← Home ← Back to /p/

Thread 4462455

150 posts 36 images /p/
Anonymous No.4462455 >>4462457 >>4462461 >>4462504 >>4462614 >>4462796 >>4463028 >>4463218 >>4463248 >>4464573 >>4465552 >>4466237
So is everyone using Lightroom or what? I already have Affinity 2 and would like something with a permanent license for library as well.
Anonymous No.4462457 >>4462458 >>4462461 >>4462483
>>4462455 (OP)
I use darkroom. It's way better than any adobe BULLSHIT.
Anonymous No.4462458 >>4462459
>>4462457
You mean Darktable?
Anonymous No.4462459
>>4462458
Definitely not.
cANON !!oKsYTZ4HHVE No.4462461
>>4462457
Bases, digislug seething incoming.
>>4462455 (OP)
>So is everyone using Lightroom or what?
Ahoy matey
Anonymous No.4462464 >>4462482
I'm a relative newcomer and I've been using pirated Lightroom Classic. I honestly find it bizarre this is regarded as professional software worth paying a subscription in perpetuity, mostly on account of bugs and limitations:
- I had massive performance issues that accumulated after browsing my library when editing labels. Turns out that having the "Metadata" panel open caused some resource leak.
- Resource management is straight from 1995 - it will use all 24GB of VRAM for GPU acceleration even if I run something like a small game, everything grinds to a halt when it starts swapping to system memory. No way of just setting a limit either.
- A silly bug when rotating images from the library that leads to either thumbnails or actual image not rotating which hasn't been fixed.
- It doesn't support having my library on a network drive
- It doesn't event support auto-import from a network drive
- No automation between DNG converter and Lightroom.
- DNG converter does the same resource-gobbling, but will actually.

At least once you get into developing the images it's nice to use. The processing tools are very distilled to what you're likely to use 99% of the time - I can see why Lightroom users get overwhelmed by Darktable.

I'm slowly getting used to Darkable now as it's just nicer software to use. I did some negative scans and that went a lot better in Darktable, the masking options are far superior as well.
Anonymous No.4462482 >>4462488
>>4462464
>it will use all 24GB of VRAM for GPU
No, it doesn't. It uses almost no GPU, even with it enabled. It uses heaps of ram and cpu, thats its.
Anonymous No.4462483 >>4466028
>>4462457
If you're using FOSS on Linux you should try out RawTherapee.

