[Marathonianbull]

After having tried several programs, I must recommend Exposure X7 first and ACDSee second.

Exposure X7 creative photo editor and organizer - Exposure Software

ACDSee Photo Studio Professional | Empower Beyond Photography

[maw]

I have been using Photoshop for many years and it remains the best software for graphic editing of course raster images.
However I don't recommend it, you need a very long learning curve to take full advantage of its power.

I've only used Affinity for testing but it's just a bad copy of PS,

RawTherapee is interesting because it is freeware and can handle the best Pentax raster images, both Raw and Dng.
Obviously it has some limitations. Darktable could be another solution but I've never used it.

By now new programs are based on artificial intelligence, examples are: Luminar Neo (developed strange to say in Ukraine),
it's a powerful photo editor but it depends on your taste you can replace as you know the skies, insert or delete extraneous elements to the photo etc, in all honesty it doesn't excite me.

The last program, (actually there are two versions), 1st. CameraBag Photo & 2nd. CameraBag Pro, the first just for photos currently costs $30 the second for photos and videos costs $50,
but currently there is a 15% discount. I leave the link where are listed all the requirements. I hope I helped you in your choice.

https://nevercenter.com/camerabag/

[Cambo]

I've only used Affinity for testing but it's just a bad copy of PS,
[/URL]

Having used Photoshop since 1996 or so, I am liking Affinity Photo more and more the more I use it. Will never go back to the bottomless moneypit that is Adobe now.

IMO, they have taken all the stuff that has been forever wrong with Photoshop and fixed it. Much more streamlined workflows, much better and more logical interface, endless undos, and things that should happen automatically just do. It's brilliant, but somewhat subtle and understated. The only thing missing is 3D support, if that's a thing for you.

And I certainly hope they're working on a Lightroom competitor. I'd be all in.

Definitely NOT a copy, more of a refinement and an evolution.

And you only pay for it ONCE!

Cheers,
Cameron

[MikeMcE]

Having used Photoshop since 1996 or so, I am liking Affinity Photo more and more the more I use it. Will never go back to the bottomless moneypit that is Adobe now.

IMO, they have taken all the stuff that has been forever wrong with Photoshop and fixed it. Much more streamlined workflows, much better and more logical interface, endless undos, and things that should happen automatically just do. It's brilliant, but somewhat subtle and understated. The only thing missing is 3D support, if that's a thing for you.

And I certainly hope they're working on a Lightroom competitor. I'd be all in.

Definitely NOT a copy, more of a refinement and an evolution.

And you only pay for it ONCE!

Cheers,
Cameron

Cameron might be a twin, he’s spoken my thoughts perfectly.

I will add gimp, raw therepee and numerous others I’ve tried. And didn’t care for
PS does have a few more things 5.5that Affinity doesn’t ….. most are newer since my CS5.5 days. I also added NIKs for monochrome conversions. All I need to spend and use. Great software


Hang up and DRIVE!

[mwm]

Having used Photoshop since 1996 or so, I am liking Affinity Photo more and more the more I use it. Will never go back to the bottomless moneypit that is Adobe now.

IMO, they have taken all the stuff that has been forever wrong with Photoshop and fixed it. Much more streamlined workflows, much better and more logical interface, endless undos, and things that should happen automatically just do. It's brilliant, but somewhat subtle and understated. The only thing missing is 3D support, if that's a thing for you.

And I certainly hope they're working on a Lightroom competitor. I'd be all in.

Definitely NOT a copy, more of a refinement and an evolution.

And you only pay for it ONCE!

Cheers,
Cameron

Thanks for the info. Will definitely check it out.

[Cambo]

I did review this software for this site here:

Review: Affinity Photo vs Photoshop - Hands-On Tests | PentaxForums.com

I learned so much doing that review that I like this software more and more. For one thing, PDF's become editable, both photographically and textually. And that's just a start! Automatic spacing if you are laying out multiple photos in posters. Yes, you CAN do that in Photoshop, but you have to poke around and invoke it every time. In Affinity, it is just ON all the time till you turn it off. And click detents to line things up in every plane. Fabulous if you're doing weekly posters like me.

It just makes sense. One of a million things I am liking about it.

Cheers,
Cameron

Cameron might be a twin, he’s spoken my thoughts perfectly.

I will add gimp, raw therepee and numerous others I’ve tried. And didn’t care for
PS does have a few more things 5.5that Affinity doesn’t ….. most are newer since my CS5.5 days. I also added NIKs for monochrome conversions. All I need to spend and use. Great software


Hang up and DRIVE!

