The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Which post processing software ....

Jim DE

New member
I know... I know... this is like which vehicle or what camera type questions but I have been a Aperture user for years. Yeah I have copies of LR, CS, DXO, C1 and a host of plugins and specialty softwares and occasionally used them for their strengths when needed but given a choice I opened Aperture first. Mac has abandoned Aperture so it is inevitable that I will have to migrate to another software in the near future. This a7rII has essentially at the moment given me a kick in the tail to move to something else. Sadly even with many PS/CS college courses these software even though they are without a doubt the most powerful photo processing softwares in the world but it's UI and my mind just never have blended very well. I really don't like the layer process and many of the other systems Adobe uses (not to mention the worlds worst customer service department of any company I have ever dealt with). But, if LR is the best PP software for a7rII AWR files then I would just have to tough it out and use it UI issue or not.

I see Quentin has been using Adobe and I think Guy still uses C1 (could be wrong there) but both individual are posting excellent images. What is the consensus today as to which software is working best with Sony files? I got most of them so cost of changing to another software is not a issue but results and UI are along with a filing system that might be like the Aperture software if there is one.

I played with a7rII files in both LR and C1 and got my best results converting the AWR file to a TIF and moving them to Aperture (you know that is the 'Old Horse New Tricks issue") working them there ;)
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Using LR has very little to do with using Photoshop CS. It's a very different kind of image processing app. And, not to be confrontational, but Adobe has actually done very well on customer support for me. Sure, not without some issues ... but then, nobody's perfect. ;-)

To me, there is no clear winner OR loser. I use LR myself, and it's nearly the only image processing app I use nowadays. Once you have a feel for what it does, why, and how to get what you want, it's hard to move to other stuff. (I even like using it... but that's my problem.)

But excellent results have been produced with every modern image processing app out there. Pick one, learn it and use it well. Exploit its strengths, workaround its weaknesses. Etc.

G
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
I am using C1, then hand off the tif file to CS6 and Nik.
Iridient also is excellent for dealing with the raw file.
It's very easy to learn and it also works great with CS6 and Nik.
If there is a consensus I must have missed it.

PS: ACR of course underlies both LR and PS.
 
Just like K-H, I am also using C1 for basic adjustment then export to Photoshop for further editing with Nik.

The reason why I am choosing C1 over LR is because the other day, we tested highlight recovery of C1 and LR on FredMiranda and LR produced a bit of posterization/stair-step. I like C1 color more as well.
 

dandrewk

New member
I've been using LR for at least the past 10 years. Since switching, I'd say I use Photoshop in VERY rare situations.

Any new PP software is bound to be a big confusing at first, and sometimes a bit overwhelming. I'd highly recommend either a current book on using the software, or (even better) an online video course. I used Kelby Training way back when, and since then it's second nature. This goes for ANY PP software.
 

k-hawinkler

Well-known member
Just like K-H, I am also using C1 for basic adjustment then export to Photoshop for further editing with Nik.

The reason why I am choosing C1 over LR is because the other day, we tested highlight recovery of C1 and LR on FredMiranda and LR produced a bit of posterization/stair-step. I like C1 color more as well.
Thanks. Interesting that you should remark on C1 color. C1's color performance got me interested initially. It seems to be much more subtle about that whereas ACR in LR or PS behaves more like a sledgehammer. For some images I never could manage to get the pleasing C1 colors out of LR or PS.
 

fmueller

Active member
I use LR as the first stop for everything, even for MFDB files. It's my catalog but also gets use as an editor for many files. But when I get serious, I drag the file into C1 and then later into PS CC for finishing and printing.

Doing it this way leaves the C1 and photoshop file residing in the same folder as the original import into LR. I have LR scan the folder to import the finished file into the LR catalog. Sometimes I decide the LR edit looks better and use it instead.

To go from LR to C1, I literally drag the file on top of the C1 icon in the application bar and C1 opens the whole folder of images into a default session which then stores the C1 information for that session within the LR folder.

Sounds more complicated than it is.
 