Most of the Linux community moved on from Darktable to Rawtherapee a few years ago. It's simply the better software - and easier to use
Anonymous No.4462485 >>4462486
Thoughts on Luminar Neo?
Anonymous No.4462486 >>4462487
>>4462485
ai fueled shit, ask >>4455026
Anonymous No.4462487 >>4462498
>>4462486
OK, is it any good when ignoring the AI slop?
Anonymous No.4462488 >>4462489
>>4462482
It definitely does
Anonymous No.4462489 >>4462508 >>4462519
>>4462488
>lil bros system is this pickled
also
>using task manager for gpu usage
Anonymous No.4462498
>>4462487
The whole fucking software is just AI shit.
Anonymous No.4462504
>>4462455 (OP)
I use C1 perpetual license, upgrading every 2-3 years
I've also had CC photo plan for like 8 years now, the sub model is cheaper than standalone licenses if you use Photoshop
Just grow up
Anonymous No.4462508
>>4462489
Okay, open a few raws in the "Develop" tab and show your GPU acceleration settings and usage.
Anonymous No.4462519 >>4462522 >>4462562
>>4462489
When you use firmware monitoring rather than the shitter windows one it shows as follows:
>GPU peak 15% avg 0.3%
I would check where you got your pirated lightroom from buddy your shit is DONE ahahaha
Anonymous No.4462522 >>4462525
>>4462519
>GPU peak 15% avg 0.3%
memory usage, not compute, you dimwit.
Anonymous No.4462525 >>4462562
>>4462522
>being this retarded
No wonder you have a virus ahahaha
Anonymous No.4462562
>>4462519
>>4462525
Literal Adobe shill btw. Imagine the smell in their office.
Anonymous No.4462614 >>4462617
>>4462455 (OP)
Lightroom has the best features, so it's the best there is for now and pretty much every business uses Adobe stuff. Capture One's pricing model is retarded so I don't like it.
Anonymous No.4462617 >>4462619
>>4462614
C1 gives me way better colors and their auto buttons aren't retarded like LR.
Anonymous No.4462619 >>4462626 >>4462734 >>4465549
>>4462617
How is it for picture profiles and retaining settings? One thing I would love is having the custom in-camera settings I use be read from the RAW file, while Lightroom just uses the default profile that comes from the manufacturer and only my SOOC JPGs look how I want.
Anonymous No.4462626 >>4462632
>>4462619
No clue, but c1 seems to handle all of my pictures and scans way better than lightroom. I like editing pics more on c1 as well.
Anonymous No.4462631 >>4462767
I'm probably the odd one out with this but I tried using gimp and (pirated) photoshop at the and time and thought gimp was easier to use and wouldn't have to worry about some hax0r using my computer to crash a train or some shit. I had been using canons own raw editor (DPP) for raws but recently decided to switch to loonix only once again and it's a fuckaround to get it to work. So anyway, what I was getting at was how bad exactly are RawRapey and Dorktable at handling Canon raws vs Canons own software which I thought was pretty good.
Anonymous No.4462632 >>4462633 >>4465549
>>4462626
Is it possible to do slight color shifts on the white balance? I change some settings in camera like slightly adjusting magenta and blues, and LR doesn't go that in-depth on WB.
Anonymous No.4462633 >>4462634 >>4462644 >>4462646 >>4462655
>>4462632
C1 does white balance a lot better somehow. Same sliders, but it just works better. Guess which is which.
Anonymous No.4462634 >>4462635
>>4462633
>Same sliders
Bummer
Anonymous No.4462635
>>4462634
White balance is a standard.
Orange to blue
Green to magenta

Every program and camera is the same here.

Other color casts are managed with levels/curves, or in C1, for hardware specific casts, LCCs
https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002583678-The-LCC-tool
Anonymous No.4462639
FastRawViewer > Photolab is what I use now. A very fast workflow, no need to import just keep it in folders. With some presets I can keep editing to a minimum, some small tweaks when needed, crop and done.
Anonymous No.4462644 >>4462646 >>4462655
>>4462633
After I saw the difference between this I bought c1.
Anonymous No.4462646 >>4462651
>>4462633
>>4462644
What's the actual color of this dog though?
Anonymous No.4462651 >>4462652
Look at this legendary dogtography lens I got for a weirdly little money. These were made between 1908-1930 I believe. Pretty good condition for 100 years old.

>>4462646
He is not glowing yellow/orange in real life. I've noticed with many pictures LR makes things too yellow, especially my dogs fur. It happens a lot when you try to boost contrast.
Anonymous No.4462652
>>4462651
Oops I thought this was the gear thread. Sorry. Please ignore the lens I posted.
Anonymous No.4462655 >>4462657 >>4462661 >>4462663
>>4462633
>>4462644
This seems more like user error than one program being better than the other. I've never seen such a massive color shift in Lightroom. If I had to guess, you have the profile default set wrong in LR.
Anonymous No.4462657 >>4462725
>>4462655
I don't usually change that from the default setting unless I've made a specific profile with my color card. Either way I wouldn't be suprised if it was simply user error. I havent devoted much time to actually learning how to edit photos on the computer. It's not as important for me as making prints in the darkroom.
Anonymous No.4462661
>>4462655
I will say that moving sliders in C1 seems to work out better for me than moving sliders in LR. For white balance it feels like LR moves in much larger steps than C1 and somehow it influences the image differently. I have an easier time manually setting white balance in C1.

