Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2017/01/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Just a warning to the wise for Douglas. If you have converted images to .dng files using Lightroom then Capture One will not recognise them. It will recognise native .dng images from Leica digital cameras though. I have to agree with Lluis that I think it is better as a raw converter but it is no where near as intuitive as Lightroom, and for me the advantages of LR outweigh the disadvantages of C1. I have been on the Photographers plan for some time now (more or less since it was introduced) and really don?t understand the reluctance of people to sign up. Adobe support is very good and C1 support can be slow. Gerry > On 6 Jan 2017, at 13:57, Lluis Ripoll <lluisripollphotography at > gmail.com> wrote: > > I use Capture One version 8, in my opinion is much better than LR, I use > LR only with my B&W scans due to the facility to remove unlimited dust > spots. > Lluis > > El 6/1/2017 6:37, "Peter Klein" <boulanger.croissant at gmail.com> > escribi?: > >> Douglas: I use Capture One. A "light" version came with my M8. I soon >> purchased the Pro version and have stuck with it through many upgrades. >> Like Lightroom, C-One is considered a fully professional tool, and keeps >> up >> with support for virtually every significant camera made. Also, C-One can >> be purchased outright--unlike Adobe's rental model, which I oppose on >> principle. The recent versions have layers and layer masks, so you can do >> local exposure/contrast/color adjustments, cloning and (to a limited >> extent) "healing." The C-One layers are not as advanced as Photoshop's, >> but C-One does 98% of what I've ever needed. >> >> For the remaining 2%, I use Picture Window Pro, *after* I've done my RAW >> work. PWP has a generic RAW converter, which requires a lot more manual >> work to get the basic conversion right than Capture One or Lightroom. The >> latter two have built-in profiles for most cameras. PWP's RAW processor is >> basically a GUI interface to DCRAW, which is built into program. You have >> to figure out the settings on your own, or use someone else's recipe. >> >> Personally, I would not use PWP for its RAW converter. I use it for what >> my RAW converter don't do or don't do as well. PWP's RAW can work well, >> but I find it better suited to people who are more interested in the >> technical minutae of RAW conversion than in actually taking pictures. Such >> people can do as well with it as with Lightroom or C-One, but I'm not one >> of them. PWP's RAW converter enabled me to learn a lot about how RAW >> converters work, and to play with RAW files from new cameras. But >> inevitably, when Lightroom or C-One come out with a camera profile, often >> with help from the camera maker, it always is quite a bit better than what >> I can do with PWP. >> >> Before C-One had layers and layer masks, I did my initial global work >> (affecting the whole image) in C-One. Then I saved the file as a 16-bit >> TIFF. Then I'd work on the TIFF in PWP, doing local adjustments with >> masks, >> cloning, and such. Today, I usually find C-One sufficient. And I've still >> got my copy of PWP for the occasional esoteric stuff that C-One doesn't >> do. >> >> I will not get into a holy war about whether C-One or Lightroom is better. >> As with all complex tools, which one is better depends on what you need to >> do. For most of us, either will do quite nicely. I'd say that if you are >> serious about RAW work, you owe it to yourself to have one of the two. >> C-One is probably less expensive in the long run. If you have an esoteric >> need, your best bet is to do a Net search of that feature and look for >> reviews or user comments that mention the feature and the programs of >> interest in depth. >> >> Also note that Fuji X-Trans files have some special processing >> requirements. The consensus I've read is that Capture One is somewhat >> better than Lightroom for Fuji files, especially for landscapes with lots >> of green in them. Each handles the colors a little differently. You might >> want to research that further. There's also SilkyPix, which is what Fuji >> recommends. But that means using something that is very different from >> everything else out there, and might not be the best for any other camera >> make. >> >> Jonathan Sachs, the author of PWP (and also the co-author of the original >> Lotus 123), just discontinued development on PWP. The final version is now >> available for free here: >> <http://dl-c.com/> >> >> Since PWP is a mature, full-featured image editor, I see no reason not to >> have it if you need a good general purpose image editor. IMHO it's *much* >> better than any of the other free or low-cost programs out there. I chose >> it over Photoshop and Photoshop Elements years ago. (Of course, if >> Elements >> is fine for you, look no further). PWP's major downsides are: >> >> (1) It does not do layers, so you have to save several versions of >> your image if you want to go back and change something. >> (2) Its user interface is a little different from most Windows >> programs, which annoys some people. >> >> Hope this helps! >> >> --Peter >> >> >>> I have been using Picture Window Pro 7.0 for some time, and it does >>> fine, but is being discontinued. I own my software, but there will be >>> no more updates for new cameras. At present, it does not support RAF >>> files from the X-T2, which I have been considering. It works fine with >>> RAF files from the X-E1. That is why I was exploring LR. >>> >>> Jim Nichols >>> Tullahoma, TN USA >>> >>> On 1/5/2017 4:59 PM, Douglas Barry wrote: >>>> Having never shot a RAW file since I discovered my Fuji X100S files >>>> were not compatible with my old LR nearly four years ago, I'm >>>> wondering are there any low cost PC alternatives to Lightroom that >>>> would enble me to import Fuji RAW and convert to Tiff as I need the >>>> resolution for printing?? JPGs don't cut it for larger sizes. I'd like >>>> to hear from anybody who is using alternative PC software to import >>>> RAW files and how it's working for them. >>>> >>>> I'm also buying a Sony A7ii so it would be useful if it could do the >>>> same trick with Sony RAW files. I do little manipulation so I'm happy >>>> to use my existing PSE software which can deal with Tiffs easily. >>>> >>>> Douglas >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Leica Users Group. >> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information