[Topsy]

You probably know this already, but on the chance not or for someone new to SSDs following this thread, and given I recommended running defrag, never run defrag on an SSD - I should have said that in my earlier response. They don't need it, and it just introduces unnecessary wear - they are designed to "scatter" the information across cells to maximize life.

Yep, I know about that and thought of mentioning it too, but forgot after all..
Thanks for the thoughtful warning though!

[clickclick]

welcome!

[Topsy]

After a bit more use I'm still really liking Capture One.

But is there a plug-in or some function similar to Camera Raws 'Defringe' function?
The aberrations slider in Capture One doesn't change a thing on my end..

[Tas]

G'day again,

This morning an update to On1 Photo RAW was released. There were significant functions added and some bug fixes in this update.

If you're prepared to give it a go again the changes may have fixed the issues you experienced.

https://www.on1.com/products/photo-raw/

I'd love to hear back if they don't as I've sent a message to one of the On1 staffers about this thread and the lag experienced with their product.

Tas

Update: I just tried the 2017.5 version of On1 and it is heaps quicker on my system.

---

Last edited by Tas; 06-07-2017 at 05:34 PM. Reason: Added update.

[sbh]

After a bit more use I'm still really liking Capture One.

But is there a plug-in or some function similar to Camera Raws 'Defringe' function?
The aberrations slider in Capture One doesn't change a thing on my end..

I guess Defringe means removing CA. To remove aberrations in CO click on "Analyse". This removes CA reliably for me without the need of any other adjustments. If you mean purple fringing then that dedicated slider works fine as well with my K1 and K5iis pefs.

[emalvick]

Most software do similar things albeit the way of getting there will vary.

I did use LR (have a stand-alone LR6 license), but with my decent computer, each update just made it drag more and more. I shifted over to DxO a couple of years ago, and have used it almost exclusively.

In terms of Cataloging, I get that LR is advantageous for some. I actually like to keep my cataloging separate. Part of it was because I was cataloging before there was a LR and before I had a dSLR. When I finally got one, I didn't want to have to commit to any software across the board. Learning to develop RAW, I used RawTherapee, Silkypix, and Lightroom, ultimately settling on LR for some years (LR3 to LR6). While I used their Catalog out of requirement, I did not use it as my means of cataloging files. I stuck with my stand-alone DAM (IMatch).

All I really want out of my Catalog is the ability to categorize and find files for processing. Most processing software store their edits in either a catalog, metadata, or separate side-car file. Storing in a catalog is a bit of a way to tie users into your software. LR for instance does this by default. I've not used Capture One enough recently, but I believe with its catalog it does this too. However, if I change defaults to store edits in the metadata or separate files, my DAM file will manage those files too, and I'll always be able to access edits in whatever software I choose.

Of course, edits aren't able to be used across software, which is fine.

Anyway, I digressed, but the point is that I like having things separate because I can focus on the one primary function of a software. I personally never felt LR was great at its cataloging. I did like its develop module, especially in terms of ease of use and workflow. My only real complaint is that it seem to efficiently use my system. I always find it a bit disappointing that Photoshop operates better on my computer than LR does. But I have no desire to use Photoshop (and ACR stand-alone) as the workflow features just aren't there. Bridge doesn't really suffice as a replacement either.

DxO has been fairly quick except perhaps exporting. It's interface isn't the best at being intuitive, although I've learned a lot of it. In some ways it has too much flexibility. However, my favorite aspect is that the default processing in DxO gets me 95% of the way to a final image, especially with regards to exposure. Where it lacks a bit in workflow, it makes up in the efficiency of not spending a ton of time clicking through edits. Unfortunately, that efficiency does get lost once I have to start making a lot of custom edits.

I did pick up On-1 last fall under an expectation it might exceed LR. Unfortunately, the feature set is not quite there (yet) and the programming leaves it about as slow as LR had been for me.