I also really like the histogram slider thing in C1. Even if I was just doing something stupid in LR I enjoy editing more in C1, so its not too big of a deal.
Anonymous No.4462663 >>4462665 >>4462702
>>4462655
LR has god awful default profiles. Every camera color science meme ever is entirely based on lightroom being shit. You really need to buy a 32+ swatch target and make your own per illuminant for LR (just to put up with lag, $144-240/yr costs to keep up with gear upgrades you definitely won't buy, etc)
Lightroom also has much worse default curves than C1.
And much worse noise reduction and sharpening (sharp grain vs. the wet scan look) unless you use AI and enhance
And more false color/shit fine detail than C1

A competent darktable setup (with a fine tuned demosaicing pipeline and everything) is just a little more work than getting lightroom to play nice and actually gets C1 tier results. C1 just does that instantly with fewer bugs, a better UI, and the demosaicing fine tuning (which is some per ISO, per camera hell) already done. And $200 for a one and done if you catch it on sale.
Cameras have hit a hard plateau for everyone but super gear reliant action photographers and videofaggot gearcucks who think they still need 8k 120fps raw so what upgrades are there to keep up with? Especially if you shoot a modern camera that embeds lens profiles into the raws (phaseone's profiles are typically undercorrected anyways) so new lenses will always be supported
Anonymous No.4462665 >>4465549
>>4462663
So you dont think it was user error?
I will also add that I was using a Leaf aptus 6 mfdb to take those pictures, so it would naturally jive better with C1 than LR, right? It has a bunch of these built in profiles you can use. It made me sad that dog portraits look best with the "product" profile lol
Anonymous No.4462674 >>4462676
lightroom uniquely breaks ETTR by applying all the hue twists and shit before exposure corrections
literally no other developer does this
c1, darktable, rapetherapy, incel.exe, all fine
Anonymous No.4462676
>>4462674
Waaaaat. Wow everything is making sense now.
cANON !!oKsYTZ4HHVE No.4462702 >>4462715 >>4462718
>>4462663
>using software prices as an argument
har har har, avast landlubber)))
Anonymous No.4462712
I use PS and LRC, both are the best for editing and I just buy once a year a yearly subscription.
Doing one paid gig will pay more than that subscription and in my country I can detuct that subscription money from taxes. So no reason to even think about adobes scam prices.
Anonymous No.4462715
>>4462702
Extremely based. You only have two choices in this life - Live free as a pirate or slave away for the merchant.
Anonymous No.4462718 >>4462828
>>4462702
>taking pride in stealing
ishygddt
you will pay the last penny
Anonymous No.4462725 >>4462729
>>4462657
> don't usually change that from the default setting
yeah that's the issue then. lightroom from installation just defaults to their own profile (adobe color), but you can change the setting to use the cameras own profiles to get the colors you actually saw in-camera.
Anonymous No.4462729 >>4462733
>>4462725
I just checked and the profile says embedded... if I move the white balance enough to get the yellow out of his fur it turns his face blue.
Anonymous No.4462733 >>4462737
>>4462729
>profile says embedded
Looking at the wrong spot I think. You should see something at the top that says Profile: Adobe Color and then click into Profile Browser, from there you'll see the option to use the profiles from your camera.