Last edited:

Jim DE

New member
Thanks for all the comments as they are all appreciated. I guess I have had a photoshop version since PS7 and have done every step up in versions since then. During these years I have taken 4-5 college courses to bring me back up to speed with the various versions because essentially I might have to use this software less than 3 times a year max. PS/CS and I are like a monkey with a football user interface wise. I take the courses as it forces me to use it and in a few weeks I am at least minimally proficient. Then the class ends and I don't use it for 6montgs to a year and my proficiency is back to opening the books and dragging myself through the interface.

I got DXO years ago and use it now basically if I need its Prime NR. It's a ok PP but just not with a lot of tools compared to the others.

Aperture has been my pet software over most of its existence. There were PP softwares with more powerful tools but the editing and filing for me were effortless. Most all my plugins are through my aperture software and I have the full topaz suite in it among others. I use it daily for work and it is like the back of my hand as far as knowing it.

C1 I got a few versions ago and my first experience with it was very poor as it did not blend well with aperture and ended up corrupting a couple hundred aperture RAW files which became unsalvageable. I was not a happy camper. Since then I never worked between these two softwares but instead used a separate raw file for each. The newer C1 software does look nice and does do a good job but is slow for me because I don't use it enough.

LR is my newest venture as I started with LR5. Mainly because I figured I would be just as frustrated with it as PS/CS UI. It is better but does have a few of the features I struggle with mentally to use. But I am sure if I used it as much as my aperture I probably could get used to it.

I find with softwares the term use it or lose it is very true. I am proof of this :(

Now I just have to pic one and run with it....
 

mathomas

Active member
I have the worlds most expensive copy of LR, having got there by way of C1. Like you I was a very long-time user of Aperture, and found it to be exactly what I needed. When Apple dumped it, I felt dumped myself.

I tried C1 and LR at the same time and ended up buying C1 a little hastily because my trial period ended during a busy (non-photo) time for me and I had only done a little image editing with it. I liked its non-modal interface (similar to aperture) compared to LR's goofy modal one, so I thought it was a better option for an Aperture person.

But then I discovered C1's keywording, or lack thereof. It's extremely basic to the point of unusable, for me. That feature is important to me, so it was a death blow to my use of C1. It also seemed to me that many of C1's keyboard shortcuts are asymmetric (you can't toggle modes with the same keystroke), which forces you to remember twice as many keyboard shortcuts for certain common tasks. That and some other things make the UI harder to learn/use than other tools (for me). I'm not a pro, so the other benefits of C1 are a bit lost on me though I'm sure they are there.

LR seems to get all the catalog management and keywording right, has the UI mostly right (for me) and has plenty good adjustment tools for my purposes, so I ended up with a Creative Cloud "photo" account for $9.99/mo. I dislike the subscription thing on principle, but am OK thus far in practice. I guess I'll learn to put up with the modality of the LR UI (it's still a little frustrating).

So I never use C1 any more, though reading some of the responses here gives me some ideas on how to integrate it for certain situations (thanks for that).
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
The short version is that I use a Adobe CC/DXO and C1P8 workflow depending on what I want to do. I used to use Aperture 3 due to many improvements and tools that it offered above LRv2 at the time. I'd lean towards arguing the fact that LR4 possibly surpassed Aperture and if you weren't convinced then I'd say LR5/LR6 definitely have in IQ... Using them with DXO takes it up another level to where I'd say pure IQ wise LR6+DXO10 surpasses C1P8 in the vast number of cases. This is where I'd say the Adobe route has the extreme advantage - software/plugin compatibility. There's SOME limited support with C1 and you can export to other programs to edit. The seamless native support designed to work with your RAW Converter/DAM is lacking though by comparison to Adobe (and Aperture for that matter) though. If that's something important to you there's that argument.

The good thing about C1 is that they have a Sony version if you don't want/need the extra support. C1P8 has the advantage of native tether support and the ability to produce great IQ out the box. The tethering options are unmatched and that's when I use C1P8 primarily now since slowly transitioning back to LR6. All that said C1P8 is much better than any of the previous versions that I mostly hated due to all the glitches and bugs. The catalog features actually work and aren't broken. I'd say my earlier issues with C1P stemmed from the disconnect in buttonology that obvious had a strong design influence from an engineering/programmer standpoint.I know some will agree but the fact that expensive C1P training is always peddled not too far from the software says a lot about the learning curve. In short I had to force myself to use it exclusively for a few months before I became marginally comfortable with it on any level. Aperture and Lightroom both just made sense to me within a few hours without extensive instruction.

