What raw editors are you guys using? I started with Lightroom a decade ago but eventually left to us Darktable since it wasn't subscription trash. I recently tried Capture One though and found it to be much nicer to use and it gave better results than Darktable. Now i'm debating if it's worth the 300$ for a copy of Capture One. What do you guys you use?
>>4321209canon DPP. it's "Free" and it matches in-camera settingsalso fuck adobe. check out silkypix if you want to pay for software
>>4321209I'm at 6ish years with C1 now, and was LR for 8 or so before. No desire to switch, but do wish for some improvements. Wait for sale, it goes down to $150-180ish a few times a year.
>>4321209in camera raw editor ofc
12 years of pirated CS6.
>>432122014-15ish years of CS5 myself.
>>4321209>be lightroom>be ridiculously slow even with non-xtranny files>have awful color profiles, apologetic users say "rAwS aRe MeAnT tO lOoK BaD BeFoRe EdiTing!">sharpen the fuck out of the NOISE unless sharpening is totally killed>awful export dialog>be darktable>developers did not finish shit, does not support fuck, compile your own color science after designing your own editor>"GNU software is free if your time is worthless" indeed.>be rawtherapee>darktable with more lag>be everything else>underfeatured "raw converter" junk that leans hard on photoshop for actual editsCapture one is the only excusable editor. Like lightroom fucked photoshop and had a child that wasn't retarded. Just don't be a fujislug or a fool turder and you wont miss muh enhance/muh AI NR/muh barkenstein 3 pass.
>>4321209Photoshop mostly or NXstudio.
>>4321209It is worth it. Capture one is the industry standard because it produces nicer looking photos than the other software. It’s really not that hard to use either.
>>4321228Lightroom doesn’t even have a proper curves tool, like that is just baffling.
>>4321221Noice. I went to CS6 straight from Jasc Paint Shop, kek.
>>4321230I'm gonna have to dig out my old CDs.
>>4321228The “soft grain” way capture one renders noise is very pleasing and natural, but i can see how the terminal pixel peepers on /p/ would prefer the more common sharpened grain. Capture one files are just soft overall, like film soft, detailed but round. once you fix the sharpening settings. It looks amazing in prints. It looks amazing downscaled. But it looks like SHIT if you pixel peep on a computer display.
It's still Capture One though I'm probably going to go back to Lightroom.It's quite behind on some very cool features, and considering they've been firing developers and raising prices I don't think it's going to get fixed. I've also been doing a lot more film photography and Negative Lab Pro is becoming the deal breaker.
>>4321260capture one is designed basically just for high end cameras. i doubt AI noise reduction is coming soon. their userbase is mostly studio shooters and the latest updates were amazing for them.
>>4321260Lightroom is much further behind, it doesn’t have proper colour profiles or curves, literally the 2 most fundamental things. I agree with the pricing though, capture one keeps costing more.
>>4321240Is that what it is cause my low light pictures looked really soft (in a good way). I feel like it was easier to get the colors I was looking for as well.
>>4321214You can only do the basics with DPP.
i always just end up back with lightroom.i have tried everything and even though lightroom has objectively the worst color science/profiles and the grain tool is just an overlay (thats a real pisser, all photos having the same grain lol), it just does everything else, well... not flawlessly, but.. it just works.
I use Capture One. I have tried Lightroom on two serperate occasions and it just feels awful to me. It's hard to dial in precise edits. The layout and file organization are extremely confusing to me. The healing and cropping tools are both worse. Lightroom will not let you zoom with a scroll wheel for whatever reason. I appreciate Capture One not being loaded down with AI gimmick tools. It's just the basic stuff and it works really well. For Film Negatives I use RawTherapee and then finish them in Capture One.
>>4321209I use Darktable now because it was the first one I tried other than manufacturer-specific software and it werks well enough for me, and since I hate myself I'm already used to 'imaginative' UI design of open source graphics/photo programs coming from GIMP.
>>4321297Also, while we're on the topic, what do people use for stitching images for panoramas? I always swore by the now-ancient Microsoft ICE since it was really, really small, lightweight, and stupid good at what it did, but it requires you to edit your raws ahead of time before import since it can only export to 'finished' filetypes and that's a little annoying.
>>4321302I haven't tried it yet, but the is a project called Hugin. Otherwise photoshop/lightroom.