Thanks for the info. Will definitely check it out.

[fvanzeveren]

Hello, for Pentax, Silkypix Developer Studio Pro without hesitation...

I tried for several months/years Bibble, AfterShot Pro 3, ACDSee Ultimate, Darktable... but none of them provide better color and highlights handling than Silkypix.

I shoot with Pentax Kp and K200D.

---

Last edited by fvanzeveren; 04-27-2022 at 11:47 AM.

[cdd29]

I've been using the free and very good Darktable for years with satisfactory results....
It runs on Windows, Mac and Linux. I've even written some patches for it...
Yossarian

Darktable will run on Linux? I just set up a laptop with Ubuntu. Is there anything special you need to do for it to run or is there a Linux specific download?


On an unrelated note, surprised no one has mentioned Capture One Express. There are free versions for some non Pentax brands in addition to the full paid (one time fee or subscription) Capture One. I've used it for quick edits on jpegs from a Pentax but not tried to open PEF's or Pentax DNGs to see if C1X supports it. Guess I have some homework tonight and will report back.

[BigMackCam]

Darktable will run on Linux? I just set up a laptop with Ubuntu. Is there anything special you need to do for it to run or is there a Linux specific download?

Darktable was originally written to run under Linux. Windows availability has only happened in the last few years.

See https://www.darktable.org/install/ for installation. You might want to go for the latest flatpak install, but there are other options...

[DafTekno]

Thanks for the recommendations.

I tried to install Darkroom but it wouldn't work.
I managed to install GIMP, Raw Therapee and FastStone Image Viewer.

All look interesting, but playing with a test photo, nothing made the images jump out at me.
Mostly due to an unimpressive photo, of course, but Developer Studio 3.0 LE could always give a bit more punch to a shot, often with its Auto settings.

In fact, when working with a RAW photo, Developer Studio 3.0 would give me an extra selection in the Contrast list: "Standard".
This would bring out extra detail that would otherwise be invisible.

In fact, THIS is the only thing I've yet seen working with RAW files that is better than just working with JPG's.
No matter how much I alter exposure / contrast / colour / etc. settings, I can't seem to bring out any more details in a photo taken as RAW instead of JPG.
This "Standard" Contrast setting in Developer Studio 3.0 LE is the ONLY time I've found an extra setting made available when using RAW, and it indeed adds a little extra depth & detail.

But that's it!
So I'm trying hard to understand what the big deal is with RAW and why I should be using it more often.

There's got to be something else!
I must be missing something here.

And if you end up saving the end results of your editing as a JPG anyway, for printing or publishing, then what exactly are you gaining by having a RAW file photo?
Wouldn't this end up crushing your beautifully evolving Sky colour into several JPG steps?
Unless the end result is a TIFF, but I hear they're incredibly big files, so are rarely used.

So, clearly, there's something I don't understand here, in relation to RAW files.
Which isn't really a Photo Editor discussion, but is kind of related, I feel.

Maybe there's a stock type of photo I can take to highlight RAW's higher potential inside an editing program.
Maybe some RAW editing programs offer more / better RAW processing than others.

Unless Developer Studio 3.0's "Standard" Contrast is as good as it gets...

(I'll create a New Thread on this subject as well, to highlight the subject)

[fvanzeveren]

Hello

Did you give Silkypix Développer Studio Pro a try?
If you have been satisfied with th color handling of Developer Studio 3.0 LE, you won't be disappointed as the roots are the same. Try to play with WB Auto (natural) and Auto (Absolute). This gives fantastic results on both my Kp and K200D. Also, the colors presets are really nice.

Francois.

[Cary W]

Thanks for the recommendations.

I tried to install Darkroom but it wouldn't work.
I managed to install GIMP, Raw Therapee and FastStone Image Viewer.

All look interesting, but playing with a test photo, nothing made the images jump out at me.
Mostly due to an unimpressive photo, of course, but Developer Studio 3.0 LE could always give a bit more punch to a shot, often with its Auto settings.

In fact, when working with a RAW photo, Developer Studio 3.0 would give me an extra selection in the Contrast list: "Standard".
This would bring out extra detail that would otherwise be invisible.