I'm actually not even sure what you must be looking at, I don't see the word "embedded" anywhere on my Lightroom.
Anonymous No.4462734
>>4462619
I don't think that is really possible, your editor's sliders aren't going to do exactly the same as the camera ones so the results would be unpredictable.
Anonymous No.4462737 >>4462738
>>4462733
Top right. Is it because Im using lrc?
Anonymous No.4462738 >>4462739
>>4462737
That's really weird. I'm using LRC too and I don't have that at all, I've never even seen "embedded" come up before, not even when I've loaded a JPG. But if you click those 4 little squares next to it, that'll bring up the profile browser and you should be able to find your cameras profiles in there.
Anonymous No.4462739 >>4462740 >>4462741
>>4462738
Do you need to upload profiles? Mine only has this gay instagram filter type bullshit and the icc profiles I've made with my color card. Nothing camera specific unlike c1.
Anonymous No.4462740 >>4462747
>>4462739
That's really weird, they should be in there already. All my cameras are in there without me needing to do anything else. What camera are you using? Is it kind of niche?
Anonymous No.4462741
>>4462739
You don't see a folder called "Camera Matching"?
Anonymous No.4462745 >>4462746 >>4462748
Any opinions on Adobe's adaptative color profile?
I've just noticed its existence but it looks a bit memey
Anonymous No.4462746 >>4462750
>>4462745
I've been using it a little, just because it can make a fairly ready image and I can do additional tweaking. For the most part it just automatically fixes highlights and shadows.
Anonymous No.4462747 >>4462749
>>4462740
Yeah a leaf afi 6 lol. Idk if it shows up for my 5dm3 pics either tho. Ive never noticed anything other than it saying embedded or whatever profile I've made myself.
Anonymous No.4462748
>>4462745
Instantly makes any photo I take look like absolute shit.
Anonymous No.4462749 >>4462751
>>4462747
Ah, then yeah, with something that niche you'd maybe have to look around for the profiles, I'm not too sure. I only ever use pretty regularly available cameras so I've never had to do anything extra beyond setting LR to use my cameras profiles.
Anonymous No.4462750 >>4462752
>>4462746
So basically it already makes a highlights/shadows adjustment without giving you any control over it. I don't see the point when we already have these sliders available
Anonymous No.4462751 >>4462753
>>4462749
Huh okay. C1 has the camera profiles, so its nbd. Thanks for your help.
Anonymous No.4462752 >>4462754
>>4462750
Well in a circumstance where you really want to bring down or bring up certain areas, you can use adaptive to go beyond the 100 limit of the sliders.
Anonymous No.4462753 >>4462807 >>4462830
>>4462751
All good, to each their own really. I've considered C1 myself sometimes but their pricing model seems kinda weird and I think I'd have to buy it again if I got a different camera model. I also do work as a photographer and fuck around with various cameras, so having to keep buying C1 stuff over and over when I use a new camera would be a nightmare.
Anonymous No.4462754
>>4462752
I already achieve it through masking, but I guess it's another alternative indeed
Anonymous No.4462767 >>4462798
>>4462631
I use RawTheRapist and have never had any problem
consider reading the wiki if you haven't it's really extensive
Anonymous No.4462796
>>4462455 (OP)
i use dark table
>Guys which slider program is easier to use
Anonymous No.4462798
>>4462767
>RawTheRapist
i love this board and the silly comradery like this makes the insufferables tolerable
Anonymous No.4462807
>>4462753
Standalone is like $300 (or $200 on sale), and then you essentially get the next year's worth of small updates, which can include new camera compability. You get a discount if upgrading within the next 1-2 years, but no standalone loyalty discounts beyond that anymore.
If you use their subscription, you get a discount for standalone for each year subscribed, long enough and you end the sub with a free standalone.
Anonymous No.4462828
>>4462718
> muh copying is stealing
Behold, the merchant programming of the boomer brain
Anonymous No.4462830
>>4462753
Subscribe then. it's only $2 more a month. Buying to own is for the guy who still uses a 5dIII in the studio and puts out better work than people who upgrade their sony yearly, hence adobe abandoned that guy - he's not really in their target market. He's an unprofitable individual.