>>4321209>>4321296>>4321297>>4321272>>4321260I wandered from DPP to RawTherapee to Photscape to Darktable.I am still an amateur in editing and still not sure how to edit photos correctly. What I was searching for is a program that could equip me with brushes. Only Photoscape and Darktable could do that.Any help on how to edit pictures? (e.g nigel danson)Or should I pay to do a course?
>>4321214I also do this, haven't missed photoshop at all.If I need to do advanced edits I'll open Affinity Photo (cheap photoshop). By advanced I mean things that you do in photoshop, not raw development.>>4321282You can do full RAW development, not "just basics". There isn't anything lightroom or photoshop raw editor does that DPP doesn't.The images in DPP always get the most out of my raws, which is good because that is what it is for.
>>4321224Darktable has worked fine on my machine for 5+ years and aside from learning what the modules do and the general workflow (something you'd have to do for any software you switch to), it hasn't had any crazy learning curve or retardo FOSS sperg shit like having to compile it yourself.
>>4321214has awful chroma denoiser and no way of removing hot pixels
>>4321209I use RawTherapee. Don't use RawTherapee. It's free but so is dog poo in the park.
>>4321616Wrong, and also wrong. Perhaps you last used a much older version?
>>4321816I last used DPP extensively as recently as September 2023, and yes it was updated
>>4321816>>4321953someone's lying fess up whoever it is
>>4321957I don't need anyone to prove me wrong, i know very well how shit the chroma denoiser is in Canon's DPP, you can literally see it working in stages at various values (think of it as 4, 8.5, 12, don't know exactly which ones) and it doesn't do a good job (is either too weak or too strong). I also know it has no way of removing the hot pixels, trying to remove them with the chroma denoiser is a really bad idea. I do admit the color mixer is way easier to use than in rawtherapee, the latter really needs something easier to use
>>4321965p.s.: i went to canon's download page and the DPP version the site gives me for my camera is from 2015, very cool
>>4321965You are aware you can adjust the denoise level, right? And you would want to manage your sharpness as well.>>4321968Current version is 4.18, which it will update for you if you click check for updates.>>4321957You can remove stuck or hot pixels the way canon recommends, you do the dust delete operation. Once that is done you can have it applied automatically, or only apply if you choose.You could also use the spot edit to correct them individually, should you want to.I actually use the program, so I'm comfortable saying these functions work well and are available in the software.
>>4321968Oh, perhaps go to the support section -> downloads instead of the knowledge base.If that doesn't have the newer version, perhaps try downloading the newer one from within the program, or on a newer camera's download page. I have no idea if the license transfers from DPP 3 to 4.
Let me guess, you "need" more?
>>4322302>raws are meant to look bad when you open them bro also dont use sony: the program
>>4321224i thought RAW was supposed to be the actual phot you took, like not edited, as in raw. is it something else entirely?t.photography newb
>>4322768All raws are edited before even being written to the sd card. Its closer to a lossless image format. Demosaicing just hasnt been applied yet.
>>4322303
i even tilted my sceen for you to see features better
I use darktable and I'm happy with it, it feels very polished and there's very advanced tools. remember, always use FOSS when possible
>>4322784What kind of monkey gibberish language is that on your screen, boy?
>>4324536looks like finnisht. sometimes deal with finns at work
>>4322768RAW is the unprocessed data read out from the sensorno lens correctionsno white balancingno denoisingno sharpeningno tone curve faggotry (its pure linear luminance data)no demosaicing+ metadatayour raw photo is actually a greyscale with a nasty checkerboard pattern if you were to "render" it faithfully
>>4322784Fug :-DDD
>>4321209I moved recently from adobe. DxO Photolab 7Affinity Photo 2
>>4324540it ist. finnish expert
>>4321209Apple photos, when it comes to the small edits I work on my scans it has been more than enough. I used to use Lightroom/Photoshop and sure they are much more powerful softwares when it comes to editing pictures, but the price of film is already too high, I do not want to pay for a picture editor.
>>4324631Actually wrong. Many raws are denoised or have other corrections applied, permanently. Even on the d850 and canon r3.
>>4324660disable LE and hiISO noise reduction
>>4324664>he doesnt knowIt’s forced. Raws are altered with everything off. You can use rawdigger to look at the real histogram. Almost every camera alters its raws.
