Need a RAW Editor Recommendation

[Aglet]

give IRIDIENT DEVELOPER a look too.
I use it for Fuji raw to extra more detail than the old cameras jpg engines

I can extract pretty good luminance detail/sharpness from most raw files.

low cost, works well, regularly updated for new bodies and bugs
I think there's a free demo download


http://iridientdigital.com/

 

[Keith_Reeder]

I agree on PN’s detail, and especially it’s NR. Highlight mgmt is very good. But some color rendition sucks.

Yeah, I agree that PN "goes its own way", colour-wise, compared to DPP; but I don't consider DPP's colour rendering to be "definitive", and - not shooting blue insects - it never presents a problem for me.

But I'd interested to know, JBSF - which colour "Base Style" do you use? Do you employ the "Colo(u)r Enhancement" function?

The colour tools in PN are surprisingly adaptable, so I'd be surprised if your files were beyond its capabilities.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Why don't you try to delete and reload On1?
I am using it and loving it.

I'm very disappointed with On1's detail rendering - I think it's using a pretty basic, old demosaicing algorithm.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

ACDSee Photo Studio Professional 2018 looks like a half way decent program for 55 bucks!

Oh, better than "half way"..!

8)

Not my best image from last weekend, but challenging, as it was shot in intense light, so the shadows and darks were really dark; the highlights and lights really light.

I've just turned it out from Raw, in less than 5 mins.

I've converted; resized; added a signature; "Light EQd" the shadows and highlights; "healed" some distracting background stuff; and sharpened by selectively applying a "Deblur" at a strength of 17, in Topaz Detail (called from within Photo Studio).

You can brush native ACDSee sharpening on without using the plugin, incidentally - I'm just comfortable with Topaz Detail's results, but if I decide that I can get similar results from within ACDSee, Detail will get less use.

It's a good indication of how capable ACDSee is, I reckon. Colour is spot-on; Highlights and shadows managed very well (the head was black, with no visible detail, in the Raw preview); and plenty of of fine detail/texture in the plumage and beak.

It's just "right".

Note that I've been a beta tester for both DxO and Phase One (Capture One Pro); and was on the path to Adobe Certified Professional (LightRoom). I was also part of Raw Therapee's development team back in the day, so I think I can lay some claim to an "informed perspective" when it comes to raw converters.

I recommend Photo Ninja and ACDSee products purely because they're better than the rest in any test/evaluation that I've undertaken, for the things I need from a converter - detail/acuity, highlight/shadow handling, clean detailed demosaicing.

Photo Ninja will still get the "heavy lifting" if I've been shooting very high ISOs or in "impossible" light; but I'm more and more impressed by the end-to-end capabilities of ADCsee's offerings.

Remember that I could have achieved exactly the same end-result from Photo Editor.

$25..!

 

[Keith_Reeder]

give IRIDIENT DEVELOPER a look too.

MAC only?

 

[MartinF.]

How about Canon DPP - Digital Photo Professional - version 4.x.
It is a under-rated but very capable Canon RAW converter, and it is free for Canon EOS users to download from Canon websites. (You have to type camera serialnumber to activate software).
Besides being a powerfull rawconverter, it is actually a great photo editor, a bit like Lightroom, Capture One and so.
And it is fast, does not run a "customer lock-in" database, and support of course Canon RAW files, Camera settings, Canon Lens corrections, picture styles and so.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

How about Canon DPP - Digital Photo Professional - version 4.x.

Noisier conversions than some; renders less detail; less effective shadow/highlight handling; comparatively slow; locked in to Canon's idea of what a file should look like, colour-wise.

That's why I don't use it...

OK for the price you pay, though.

 

[Durf]

Looking for a recommendation other than Lightroom and ON1.

I have Lightroom Classic but the subscription is about up for renewal and I'm trying to find something I can buy outright.

I also have ON1 Photo Raw 2018 and have been having a lot of issues with it's performance and am at the point with it that I am ready to look for alternatives. (I love ON1 and wish it worked right!!!!!!)

I don't want to spend several hundred on Capture One.

Basically I am looking for something similar to the interface of Lightroom and or ON1, any suggestions?????

Why don't you try to delete and reload On1?
I am using it and loving it.

sek

I have re-installed it a few times and finally got it working again and am using it right now, but there are still a few ongoing bug issues. I totally prefer using ON1 over about anything else but need a back up editor.
For 55 bucks ACDSee looks like it may do the trick.

 

[Durf]

Why don't you try to delete and reload On1?
I am using it and loving it.