Some companies would release cameras on a subscription (high failure rate) if they could find the right fanbase to get away with it.
Anonymous No.4463028 >>4463053
>>4462455 (OP)
I use capture one. They still have a lifetime license. It works well enough.
Anonymous No.4463053 >>4463195 >>4463200 >>4463202
>>4463028
You have to pay again the next year if you want any new features or if a new camera comes out though kek
Anonymous No.4463195
>>4463053
What new kekking features does a lad like you really need? More ai garbage? Moving sliders around is enough for me, really.
Anonymous No.4463200
>>4463053
>consoom!
Post sony
Anonymous No.4463202
>>4463053
If you upgrade every other year or so it works out to be less than subscription, which is what I've basically done (except the early upgrades were much cheaper), and you do get most of the following years version updates and camera support
Upgraded 3 times for camera compatibility, and once for features, but that's over 8ish years
Anonymous No.4463206 >>4463260
>buying software
i shiggy diggy
Anonymous No.4463218 >>4463238
>>4462455 (OP)
Yeah using Lightroom until someone figures out a way to port 15 years of local edits over to capture one. Fuck no I din’t give Adobe any $, the last time I paid that’s shit company was in college when we were forced to. Never again. I just keep buying every new application that comes out from independent devs to support them, but keep using Haxnodes Lightroom app bc I’m not throwing away a million hours of work. Yes the situation is fucked, just like every other situation on earth, bc some shit company gets their hands on a good thing, gets greedy, and has a bright idea how they could make even more money by wrecking it, doing a shittier job and buttfucking everyone sideways. Fuck Adobe and fuck Lightroom.
Anonymous No.4463238
>>4463218
>In 15 years of shooting I've never gotten better at editing
Anonymous No.4463247
Do you lose quality when you batch convert raw files to .dng?
Anonymous No.4463248 >>4463249
>>4462455 (OP)
adobe at work
affinity at home
foss experiments from time to time
Anonymous No.4463249 >>4463250 >>4463251 >>4463267
>>4463248
>affinity at home
Nothing in the form of a library manager?
Anonymous No.4463250 >>4463329
>>4463249
my projects are all in dedicated folders and drives already so i can do local backups. it's already organized.
Anonymous No.4463251
>>4463249
didn't mention before, i have thousands of files
Anonymous No.4463260
>>4463206
you forgot to turn your trip on canon
Anonymous No.4463267 >>4463364
>>4463249
The best library manager is a sensible folder structure
Anonymous No.4463302 >>4463377
Anyone ever tried Photomator?
Anonymous No.4463329 >>4463361
>>4463250
doesn’t everyone do this? I can’t even imagine an alternative. All of my files in one folder?
Anonymous No.4463361 >>4463554
>>4463329
imagine if you did time lapses or animation where there just thousands in one folder lol
Anonymous No.4463364
>>4463267
Anonymous No.4463377 >>4463383
>>4463302
I've heard it's getting really good but I haven't bought it to try yet.
Anonymous No.4463383 >>4463596
>>4463377
I haven't read it explicitly but as it's a one time purchase in the app store, I suspect updates are free.
Anonymous No.4463452 >>4463483
ITT:
>MY SLIDER PROGRAM IS BETTER
>NO MINE IS BETTER
>WELL MINE HAS PEE IN IT
Anonymous No.4463483 >>4463485 >>4463500 >>4463711
>>4463452
isn't adjusting sliders and settings the very basis of photography? Wether that be in camera or in a program
Anonymous No.4463485
>>4463483
....i need to go rethink my life
Anonymous No.4463500
>>4463483
No. Your intent to produce an image is. The camera, lights and editor/darkroom are the tools used to materialize that image into a viewable form.
Anonymous No.4463502 >>4463507 >>4463529
Why would anyone use Lightroom when Photoshop is right there.
Anonymous No.4463507
>>4463502
Photoshop for single images
Lightroom for working with multiple images + Photoshop integration
Anonymous No.4463529
>>4463502
why would anyone use photoshop when lightroom is right there
Anonymous No.4463554
>>4463361
organised chaos CHADS rise up
Anonymous No.4463596
>>4463383
Yeah it has a few tiers, so you can buy lifetime license or you can buy yearly or monthly. I think I'll look at some more reviews for it since I've at least heard it runs better than anything from Adobe.
Anonymous No.4463603
is anyone able to get the download links here? https://lucidgen.com/en/how-to-download-adobe-on-mac/
Anonymous No.4463711
>>4463483
> He doesn't shoot jpegs in auto mode
Anonymous No.4464554 >>4464561 >>4464562 >>4465868
What alternatives to Lightroom exist that are either free (or very cheap) or easy to pirate?
I'm looking for something that offers the same tools, especially AI mask selection, RAW development etc, and runs well on simple laptop hardware with no dedicated GPU (Ryzen 7 8845HS).
Does something like this even exist?
Anonymous No.4464561 >>4464571
>>4464554
Lightroom is already cheap
Anonymous No.4464562 >>4464571
>>4464554
Lightroom is already easy to pirate
Anonymous No.4464571 >>4465868
>>4464561
>>4464562
Sure but I'm curious about alternatives nevertheless.
Anonymous No.4464573
>>4462455 (OP)
I use Darktable, but I'm really just an amateur...
Anonymous No.4465110 >>4465134 >>4465158 >>4466015
DxO PhotoLab 9 dropped yesterday. Adobe well and truly BTFO by DxO and Capture One.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9595323730/dxo-s-photolab-9-promises-actually-useful-ai-features
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=255qbzYqsAE
Anonymous No.4465134 >>4465402
>>4465110
Does it still have awful color science? When I was trying out Photolab, it would always gravitate towards the same acid colors - like the edited image in this forum post https://forum.dxo.com/t/highlight-shadow-recovery/16326
Anonymous No.4465158
>>4465110
TL;DR and how good are pirate versions of DxO or capture one, if they exist?
Been free loading on corporate Adobe CC the past years lol
Anonymous No.4465161 >>4465260 >>4465402 >>4465552
Capture 1 gives me way better performance, LR has been degrading like crazy in the last few years. After 10 years of using it, i made the switch. Now editing photos is finally not torture. It's too bad, because overall I've been used to LR so much that switching is like switching OS at this point. And I hate switching OS. And I like the ergonomics of LR better, though in C1 I can do everything I could in LR, so at least it's a very good equivalent.
Only issue is the C1 startup time is very slow for some reason, but it's smooth sailing once it's opened.
Also, C1 users, do you go with sessions or catalogs? So far I've been using sessions, but now that I'm used to C1 and committed to keep using it, I intend to use the feature letting me import my LR catalog in it. As such, I assume this import feature means I'll keep using a catalog.
Is it a good idea or not?
Anonymous No.4465245 >>4465260
Capture One is 3x more expensive than Adobe. Are they fucking retarded?
Anonymous No.4465260 >>4465276 >>4465311
>>4465245
Adobe
>$12/mo for LR
>$20/mo for LR + PS
>both include Adobe Portfolio and LR mobile
>$15/mo or LR + PS if grandfathered in
C1
>$17/mo for C1 desktop
>$23/mo for C1 desktop + mobile
>$330 (around $200 on sale) for standalone, cheaper than Adobe at 15 to 28 months (or faster on sale)
>standalone pricing discounted for each year of subscription, up to 100% off
Not sure what market you're in where C1 is 3x more expensive?