In fact, THIS is the only thing I've yet seen working with RAW files that is better than just working with JPG's.
No matter how much I alter exposure / contrast / colour / etc. settings, I can't seem to bring out any more details in a photo taken as RAW instead of JPG.
This "Standard" Contrast setting in Developer Studio 3.0 LE is the ONLY time I've found an extra setting made available when using RAW, and it indeed adds a little extra depth & detail.

But that's it!
So I'm trying hard to understand what the big deal is with RAW and why I should be using it more often.

There's got to be something else!
I must be missing something here.

And if you end up saving the end results of your editing as a JPG anyway, for printing or publishing, then what exactly are you gaining by having a RAW file photo?
Wouldn't this end up crushing your beautifully evolving Sky colour into several JPG steps?
Unless the end result is a TIFF, but I hear they're incredibly big files, so are rarely used.

So, clearly, there's something I don't understand here, in relation to RAW files.
Which isn't really a Photo Editor discussion, but is kind of related, I feel.

Maybe there's a stock type of photo I can take to highlight RAW's higher potential inside an editing program.
Maybe some RAW editing programs offer more / better RAW processing than others.

Unless Developer Studio 3.0's "Standard" Contrast is as good as it gets...

(I'll create a New Thread on this subject as well, to highlight the subject)

I think you sum it up pretty well, DafTekno.

The most common argument is that more controls and options are available with raw, but, at least with Photoshop, there are quite as many with jpgs. There is a belief that some have that the raw format is providing an absolutely neutral image entirely based on the operator's choices and a mythic neutral sensor, without interference by the camera.

This conveniently overlooks that sensors have been designed, as have lenses. And that the supposed neutrality itself will need to be adjusted, if not to the photographer, than to whatever output form it will be delivered. Different papers will need specific settings, as will different sizes. Tweaking the image to those different outputs, which will need their own adjustments, especially if there is that degree of concern for exactitude, will require further modifications to that supposedly ideally modified file.
There is the possibility that some cameras aren't as good at generating jpgs as others, which could easily be seen as manufacturers attempting to ensure their offerings will be perceived as more professional for requiring more effort, if not more equipment..

[Tiffa]

Thanks for the recommendations.



But that's it!
So I'm trying hard to understand what the big deal is with RAW and why I should be using it more often.

There's got to be something else!
I must be missing something here.

And if you end up saving the end results of your editing as a JPG anyway, for printing or publishing, then what exactly are you gaining by having a RAW file photo?
Wouldn't this end up crushing your beautifully evolving Sky colour into several JPG steps?
Unless the end result is a TIFF, but I hear they're incredibly big files, so are rarely used.

So, clearly, there's something I don't understand here, in relation to RAW files.
Which isn't really a Photo Editor discussion, but is kind of related, I feel.

Maybe there's a stock type of photo I can take to highlight RAW's higher potential inside an editing program.
Maybe some RAW editing programs offer more / better RAW processing than others.

Unless Developer Studio 3.0's "Standard" Contrast is as good as it gets...

(I'll create a New Thread on this subject as well, to highlight the subject)

The RAW data is just that it's ALL the data the sensor recorded and that is much more than any single file can resolve.

Lets take a common problem, an interior in a darkish room with a window that has bright daylight. If you convert the file to a Jpeg it will try to encompass all the dynamic range in the file .

Dynamic range is the number of f stops in the brighter pixels before they just reproduce as white, there is no detail data in these pixels.

Likewise the darker pixels go readily to black, again no data to give detail in these parts of the image.

But this data is still available in the image file and by selecting say the bright sky and turning down the exposure you will get the sky detail back. What we've done is to reign in the bright pixels so that your output device (monitor or printer that have limited dynamic range) to be able to re-produce those pixels, the same applies to the darker parts of the image too by selecting and then increasing exposure in these pixels.

The same happens with colour balance too. The sRGB used in Jpeg files just cannot reproduce any bright red or blue. Jpeg is reasonable in reproducing the colours in nature, only poppies can't be reproduced correctly and are usually a red blob of tertiary pixels, any man-made bright dyes say in anoraks can't reproduce correctly either.

There are programs that can draw the data from a RAW file and bring any pixel within the range of any output device, I use Photomatix Pro which you can try for free (it puts a watermark on the output, but offers all the tools) and you can see just how much data can be retrieved from a single RAW file. If your camera can bracket shots Photomatix will use ALL the data from multiple RAW files taken with different exposures. I take just 3 images 2 stops apart. Pentax are great at taking bracketed shots just use the drive button to select on the fly, very quick.