I've not tried RawTherapee in a while. It still seems like a great program. I just found its workflow a bit quirky and could never click with it. And Capture One would appeal to me the most, but its price tag scares me away. I know it shouldn't make that big of a difference. As it is, I'm pretty happy with my setup and like DxO best. I am going to count on On1 improving its feature set to match up with LR more at which point I'll feel comfortable completely uninstalling LR. I also got Affinity Photo to replace Photoshop, at which point I'll be free of Adobe completely.

[jatrax]

I stuck with my stand-alone DAM (IMatch).

Thanks for posting this. I have been stuck with LR because I need the catalog and search functions, I was not aware there were alternatives. At $110 the price is quite reasonable and then any RAW developer can be used. Not sure I am ready to abandon Lightroom yet, but if they keep making it slower I may have no choice.

Can you comment on the display speed of browsing and searching for files in Imatch?

[stevebrot]

Storing in a catalog is a bit of a way to tie users into your software.

Yes, though the same is true for side-car files and writing XMP directly into the EXIF of the RAW file. LR continues to meet my needs and it I need to migrate to a DAM sometime in the future, I would expect the DAM to provide a migration utility to interpret keyword and other pertinent non-processing metadata (my RAW files are already stored by year and date and easily accessed without LR).


Steve

[emalvick]

Thanks for posting this. I have been stuck with LR because I need the catalog and search functions, I was not aware there were alternatives. At $110 the price is quite reasonable and then any RAW developer can be used. Not sure I am ready to abandon Lightroom yet, but if they keep making it slower I may have no choice.

Can you comment on the display speed of browsing and searching for files in Imatch?

Yes, though the same is true for side-car files and writing XMP directly into the EXIF of the RAW file. LR continues to meet my needs and it I need to migrate to a DAM sometime in the future, I would expect the DAM to provide a migration utility to interpret keyword and other pertinent non-processing metadata (my RAW files are already stored by year and date and easily accessed without LR).


Steve

For the first quote, the software is quicker that LR. I like it a lot, and it is flexible. While I could just plug it, I'll note there are alternatives that may be easier to use or have different features that may benefit different types of users. But, below I'll mention some benefits of it, especially for those coming from LR or even in using it with LR (which is what I did).

IMatch is mostly metadata driven for cataloging. It works predominantly off of XMP data (embedded or side-car). It has mapping features, supports hierarchical keywords, and has what is called "data-driven" categorization. The beauty is, if you have used keywords or mapping in LR, your images will come into IMatch with that data being usable (assuming you save your LR data to the XMP records for your images). Imatch does have a catalog file, but it is mostly there for user interface. Its philosophy is to keep as much image specific information as you need within the XMP record. So, it doesn't have a migration utility, but selecting all your images in LR and making sure the data is saved to the XMP record guarantees most of your LR info will be in the new software. That's probably about as good as software will be for cataloging.

I'll admit it isn't the most user friendly software, but that is only because it has a ton of features, most of which I won't use. You can customize the user interface and control keyword use and other items pretty easily. With regard to side-cars it has a feature called buddy files, which will keep everything related to the parent image together if you manage your image files completely through the software. It takes a bit of setup, but I'm able to use it with each RAW software I use. It also has versioning, which helps when using derivative files (e.g. a jpeg output from DxO) or a black and white from Silver Efex. The feature can be made automatic (or not), but it does take work to figure out.

With LR and Pentax DNGs, I liked that I could update the DNG preview in LR and IMatch would show my LR edits. That's a LR only benefit, but it was nice. Now with DxO, I don't really get that benefit, but I do create categories so that I tag images into so I know which software I've used (some of the categories are automatic in that if the software sees the DxO specific sidecar file, it'll put the image into the category automatically). Keywords were nice in that I could easily use them in LR and vice-a-versa.

The newest version of the program has improved its mapping feature so that I can use GPS tracks and data (a big deal for my older dSLR images) to sync up and geotag my images.

