nightfly
Well-known
I'm very much satisfied in general with the output from my M9. My process has been to import the DNGs into Lighroom 4 (pre subscription version) and use this for both processing and management.
It works fairly well but I've seen people praise Capture One and other processors claiming better raw conversion/output.
Am I missing something? I played with Raw Photo Processor (RPP) as part of a desire to get more Kodachrome like photos but ultimately the process was too time consuming and you ended up with big TIFs.
Just wanted to see what other people are doing. The only plug in I use is DXO Filmpack as I like the film emulations but don't use it often. Not too concerned about black and white conversion as I've moved to color for 95% of my work. I'd probably just shoot tri-x in my M4-P if I wanted black and white.
Appreciate any thoughts.
It works fairly well but I've seen people praise Capture One and other processors claiming better raw conversion/output.
Am I missing something? I played with Raw Photo Processor (RPP) as part of a desire to get more Kodachrome like photos but ultimately the process was too time consuming and you ended up with big TIFs.
Just wanted to see what other people are doing. The only plug in I use is DXO Filmpack as I like the film emulations but don't use it often. Not too concerned about black and white conversion as I've moved to color for 95% of my work. I'd probably just shoot tri-x in my M4-P if I wanted black and white.
Appreciate any thoughts.
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
When Apple announced the end of support for Aperture I downloaded trial versions of several programs and settled on LR. Simplicity of operation and value for dollar spent were the reasons. C1 was a close second but the cost was the deciding issue.
Fraser
Well-known
i tried for over a year to like lightroom but just found it too slow, went back to photomechanic, camera raw and photoshop.
nightfly
Well-known
Never used Aperture, coming from the Photoshop world for work, Lightroom was the obvious choice. Not a big fan of Adobe's new pay as you go model but could justify. So far nothing in LR5 or 6 has induced me to upgrade my standalone LR 4 install.
My main concern is having a one stop shop for both RAW conversion and post processing and image management. In the image management department, LR works for me. I don't find I round trip to Photoshop much so that isnt' a factor.
I guess as I'm focusing on using my M9 more, I just want to be getting the best results from it I can without incurring undue time messing around with asset management or multiple applications.
I wouldn't mind the cost and time investment of Capture One if I got a an extra something from the M9 files. I already like the CCD look and output so I'd want to go toward enhancing that look.
My main concern is having a one stop shop for both RAW conversion and post processing and image management. In the image management department, LR works for me. I don't find I round trip to Photoshop much so that isnt' a factor.
I guess as I'm focusing on using my M9 more, I just want to be getting the best results from it I can without incurring undue time messing around with asset management or multiple applications.
I wouldn't mind the cost and time investment of Capture One if I got a an extra something from the M9 files. I already like the CCD look and output so I'd want to go toward enhancing that look.
Gregm61
Well-known
Adobe Camera raw, using the Huelight M9 profiles, which I really like.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
Mostly Photoshop CC, when I really want to get the best colour Capture One Pro, rarely (mostly for quick and dirty on the laptop) LR CC.
JPSuisse
Well-known
I shoot mostly film, but don't have a darkroom. So, I scan. Film and digital photos get imported into Lightroom 4. I started actually with LR1 for Mac. Tested quite a few programs over time and, frankly, the easiest program to work with was Aftershot Pro. I tag all photos with exiftool prior to import so that I can profit from LR's strong point, which is its DAM functionality.
BUT, Lightroom will at some point have to be replaced:
* I won't move to the cloud, so pretty soon LR will be a dead end.
* Also, LR4 modifies my DNG files even if I don't save to anything to metadata. This is quite curious and requires me to always keep and extra unmodified copy.
* My OS is no longer supported.
* I don't buy software that requires internet activation either
BUT, Lightroom will at some point have to be replaced:
* I won't move to the cloud, so pretty soon LR will be a dead end.
* Also, LR4 modifies my DNG files even if I don't save to anything to metadata. This is quite curious and requires me to always keep and extra unmodified copy.
* My OS is no longer supported.
* I don't buy software that requires internet activation either
maggieo
More Deadly
I'm still using Aperture, with Nik Software plug-ins.
MartinL
MartinL
In brief, match your processing and storage with your actual usage and, I suppose, personality. 
I'm still using CS5. Very satisfied with the RAW conversion tools and then a touch-up, sizing, occasional crop and sharpen. My management is strictly Windows Explorer. Nothing simpler, which can also be said of the M9. I process proportionately few of my images--just those that interest me immediately and those that I pull out from the past.
I'm a great believer in photo parsimony: Even if some processing or hardware tools would make at least a marginal improvement, they are unappealing to me if I don't use them to their fullest extent or if using them becomes an end in themselves. Back to the management: 15 years of digital images. I don't save more than a couple dozen a month after initial culling. I occasionally go back to briefly titled Explorer folders, stored by month and year and cull some more. Sometimes inspired to do a print.
Works for me
I'm still using CS5. Very satisfied with the RAW conversion tools and then a touch-up, sizing, occasional crop and sharpen. My management is strictly Windows Explorer. Nothing simpler, which can also be said of the M9. I process proportionately few of my images--just those that interest me immediately and those that I pull out from the past.
I'm a great believer in photo parsimony: Even if some processing or hardware tools would make at least a marginal improvement, they are unappealing to me if I don't use them to their fullest extent or if using them becomes an end in themselves. Back to the management: 15 years of digital images. I don't save more than a couple dozen a month after initial culling. I occasionally go back to briefly titled Explorer folders, stored by month and year and cull some more. Sometimes inspired to do a print.
Works for me