Site Sponsors
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 72 of 72

Thread: Which post processing software ....

  1. #51
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    Just to be clear, I had actually sulked about your absence earlier if you recall that, Jack.

    I have never heard of Topaz suite until now. It is the ease of use that led me to comment on LR.

    I may give C1 another try.
    Intuitive and ease -- unfortunately -- do not always directly translate to best... They do however tend directly toward popularity, since not everybody is inclined to take the time to learn the ins and outs of more complex -- which are often also more powerful -- alternatives...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  2. #52
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DE View Post
    Godfrey, You must not shoot Sony cameras much above base iso IMO the original a77 was just horrible in iso noise above 400iso. The NEX 7 was little better at 400 and higher. The a99 could go to 1000iso before imo it got hit with objectionable noise and the a77II hit that level at 1600iso. I will admit I hate iso noise as much as I hated grain in film which moved me to medium format very early in my life and later LF. Topaz DeNoise was just about a have to on nearly every image above those iso's until DXO came out with Prime then I had a real noise busting software for that purpose. Did I mention I hate noise

    You can get focus as good as you want at the time of capture but Topaz Detail will make the overall image just have that special look by just even uploading it to the plugin, hit apply and bring it back to aperture alone without using anything else.... though I do at times.

    It's not that the plugins can do things better than one can do in the basic PP conversion softwares; it is just for me, it is much quicker day in and day out. For my needs and wants speed and IQ is money in my pocket.
    bolded 1: I had the A7 for a year and a half. I found up to ISO 6400 netted good results as long as I had the exposure right. But I sold the A7 and all the rest of my Sony gear because I ultimately found the cameras too clunky to work with.

    bolded 2: Now there is where we differ. I like nice, smooth renderings some of the time and I like grain at other times. For this recent Leica M-P photo, I added grain because, to my eye, it looks good that way:


    With the A7, to my eye this is a grainless, typical ISO 1600 photo:


    I still shoot with medium format occasionally, especially the SWC, and love its smooth grain too. But even there, sometimes a coarse-grained image is my preference and I jump up to Delta 3200 to get it:


    (All three images rendered in LR, btw.)

    The time I tested Topaz Detail, to my eye it made my photos look artificial. Decided not to buy it, or NIK, or any others.

    But both of those notions are reach into the realm of aesthetic preferences and have little to do with camera capabilities.

    I'm not in that much of a rush when I'm processing my work. And because I focus on getting it the way I want in the camera, processing is often a case of reading in the raw files, making a tweak to one typical image, and doing the same to all the others.

    G
    Godfrey - GDGPhoto Flickr Stream
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #53
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Intuitive and ease -- unfortunately -- do not always directly translate to best... They do however tend directly toward popularity, since not everybody is inclined to take the time to learn the ins and outs of more complex -- which are often also more powerful -- alternatives...
    "Complex" and "confusing" are often mistaken for one another too, Jack. I found C1 not complex but confusing, and hard to remember unless you use it constantly. I find software which requires a half hour introductory lesson just to learn how to start using it generally not worth the trouble.

    A fabulous diamond trapped within a five-master rated Chinese puzzle box is not much to look at for the vast majority of people... ;-)

    G

  4. #54
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    933
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Godfrey that was one of the set backs to aperture... you have to do each photos PP individually and no real batch processing.

    I do product photography as a part time job (being as I am retiree from a fortune 500 major corporation and just looking for things to stay busy) which has recently been a 5 day a week gig which my contracted customer pays by the pic.... time means money in this regard and it mostly studio work. Now this a7RII will never be used for this work assignment as I have other better suited camera bodies for this purpose. The a7rII is my NEX7 replacement for a carry in scenic camera. Time in PP mean nothing in this specific case so I can fiddle and futz in a single PP software to achieve my goals....... These are printed and sold for a completely different client base in a gallery type marketplace and their likes and dislikes are different than those of my product work.

    I use camera systems and PP softwares/ plugins like golf clubs.... picking the strengths of the tools and using them to it's best applications to utilize these strengths and stay clear of it's weaknesses.

  5. #55
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jim DE View Post
    Godfrey that was one of the set backs to aperture... you have to do each photos PP individually and no real batch processing. ...
    I seem to recall a way to save and apply settings from one photo to another in Aperture, but as long as I've had it, I've only rarely used it.