The categories, especially automatic ones, are fantastic. Once you learn to use them, the sky's the limit. I use them to track edit status, and they essentially replace the Smart Collection feature in LR.

The close it all, I will say again, that it isn't going to be for everyone, but they have a trial version. The developer is easy to work with too, so if the trial isn't long enough, I wouldn't be afraid to email him. It can be overwhelming, even if it is ultimately the right software. It wasn't $110 when I started using it 12 years ago (probably 1/3 of that cost), so I wasn't afraid to drop some money on it. I'd probably be a bit more cautious now, but I would regret it if I hadn't found the software. The challenges of setting things up pay off now as most cataloging is automatic. I take care of keywords, and it takes care of the rest.

The beauty is that if the developer ever stops developing, I can leave without much worry. All my catalog efforts are stored in XMP data, so I won't lose any sleep. And, if I decide to go with a better software, I should be able to do so easily.

Of course there are likely to be simpler programs, but it ultimately depends on the features the user needs. Other software for DAM and cataloging includes ACDSee and Photomechanic, but the feature sets are going to be different.

[rangercarp]

I have used LR for several years, but I am going to be teaching a high school photography class next fall, and LR is not in the budget. Additionally I am trying to prepare myself for LR going subscription only.

I have narrowed it down to Affinity photo, ACDSee pro10, and Corel aftershot pro3. The Corel interface looks the most like Lightroom, but the only reviews on B&H are pretty bad. It is also the most expensive. Affinity is the most economical, but the interface seems more complicated. Any thoughts on pure ease of use, and ease of learning?

[emalvick]

A problem you might have with Affinity is that I'm not sure it works well as a Raw Editor; it's a Photoshop replacement not really a LR replacement. It's a bit clunky for Raw processing (in my limited testing of that use).

As a high-school teacher, I would think you might have access to special deals for using some software products (seat discounts, education discounts, etc), especially the Adobe Suites and subscription? LR and Photoshop always seemed like a steal from that perspective, and that was how they hooked in new users.

The other thing you'll have to consider as a teacher, is whether you can make the software work for you. You are the one that is going to be teaching it. I've used and tried a few of the different RAW processing software, and they can all be usable with some effort. Of course some are easier than others in terms of workflow and even just terminology and interface. LR was always nice because the terminology it uses are straight-forward and conceptually easy. Others are not necessarily so.

The new On1 Raw Developer is not a bad software, and it is trying to be a LR killer. It's definitely a bit behind LR at this point, but it is fairly intuitive and not what I would consider expensive.

Last, RawTherapee is something you might look into because it is Open Source (free). It works well although I think its terminology and workflow are a bit more geared towards digital processing rather than photography, but it isn't hard to get past.

In any of the cases, I would definitely get some trials of a few of theses; inquire about any educational discounts you might be able to utilize; become an expert at them yourself; and then teach the next generation of photographers what a joy photography can be (and that processing isn't so bad). I'm not afraid to admit that when I was in high-school the thing that scared me most about becoming a better photographer was the fear of the darkroom. It was so easy to rely on the local camera store, and family and friends made it sound so daunting. There was little encouragement. I think the digital side can be daunting, too, but it is worth the encouragement and not so bad once it's learned.

[West Penn]

I have used LR for several years, but I am going to be teaching a high school photography class next fall, and LR is not in the budget. Additionally I am trying to prepare myself for LR going subscription only.

I have narrowed it down to Affinity photo, ACDSee pro10, and Corel aftershot pro3. The Corel interface looks the most like Lightroom, but the only reviews on B&H are pretty bad. It is also the most expensive. Affinity is the most economical, but the interface seems more complicated. Any thoughts on pure ease of use, and ease of learning?

I have AfterShot 3, not AfterShot Pro 3. It came free with Corel Paintshop Pro X9.

While I prefer Lightroom, AfterShot 3 is a decent photo editor. I think it falls short of Lightroom for highlight recovery and CA/fringing correction, but performs well otherwise.

