Author Topic: No perpetual license for Lightroom 7 (Read 20811 times)

Brightontl · « **Reply #50 on:** October 24, 2017, 14:55 »

I don't understand.
I made a search and I see that Capture One is £236!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I thought it was a free program and still I would not understand why I should use it

Zero Talent · « **Reply #51 on:** October 24, 2017, 15:14 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2017, 14:43

I took a look at trial versions of Luminar and ON1 Photo RAW just to see how they measure up. Bottom line is that there are some nice features but both have issues for my workflow that rule them out.

More details and some samples here (not full reviews, just a quick look primarily at the quality of the output, without which all the rest of the nice UI doesn't much matter to me)

http://www.digitalbristles.com/on1-luminar-quick-look/

Jo Ann, are you sure you removed all sharpening and detail enhancements when you did these tests? I can't believe ON1 (or any Raw processor for that matter) can create that awful grainy output. If so, I agree with you it looks very bad. I'll try to check and compare how it works on Canon sensors. Maybe it is only a Fuji thing, who knows.

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #52 on:** October 24, 2017, 15:16 »

If you read a bit further you'd see I did try with my 5D Mk II files and saw better results from ON1 with those (Chromatic Aberration was still a problem, but all that crunchy mess was gone). I have masses of CR2 files to test with, but I mostly care about Fuji RAW going forward and some software doesn't handle the Xtrans sensor files well

Zero Talent · « **Reply #53 on:** October 24, 2017, 15:26 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2017, 15:16

If you read a bit further you'd see I did try with my 5D Mk II files and saw better results from ON1 with those (Chromatic Aberration was still a problem, but all that crunchy mess was gone). I have masses of CR2 files to test with, but I mostly care about Fuji RAW going forward and some software doesn't handle the Xtrans sensor files well

Yes, I see that now.

Nevertheless, your C1 process shows sharpening symptoms and this is why I'm asking how much sharpening and detail enhancements you have on all these samples.
See my attached crop: it shows a clear white contour around that rock. Isn't that because of sharpening?

Those flowers on the last to C1 examples also look sharpened to me.

I'm saying that because we should only compare the RAW development capabilities. The sharpening, detail enhancement and noise reduction features are important but I would treat them separately from Raw development.

k_t_g · « **Reply #54 on:** October 24, 2017, 22:24 »

I wish there was a really great alternative to Illustrator.

And don't point me to Inkscape. The last time I tried it, some of the features did not play well with Illustrator.

Chichikov · « **Reply #55 on:** October 25, 2017, 05:50 »

Quote from: k_t_g on October 24, 2017, 22:24

I wish there was a really great alternative to Illustrator. And don't point me to Inkscape. The last time I tried it, some of the features did not play well with Illustrator.

What about Affinity Designer?
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/

k_t_g · « **Reply #56 on:** October 25, 2017, 22:44 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 25, 2017, 05:50

Quote from: k_t_g on October 24, 2017, 22:24
I wish there was a really great alternative to Illustrator. And don't point me to Inkscape. The last time I tried it, some of the features did not play well with Illustrator.
What about Affinity Designer?
https://affinity.serif.com/en-gb/

I'll check it out. Thanks a bunch.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #57 on:** October 26, 2017, 19:50 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 24, 2017, 15:16

If you read a bit further you'd see I did try with my 5D Mk II files and saw better results from ON1 with those (Chromatic Aberration was still a problem, but all that crunchy mess was gone). I have masses of CR2 files to test with, but I mostly care about Fuji RAW going forward and some software doesn't handle the Xtrans sensor files well

Jo Ann,

I compared C1 vs LR vs On1 vs DPP (with deconvolution) with no sharpening, no noise reduction and no detail enhancements.

If we are interested in comparing only the RAW development capabilities, Canon's DPP with deconvolution beats all its rivals, hands down, with crisp and contrasty renditions.

Otherwise, I find On1 sharper than LR and C1, while LR might only be marginally better than C1, after eye hurting pixel peeping, but I rather say no difference.
I also find C1 rendition a little warmer than all the other 3 versions.

See for yourself in the attached side by side comparisons (upper right corner of a photo @100% zoom).

1. C1 vs LR

Zero Talent · « **Reply #58 on:** October 26, 2017, 19:51 »

2. C1 vs On1

Zero Talent · « **Reply #59 on:** October 26, 2017, 19:51 »

3. C1 vs DPP

Jo Ann Snover · « **Reply #60 on:** October 26, 2017, 21:25 »

For the benefit of other people looking at your samples, you should probably say what the RAW files are. I assume Canon from the mention of DPP, but which camera?

After switching to Fuji earlier this year, it was clear that handling those RAW files provided challenges to some RAW converters, so my comparisons are inevitably going to be different from yours (or anyone else's with Sony or Nikon or ...)

I'm not sure what is the best way to make comparisons, but I think as a photographer, I want to see the best a developing program can produce and not argue about which sliders or options got me to the desired end result. I wouldn't use any RAW converter software with no enhancements, so I didn't show those samples.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #61 on:** October 26, 2017, 21:45 »

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 26, 2017, 21:25

For the benefit of other people looking at your samples, you should probably say what the RAW files are. I assume Canon from the mention of DPP, but which camera?

After switching to Fuji earlier this year, it was clear that handling those RAW files provided challenges to some RAW converters, so my comparisons are inevitably going to be different from yours (or anyone else's with Sony or Nikon or ...)

I'm not sure what is the best way to make comparisons, but I think as a photographer, I want to see the best a developing program can produce and not argue about which sliders or options got me to the desired end result. I wouldn't use any RAW converter software with no enhancements, so I didn't show those samples.

