Which post processing software ....

[iiiNelson]

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.

 

[iiiNelson]

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.

 

[PeterA]

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. :thumbup:

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 :angry:- which was a nice programme to work with...just goes to show - don't fight Adobe...

 

[Annna T]

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.

 

[Pradeep]

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

 

[Viramati]

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)

 

[pegelli]

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.

 

[Jack]

Never heard of Topaz Jack - thanks for referencing it. :thumbup:

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 :angry:- 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...

 

[kuau]

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.