSP I only end up with one extra copy of the base image in LR. Ultimately when I hit "save" in Corel PSP having finished all my edits the edited image is then exported back into LR. I find this most convenient.

To be honest I cannot see the need to upgrade to later versions of LR either. Certainly any additional benefits from doing so are outweighed (in my case) by the added cost of the monthly fees attaching to the later software. In addition, while I know this later software can run later versions of Nik software as plugins, I suspect they may no longer support the older (freeware) version. I am unwilling to lose the functionality that software provides. And I am unwilling to be forced into also paying for the later version of the Nik software.
 
Last edited:
Sonnar Brian said:
f you can solve a big problem that no one else has solutions- no one cares what programming language is used.
Click to expand...

It all looks the same on the user's screen or in the results. What is scary is being handed a pile of kludges where it is a tossup whether to junk it and start from scratch or try to shoehorn in some good code. It all looks the same to the user. And they never understand why it took so long. ;o)
 
I was on a hunt for a Lightroom replacement a couple of years back. I tried at least a dozen different apps—and none of them did the job as well as Lightroom Classic, for me. So I bought the subscription package from Adobe, pay $10 or so per month for the privilege, and just use it.

Because I just want to do my photography and not mess around with the computer and programming all the time...

That's worth the monthly fee IMO. Adobe keeps upgraded and expanding what LR Classic can do. One of my brothers needed a little edit done on a couple of photos for a job he's working on ... I thought for a moment I'd need to install Photoshop to do it and it would take me a half hour to do after that. But no: the latest "AI powered" clone and replace operation made it a five second job in Lightroom Classic. He received the photos back before he even realized I had received them.

I'm only interested in what works, for me, when it comes to this stuff. LR Classic does the job right, and I don't need to waste any effort mucking with other options right now. 🙂

G
 
On the recommendation of @jaapv I bought a standalone copy of ON1 Raw when it was on a high discount. Very inexpensive compared with Capture One or other programs. It's a reasonable program, and it processes my M9 files in the same way as Lightroom. Leica SL2S and Panasonic S files are a bit different, and there is some strange pink chroma noise in the shadows that isn't there in LR4. LR can push exposure further where ON1 breaks the file earlier. Wacky that a current raw processor doesn't handle some of these things as well as a program that is 13 years old! Maybe I'm missing something in ON1 and I should experiment with it more, but I'm still working with LR4 and converting raw files to DNG where necessary.
 
What I did for ART: I discovered both ART and Lightroom use ".DCP" files, digital camera profiles. These use a standard format to describe the Raw file format of each camera, with conversion profiles. I copied the profiles that I liked from Lightroom to ART.

SO: If the Raw Processor uses "DCP" files, you might be able to make the new processor match the older one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Which software?
Replies
9
Views
883
Michael Markey
Michael Markey
A
Luminar Neo update is out!
Replies
0
Views
636
AndyCapp
A
mrtoml
Hand Held Hi Res (HHHR) mode and the Panasonic G9 II
Replies
7
Views
744
Godfrey
Godfrey
Timmyjoe
Apple taking aim at Adobe?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Godfrey
Godfrey
Rogier
FujiFilm X100VI Raw (.RAF) files
Replies
17
Views
8K
Rogier
Rogier
Back
Top Bottom