Digital Developers

[Ko.Fe.]

As darkroom user who went to bw darkroom printing and ENC-2, C-41, E6 developing... I'm finding it slightly sissy if someone calls post processing software as developer.

 

[Oscuro]

Dear Bill,

D76 and ilfostop Just kidding! But long ago, yes. And for a while Coolscan9000 but...

We using PhotoMechanic (v6) for asset management, RAID for storage, Genuine Fractals for upres, Noise Ninja until the last few generations of sensors. PS to manage NN and GF but mostly for to get the file to the printer with everything profiled (in house), and of course, Epson 3880/7890 for the printing. At work, jpeg straight to the photo editor -- mostly from the phone/iPad...They are always moving their choices around but mostly I think PS/LR and we don't know much about what happens after that - but sometimes published looks "funny"!!.. Books are all rephotographed from original prints, of course.

Now for the heresy!!. Some editors say we must use "approved editor software" (blah blah blah) - you already know how little we like to post-pro ... But my darling husband has been using an iPad and Snapseed (sometimes on his phone also) and nobody has said anything to himself. He has the light touch. But sometimes he re-frames and does contrast recovery. He says it is fun for the B&W conversions!! He is trying to get a good split look on black and white with the Snapseed...mostly he checking back with PS for that. (This is all for digital delivery of news/commentary but also much print.

XXOO Mme. O.

 

[robert blu]

There are many digital developers because the market supports diverse solutions.

In the end this is a Canon or Nikon? type of argument. The answer is the same: just use what you prefer. If changes or problems occur in the future, switch platforms.

I have enjoyed commercial and personal success with Lightroom.

I chose LR because it saves me huge amounts of time and was flexible. In those cases where LR's features were insufficient, using plug-ins or even manually transferring images back and forth with stand-alone solutions was simple. I stayed with LR for three reasons. 1) Switching platforms would require a significant amount of time I'd rather spend doing something else. 2) LR's capabilities have steadily improved with each update and over time these updates offer significant advantages. 3) The price is reasonable in relationship to other costs associated with digital and, or analog photography.

The Adobe subscription issue is moot. Application subscriptions are common place. Millions of people use them. They are not going away. Stand-alone purchases that eventually require re-purchases for updates aren't going away either. Millions of people prefer these.

For images I didn't create with my camera or phone I occasionally use Pixelmater (OS X) or OS X Photos . This isolates these two categories of images.

I have zero interest in exploring LR alternates.

Exactly my thought, I'm LR user since the first version when I used it mainly to organize and develop the scans of my negatives. I like it now also for my digital photography.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I use Lightroom Classic CC, the subscription version of Lightroom. I use it because it gives the best image quality, full stop.

I shoot RAW for EVERYTHING. Even snapshots of my cat:


Sneaky. Photographed with an Olympus OM-D E-M1 mk II with the 12-40mm f2.8 Olympus Pro lens at ISO-3200, processed in Lightroom. Micro 4/3rds cameras are noisy at 3200, but LR did a great job of suppressing noise while keeping fine detail in Sneaky's fur.


With every camera I have ever owned, RAW gives greater fine detail resolution, better color, and the ability to adjust white balance without loss of image quality compared to doing the same with a JPEG. What a lot of photographers don't understand is that the RAW converter you uses greatly affects the amount of fine detail visible in your photos. This is from a combination of the demosaicing algorithm used, the quality of the sharpening, and the quality of the noise reduction the software offers.

I have tried just about every piece of RAW software out there and the only ones that come close to equaling the image quality of Lightroom are Skylum Luminar and Photo Ninja, and both of them are SLOW on my old Mac Pro and neither are as easy to use in my opinion. Capture One has great color rendering, but high-ISO noise reduction is greatly inferior to LR.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I seem to be almost hopelessly bonded to Aperture. I have it on all three of my Apple computers and have purchased an extra copy for when I add my next iMac. I like Aperture's method of filing the photos, as well as the controls for developing them. I feel confident with Aperture. I tried LR, and got messed up with the means of storing/filing/retrieving. I lost my pictures and couldn't get them back. And I tied Capture One--I still have the CD for installing it--but could never make it do anything.