Once you save as Jpeg all this extra data is just dumped which is why the files are smaller, High Dynamic Range black and white images can be really stunning with high levels of detail throughout the image.



Cheers Chris

[Elias Paniki]

Thanks for the recommendations.

I tried to install Darkroom but it wouldn't work.
I managed to install GIMP, Raw Therapee and FastStone Image Viewer.

All look interesting, but playing with a test photo, nothing made the images jump out at me.
Mostly due to an unimpressive photo, of course, but Developer Studio 3.0 LE could always give a bit more punch to a shot, often with its Auto settings.

In fact, when working with a RAW photo, Developer Studio 3.0 would give me an extra selection in the Contrast list: "Standard".
This would bring out extra detail that would otherwise be invisible.

In fact, THIS is the only thing I've yet seen working with RAW files that is better than just working with JPG's.
No matter how much I alter exposure / contrast / colour / etc. settings, I can't seem to bring out any more details in a photo taken as RAW instead of JPG.
This "Standard" Contrast setting in Developer Studio 3.0 LE is the ONLY time I've found an extra setting made available when using RAW, and it indeed adds a little extra depth & detail.

But that's it!
So I'm trying hard to understand what the big deal is with RAW and why I should be using it more often.

There's got to be something else!
I must be missing something here.

And if you end up saving the end results of your editing as a JPG anyway, for printing or publishing, then what exactly are you gaining by having a RAW file photo?
Wouldn't this end up crushing your beautifully evolving Sky colour into several JPG steps?
Unless the end result is a TIFF, but I hear they're incredibly big files, so are rarely used.

So, clearly, there's something I don't understand here, in relation to RAW files.
Which isn't really a Photo Editor discussion, but is kind of related, I feel.

Maybe there's a stock type of photo I can take to highlight RAW's higher potential inside an editing program.
Maybe some RAW editing programs offer more / better RAW processing than others.

Unless Developer Studio 3.0's "Standard" Contrast is as good as it gets...

(I'll create a New Thread on this subject as well, to highlight the subject)

I had the same question as well when I started. What the heck's the big deal with RAW? Why should I go through all that trouble? Coming from taking pictures with my phone only, it didn't make sense. Until I got my hands on a used pentax Q sold just a few blocks away from me.

The camera took crap pictures in jpg point-and-shoot, in a nutshell. Like, da heck, my phone beats the crap out of this any day in less than a second to snap. Then I gave RAW a try and fiddled with it with software. BAM! Now we're talking! You can make the photo look like anything you want it to be (almost), even make it clearer to a certain degree. It was a major eye-opener for me at 2 am while thinking of re-selling the camera. Once all the editing is done the image does get saved as jpg that's gonna retain all your edits. My guess is, if you're probably not blown away, your camera could be taking some nice pictures already even in jpg.

Basically, you can fiddle with your images a lot with RAW, but if you do something similar with a jpg, you can only push so much until your image starts breaking apart and looking funky. Think of it like you're somewhat editing the photo as you're still looking through your camera.

But is it still a pain to go through all this with software? If you ask me, hell yeah. I'd still rather have a camera that shoots really nice out of the box as jpg. When I learn enough from the Q and ready for an upgrade, my goal is to get something that doesn't need to meddle with RAW (as I stand today, my pixel phone still ticks that check box, part of me still questions myself why I even bother).

[Cary W]

But is it still a pain to go through all this with software? If you ask me, hell yeah. I'd still rather have a camera that shoots really nice out of the box as jpg. When I learn enough from the Q and ready for an upgrade, my goal is to get something that doesn't need to meddle with RAW (as I stand today, my pixel phone still ticks that check box, part of me still questions myself why I even bother).

I'm on my third Fuji, far from the most expensive S9600, S4800 and S8200. The first was a gift, only 9mp but with a good zoom; the second bought for 16mp with a zoom digitally up to 5000mm; and the third as a backup, with a shorter zoom but better low-light sensor. All produce good jpgs (the first also had raw that allowed the comparison) that can be altered to the extent one wants.

If the sensor could record from bright white to black, there'd be no need for HDR. HDR means recording separately the two extremes as well as the wide middle range in separate exposures to combine. The same can be done with separate jpg exposures for static scenes.

An easy way to expand the range of a single exposure (which can be done manually in Photoshop - or create an action - by imitating the operation with more patience) is to use a program like MediaChance Dynamic Photo HDR (I like v5 but there are now 6versions) which has a range of options, but the default works fine as a prep stage, and faster than others that I tried.