Processing Programs

[Bill Pierce]

I see a lot of web articles on various image processing programs, often placing one above the others in terms of the tonal quality and sharpness it produces. But, almost always, this is with the programs set at their default values. And, understandably, folks don’t stray too far beyond those results in evaluating the program.

I think moving off those default values is an imperative in personalizing an image. And when you do that, to a great extent it levels the playing field between programs. Yes, the Iridient products will always have a slight sharpness edge with the unique Fuji files. but move Lightroom’s sharpening radius to .6, its amount 60 and increase it detail settings and the differences are not going to be noticed until you press your nose against a big print. Capture One will have more saturated colors than Photoshop when you first open an image, but there are controls in both programs that can create what you want.

There are a lot of good programs out there. I think the one that is best for a given person is the one they are comfortable with and enjoy and use and use and use. I think their skill with that single program is more important than jumping from program to program looking for a magic fix.

Having said that, I must admit to being a bit of a hypocrite who often plays with new toys before returning to Lightroom and Photoshop (and Iridient for large exhibition prints from Fuji files). Those are programs I used from the time they were first introduced. That’s the reason they are the best ones for me. I think the user skills developed over time, not the specific program, are the key.

I know these somewhat pompous pronouncements do not lend themselves to starting a conversation, but any thoughts you have on processing programs are always appreciated.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Years ago I read interview with one photographer who is retired and walks for hours to get street pictures. Everyday. Somewhere in Southern Europe. I liked his living style and his photography. Then asked about software, Photoshop Elements and Lightroom.
Since I'm not good as him, I'm fine with old, standalone Lightroom. Fol small adjustments and conversion to BW and digital negatives. Dust spotting as well.

I also like free Sony DXO and free Google Nick software. Sony for colors, Nick for BW.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I've tried just about all of them, and I never stick to default settings (which usually suck). The thing is, that none of them come close to Lightroom for image quality when processing RAW files from the various cameras I have used.

Luminar is actually very good in image quality, but the software is slow and overly complex compared to LR.

 

[Jake Mongey]

I always tend to make a darkroom print first and then work with Lightroom and silver effects to try to match the print that ive made in the darkroom. I get close enough to feel satisfied with the result.

Now ive started my degree though I have access to different software and flextight film scanners so those preferences may change. As for digital which ive only ever used for jobs, lightroom with a mix of exposure changes, clarity and sharpness has always had results the client has liked.

Id love to experiment more though. In this post are you looking for recommendations or just experiences?

 

[charjohncarter]

You are 100% correct. Programs, like you are writing about, try to take you out of the equation. A good example of not being lassoed by programs is our member PeterM1 he has a program he likes to use, BUT he doesn't let it control him; he controls the program.

 

[Bill Clark]

”I think the user skills developed over time, not the specific program, are the key.”

It sure has been that way for me. I find that with each objective I want to accomplish with Photoshop (I still use CS4) for any given file(s) there are several paths I could use to achieve that objective.

 

[robert blu]

LR user here since the first version (I had no digital camera in that time but I used it to work and catalog my scans). Photoshop in a few rare cases. Recently SEP plug in for LR is useful as starting point with my B&W conversions.
I'm satisfied with this choice.
I think instead of jump from one to another is more productive to stay with one tool and learn, at least try to learn it better.
robert

 

[Mcary]

Agree that its more the person using the software and that the only way to learn to use something to its full capability is to stick with it. As far as defaults and preset I look at them as possible starting points, that may save a little of time by cutting my work flow by 20-25% but even when using one I know there's still work to do to get the results that I want.

 

[Dogman]

My standalone Lightroom does everything I need to do with all the cameras I currently own. I'm trying to avoid the subscription LR but, if I must, I'll spring for it because I'm now familiar with it. Prior to Lightroom, I used each camera's proprietary software and then used Picasa to set up the printing. I was comfortable with this at the time, now I'm comfortable with LR.

With Fuji Raw files, I also use Iridient X-Transformer and it is impressive for its ability to sharpen. Before IXT, I found some images simply didn't look as good as they could when using Lightroom alone. Since the majority of my images are printed 6x9 inches on 8.5x11 inch paper, I seldom get the full benefit of IXT's sharpening. I've found it to be most useful when cropping an image quite a bit. You can really appreciate it when you print larger but "larger" for me is only 13x19 with my current printer.