Rob, have you tried RAW Power? (https://www.gentlemencoders.com/raw-power-for-macos/index.html) I believe it was developed by former members of the Aperture team and looks very similar to Aperture.

I used Aperture when I was doing more digital photography, and quite liked it. After Apple discontinued it and I was shooting more film, I moved over to Apple Photos.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

There are many digital developers because the market supports diverse solutions.

In the end this is a Canon or Nikon? type of argument. The answer is the same: just use what you prefer. If changes or problems occur in the future, switch platforms.

I have enjoyed commercial and personal success with Lightroom.

I chose LR because it saves me huge amounts of time and was flexible. In those cases where LR's features were insufficient, using plug-ins or even manually transferring images back and forth with stand-alone solutions was simple. I stayed with LR for three reasons. 1) Switching platforms would require a significant amount of time I'd rather spend doing something else. 2) LR's capabilities have steadily improved with each update and over time these updates offer significant advantages. 3) The price is reasonable in relationship to other costs associated with digital and, or analog photography.

The Adobe subscription issue is moot. Application subscriptions are common place. Millions of people use them. They are not going away. Stand-alone purchases that eventually require re-purchases for updates aren't going away either. Millions of people prefer these.

For images I didn't create with my camera or phone I occasionally use Pixelmater (OS X) or OS X Photos . This isolates these two categories of images.

I have zero interest in exploring LR alternates.

The subscription issue is not moot. I think it's a significant factor in choosing software. Not the only factor, but a very significant one. I would never choose software-as-a-service over one-time purchase, especially with digital asset management software. I don't want a corporation holding my digital assets and work hostage to a monthly fee to use the software.

I say this from the luxurious position of a hobbyist who does not shoot a huge number of digital images. If my professional success was dependent on being able to process a large number of digital images efficiently, I might have a different opinion. But since I don't need the absolute most efficient software to handle this particular task, I am not going to submit to contract of adhesion subscription pricing if I don't have to.

The fact that subscription pricing has become commonplace in the last 5–10 years does not make it any less abusive to the consumer/end user.

In the interest of full disclosure, I do use an employer-provided subscription for Acrobat in my professional life. While it is a powerful and essential tool, I find the UI/UX horrendously bad. I don't know if Lightroom is like that as well, but my experience with Acrobat is enough to make me want to steer clear of Adobe software as much as possible.

 

[Doug]

I started with Capture One, as it came free with a digital M camera. It was a bit frustrating to use, as I recall, and also that the company seemed paranoid as to whether my copy was legitimate. So periodically I had to verify my copy IIRC. When the next Leica came with Lightroom I made the switch and I recall the user interface seemed difficult to adjust to. But I'm pleased with it now. It's the Lightroom Classic that resides on my local hard drive, not the cloud. And none of my files are stored in their cloud; they're all tucked in neatly in their respective folders in the Mac Finder and documented using a Filemaker database. So I am not dependent in any way on Adobe for finding or storing my files, free to change again if I wish. The annual subscription is a bother but I'd probably spend the same on software upgrades anyway.

 

[Rob-F]

Mostly, I never felt comfortable with using it. The way things are structured just doesn’t seem to click with my brain.

Yeah, that was my experience, exactly.

 

[Rob-F]

Rob, have you tried RAW Power? (https://www.gentlemencoders.com/raw-power-for-macos/index.html) I believe it was developed by former members of the Aperture team and looks very similar to Aperture.

I used Aperture when I was doing more digital photography, and quite liked it. After Apple discontinued it and I was shooting more film, I moved over to Apple Photos.

No, but thanks for the tip. I'll take a look.

 

[Rob-F]

I started with Capture One, as it came free with a digital M camera. It was a bit frustrating to use, as I recall . . .

To say the least! I could never get Capture One to do anything. I did have an early version.