    With LR, you can select a whole bunch of photos, turn on Auto-Sync, and then all your edits to the one photo are applied to all the others as well. You can also do one, then select a whole bunch of others as well, and apply the same edits to them. You can also do a bunch of edits, save it as a preset, then apply the preset to whatever photo you want. As a production system, if you shoot consistently and get most of your exposures close to the money, you can edit and output 10,000 photos as fast as your computer can process them. I never had a call for that many, but for some of the jobs I did, I had 300-400 exposures that the clients wanted to pick through. With LR it took just a short while to pump out all those proofs.

    As a production system it's hard to beat. I have not yet figured out how to do this kind of stuff with C1, and it's FAR easier to apply changes to a lot of photos at once with LR than it was with PS batch operations.

    G

  6. #56
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I seem to recall a way to save and apply settings from one photo to another in Aperture, but as long as I've had it, I've only rarely used it.

    With LR, you can select a whole bunch of photos, turn on Auto-Sync, and then all your edits to the one photo are applied to all the others as well. You can also do one, then select a whole bunch of others as well, and apply the same edits to them. You can also do a bunch of edits, save it as a preset, then apply the preset to whatever photo you want. As a production system, if you shoot consistently and get most of your exposures close to the money, you can edit and output 10,000 photos as fast as your computer can process them. I never had a call for that many, but for some of the jobs I did, I had 300-400 exposures that the clients wanted to pick through. With LR it took just a short while to pump out all those proofs.

    As a production system it's hard to beat. I have not yet figured out how to do this kind of stuff with C1, and it's FAR easier to apply changes to a lot of photos at once with LR than it was with PS batch operations.

    G
    Godfrey,

    need your advice then ....

    I always had the impression then I applied changes to one photo in LR (I usually do this via "Copy Settings" of the one photo I edit and then select the other photos and do a "Paste Settings"), it copies ALL the settings as done for the first edit candidate and does for example not individually apply exposure etc.

    This then reduces my initial edit I want to apply to all photos to a minimum like lens profiles and camera profiles etc, while I have to edit all photos individually for optimal exposure or WB.

    Would that be different is I used Auto Sync or something else?

    What am I doing wrong?

    Thanks for your answer in advance!

    Peter

  7. #57
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Massachusetts and Vermont
    Posts
    948
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    C1 Pro 8 doesn't list specific Sony FE lens profiles in the lens correction tab. My understanding was that, if the tab listed "Manufacturer's Profile" as the profile, C1 was applying a specific lens profile for that FE lens. I have noticed that my files with the Zeiss Batis 25 and 85 lenses show "Manufacturer's Profile" in the lens correction tab. Is it possible that Phase has already included specific profiles for those non-Sony lenses?

  8. #58
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    I'm not sure I understand your question, Peter. But I think you're asking, "Does Auto Sync do something different from Copy Settings—Paste Settings?" It does nothing different. It simply applies the same adjustments to all the exposures selected, as if you had copied and pasted your settings one image at a time.

    That's why the basic premise is to get the exposure and such as right as possible in the camera. Then all the adjustments, including exposure and tone curve, can be applied to all exposures at once. There are invariably a few photos that need a little bit of tweaking. I find most of the time I can do this in Quick Develop, selecting smaller groups of images. I only rarely work on one image at a time for more than a few seconds.

    G

  9. #59
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I'm not sure I understand your question, Peter. But I think you're asking, "Does Auto Sync do something different from Copy Settings—Paste Settings?" It does nothing different. It simply applies the same adjustments to all the exposures selected, as if you had copied and pasted your settings one image at a time.

    That's why the basic premise is to get the exposure and such as right as possible in the camera. Then all the adjustments, including exposure and tone curve, can be applied to all exposures at once. There are invariably a few photos that need a little bit of tweaking. I find most of the time I can do this in Quick Develop, selecting smaller groups of images. I only rarely work on one image at a time for more than a few seconds.

    G
    I think the other advantage of 'auto sync' is that you can select which settings are applied, for example you can uncheck/check all or simply pick and select. So you wouldn't want the crop settings to be the same for all images, and can easily uncheck that. It is indeed a very powerful tool to adjust multiple images at the same time.

    I've grown to like LR quite a bit over the past year or so, although I still have trouble accepting its 'modal' interface. A few other things are annoying too, like the need for 'synchronizing the folder' every time you add an image to it. Overall, it is very usable though.

  10. #60
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Godfrey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Near San Jose, California
    Posts
    7,930
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    if you add files to folders by importing them and telling LR where to put them, you don't need the synchronize folder command.

    G

  11. #61
    Workshop Member ptomsu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Austria, close to Vienna
    Posts
    3,872
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I'm not sure I understand your question, Peter. But I think you're asking, "Does Auto Sync do something different from Copy Settings—Paste Settings?" It does nothing different. It simply applies the same adjustments to all the exposures selected, as if you had copied and pasted your settings one image at a time.

