1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. REMINDER

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Using your camera's software.

Discussion in 'AP Magazine Feedback & Suggestions' started by Learning, Jan 16, 2020.

  1. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    After reading Angela Nicholson's article in 18th January issue, just out of curiosity I downloaded the Canon software and had a play with some raw files from my old S90 compact. The software is now more useful than it used to be and might well satisfy some users. Where it is very good indeed is in doing the initial conversion.
    Now, having dropped LR and PS I use Nikon software for doing the initial conversion for Nikon NEF files.
    I do not "eschew third-party software however. I use manufactures software to generate 16bit TIFF files. Then I use Affinity Photo to do the edits.
    A combination of manufacturers' software with third party software can be very effective especially if one has difficulty 'working up' a flat conversion. The intermediate TIFF file needed for this is no more inconvenient than the TIFF file used when plug-ins are used with PS or LR.
     
  2. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    DPP is very good. I use Lightroom now because of its extra features and ability to edit both Canon and Fuji but DPP 4 is my goto for rating Canon files. When I used DDP 3 a lot I found that much of the most useful stuff wasn’t well documented. Such as working across multiple images within the clone tool/crop tool.
     
  3. Fishboy

    Fishboy Well-Known Member

    I tried Hasselblad's 'Phocus' software and I was surprised to find its handling of RAW files to be vastly different to Lightroom. Lightroom won hands-down as far as colour rendition was concerned, giving an initial interpretation of the raw file that was much as I'd seen when taking the original picture, whilst Phocus turned out muted, muddy colours with a distinct magenta cast.

    Phocus had the edge as far as initial sharpness was concerned, but a nudge of the clarity and sharpening sliders in LR was all it took to bring the image up to the same standard as Phocus - without the added fuss of having to try to 'rescue' the colours, so as things stand Phocus is on the subs' bench in case it's ever needed while LR has secured its place on the first team!

    Cheers, Jeff
     
  4. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    At least 60% of what I want is image management, not image processing, so I use Lightroom.
     
    Bazarchie likes this.
  5. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Presently you are stuck with Adobe even if they hugely increase the price. No one, working in the photographic sector, even comes close to the LR database. Dam in engineering and commerce is essential and common.
    The Phocus software conversion is likely to be accurate. A linear translation between pixel values after de-mosaicing and pixel values in the displayed image is seen by us as very dull; also there would be no colour adjustments.
    ACR applies a strong curve, possibly adjusts black and white points, and adjusts colour so as to give a rendering similar to that of the embedded jpeg.
    Nikon's software adjusts the image taking account of the cameras' settings and I think that Canon also take that approach.
    Affinity by default applies a slight curve but the result is still usually dull, but not as dull as when that default curve is turned off.

    Personally, I usually prefer the conversion software to do the initial tone mapping. There may be cases where this is nowhere near what I want, and then I struggle with the initial flat image. Some 'experts' especially in the video business insist on working from the flat images since this gives them the maximum scope for achieving a consistent visual experience as they place sequences shot under different conditions into one video.

    Angela's series of articles are likely to be interesting to those of us who only see software from one manufacturer.
     
  6. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    Looking at the drop-down menu of 'Photography Tools' on my laptop I count thirteen applications. The least used is the Sony 'Remote Camera Control'*, which was installed from the CD that came with the camera at the same time as the most used - Sony 'Image Data Lightbox' was installed as part of the same suite. Every time I stick a camera card into the PC, every picture goes through the Sony IDL program. It is fast, has an excellent de-mosaicing engine, and shows very accurate colour rendition. Up to four images can be examined side-by-side, and zooming can be synchronized. No editing is supported, as that can be done through another program in the suite. Images can be exported in a range of formats and groups can be saved as a collection.

    It is easily the most useful and used photo software in my library - every raw image goes through it before anything else - but Sony have now discontinued it (for some years) now. I guard the installation CDs with a large fire-breathing dragon! If you install a later Sony suite, it deletes IDL, and you then have to reinstall it over the top of the new installation which, fortunately, does not zap the later suite.

    I still use LightRoom, but have moved away from PhotoShop, as I don't like the subscription model. I now use CaptureOneForSony Pro for all editing and processing, as they provide either a subscription or purchase option.

    * the Sony 'Remote Camera Control' software is installed on a Windows tablet and used in the field only.
     
  7. davidh

    davidh Well-Known Member

    There are several alternatives to LR for the DAM side of things, most of them all better and are at least standards compliant - and less likely to screw with your metadata like LR; however they usually purely focus on the DAM side of things as opposed to the convenience offered by LR for both managing and manipulating the assets.
    If you're using something else for editing your images, you're probably better off with a separate DAM rather than giving Adobe your money each month...
     
  8. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    Got a list?
     
    Learning likes this.
  9. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

  10. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

  11. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I wait to be convinced. LR just works for me for DAM and most processing.
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  12. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    Previously I used iMatch which was very good but not exactly straightforward and after a couple of crashes I gave up.
     
  13. davidh

    davidh Well-Known Member

    Mostly a good list (but yes, expensive and mostly aimed towards commercial users); I think the Capture One is worth a try too if you can get on with it, as they bought iView/Microsoft Expression and turned it into Media Pro before integrating with Capture One.

    See - that's the problem; its mostly good enough, especially if you're using it for both the catalog and processing, until you want something better/different for either part. If you want to use something else for processing (DxO, DPP, Affinity Photo, etc) then you keep having to give those nice people at Adobe £120/year for access to your catalog and hope they don't decide to discontinue it or raise the price.... And the longer you stay with something, the harder the migration to something else is likely to be as you'll have to relearn how to do things.

    Me? I'm a happy IMatch user for the past 14 years, and its worked well with my cameras and my ways of working (originally DPP, then DxO/Affinity Photo).
     
  14. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

    I see your point, but I prefer LR for my DAM more than any other program I have tried.
     
  15. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I’d have to reread the small print but I think you have access to “done” work. You can’t do new edits if the software isn’t licensed. In the larger scheme of things everything becomes obsolete eventually.
     
    EightBitTony likes this.
  16. Bazarchie

    Bazarchie Well-Known Member

  17. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    No you don't. As pointed out by Pete and Steve.

    Also, I create sidecar XMP files for all my images, so even if the catalog goes, I have reasonably easy to manipulate XMP files with my meta data in them.
     
  18. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    I’ve never used the XMP option but programs like OnOne that promise to emulate the entire Lightroom process rely on batch export of all images accompanied by sidecar files.
     
  19. EightBitTony

    EightBitTony Well-Known Member

    In theory, the sidecar files mean even if my catalog is corrupt or deleted, 'everything' I've done will be saved. By everything, that excludes catalog only stuff like collections, smart collections, sync services, export configurations, etc. But the actual file edits are all stored in the XMP's.

    It adds a fair bit of disk overhead when doing edits (especially mass edits) because it stores the edit in the catalog, and then writes it to the XMP on disk, but I can live with it for the overall benefits. If I could afford to have my entire image collection on an SSD it would no longer be an issue.
     
  20. Learning

    Learning Ethelred the Ill-Named

    Time for an update. Angela has done Nikon software in the issue that should be in the shops tomorrow.
    Also I am now doing most conversion in Affinity since I am getting the hang of processing the flat files from their de-mosaicing engine.
     

Share This Page