 

[Bill Clark]

Thanks for the tip on affinity photo software.

I’m going to check it out.

I still use CS-4 on an iMac I bought in 2006! Maybe I should upgrade? My Canon cameras still work with the system I own. I capture in RAW then do most of my work in Bridge. I was taught in the early days to get what I wanted the photograph to look like when making the image.

 

[Godfrey]

I've been using LIghtroom since it went to Public Beta (#4, IIRC) in 2006, I'd been using PS before that. In recent years, LR has been through a lot of feature creep that I'm not entirely delighted with, and then there's the subscription business which annoys me. When LR 6.14 became so broken and then ultimately wouldn't run at all on macOS Catalina, I moved to LR Classic because I had not yet found a replacement which worked for me.

I actively look at other options on a regular basis, and am slowly migrating away from LR Classic. My needs now are quite different from my needs in 2006, LR is very different from what it was then too, and other tools have grown up that fit my needs better now. All along the way, I've structured my original file repository and finished work such that I lose nothing important when I exit LR and start using something else.

The biggest stumbling block in moving to other tools is Lightroom's templated Print module. Over the decade and a half of using LR, I've built up a very good library of templates for all the various output formats that I use over and over again to make my work consistent and repeatable. Even finding some other package that has that kind of feature is nearly impossible, but moving all my templates to that will take a lot of work no matter what choice I make. But, in the end, this issue will fall by the wayside too as I adopt other practices in printing.

My current high contender is to build a working system out of the fusion of macOS Photos app supplemented by the RAW Power app. This works across all my computing devices (iPhone, iPad Pro, macOS systems) and has many advantages with just a few drawbacks. I suspect that 2022 will see me move my work almost entirely to this system by year's end, and working out the printing needs in a different way.

For some specific needs, I also use the Hasselblad Phocus image processing app (on both macOS and iPadOS) and SnapSeed (on iPadPro and iPhone). This latter is incredibly good for quick rendering work, less precise and capable for more extensive work.

I also use the Light.co "Lumen" app, necessary for photos made with the Light L16 camera, on an older Mac mini that is set up with macOS Mojave for compatibility with that app. Lumen pulls the raw photos off the L16, allows pre-editing them with its special, native capabilities, and combines those edits into either finished JPEGs or DNG raw files that I can then pull into my main image processing workflow with LR Classic afterwards for finishing.

G

 

[Oscuro]

I use Lightroom Classic CC, the subscription version of Lightroom. I use it because it gives the best image quality, full stop.

I shoot RAW for EVERYTHING. Even snapshots of my cat


With every camera I have ever owned, RAW gives greater fine detail resolution, better color, and the ability to adjust white balance without loss of image quality compared to doing the same with a JPEG. What a lot of photographers don't understand is that the RAW converter you uses greatly affects the amount of fine detail visible in your photos. (please forgive my emphasis added.) This is from a combination of the demosaicing algorithm used, the quality of the sharpening, and the quality of the noise reduction the software offers.

Dear Chris,
You are absolutely correct. I do not dispute this one little piece. There is always "better".... Kodachrome - Ektachrome Tri-X Plus X then to some forensic B&W films... But when I compare the jpeg from D3, D750, X100F, GR III (okay, maybe not so much, but still !!) etc..... Not to speaking of some of the 40+ Mp cameras, the more work and time RAW takes is away from taking the next photograph - finding the next subject, the next story. Perhaps Mme. O. is a Philistine, but the carefully made jpeg is, especially compared with much film in miniature formate, more than good enough. For me, anyway. But you cannot just let the out of box settings be the jpeg. You must set it up carefully for how you want. Maybe this is one setting that is working for you across all your pictures but for me I use two-three presets that I have found gives me what I am want. Especially from the Fuji.

My handsome husband has one card set for jpeg and one for RAW. But he say he count on one hand the time he has had to use the RAW one. I am not bothering. No time. When mostly shown in screens or small hard print (smaller than 10x8) 99.999% Jpeg is very satisfactory.