Some of the wild cards are Irridient Developer (great IQ result, great price, a bit archaic interface on some level) and Affinity Photo (if you're on Mac OS X machines.)
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
C1, C1, C1. LR sucks.
I generally disagree that it "sucks" but it may not be everyone's cup of tea. C1 generally does better with Nikon files I hear but I don't have a Nikon camera soooo. I do have Sony's and a Panasonic... I had Leica's previously too. All did extremely well with LR and the Sony did well with C1P8 as well. LR6/Photoshop CC 2015 + DXO10 does better though IMO but it is a more costly solution for sure.
 
Last edited:

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
Consider me the Donald Trump of processing software -- there is no room for political correctness :D

If you take the time to compare LR to C1 on a pixel level basis, LR simply cannot compete. And I don't care if you're shooting a Nikon, Leica, Sony or a MF digital back... Now, you may prefer LR's workflow and cataloging conventions and that is fine; and if it's good enough technically for your needs, cool. But it simply isn't as good of a technical processor for detail or color as C1, period.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Oh, that is an unfortunate name to be associated with- PC or no PC.

I gave up on C1 after a few files. Salute to all who can put up with it. :salute:
 

Jack

Sr. Administrator
Staff member
And if you don't like my direct, matter of fact and honest replies, just put me on your ignore list :D
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Consider me the Donald Trump of processing software -- there is no room for political correctness :D

If you take the time to compare LR to C1 on a pixel level basis, LR simply cannot compete. And I don't care if you're shooting a Nikon, Leica, Sony or a MF digital back... Now, you may prefer LR's workflow and cataloging conventions and that is fine; and if it's good enough technically for your needs, cool. But it simply isn't as good of a technical processor for detail or color as C1, period.
I'd agree if one was strictly using ONLY LR and not PS, DXO, Nik, OnOne, Topaz, Irridient Developer, or many of the other programs that work natively to enhance the base characteristics of LR alone. LR+Plugins honestly can/do produce a better file than C1P8 is capable of bottom line. That's not to say that C1P8 is bad or that it "sucks" (to use the aforementioned vernacular) because it's excellent software. It's just not the end all be all nor does it have the extensive IQ advantage it once had over LR back in the LR4 and prior days. Actually they are pretty close in native pixel level sharpness now to be honest. I'd say DXO Optics 10 specifically take LR beyond what C1P8 can do natively (i.e. without Photoshop refinements) IMO.

There's no need for me to continue to debate this point though. I'd seen the results with my own eyes with my own computer and I'll leave it at that. I still use both and you won't hear me say that C1P8 doesn't have a significant tethering advantage over Adobe for the cameras that I own as they aren't even natively supported.
 

Pradeep

Member
Like Jim, I was a long time Aperture user, from version 1. Stuck by it until the 'photos' announcement.

In my quest for the perfect replacement for Aperture I tried C1, LR, DXO, iMatch, along with the usual suite of plug-ins and filters.

For me, the feature list in order of importance, is:

1. DAM capability
2. Ease of use
3. RAW conversion
4. Local adjustments
5. Integration with filters and plug-ins.

I found LR to be the best after Aperture, transition was not easy but I managed, as I had already converted my library to 'reference' instead of 'managed' two years ago.

I am not a pro, so subtle advantages in color reproduction or highlight recovery were not that important. I do however, shoot over 50,000 images annually with various cameras and I also have the entire family archive from the 1940s that needs proper cataloging and maintenance.

C1 is not intuitive and not as robust in file maintenance. Complicated tasks are even more complicated and I did not think spending several hundred dollars in extra 'training' would get me anywhere, at least not for my needs.

At this time, IMHO there is no better 'all in one' program than LR. I use two plug-ins with it although I have all the others too. The one I go with the most is OnOne software suite 9.5 or MacPhun, both are quite interesting. The latter is actually very speedy in processing, but OnOne is more versatile.

I also run the image through PS if I need to, although LR with OnOne is almost always enough. Sometimes I use PS and not OnOne if there is only a lot of dust spotting or cloning to be done.

Just my own 2 cents.
 
Top