>>4465161
Sessions for sure. Switching away from larger catalogs of multiple things to only using individual sessions was the best organizational change I've done. If you think C1 is slow to load now, just wait until you're having it load a full catalog. In any individual session, you can still browse files from other sessions anyways.
The stock UI sucks, but it's much more customizable. I don't use the browser window at all, just G to switch between full grid view and whatever I have selected. Make use of speed edit keys, like holding Q + mouse wheel / click + drag / arrow keys will adjust exposure. I have my tools sectioned off and ordered to my workflow.
Anonymous No.4465276
>>4465260
sometimes i hate about media apps in general is when you install it and it's like "where do you keep your files?" and i say "here" and then it's like "shit, bruh" and locks up because there's too many. they should at least count and give you a warning if import will take all night. this happens in almost every FOSS app
Anonymous No.4465311 >>4465314
>>4465260
50 BRL "monthly" for LR, 150 BRL monthly for C1 Pro.
Adobe apparently has price localization, C1 doesn't. One perpetual C1 license with no updates costs 37 months of "monthly" LR with updates.
Anonymous No.4465314 >>4465319
>>4465311
Sucks to live in third world
Anonymous No.4465319 >>4465320
>>4465314
Nah, I can just pay for Adobe or pirate it all.
Anonymous No.4465320
>>4465319
You could also pirate C1
Anonymous No.4465402 >>4465447 >>4465475
>>4465134
PL color rendering has improved since those posts in 2020/21 but the default "Natural" preset is oversaturated to appease phonefags and the highlight recovery is a bit shit.
One problem with the DxO forum is it's full of a bunch of turboautist boomers who think turning up clarity to 100 makes every shot look incredible.

>>4465161
Putting price aside, all 3 are gimped in different ways imo. Like how the fuck does C1 not have any edit history? The second you close it, all changes are committed to every file and the official response is "click reset on the tool" lmao
Anonymous No.4465447 >>4465470 >>4465471
>>4465402
RAW editors in 2025:

>LR Classic
Reasonable feature set with the most "AI" tools. Excellent NR. Resource-hungry mess that will fuck your machine with Creative Cloud telemetry bloat (Core Service, Update Service, UI Helper chromium shit, "Content Manager", Core Sync, ...)