A mentor once asked, "Which is it: photographing or photographs? Choose one." For me it is photographing. For the way I work, editing has to be simple. I learned this from Mr. Winogrand's working way. He said, I cannot quote the exact words but, any printer using open style can print my (his) work. I paraphrase.

By the way, your cat is charming!

Ciao,

Mme. O.

 

[Ronald M]

Started with PS CS2 and progressed to end paying rent with promises of something great for photographers. After 3 years of rent, nothing of value came so I moved to Capture One. If controlled properly, raw images simply appear the way you want. I will never rent again.

LR catalog is BS. File folders y/mo/date/subject worked for me in CS2 and still work. Why do I need to change??? I can grab a period of work and move it to permanent storage(s)

NX Studio does wonder work for Nikon. Sometimes I move Leica DNG to TIFF then into NX Studio.

There is much to be said for ONE program only.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Dear Chris,
You are absolutely correct. I do not dispute this one little piece. There is always "better".... Kodachrome - Ektachrome Tri-X Plus X then to some forensic B&W films... But when I compare the jpeg from D3, D750, X100F, GR III (okay, maybe not so much, but still !!) etc..... Not to speaking of some of the 40+ Mp cameras, the more work and time RAW takes is away from taking the next photograph - finding the next subject, the next story. Perhaps Mme. O. is a Philistine, but the carefully made jpeg is, especially compared with much film in miniature formate, more than good enough. For me, anyway. But you cannot just let the out of box settings be the jpeg. You must set it up carefully for how you want. Maybe this is one setting that is working for you across all your pictures but for me I use two-three presets that I have found gives me what I am want. Especially from the Fuji.

My handsome husband has one card set for jpeg and one for RAW. But he say he count on one hand the time he has had to use the RAW one. I am not bothering. No time. When mostly shown in screens or small hard print (smaller than 10x8) 99.999% Jpeg is very satisfactory.

A mentor once asked, "Which is it: photographing or photographs? Choose one." For me it is photographing. For the way I work, editing has to be simple. I learned this from Mr. Winogrand's working way. He said, I cannot quote the exact words but, any printer using open style can print my (his) work. I paraphrase.

By the way, your cat is charming!

Ciao,

Mme. O.

For some people, playing with cameras is all they care about. Others are artists; the image is what matters. Winogrand cared NOTHING for the art; the man died leaving 9000 rolls of film that he had not bothered to develop and look at. They had been shot during the last five years of his life.The Museum of Modern Art spent a fortune having them developed and printed and found that there was very little of any artistic value on them. He is not someone I would emulate.

 

[Oscuro]

For some people, playing with cameras is all they care about. Others are artists; the image is what matters. Winogrand cared NOTHING for the art; the man died leaving 9000 rolls of film that he had not bothered to develop and look at. They had been shot during the last five years of his life.The Museum of Modern Art spent a fortune having them developed and printed and found that there was very little of any artistic value on them. He is not someone I would emulate.

Yes! And for some people like to play with the files. I am understanding this completely... Because I am mostly in news here, I am more concerned with content -- content is more important than form. And this lies somewhere "cameras" and "images" A subject, if you will, that Mr. Winogrand, whom I do not "emulate" (I am too old - already past motherhood when Garry died... and I am too established in my way of work),was very concerned with and had a lot to say about, and, who produced some remarkable work, but at the end, perhaps confronting his mortality .... Also, Szarkowski was a very good curator but I'm not sure he would have been sufficient to the task.. But, yes, at the end...Much like Picasso. The work was technically excellent but bereft in other ways... Do not confuse the craftsmanship with art.

I am constantly playing with content. The form is sufficient to the cause of the content (news). The camera is almost incidental, and too, post processing. I despised the darkroom, but yes I considered how it would be processed when I am making the shot. And yes, Chris, I am positive that, if I sent you a RAW file, you could make the colours a bit more accurate, and the details a bit sharper but all this is less important than the content itself. Also not observable at the end user screen or page. Or maybe observable but as definitive, qualitative difference? Only maybe.

