Handling Q2 files ... Lightroom or Capture One or xxxxx ?

[jmc014]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I edit using Lightroom on my iPad Pro, and the subscription is $5 per month, which is perfectly palatable to me.

Consistent updates at $60 per year is a cost I can live with.

[sturkel]

So I am of a diffferent opinion.  I like the on line veirsion of lightroom as I store my images on their cloud and have access to my images from anywhere at any time.  When you take into account storage and ease of use the subscription is not all that bad.

 

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[ramarren]

On 6/11/2019 at 11:06 PM, Stephen_C said:

This is a vexing issue with RAW files. There is such a huge personal investment in any RAW processing program (I know—from my own change from Lightroom to Capture One when Lightroom went subscription only). The prospect of future change—and presumably having to redo all of the old images (because the processing would not be recognised in the new program)—is not one I consider with any degree of comfort.

I do convert my Q2 images to Adobe DNG to save space and Capture One deals with them perfectly. Although this is the first time I've understood that other programs in the future might possibly not do so I shall continue doing converting the files. Maybe it's foolish but at present I can't really contemplate another change of RAW processing program!

Of course the other vexing issue with RAW processing programs is their interaction with digital asset management programs (i.e., cataloguing software for your photos). Lightroom users are doubtless content to stay within Lightroom for that but I suspect others (like me) will be looking at programs like Photo Mechanic Plus for the cataloguing. The vexing issue, of course, is that you don't see your processed images in the catalogue—but only the original RAW images.

Nothing is ever quite perfect in this world, is it?

Stephen

Switching raw processors, and even image management systems, hasn't proven too difficult for me other than learning new software because I set up my workflow and image management/archiving from the very beginning to be agnostic of what software I used. 

Raw conversion is essentially an interpretive process, which makes raw converters interpreters, and a fundamental rule of thumb is that "interpreters change as the technology improves". This means it is not sensible to rely upon raw processing not to change simply from the updating and development of the raw converter, even if it is the same raw converter. Nothing you can do about that unless you freeze to one version of a raw converter running on one version of a computer and operating system for all time. That's never going to happen. So my tactic is to output an archivable finished image whenever I finish a rendering task into a full resolution, sixteen bit per component, TIFF file with ZIP compression, and file that separately from the original file. Displaying that kind of TIFF file correctly is simply a display problem, not a data interpretation problem. 

Same goes for archiving. I use industry standard IPTC annotation for keywords, titles, etc, and name files in such a way that just the file name can give me a decent clue as to when and what files might be associated. Any image processing/image management system I'm going to buy simply has as the bottom line compatibility with reading EXIF and IPTC data, and knows how to properly display a 16-bit TIFF image. 

Any raw files that I haven't "finished" ... I don't care about what preliminary image processing I've done to them. It's not important, because I didn't choose to finish the image rendering anyway. 

These policies and practices have done me very well since the early '00s when I came up with the system. I've changed image processing apps and backup/management software several times without losing any work at all. 

 

[marchyman]

2 hours ago, ramarren said:

Any raw files that I haven't "finished" ... I don't care about what preliminary image processing I've done to them. It's not important, because I didn't choose to finish the image rendering anyway. 

I don't know if I'd go quite that far.   I will sometimes tweak an image I don't care that much about because the preview of the un- or partially-edited image annoys me

Mostly I agree with you.   Back when I switched from Aperture to Lightroom I dreaded the thought of having to edit my images again.   It turned out I didn't re-edit that many.  The reason for a re-edit was often such that I'd probably have re-edited them had I stayed with Aperture, too.

The thread has drifted...this has nothing to do with the Q2.

[MEB]

Just to add to this discussion, I also occasionally use DxO (especially since they took over the NIK collection).  DxO is not yet capable of handling Q2 files.  I contacted the company and they acknowledged that the program does not recognize the Q2 and they said they are working on it but do not have a date yet for when the expect to correct this issue.  I find this a little surprising since DxO does recognize the files from M cameras and from the SL.

Mark

[marchyman]

23 hours ago, MEB said:

I find this a little surprising since DxO does recognize the files from M cameras and from the SL

But it doesn't recognize the M 262.  That made my trial of the software last about 15 seconds

 I expect Q2 support will be added quickly due to the popularity of the camera.  I don't have that expectation for M 262 support.

[jc3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/13/2019 at 7:10 PM, MEB said:

Just to add to this discussion, I also occasionally use DxO (especially since they took over the NIK collection).  DxO is not yet capable of handling Q2 files.  I contacted the company and they acknowledged that the program does not recognize the Q2 and they said they are working on it but do not have a date yet for when the expect to correct this issue.  I find this a little surprising since DxO does recognize the files from M cameras and from the SL.

Mark

I am using PhotoLab 7.0 which had the NIK collection embedded. Anyone using PhotoLab from DXO?

[David Wien]

1 hour ago, jc3 said:

I am using PhotoLab 7.0 which had the NIK collection embedded. Anyone using PhotoLab from DXO?

I am still using PL6 and am very happy with it. I may update to PL7, but I am not sure there is anything in it for me. I dont use NIK/Film Pack, only View Point. PL works well with Q3 raw files.

 

David

[SrMi]

On 6/13/2019 at 11:10 AM, MEB said:

Just to add to this discussion, I also occasionally use DxO (especially since they took over the NIK collection).  DxO is not yet capable of handling Q2 files.  I contacted the company and they acknowledged that the program does not recognize the Q2 and they said they are working on it but do not have a date yet for when the expect to correct this issue.  I find this a little surprising since DxO does recognize the files from M cameras and from the SL.

Mark

My PL 6 can open and process Q2 files (not monochrome). According to DxO, Q2 is supported since PL 3.2.0.

[FocusDot]

Lightroom is my choice with Q2 files since Capture1 does not recognize crop modes