    That's why the basic premise is to get the exposure and such as right as possible in the camera. Then all the adjustments, including exposure and tone curve, can be applied to all exposures at once. There are invariably a few photos that need a little bit of tweaking. I find most of the time I can do this in Quick Develop, selecting smaller groups of images. I only rarely work on one image at a time for more than a few seconds.

    G
    Thanks, that answers my question. So I have not missed anything.

  12. #62
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    if you add files to folders by importing them and telling LR where to put them, you don't need the synchronize folder command.

    G
    True, but then you have to go through the 'import' dialog every time. Even then, the program does not remember which folder I had imported into the last time. When I export a finished version of an image into the 'finals' folder through LR, the images do not show up unless I 'synchronize' the folder again and again. The huge flexibility of Aperture in terms of having different versions of the same image in different folders (as long as the original RAW remains in one place) is also something I miss. The import process too is not as flexible. Keywording was better in Aperture too.

    Like I said, the DAM capabilities of Aperture are superior to anything else but it falls behind in other areas and I don't like the idea of jumping from one program for cataloging and then use another for RAW conversion and then use PS or a plug-in for final work. That becomes too cumbersome.

    Minor annoyances, but the current incarnation of LR does other things much better, so I have learned to live with it and like it.

  13. #63
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    I seem to recall a way to save and apply settings from one photo to another in Aperture, but as long as I've had it, I've only rarely used it.

    With LR, you can select a whole bunch of photos, turn on Auto-Sync, and then all your edits to the one photo are applied to all the others as well. You can also do one, then select a whole bunch of others as well, and apply the same edits to them. You can also do a bunch of edits, save it as a preset, then apply the preset to whatever photo you want. As a production system, if you shoot consistently and get most of your exposures close to the money, you can edit and output 10,000 photos as fast as your computer can process them. I never had a call for that many, but for some of the jobs I did, I had 300-400 exposures that the clients wanted to pick through. With LR it took just a short while to pump out all those proofs.

    As a production system it's hard to beat. I have not yet figured out how to do this kind of stuff with C1, and it's FAR easier to apply changes to a lot of photos at once with LR than it was with PS batch operations.

    G
    There's a copy/paste settings function in C1P8 that works similarly to LR (represented by the arrows in the toolbar.) There's a few small differences but in essence it works the same.

    Even still it is my opinion that LR is more user friendly, tends to provide faster support/profiles, tends to be a lot more stable (although in fairness I haven't had many issues with C1P8,) and the pixel level results of LR + 3rd party external editors/plugins produces a comparable to superior final product in most cases. To each their own and choice is for us all good.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  14. #64
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Godfrey View Post
    Wow.

    I almost never use any plugins at all. I try to get focus and exposure right in the camera, only rarely have need for any but minimal sharpening, and only very rarely need much noise filtering. If an exposure needs much of this kind of post processing, I consider it bad and move on to the next candidate.

    Maybe I'm not critical enough, but I see little dissatisfying about the prints I produce with LR...!

    G
    I agree that you should get the image right in camera. Sometimes the plugins are for that extra punch or for the additional artistic effects to squeeze that last 10% out of the file.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  15. #65
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,187
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    For whatever it's worth to the few of you who still want to hear what I have to say about this:

    Since I switched to C1, I have not needed any plug-ins. And I did have the complete Topaz suite -- and relied on it -- before C1...
    I don't want to seem like I'm anti-C1P8 although I became anti-C1P from my experiences for the previous versions (v4 and V7) as they just weren't very stable on my machines. I forced myself to use C1P8 almost exclusively for about 6-9 months. I like it and they made some serious strides with the current version where features generally work as advertised. That being said I did see noticeable improvement in the files that I gave the Photoshop CC treatment from C1P8 from those that only received pure C1P8 treatment which got me experimenting with LR6 once it was released just a bit more. In short I became more pleased with the finished output of my LR workflow when compared using my normal C1P8 workflow. The output was close and we are talking about picking hairs - but the LR workflow saved me time from behind the computer AND had a tad bit better IQ IMO.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  16. #66
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,338
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    52

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    For whatever it's worth to the few of you who still want to hear what I have to say about this:

    Since I switched to C1, I have not needed any plug-ins. And I did have the complete Topaz suite -- and relied on it -- before C1...
    Never heard of Topaz Jack - thanks for referencing it.