You can get a free copy of AfterShot3 at lp.corel.com/as3 -- I have no idea how long this free offer will continue. At AfterShot Pro Plug-ins you can find a number of plug-ins for use with either of the AfterShot programs. They're all free except for the Graduated Filter, which is about $20. Only the 64 bit versions of the plugins are compatible, so don't bother downloading the 32 bit one.

Every time I open or close AfterShot 3, i get an offer to upgrade to the Pro version for $19.99. I don't know if the free download I mentioned earlier will give you the same upgrade offer.

----------
edit: I just finished downloading a free copy of AfterShot 3 to a laptop and got the offer to upgrade to the Pro version for $19.99 when I opened it for the first time.

[SSGGeezer]

I have used LR for several years, but I am going to be teaching a high school photography class next fall, and LR is not in the budget. Additionally I am trying to prepare myself for LR going subscription only.

I have narrowed it down to Affinity photo, ACDSee pro10, and Corel aftershot pro3. The Corel interface looks the most like Lightroom, but the only reviews on B&H are pretty bad. It is also the most expensive. Affinity is the most economical, but the interface seems more complicated. Any thoughts on pure ease of use, and ease of learning?

As a complete noob to post processing, I am currently fooling around with Pencil Sheep and have attempted to use Raw Therapee. I definitely need to spend some time looking at tutorials.
If free is your need, Pencilsheep is free and works fairly fast. It can also be used in online mode rather than being installed on each computer. It also works on .DNG files so may be an answer for your needs.
If anyone else has tried Pencilsheep, let me know what you thought about it.

[rangercarp]

A problem you might have with Affinity is that I'm not sure it works well as a Raw Editor; it's a Photoshop replacement not really a LR replacement. It's a bit clunky for Raw processing (in my limited testing of that use).

Some reviews I read made it sound like an LR replacement, but affinity's intro videos made me think it was more of a Photoshop replacement. Thanks for confirming.

I do not know what the educational prices are for adobe CC, but I do know my school currently has TWO licenses for it, and I have been told "good luck on getting any more." But I do have some "one time money" I can spend on software this year. On1 looks interesting, but pricey. RawTherapee looks interesting too, but the interface seems more complicated. That was my backup plane before I was told I could actually spend some money.

The other thing you'll have to consider as a teacher, is whether you can make the software work for you.

My goal is to find a program that can replace LR in my personal workflow as well, since it looks like there will not be an LR7 and I do not like the subscription model.

Thanks so much for the great advice.

---------- Post added 06-22-17 at 07:59 AM ----------

Every time I open or close AfterShot 3, i get an offer to upgrade to the Pro version for $19.99. I don't know if the free download I mentioned earlier will give you the same upgrade offer.

For a program that is on sale for $60, that is a huge deal!

[Oakland Rob]

Adobe's academic licensing used to be REALLY cheap. There were institutional licenses, but as a educator I was able to purchase my own copies for very little (this is pre CC). But I think today the Photography Plan is cheaper than what I paid for my licenses by quite a bit, but you can check: Education software licensing | Adobe Buying Programs

I found that often the IT drones at my district weren't even aware that the terms of the license entitled say the instructor to have a copy for their own use, or that the previous instructor had never been taken off the license, and so on. So check. Some administators didn't even know how many seats we were entitled to. Doesn't help that Adobe has about four types of licenses, but again, check with someone who really knows something...like maybe Adobe (once I discovered that the "one" copy of Word was really a site license for all the seats in the institution...they had sent one CD so the idiot thought we had one "copy" for one person. Sigh.).

If you are using the software with your students, use Lr at least. I can't think of an ed program that doesn't, and the students are gonna be encountering Lr and Ps and that's what they're expected to know. At least use something that they can get easily and that runs on both Macs and PCs.

If it's just for your use, doesn't really matter that much then.