>>4324664>actually thinking this would change ithehevery camera ever alters its raw data JUST for more favorable reviews, because every review site ever is convinced that looking at raws is a good proxy for hardware performance and that applying noise reduction etc is "cheating". doing the same edits, but writing them to the jpeg and making a metadata note would not work, because camera reviewers would catch on.>typical camera review method: if the SNR drops below XXdb in the raw file, the dynamic range is arbitrarily cut off. "but i'd just drag this slider and you can still see the block on the chart-" no, NR is cheating!>camera manufacturer applies noise reduction, free dynamic range without actually adding any>camera reviewer: the raws don't lie, this camera has more dynamic range!also see: ISO mislabeling, usually by labeling 100 as 200, 200 as 400, etc. if you just let multi meter do its thing, it appears that ISO 200 has more dynamic range than it should.
>>4324676here you can find people bitching about raw cooking in .rafshttps://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4563936you can also find them bitching about canon eos r, nikon z, the d850, any sony, etc - usually astrophotography nerds because the slight errors from cooking raws are amplified by extreme amounts of image stackingSo, raw is not raw, and don't believe any camera reviewer when they run those noise based DR figures - actually look at the chart they tested on. You can almost always see extra sections that they don't count because the SNR is too low, that you can tell would look fine after NR. And then realize, NR is probably already applied.
I just got a camera, should I use lightroom as a complete beginner to editing raws?
>>4325727no learn darktable
>>4325727do you like to gargle corporate semen while you lose everything and allow them to sell your photographs to Getty Images for $$$ and take you to court, to sue you, for using your own images that you took yourself?use Adobe software thenIf you have any self respect at all then find something else, like the other anon mentioned. Darktable.
>>4325727lightroom = scamdarktable = free if your time is worthlesscapture one = for chadsset your camera to jpeg = option of last resort but results will generally be superior to darktable
>>4327363>>4327365if I want to go the free route I'll probably just use NX studio but it seems like the two contenders for paid software are LR and capture one. from what I've gathered LR is simpler for retards like me and has fancy AI features where capture one is more complicated but renders raws better
Darktable 4.8.0 dropped today.https://www.darktable.org/2024/06/darktable-4.8.0-released/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon DIGITAL IXUS 960 ISCamera Softwaredarktable 4.6.1Maximum Lens Aperturef/5.3Focal Length (35mm Equiv)109 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandImage Created2024:06:21 20:54:43Exposure Time3261/500000 secF-Numberf/5.2Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating167Lens Aperturef/5.3Exposure Bias0 EVSubject Distance20.08 mMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length23.50 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1490Image Height2386
>>4327658These bastards are never still anytime I have a camera. I walk along without it and they're often less skittish.I've never tried "Drarktable". Does is offer anything DPP doesn't, or do anything better?
>>4327731you can compile your color science and lens corrections from source (by shooting test charts)
>>4321209just shoot JPG, like a real man
>>4329266spoken like a real scotsmans panties
>>4329266how about shooting raw and extracting baked-in jpeg
>>4329824that's just being a real man with an extra step
Shooting jpeg is the peak of digital photographyNo more creativity, no more soul, just consoom your look and take visual notes as sharply and in focus as possible.
White balance is the perfect encapsulation of why darktable is absolute dogshit.>Noooooooo, don't use the white balance tab, use the colour correction one>But also still use the white balance tab, but leave it at default. No, were not going to remove that because pointless complication is the foss way>Colour correction is more powerful>It's a hideous mess of different settings you say, well, read our documentation>What do you mean the documentation is terrible, you just need to study it more>If you're not spending hours understanding the finer points of colour calibration can you even call yourself a foss-enjoyer?>What's that, you just want to do some basic editing of your photos so you can spend more time shooting and less time editing, pfffffft, I bet you don't even zoom in to 100% and argue about noise on the internet with other neckbeardsMeanwhile in lightroom>The temperature slider goes up and down>It just werks
>>4329902Look at this pleb. He probably just accepts the default sharpening settings, instead of turning sharpening off because it's post processing lies.
For me it's AutismTherapee
How do i crack adobe?
>>4329862Shooting jpeg is not really different than shooting film and having someone else develop it for you exactly the same every time. You do relinquish some measure of control but it's not inherently good or bad.
>>4331278scanning/printing is where the jpeg, raw+jpeg, and raw analogies existdevelopment only matters for B&W and lomoshitting
>>4331251Install GIMP and darktable/rawtherapee instead.
>>4332013Bloatware
How to actually apply colour profile properly in Darktable? Each time I try to apply my Nikon one, extracted from NX Studio, I get very dark photo instead and trying to "unbreak entry profile" at any setting leave it either overblown or washed away from colours.