>DxO
Best for optical and distortion corrections. Modules for every lens and body calibrated with real hardware. Equally excellent NR. Colors can be weird/optimized for Ken Rockwells. Lacks simple options like constrain crop and the highlight recovery sucks.

>C1
Color rendering seems better than LR and DxO. The fastest of the bunch. Perspective correction (keystone) is useless beyond simple adjustments. Undo history is completely missing and developers are lazy when it comes to adding lens and camera support.
Anonymous No.4465470
>>4465447
Capture one is made for photographers, by photographers
>why would you want that? get it right in camera
They won't even add AI NR because they just use better cameras instead of coping hard with m43
Anonymous No.4465471
>>4465447
>phaseone staff on not supporting the zuiko 12-45 f4: "this is software for professionals, sir."
Anonymous No.4465475
>>4465402
I saw that post from 2020 and immediately recognized the acid colors that I was getting myself in 2025.
Anonymous No.4465511
I definitely use edit history in PS, but I have never once ever missed having it in C1
If I like how something looks, I save the adjustments as a preset
If I want to thinker a bit, I just press F8 to make a copy and tinker away
Forget it's even a thing until I open up Darktable for a DT thread

How often are you all actually using edit history i a raw processor?
Anonymous No.4465549
>>4462619
>picture profiles
>retaining settings
What does this mean?
>my custom in-camera settings
They aren't baked in the RAW file, you'll have to take a few pictures, match the look, save it as a preset and then apply it to the RAWs you import.
>>4462632
You can do slight color shifts by changing the white balance on any raw converter, it works the same way every time.
You can also do by-color editing in both Lr and C1.
>>4462665
It's a fact that default settings result in different looks in each RAW converter.
That said, one picture's significantly brighter, so the user has done something, and such a big difference likely came from tweaking stuff (very) differently between the two.
Anonymous No.4465552 >>4466190
>>4462455 (OP)
I use C1, been using it since v10.
I was previously using Lr and decided to try out other options, then stayed with C1 for the massively more flexible color editor and mask workflow.
At some point an acquaintance was doing tethered work using Lr and, out of curiosity, I took some time to compare Lr's and C1's tethering capabilities.
It wasn't even a competition, I really can't imagine what Lr was doing to be that slow but C1 was three to four times as fast to show a new picture after it was shot, plus it offered the option to control the camera settings in real time and had a live view window.
I believe Lr has improved over the years, and I liked C1 better when the HDR tool only had a "Highlights" and a "Shadows" sliders instead of the four White/Highlights/Shadows/Blacks it has now, which it has copied from Lr, but C1 has also improved in terms of performance, masking tools, face editing features, what have you.
If only the engineers at Panasonic hadn't made it impossible to tether the S1 with a raw converter, C1 would have everything I need (but I can still shot tethered thanks to C1's hot folders or however they're called, only I have to pass through Panasonic's own tethering software).
>>4465161
I have a catalog to which I add pictures taken a few at a time and that don't need much organization, like if I'm trying out something or taking two pictures of the moon.
Every other project/shoot/session/job gets its new, very own session.
Anonymous No.4465868
>>4464554
>>4464571
A good basic system is RawTherapee, I used it for a few years before I just went with Lightroom.
Anonymous No.4465994
Fuck Adobe. Fuck Adobe. Fuck Adobe.

That's the only thing I have to say.
Anonymous No.4466015
>>4465110
>can't export to AVIF
Might as well throw your pictures straight in the bin.
Anonymous No.4466024 >>4466062 >>4466151
What's the best value for money if I'm shit at editing and for now mostly want to inpaint turds and rubbish from my street photos (I live in France)? Affinity looks okay, inpaint tool looks pretty basic, but it works.
Anonymous No.4466028 >>4466036 >>4466159
>>4462483
RawtheraPEE has shit masking and the low-res preview when editing is just awful, I don't care if most freetards use it.
Anonymous No.4466036 >>4466157
>>4466028
>low-res preview when editing is just awful
I've seen much much worse.
Anonymous No.4466062
>>4466024
Actually, I should be just doing this stuff in Gimp. Haha, saved myself 75 Euro.
Anonymous No.4466151
>>4466024
I use the software bundled with the camera (NX Studio &cet. for Nikon, DPP &cet. for Canon) and Gimp.