I'm very disappointed with On1's detail rendering - I think it's using a pretty basic, old demosaicing algorithm.

I've really never had an issue with ON1's detail rendering other with using a couple certain filters being masked, just a few bugs and glitches.

 

[kiwiengr]

Depends on what you're main interests /subjects are.
If you photograph people, particularly portraits sorry, but c1 is sublime. .....!

Agree completely... C1

 

[Keith_Reeder]

Agree completely... C1

From Durf's first post:

I don't want to spend several hundred on Capture One.

Capture One is very good, but it's way overpriced. The ACDSee program I recommend above can do everything Capture One does, at least as well as Capture One does it, for a fraction of the money. Capture One isn't Adobe plugin compatible, either.

For all that, I'd probably still be using it, but some of us have long had major issues with its colour rendition - check the Phase One forums.

Especially with more recent Canons, the "Capture One Look" - of which I was as big a fan as any - turned into a really over-the-top overly warm orange bias that was a royal pain to fix. OK for landscapes, horrible for wildlife/nature photography.

It was enough, eventually, to push me away from Capture One.

 

[Durf]

Agree completely... C1

From Durf's first post:

I don't want to spend several hundred on Capture One.

Capture One is very good, but it's way overpriced. The ACDSee program I recommend above can do everything Capture One does, at least as well as Capture One does it, for a fraction of the money. Capture One isn't Adobe plugin compatible, either.

For all that, I'd probably still be using it, but some of us have long had major issues with its colour rendition - check the Phase One forums.

Especially with more recent Canons, the "Capture One Look" - of which I was as big a fan as any - turned into a really over-the-top overly warm orange bias that was a royal pain to fix. OK for landscapes, horrible for wildlife/nature photography.

It was enough, eventually, to push me away from Capture One.

Yeah, Capture One isn't really on my radar at all at this point.

I'm gonna load the trial version of ACDSee pro 2018 this weekend and play around with it when I get time. I have until July 18th before their special of 55 bucks expires and then I think its back up to around 100 bucks to buy it.

I don't do hardly any really heavy editing but I do like or need to occasionally do local adjustments with brushes, use filters etc. ON1 is really easy for this and that's why I like it so much. I've learned the programs strengths and weaknesses over the last 9 months and can really get some great results with it.

This latest ON1 upgrade played havoc on my computer and was also pretty much unusable for over a week and I had a bunch of images to edit, that's when I knew I needed a backup (other that lightroom). ON1's working now for me pretty decently for the most part but for 55 bucks I think ACDSee might be a great back up to have loaded on my computer in case SHTF again. Never know I may just use it more once I get to looking more deeply in to it

 

[JBSF]

I agree on PN’s detail, and especially it’s NR. Highlight mgmt is very good. But some color rendition sucks.

Yeah, I agree that PN "goes its own way", colour-wise, compared to DPP; but I don't consider DPP's colour rendering to be "definitive", and - not shooting blue insects - it never presents a problem for me.

But I'd interested to know, JBSF - which colour "Base Style" do you use? Do you employ the "Colo(u)r Enhancement" function?

The colour tools in PN are surprisingly adaptable, so I'd be surprised if your files were beyond its capabilities.

I use "Plain" (same as Neutral) base style and adjust in Color enhancement. This requires a negative hue shift, negative saturation, and positive lightness. I can get reasonably close, and I often fine-tune in Affinity. However the blue of a thorax on many species is never as accurate as an OOC jpeg, subtle gradations of pale greens and greenish blues are rendered inaccurately, and at times PN introduces highlights that are not apparent in the OOC file. I find this a problem mostly with blues and not with other colors, and I prefer to open a RAW file in PN.

BTW, I have followed your website for several years, and you are one of the people whose comments led me to try PN and Affinity in the first place. For the most part I have been quite happy with them. I'd still like to hear from anybody using DXO or Capture 1 for similar subjects.

 

[Aglet]

give IRIDIENT DEVELOPER a look too.

MAC only?

Yes. Unfortunately.
I still run it on my old mac editing stations but would welcome a version to run on Windows or Linux.

 

[AlanF]

Then, when you've done that, do yourself a favour and settle on Photo Ninja: better detail rendition; better NR (yes, really); way better highlights management.

I downloaded Photo Ninja, and it does look good. But, they won't send a keycode for a 2-week trial so I can't save the jpeg output and see if it is better than DxO. It's very fast which is a real plus.

Edit: code eventually arrived so I'll give it a serious try.