Sure: this photo was made with a Canon 5D Mark III and a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 II lens.

Setting those sliders to 0 is, in my opinion, a way to normalize the comparison of the "raw" RAW conversion algorithm.
When we start pushing sliders, it becomes hard to compare apples with apples, since 1 sharpness unit in C1 might be different than 1 unit in LR. It is easy to go overboard and negatively impact an image, especially when we experiment with a new tool. Even default settings might result in different absolute sharpness levels.

Setting all these sliders to zero represents the starting point, the foundation we start to build on, once we start pushing sliders.

It is a much more lengthy and tedious process to compare the sharpness algorithm, the noise reduction algorithm or clarity algorithm between different tools.
This is why, I guess, it only comes down to personal preferences, after all.

PS. Too bad only Canon is currently offering this powerful deconvolution algorithm!
I wonder if there is a patent protecting it. Or maybe the algorithm requires some proprietary, hard to be reverse engineered knowledge of the camera, lens, focal length and aperture combo.
Hopefully, future cameras will be powerful enough to perform this deconvolution, in the body, to offer this level of purity as standard RAW output.

Chichikov · « **Reply #62 on:** October 27, 2017, 10:43 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on October 26, 2017, 21:45

Quote from: Jo Ann Snover on October 26, 2017, 21:25
For the benefit of other people looking at your samples, you should probably say what the RAW files are. I assume Canon from the mention of DPP, but which camera?

After switching to Fuji earlier this year, it was clear that handling those RAW files provided challenges to some RAW converters, so my comparisons are inevitably going to be different from yours (or anyone else's with Sony or Nikon or ...)

I'm not sure what is the best way to make comparisons, but I think as a photographer, I want to see the best a developing program can produce and not argue about which sliders or options got me to the desired end result. I wouldn't use any RAW converter software with no enhancements, so I didn't show those samples.

Sure: this photo was made with a Canon 5D Mark III and a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8 II lens.

Setting those sliders to 0 is, in my opinion, a way to normalize the comparison of the "raw" RAW conversion algorithm.
When we start pushing sliders, it becomes hard to compare apples with apples, since 1 sharpness unit in C1 might be different than 1 unit in LR. It is easy to go overboard and negatively impact an image, especially when we experiment with a new tool. Even default settings might result in different absolute sharpness levels.

Setting all these sliders to zero represents the starting point, the foundation we start to build on, once we start pushing sliders.

It is a much more lengthy and tedious process to compare the sharpness algorithm, the noise reduction algorithm or clarity algorithm between different tools.
This is why, I guess, it only comes down to personal preferences, after all.

PS. Too bad only Canon is currently offering this powerful deconvolution algorithm!
I wonder if there is a patent protecting it. Or maybe the algorithm requires some proprietary, hard to be reverse engineered knowledge of the camera, lens, focal length and aperture combo.
Hopefully, future cameras will be powerful enough to perform this deconvolution, in the body, to offer this level of purity as standard RAW output.

Agree and disagree

Pushing the sliders is one thing, but the way the various softwares act when you push them is another thing.
Pushing a slider in the position to obtain the best result in Lightroom and pushing the corresponding slider in the position to obtain the best result in Capture one can give you very different results, best/similar/worst. Then it depends of the software and of the slider.
Some sliders can give a better absolute result in one software than in an other software, and this is what is important: the best final result that you can reach.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #63 on:** October 27, 2017, 11:34 »

Quote from: Chichikov on October 27, 2017, 10:43

... this is what is important: the best final result that you can reach.

Definitely!
And "the best final result" requires a very good understanding and experience with ALL tools, to get a solid grip on all their subtleties. Some of Jo Ann's examples show over-sharpening symptoms or have the details or clarity sliders pushed too far (in my opinion) for a fair comparison.

In a way, all settings we use on top of the "zero normalization" starting point are impacting the technical image quality. For example: the sharpness slider is only creating the illusion of a more crisp image, when in fact information is lost around the edges to make the image pop. Some details are sacrificed and discarded, to emphasize other details. But the overall "best final result" looks better.

It is very likely that, starting from the specific "raw" RAW conversions, an expert in both LR and C1 will be able to achieve virtually the same "best final result", by using different values for various sliders.

Moreover, even if DPP gives the best technical raw "RAW conversion" by far, the lack of competitive features makes DPP only a curiosity, since much better "final results" can be achieved with other tools, even with inferior "raw" RAW conversion engines.

cobalt · « **Reply #64 on:** October 27, 2017, 16:46 »

I was just going to look into Lightroom, but I really don't need the cloud.

For that I have apples iphoto, I add finished files or jpgs if I want to use them across multiple devices.

I would like to have a good photo database that allows easy keyword and iptc editing and some basic image manipulation.

Would capture one and their Media database be a good alternative?

I absolutely don't want my main daily software to be subscription based. I already pay my regular share to Apple computer, that is enough.

I edit my files with old versions of Photoshop Elements, that is more than I need usually and I still have CS6 on an older computer.

For filters etc...I work with apps on my tablet or phone.

As a database programmalternative to lightroom, what would you recommend?

Chichikov · « **Reply #65 on:** October 28, 2017, 01:01 »

^
Cobalt, give a try to this http://www.camerabits.com/try-photo-mechanic-for-free/

Or Adobe Bridge

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: No perpetual license for Lightroom 7 (Read 20811 times)

Brightontl

Zero Talent

Jo Ann Snover

Zero Talent

k_t_g

Chichikov

k_t_g

Zero Talent

Zero Talent

Zero Talent

Jo Ann Snover

Zero Talent

Chichikov

Zero Talent

cobalt

Chichikov

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors