Which RAW processor for M9?

[sepiareverb]

LR decides nothing for you.

LR Catalog = a diary of every rendering and display change you made to an original file...

This then is what got in my way. I certainly have no use for this, thus my preference for PS.

Every one I know personally who has used both LR and PS has gotten fed up (independently) with LR and gone back to PS for the same reasons of having trouble with finding images because of the Catalog/Library, and having duplicate files (or it seems not actual files, but duplicate versions or virtual versions or aliases) getting in the way. All of us are old darkroom folks tho. Now that you mention 'Importing' I am reminded that this is what I disliked most. This 'Importing' is where the virtual aliases and versions seemed to breed. As an admitted moron I likely was not opening/importing/closing/saving in the proper Lightroom fashion. No matter, I've not opened LR since 2008, soon after LR2 was released and I deleted everything Lightroom from my hard drive, I am not going to try it again. 🙂

...The Catalog can be understood if you think of it as a diary. Every change you make to an image is recorded in the Catalog. This means the original files are never irreversibly modified...

Redundant in my workflow as I shoot DNG only, and always save as .psd (I save jpegs for emailing or web use and tiffs for client use from my .psd files). Photoshop/ACR remembers how I have opened the RAW file so I can return to that same starting point if I wish, and there is always the option of zero-ing out those adjustments (or select individual ones) to start again. In Photoshop, working with layers and saving versions before flattening groups of layers – when helpful – is my means of being able to return to certain points of the process. If I am dodging something gently and make 12 passes over it I don't see much point in being able to go back to pass 9 next week, as then everything else I did since that point would be gone (or can just pass 9 be deleted from the file?). History allows me to make comparisons on the fly, as does working on a new layer which can be toggled visible/invisible. Returning to a selected point in the process can indeed be helpful, but returning to that point by having to wade through every click in the process seems much too time consuming. I don't doubt I have several thousand clicks in a given average image. I'd rather choose useful moments along the way to return to myself. Simply my way of working. I come to this from the darkroom where making a decision and moving along is part of the game.

I do have to delete no longer useful versions after I've finalized an image. Perhaps slightly time consuming, but I know where the versions are and what they're called, and then they are gone so no longer turn up when I look for an image. I've gotten used to working this way so it is second nature. Different methods are more intuitive for different folks and Lightroom just confused me no end. Again, moron here.

 

[willie_901]

Well I tried.

You still don't understand.

95% of your objections are due to misconceptions.

The main limitation with LR is the lack of layers. You have to use a plug-in to import a LR rendered file into PS; work with layers in PS; and then import the final PS result back into PS, While this is import/export is automatic, it is necessary to use PS features LR does not have.

 

[sepiareverb]

Well I tried.

Sorry if you tried on my account, I've no reason to use Lightroom.

And apologies to the OP for going so far off the rails from the original question.

 

[nightfly]

Really concerned with image quality of RAW converters rather than organization/workflow.

As far as I can tell all Adobe products use same RAW converter.

Capture One, Irident and Raw Photo Processor (RPP) all seem to use their own with varying results. Some claim much better results with the M9.

 

[sepiareverb]

Really concerned with image quality of RAW converters rather than organization/workflow.

As far as I can tell all Adobe products use same RAW converter.

Capture One, Irident and Raw Photo Processor (RPP) all seem to use their own with varying results. Some claim much better results with the M9.

To that end, I found ACR to be better in my workflow, tho I do have to correct the color green often, occasionally red. I shoot with Auto White Balance, so this may be a factor?

 

[user237428934]

This then is what got in my way. I certainly have no use for this, thus my preference for PS.

Isn't it nice that there are more than one possible workflow available?

I tried these tools (PS-Elements for example), where raw conversion is the first step and then you have a developed photo and work with other controls and levels. Whenever I wanted to change a setting from the raw conversion process I had to throw everything away and start with the raw conversion again. For me the way LR or C1 works is easier.

Back on topic:

The quality of C1 is better for me because of the better handling of colours. LR sometimes produces extreme colours (for M9 and M240) and I have to tweak a lot with white balance in combination with the colour profile to get it right. With C1 the starting point of the colours is most of the time far better. The reason why I come back to LR sometimes is, that I find it easier to operate and I have some fancy presets that I like. I finally have to make the move to C1 completely because handling two of these tools is just complicated.

 

[peterm1]

I regularly use the following software suite for my processing needs. (Noting I have an M8 not an M9 - but don't suppose this makes any difference except perhaps in file size given they are both DNG files.)

For many years I have used Corel Paintshop Pro as it is about equivalent to Photoshop Elements but both cheaper and more functional than this program. In the early days the Corel product was pretty naff software but it long ago improved out of sight and is now excellent software for photographers and is constantly being upgraded at quite low cost.

I also discovered quite some years ago, the various Nik Effects plugins which will run under all 32 bit versions of the above but not the 64 bit (more recent) versions of the Corel software which no longer support the various Nik plugins. As these plugins are now available free as so called "abandonware" (Google bought the firm then dumped it deciding I suppose it is not core business for them) I would counsel grabbing the installation files as they provide superb processing capabilities. These do need to run under a host program however.

As Corel does not any longer support Nik in its latest versions, I bought a stand alone version of Lightroom on eBay mainly to use as the host program for the Nik plugins but I now do my basic processing of my RAW files in Lightroom. I do not find it to be much use though for advanced processing of the sort I like to do.

Here's the thing. Both Corel Paintshop Pro and all the Nik plugins will run under Lightroom - effectively as plugins to it. When installed, a click of a button within Lightroom exports the file you are working on to which ever of these programs you wish to use for more sophisticated processing, then when you are finished allows you to export the file out of that plugin back to Lightroom again. This is perfect for me as it allows initial basic processing in Lightroom (basics like tone, saturation etc for which LR works fine) and then all the fancy stuff can be done using either the Paintshop Pro or Nik plugins running under Lightroom.

Sounds complex but its not and it answers the problem I had which was similar to yours....."I feel like there is a little more in my RAW files than I'm seeing" when using Lightroom alone." I simply find Lightroom is not enough for me to get the ebst out of my images but is fine for a quick clean up of them.

Given you already seem to have Lightroom, my advice to you would be to at least go onto the net and download and install "Google Nik Plugin" suite. When installing, it will automatically look for Lightroom and automatically install itself to run under it. But as a starter bit of advice, I can say you will find the list of Nik plugins when in Develop mode under the menu item - Photo/ Edit in/......... Doing this will instantly give you a huge boost (at no cost whatsoever) to your processing capabilities for your M9 files. Learning how to use the Nik plugins is quite easy and intuitive but advice on how to install the software under Lightroom (in case you do have a problem, but you should not) is available on the web as are tutorials on using the software.

 

[x-ray]

To that end, I found ACR to be better in my workflow, tho I do have to correct the color green often, occasionally red. I shoot with Auto White Balance, so this may be a factor?

Try doing your own color profiles. IMO it makes a substantial difference. I use the ColorChecker Passport. Here's a little article.

https://m.dpreview.com/articles/6497352654/get-more-accurate-color-with-camera-calibration-

I profile all of my digital cameras and apply the profile in Lightroom. Ive profiles under a variety of lighting conditions for each camera and apply as a part of my workflow. I carry my colorchecker while I'm working and shoot a new profile if I encounter unusual lighting. Mostly you'll only need a half dozen or fewer as lighting color / spectrum is fairly consistent between light sources now. My profiles I use are, daylight, studio strobes, SB700 and fluorescent, SB700, fluorescent and tungsten.

Fluorescent lights have a funky spectrum and this really helps. Of course it's a good idea to shoot the colorchecker under the lighting you're shooting under and use the appropriate patch to sample in LR when you're color correcting the image after you've applied the profile.

I don't have an M9 any longer but it worked great with it and works equally well with my Nikons.

 

[user237428934]

I also discovered quite some years ago, the various Nik Effects plugins which will run under all 32 bit versions of the above but not the 64 bit (more recent) versions of the Corel software which no longer support the various Nik plugins. As these plugins are now available free as so called "abandonware" (Google bought the firm then dumped it deciding I suppose it is not core business for them) I would counsel grabbing the installation files as they provide superb processing capabilities. These do need to run under a host program however.

This must be Windows specific then. On a Mac you can use the Nik Plugins to open files directly. Using a host program maybe convenient but you can export a jpg or tif from any image processing software and open the file with the nik tool.

 

[sepiareverb]

Try doing your own color profiles. IMO it makes a substantial difference. I use the ColorChecker Passport. Here's a little article...

Thanks for that. I've been debating the ColorChecker for a while, seems like that may be the next game I learn. I've long carried a grey/white card to help settle WB, but the colorchecker does seem much better.