 

[leicapixie]

I am one of the "unwashed folks" who have never bothered with "Raw",
programs that require subscriptions, payments and updates!
I use JPEG (horror of Horror) and simple adjustments like Windows editor, Google Nik and the original Google Photoshop on my off-line XP!
I prefer wet printing but have not used it in 20 years..
Make prints on Kodak and Fuji which are shared with friends, often in albums.. Prints do not need power or programs.
When i was a busy pro, i had custom pro labs do my needs!
I had no interest in learning c-41 or Dye Transfer..Duh!
Yes I printed color and Cibachrome.
I love simplicity.

 

[Timmyjoe]

Been using Photoshop since version 4 back in the 1990's. It just works, so no need to explore elsewhere.

For photo organizing, I'm still using Aperture 3 because I learned it back on Aperture 1 and my newest digital camera is from 2013, so all of them still work with Aperture 3. Again, if it ain't broke . . .

If I someday purchase a new digital camera (heaven forbid) I'll probably have to find a different solution for organization.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Out to Lunch]

So far, it's photoshop and lightroom...a brave new world.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

One thing I wanted to point out is that products like Nik Collection (when it was owned by Google) may be free as in gratis but certainly are not free software. Free as in beer =/= free as in freedom. See https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software.

What I want is a digital assets management/image editing program that saves files openly accessible to the OS file manager in an accepted standard format and more importantly also save all edits non-destructively so that they can be read by any program that reads that file type. Commercial/propriety software vendors have no incentive to create such software, as they generally want you locked into their products so they can charge you a monthly subscription fee to access your own work.

Personally, I don't care how good Lightroom/Photoshop may be because I don't want my photos and my creative work product held hostage to a monthly subscription fee. I'm currently using Apple Photos (which I'm not happy with) until I can move to a better alternative. Fortunately I'm primarily shooting film right now so I mostly use it just to store JPEGS from my digital cameras and medium-res scans of film photos.

 

[ptpdprinter]

I currently use LR/PS and have generally been satisfied now that I have built up a few years experience using them, though I did download Capture One this morning to see what all the fuss is about now that it supports the Fuji GFX. The initial tutorial makes it look like the transition will be fairly easy, at least for the basics.

 

[Godfrey]

I test a lot of image processing apps. I could not agree more with the notion that user skills developed over time are the key, not any specific software.

... My photographic work, and 99% of what I've posted, has been done with Lightroom since it was released as a Public Beta in 2006. Prior to that, I used Photoshop, from the middle 1990s on. Prior to that, I used various image processing tools as they came and went starting in 1984, including a few that I wrote myself. For seventeen years prior to that, all my photography was done in the wet lab.

Adobe is making me unhappy with their "everyone must be a subscriber" policies of late. And I don't like to have no choices. So I've been learning Affinity Photo and SnapSeed on iOS as well as Luminar on macOS to do my photo processing... and even Photos on both macOS and iOS... preparing for the day when the last perpetual license version of Lightroom stops working on macOS. All four of them are actually very capable and can do my work very well. Lightroom is a bit easier to work with still—mostly because I know it so very well at this point.

But the key is that I get what I want out of the software, and it doesn't control my photography. My eye and my intent controls my photography.

G

 

[willie_901]

• Lightroom Classic CC for a raw file library, post-production rendering, rendered image organization and rendered image output
• Occasionally the NIK Collection (Google version) for monochrome rendering or color-cast remediation when images have mixed color temperatures.
• Rarely, Photoshop CC for rendering flat TIFF files from film scans or repairing images with significant artifact issues.

 

[al1966]

Lightroom and Photoshop, have used LR since it came out and am used to it so I can get what I want quickly without messing about. PS since the 90's, I have not found anything that will do what it can do for me without again messing around learning new software. The new features in PS for cutting objects from the background for me are an absolute godsend, given some of my work involves cutting soft toys out. http://jamesagrady.co.uk/CleoMirandagotoGallery/index1.html

 

[PRJ]

I've used a lot of programs over the years. A decade or so ago, DPP from Canon produced by far the best colors from Canon cameras. Far superior to Lightroom. Aperture was also a great program and generally had better colors than Lightroom. Apple shot themselves in the foot with what I think was called the vault when it was first released. I knew a few pros who dumped it after they couldn't access a file outside of Aperture. IIRC they fixed that, but the damage was done and Lightroom won out for most people and that included me. Lightroom was really inteded to be a cataloging program. It succeeded in that regard of course. The raw processing was an after thought at first it seemed and it was pretty bad at it.

These days I keep my film images in Lightroom at least until that stops working. Digital files have all been moved to Capture One which gives better color quality than Lightroom. Can't really avoid Photoshop yet but it gets used less and less. I mostly use it for film scans these days. I edit color scans in LAB mode in Photoshop and there really isn't an alternative to that.

One program I always mention in these discussions is Hasselblad's Phocus. If you want a free program that is pretty dang good, check it out.