This is only for me. My way of working...

Ciao,

Mme. O

 

[35photo]

For some people, playing with cameras is all they care about. Others are artists; the image is what matters. Winogrand cared NOTHING for the art; the man died leaving 9000 rolls of film that he had not bothered to develop and look at. They had been shot during the last five years of his life.The Museum of Modern Art spent a fortune having them developed and printed and found that there was very little of any artistic value on them. He is not someone I would emulate.

A whole book(which I have) was created and then some… to say none of the work from the 9000 rolls left has no artistic value is beyond false!

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

A whole book(which I have) was created and then some… to say none of the work from the 9000 rolls left has no artistic value is beyond false!

I didn't say none. Don't misquote me. I said "very little," and I stand by that. 9000 rolls of film in 5 years is an incredible number of exposures in a short period of time. It is impossible to make that many exposures that fast and have put any thought into them. I've seen video of Winogrand photographing in his last years. He walked around with a motor-driven camera randomly pointing it at things, firing off bursts of film. Even he knew the work had little value. If he thought it was worth anything, he'd have gotten the film processed and looked at it. He didn't.

 

[Oscuro]

I didn't say none. Don't misquote me. I said "very little," and I stand by that. 9000 rolls of film in 5 years is an incredible number of exposures in a short period of time. It is impossible to make that many exposures that fast and have put any thought into them. I've seen video of Winogrand photographing in his last years. He walked around with a motor-driven camera randomly pointing it at things, firing off bursts of film. Even he knew the work had little value. If he thought it was worth anything, he'd have gotten the film processed and looked at it. He didn't.

Dear Chris,

Jay Maisel shoots in excess of 60,000 frames a year. Not hearsay. This is roughly how many frames Mr. W. is shooting in his last years. Many others I know and know of shoot as much and more. Some - (Eggleston!) shoot much less. It is the edit that is of the importance. Not how many frames.

You are right, Mr. Winogrand perhaps did not give the work the attention in his last 5 years as he had it in the years before. But that is maybe a different discussion because he too believed a time should pass since shooting before the edit so that emotional attachment to memories of the shot would fade. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.

But that has nothing to do with shooting so much or any number of frames. It is function of the "edit" what is in the viewfinder before release of the shutter and the edit after film/RAWfile/jpeg is viewed. Mr. Maisel produces still (he will be 91 years I think!) and his habit of shooting works still for him. But his work ethic is immense. He is ...different.

Cordialmente tuo,

Mme. O.

 

[RichC]

Chris, it depends on what one thinks photography is and how it's done. I take your approach - so my photos combine deliberate (a) seeing/framing (i.e. content) within the viewfinder and (b) camera/software technique (i.e. craft).

However, you can be an effective photographer by doing neither. All you need is a large number of photos - they don't need to be deliberately taken, and "machine gunning" unseen is fine!

The photographer George Papageorge once told me that he takes lots of random photos without intent or thought. Later he creates projects from these unconnected images by picking a selection. He had a drawer full of random photos of Central Park spanning many years (as he lived nearby), so one day he picked a bunch (some he'd never seen) to make his well-known project and book Walking Through Eden.

John Stezaker is yet more extreme. He's a photographer who doesn't take photos, yet won the prestigious Deutsche Börse Photography Prize a few years back - run by one of the UK's most important photographic institutions, the Photographer's Gallery. Stezaker collects vintage photos and postcards (he has a massive collection), then later picks some out to cut up and create collages.

Papageorge isn't primarily interested in capturing events or scenes. And Stezaker not at all - as I mentioned, he doesn't take photos himself.

What lies at the heart of their photography is the editing process - selecting photos after they've been taken, not before like Chris or me.

So, Winogrand may well have decided in his later years to photograph through editing, simply accumulating thousands of photos as raw material for that. Then, these images are in themselves of little value, the only thing that would matter to him would be their quantity, not quality, so he could pick random photos that appealed to him. Photography after the event if you will.



"Pair IV" by John Stezaker: