Best PP software?

[costa43]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys

I'm currently converting my m9-p and m8 files in an old version of Lightroom. I believe version 5. The latest version requires a subscription which is a little annoying but it's the way things seem to be going nowadays.

 

The alternatives are I either move to Capture One, they do offer a perpetual license. Or I stay put with the old version.

 

What's the general consensus out there on what works best for the DNG files from these cameras?

 

Thanks

Costa

[Advertisement]

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

[Topsy]

I'm still using Lightroom 6 with the last update long gone, I don't find it lacking at all in fact I hardly need to do any PP with my M9 files a couple of clicks after applying Thorsten Overgaard's preset for M9s.mThe good thing is DNG files from even the most recent cameras can be read by LR6 unlike the RAW files from other manufacturers which need new plug ins that aren't available for LR6 or earlier.

[Adam Bonn]

Same as Topsy really

I bought Capture One 20 and personally speaking I found I preferred the look of the M9 files from LR6 than I did C1

I want to like C1... it's faster than LR, more stable on my system and has many useful features that LR doesn't (plus I spent good money on it.. pretty much enough to 'rent' LR CC for 2 years)

But I don't find it very Leica orientated, the lens profiles it has for M glass are inferior to my eye than the LR ones and it doesn't have profiles for my CV and Zeiss glass

The cataloguing and search abilities of LR6 (circa 2017) are far superior to C1 (circa 2020) as well

C1 made a bit more sense on my 240 files, but as I didn't want to have two image editors for 2 cameras I ended up getting LR to do what I wanted(ish) with my 240 files.

But many folks love C1 and make great images with it, so there's a degree (or two) of what floats ones boat in picking editing software 

[jaapv]

The software that works best is the one that you are most comfortable with.

[costa43]

Thanks all. 

[boojum]

I work in Linux which is an OS awash with open source free software.  It also exists on the MS side of the house.  https://piceditorreview.com/open-source-photo-editing-software/

[1joel1]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been very happy with On1. I find that it is very 3 dimensional and colors just pop.

Joel

[Marac]

If you're on a Mac try RAW Power $29, or 'darktable' it's totally free and really quite nice.

[boojum]

2 hours ago, Marac said:

If you're on a Mac try RAW Power $29, or 'darktable' it's totally free and really quite nice.

I use Darktable, also, and find it a good product, too.  Setting aside that it is free it is still a worthy contender.  Take it out for a test drive.

[Cobram]

I use Capture One. Tried Lightroom few years ago. 

My personal observation: C1 is less demanding regarding computer power, images are less saturated but sharper. It is easier to make a photo POP in Lightroom but it is at the same time easier to make it too POP 🙂 By too much pop I mean digital look.

[Adam Bonn]

This is where all our personal opinions come into play!

I think C1 is the superior product. More stable and faster on my system, better NR and sharpening and better HL/shadow recovery.

But in my opinion this often leads to a more digital looking image!

The software apps are basically what you make of them and the best one is usually the one that you gel with using and get to grips with!

[Ray Vonn]

Not mentioned by many but give Iridient Developer a try (I think you can try it for free). If you generally like your files as they are out of camera. Very nice with my Ricoh GR, Nikon D800E and M-E 220 files.

[motard]

my favourite: Darktable and GIMP

[mmradman]

Adobe CC, there is modest monthly subscription that includes ACR and Photoshop, also Lightroom if you need it.  ACR and Lightroom, as i understand it, is the same file developer.

Side note, I never understood Lightroom or manged it to make it work for me.  I have my own filing system which is pretty robust and easy to navigate so dont really seek or need software to mange librarty for me.  

[Cobram]

22 hours ago, Adam Bonn said:

This is where all our personal opinions come into play!

I think C1 is the superior product. More stable and faster on my system, better NR and sharpening and better HL/shadow recovery.

But in my opinion this often leads to a more digital looking image!

The software apps are basically what you make of them and the best one is usually the one that you gel with using and get to grips with!

I agree with you Adam. Software "rendering" is really a personal taste "issue" 🙂

Photos posted online prove both, C1 and Lightroom, as well as other softwares can produce nice pictures.

About C1 digital look: I sometimes hated Lightroom "digital-pastel" colors but I admit that C1 HL/shadow recovery can lead to even more artificial look.

Fuji and Kodak shall develop and sell their own raw converters😅 

[Fgcm]

IMHO, different softwares have slightly different camera profiles. The better the better profile, the easier the job in PP.

So, yes, the best is the one you like the most, but they are not equal when you consider the quality of the camera profiles.

Aperture 3, now discontinued, had the best camera profile for M9 and M8. Ten years ago it was surprisingly good at PP M9 files (bus average with other camera).

Lightroom and C1 are both good, but most of the time foliage and skin tones are slightly off when PP M9 files. 

This is pretty weird, because these software do a great job with M10 and SL files. Who knows why? 

Apple Photo, (Foto in the Italian release) despite being a consumer software, seems to have the same camera profile as Aperture 3, so it's really good at PP M9 files. 

C1 is my main software, but I use Apple Foto to PP old photos taken with M9.

Give it a try. It renders very natural looking skin tones and foliage and it's free. 

Unfortunately Apple Photo is not as good with M10 and SL and manages files as consumer software (as it is designed to be), so, a copy of either C1 or Lightroom is mandatory. 

 

 

[Jeff S]

Many other similar discussions in the forum.  I agree with Jaap; people tend to like the software that they take time to learn and get comfortable with.  

As I have noted elsewhere, I consider the subscription version of LR a real bargain....ten bucks including both Photoshop and LR, with all the latest features and updates.  I used to spend a similar amount when I continually was upgrading. And far more in my darkroom days.  In the overall scheme of my photo expenses, it's a nit.  

The current version of LR is also far superior to the earlier versions, as demonstrated by the improved prints I can now make with my older files.  Besides LR, I also use ImagePrint, which is expensive initially, but has served me well for many years.  The paper profiles alone are worth the money, besides all the other benefits for printing.

Jeff

[Ray Vonn]

6 hours ago, Fgcm said:

IMHO, different softwares have slightly different camera profiles. The better the better profile, the easier the job in PP.

So, yes, the best is the one you like the most, but they are not equal when you consider the quality of the camera profiles.

Aperture 3, now discontinued, had the best camera profile for M9 and M8. Ten years ago it was surprisingly good at PP M9 files (bus average with other camera).

Lightroom and C1 are both good, but most of the time foliage and skin tones are slightly off when PP M9 files. 

This is pretty weird, because these software do a great job with M10 and SL files. Who knows why? 

Apple Photo, (Foto in the Italian release) despite being a consumer software, seems to have the same camera profile as Aperture 3, so it's really good at PP M9 files. 

C1 is my main software, but I use Apple Foto to PP old photos taken with M9.

Give it a try. It renders very natural looking skin tones and foliage and it's free. 

Unfortunately Apple Photo is not as good with M10 and SL and manages files as consumer software (as it is designed to be), so, a copy of either C1 or Lightroom is mandatory. 

 

 

Very interesting, I shall give that a try. Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

I make a custom color profile for all my cameras.  Quite simple using a ColorChecker Passport.  And then use custom paper profiles from IP.  Every step should be color managed, not dependent on canned output.

Jeff

[jaapv]

15 hours ago, Fgcm said:

IMHO, different softwares have slightly different camera profiles.

Not really, the software has a designer-taste preset profile. The user is supposed to install a profile of his/her choice (or be happy with the given one). A bit like leaving the seat of you car in the position it was  in when you bought it.