(Roughly flattened impact melt fragment, about 55mm wide. Need to get the stuff for polishing.)
Anonymous No.4466157 >>4466275
>>4466036
>I've seen much much worse.
Like what?
Anonymous No.4466159 >>4466178
>>4466028
Decided to try our Rawthera/p/ee since I didn't like Darktable and DPP4 doesn't exist on Linux, but it's just fucking terrible. Cool the power is all there but I don't sneed 57 modules to comb through. I need levels, HSL, gamma, NR, sharpness, etc.
Darktable is kind of the same but I'm so unimpressed with the NR of either there's no incentive to use them for anything shot over ISO 1600.

Looks like the only sensible thing to use is 1st party software if you're going to be a freetard. Unfortunately for me that means getting a workaround in WINE going, so fuck my life.
>inb4 just use windows
I do, but I use linux-specific things all the time, and the niggers at Canon have a Mac version of DPP4 but can't be arsed shitting out a Linux version? Fuck off.
Anonymous No.4466178 >>4466195
>>4466159
Just don't use the modules you don't need? Also there's a fork called ART that reduces the number of modules.
Anonymous No.4466190 >>4466294
>>4465552
> rolling shutter

Oh another ewaste mirrorless enjoyer
Anonymous No.4466195 >>4466232 >>4466234 >>4466279
>>4466178
I think my main point was poorly pivoted. I mean more like, the UI is a bloated unintuitive mess, with no consideration of workflow and seemingly no logic to how things are worded.
>read the manual
No. If I can spend 5 minutes in DPP, C1, Digikam, LR, or even OM Shitspace and get the hang of things no worries, there's no excuse.
Anonymous No.4466232 >>4466263
>>4466195
I put some time into leaning darktable so I could finally kiss paid raw developers goodbye and now I get better results in a couple minutes than I ever did in LR and C1.
It's really easy and fast to use, you just have to learn a couple basics. If you can't be bothered to do that, I wonder how you ever got into "professional" photography and developing raw files.

As for confusing UI, I don't think that's really the case, it's quite similar to LR.
Maybe this will help:
https://www.darktable.org/2024/12/howto-in-5.0/

There's also videos about how to switch from LR to darktable, never needed to watch one of those tho.
Anonymous No.4466234
>>4466195
Capture one is basically the only good editor

And yes, linux is not supported nor should it be. between the bloat of the kernel, systemd, and gnu/garbage (including gtk and gnome), it's harboring an untold number of purposefully added backdoors courtesy of at least 3 different countries intelligence agencies.
Anonymous No.4466237 >>4466260
>>4462455 (OP)
https://github.com/cybertimon/rapidraw

Just found this last night. This dude got sick of Adobe and made his own lightroom.
>Not the guy
>Not shilling a free product
>Tried it yesterday for the first time it's way less confusing than darktable
>Lacks a few features but the dev seems interested in feedback and improving
Anonymous No.4466260 >>4466270
>>4466237
>commie AGPL license that infects everything it touches
hard pass
Anonymous No.4466263 >>4466292
>>4466232
my only problem with DT is that the highlight recovery is significantly worse than the "white" slider on C1 for example
Anonymous No.4466270 >>4466298
>>4466260
Shut the fuck up faggot.
Anonymous No.4466275
>>4466157
OM Workspace. Almost unusable.
Anonymous No.4466279
>>4466195
From where I'm standing, RT has borderline unusable file browser - that's true. The fact that they refuse to implement a normal image preview, like it exists in every other editing program is just beyond me. ART actually tries to fix that. Otherwise, I think the editor is good.
Anonymous No.4466292
>>4466263
there are several ways to do highlight recovery, I never had an issue getting highlight detail back
use either tone equalizer or color balance rgb and use the brilliance grading
you can use masks to only affect the sky or the upper luninance ranges, if needed
you could also just make a 2nd exposure module, then make a mask for the highlight areas
Anonymous No.4466294
>>4466190
The right stick looks like that because it's moving upwards from a frontal perspective at 1/60", but the picture was taken with the mechanical shutter.
Anonymous No.4466298
>>4466270
>commie wants to shut people up
news at 11