    As for C1 - it is as good as the raw processors from Hasselblad and Sinar I use all the time for camera specific raws that they were designed for and pretty useless for the real world stuff ( just like hasselblad and Sinars raw processors are ) which lazy photographers like me hate dealing with - filing, tagging, sorting and generally keeping somewhere...hence LR becomes a default...

    How nasty of Apple to ditch Aperture - which was a nice programme to work with...just goes to show - don't fight Adobe...

  17. #67
    Senior Member Annna T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Swiss Alps
    Posts
    1,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Pradeep View Post
    True, but then you have to go through the 'import' dialog every time. Even then, the program does not remember which folder I had imported into the last time. When I export a finished version of an image into the 'finals' folder through LR, the images do not show up unless I 'synchronize' the folder again and again. The huge flexibility of Aperture in terms of having different versions of the same image in different folders (as long as the original RAW remains in one place) is also something I miss. The import process too is not as flexible. Keywording was better in Aperture too.

    Like I said, the DAM capabilities of Aperture are superior to anything else but it falls behind in other areas and I don't like the idea of jumping from one program for cataloging and then use another for RAW conversion and then use PS or a plug-in for final work. That becomes too cumbersome.

    Minor annoyances, but the current incarnation of LR does other things much better, so I have learned to live with it and like it.
    In the export dialogue, there is a box to tick : you can choose whether the final export will be added to the catalogue or not.

  18. #68
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    564
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by Annna T View Post
    In the export dialogue, there is a box to tick : you can choose whether the final export will be added to the catalogue or not.
    Thanks, I probably missed that one

  19. #69
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    590
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Well I use Lr6 and NIK software and have been with Lr since version 2. I tried C1 and Aperture years ago and couldn't get to grips with them and the early version of Lr had sliders using a terminology that a Photographer coming from the age of film and the darkroom could understand (tis has no changed in later versions). I suppose I am too entrenched in the program to change now even if some other developers might offer some advantages in certain areas. On the whole Lr is a very powerful package and meets 99% of my needs. I alsouse NIK silverefex Pro, ColorEfex pro and Dfine (can be good for getting rid of banding in high ISO shots)

  20. #70
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,128
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    I shoot raw exclusively and use lightroom as raw processor.

    I have created individual import defaults for all my camera's to have a consistent starting point for all my camera's, so I mostly have to do some tweaking which is not much different from a little tweaking to out of camera jpg's, but with much more flexibility to correct white-balance and over/under exposure.

    I also didn't like the out of the box colours Lightroom provided and experimented with some imported camera colour profiles that I found on the web. This improved the situation a bit but the final step that made in "click" was creating my own colour profiles using an X-rite colour checker and the Adobe dng colour profile editor. Now I'm happy with the results

    Normally the denoise facility in lightroom is sufficient for my needs, but for extreme cases I use Noise Ninja.

    Only steps I do in photoshop is a final sharpening for web viewing (Photokit sharpener) and add a 1 pixel wide white border.

    I tried both DXO and C1 but found that within the 30 day trial period my lightroom conversions were better then what I could achieve with those programs (noise, colour and general rendering). I must admit that Lightroom in that regard has an unfair advantage, since I've been using that since the free beta version of LR1, so I'm much better at home in there then in any of the other converters.

    I'm sure better people can achieve better results with any other converter (or LR for that matter), but in the end I'm a firm believer that the best raw converter is the one you know best.

  21. #71
    Sr. Administrator Jack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Los Altos, CA
    Posts
    10,486
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1031

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterA View Post
    Never heard of Topaz Jack - thanks for referencing it.

    As for C1 - it is as good as the raw processors from Hasselblad and Sinar I use all the time for camera specific raws that they were designed for and pretty useless for the real world stuff ( just like hasselblad and Sinars raw processors are ) which lazy photographers like me hate dealing with - filing, tagging, sorting and generally keeping somewhere...hence LR becomes a default...

    How nasty of Apple to ditch Aperture - which was a nice programme to work with...just goes to show - don't fight Adobe...
    Since we're at it, the NIK suite is excellent too! However -- and this is critical to understand -- you can do everything they do in CS itself, it just requires you know which sliders to slide and toggles to throw, and by how much. And that's not overly intuitive... But in fact, you can do some of it better in C1 before it ever gets to CS or either suite. Hence why I like C1 so much

    Carryon...
    Jack
    home: www.getdpi.com

    "Perfection is not attainable. But if we chase perfection, we can catch excellence."

  22. #72
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: Which post processing software ....

    I always love the LR vs C1 vs everything else conversation.
    Owning all of them myself, unfortunately no piece of software will make me a better photographer.

    Just keeping it real.
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •