Citation needed.
I didnât know that anyone had implemented it. Sounds like a really great idea. The unfortunately thing with manufacturer software is that itâs usually really annoying. Is the DPP software decent?
Itâs interesting that Iâve not heard about it.
I used it very little since it doesnât run on Linux. Certainly not as function-rich as other software, but it knows all the little secrets of Canon cameras, so it can apply correction for Canon lenses, show the focus points that were used, etcâŚ
I describe Lightroom to my students as a very suitable tool for a professional portrait or wedding photographer that wants quick and easy edits because time is money. A professional can also afford and justify the subscription cost. I never bag out LR. It has a very definite place in this world.
I describe DT as a real artists tool that allows so much more to be done with creating handcrafted images. And BTW, DT is just as fast as LR at processing images once you become skilled at using it. LR with its sliders has an easier learning curve which is its big strength. LR also has better DAM capabilities to sort and find your images quickly if your are a professional. DT is improving in this regards and I hope to see that improvement continuing.
As a professional photographer I shot in RAW plus Jpg. I tried to setup the jpg in camera to be so good that I did not need to edit images and the job was complete at the end of the shoot. RAW files were just my safety backup in case I did need to do some fix. Time is money for a professional so OOC Jpgs are just perfect for that task. I donât want to do a shoot and then spend hours editing the images.
Use the best tool for the job. Be it DT, LR or another program. For me I just love DT and the fantastic work done by the developers. I have LR but get bored using it. I occasionally use it for exposure merges and panorama stitching but that is about it.
Thanks for your response and the opportunity to clarify my viewpoint more.
5 Likes
I am no professional, but I did tinker around with a lot of raw editors in the past and only recently installed DPP. I must admit DPP is a bit clunky and slow at times but after giving it a try to me it is hands down the best raw processor for handling Canon Raw files. Now my workflow begins with correcting images in DPP first and then go to RT or GimpâŚ
This is 100% true and has been said many times. In the documentation, by multiple developers, here in the forum by a lot of people etc.
A quick edit can be done with exposure, filmic and color balance rgb, takes around 1 minute or even less. If the user needs denoising and sharpening that can be done with presets or styles, which take 5 seconds to apply.
On an unrelated note: Itâs incredible the amount of inflammatory comments on there. It feels like people feel personally offended that there might be a better software that is free while they are paying for a subscription every month and donât even own what they use.
That is a good point. Perhaps itâs not so much brand loyalty thatâs fueling inflammatory online discussions, but merely sunk cost dilutions. On both sides, of course.
I know I have defended darktable perhaps a bit too fervently at times, especially when my skills were not yet quite up to the task of replicating a default render of Lightroom in darktable.
2 Likes
I have Canonâs own software DDP installed. I also have Olympus and Nikons own software installed. If your aim in life is to match your RAW files to the look of OOC Jpegs then using the manufacturers software is a good way to go as they know what they are doing. DDP is one of the better softwares from a manufacturer and Nikonâs one of the worst.
Speaking for myself, I have Adobeâs Master Collection of programs and Lightroom worth many $$$. I use Darktable because I just simply love it. Being free is a bonus and means if I recommend it to a student or friend there is no economic barrier preventing them using it. I also have Photoshop as part of my collection, but I prefer to use GIMP. However, I know many people who feel the need to stick to what they have paid for because they just feel the need to get âvalueâ from their spending. One person really got aggressive with me when I suggested she could save money by not renewing her adobe subscription for Photoshop and Lightroom. The irony there being she did not know how to use either program and wanted me to teach her how to use Photoshop. My suggestion of learning GIMP went down like a lead balloon.
3 Likes
âFree is not goodâ - as a premise - makes it difficult to explain the good provided by public television and radio, food banks, and homeless shelters.
The nonprofit world revolves around a kind of âRobin Hoodâ model of wealth transfer ⌠accepting time and financial resources from those with greater wealth and providing services to those who are neither required nor expected to pay for them. If this model cannot produce anything âgoodâ then weâre in bigger trouble than RAW processing challenges.
3 Likes
Yes, but a lots of these servers runs under some kind of support licence (RHEL).
And itâs not only the OS, I made several projects in a bank and even though they use a lot of FOSS, they only authorize it if they find some maintenance/support contract for it.
1 Like
Proprietary companies cannot afford for people to realise how good certain free software is, or they will lose their sales. Donât be surprised if some of the negative online discussions (articles or comments) against open source is instigated by them (in disguise) to scare people off.
The review doesnât seem too bad at first glance - yet was clearly biased in placing emphasis on the things seen as LRâs strength. This is database & catalogue, camera & feature support (as well as trying to claim speed, without proving it with tests or system info). Absolutely nothing about colour science or algorithms, which are the major strength of DT and RT - allowing you to achieve results impossible with LR, without artifacts. The image comparison they give is just straight out of the box - nonsensical for anyone who shoots RAW. Not to mention the one program which actually places its primary emphasis on image management - Digikam - they claimed crashed and that was that.
Call me cynical, but I believe a review like that is designed to get people to think, âHm open source software is interesting and may be ok at some things, but cannot compare to lightroom as a whole, so is not really worth investing time into.â I mean, do we really believe a paid staff member of dpreview doesnât have one spare week available to do a deep dive into alternate raw software and learn to use it properly? Especially when this could save their audience hundreds of dollars a year? Of course they do. Iâm sure they spend many more weeks than that in Lightroom. But they choose not to, probably due to some affiliation with adobe or lightroom. They would likely avoid writing about open source software completely, except that it gets discussed on their forums, and they need to maintain the illusion of âimpartial photo dudes serving the peopleâ for those who are curious about it.
In some fields of course proprietary software is better than open source and there are certainly good reasons for people to choose LR over open source if they prioritize certain features. But a fair review would give the contestants more than just a cursory glance.
3 Likes
Actually, I do in fact believe that. Their job is to generate clicks and ad views, not education. That means camera gear reviews, and news reporting. It also means pandering to the majority, which in this case is a bias towards Adobe.
But in fact I think the problem with photo editing software reviews runs deeper: they take too long to learn so reviews are impossible. I know I needed months to get to know AfterShot, Darktable, and Capture One. Even the usual-except-for-Adobe 30 day free trial is not actually enough to get a good grip on the intricacies of a tool such as this. Which is, ultimately, why nobody is doing proper in-depth reviews of photo editing software anywhere. The time investment necessary is so great that itâs just not worthwhile to learn more than one.
The best comparisons I could find are done by private individuals, not big review sites:
- a fantastic piece on nomadlens
- a Fuji-centric one on FujivsFuji
- One by Andy Bell
- A Nikon-focused one on wypictures
- my own here and here
- The Exception: an article on Petapixel
6 Likes
While this is true, these are paid professionals who obviously have some time devoted to software and are clearly aware open source exists. Have they really never tried any of it out but for a cursory glance? dpreview has been active for decades, so I find it hard to believe. It is somewhat believable if they have affiliation with adobe and thus get discounts on their products, giving them no need for open source (and even encourage them to actively ignore it, as open source becoming too popular could directly affect their pay packet). So even if their job is not to educate, it is clear why they would have a bias.
DPReview is not independent. It is owned by Amazon.
3 Likes
Oh wow⌠The more you know. Must be a bit like them owning goodreads, the thought of conflict of interest is always there.
These are all very interesting, specially the Fujifilm ones that end up interesting me, thanks for sharing. I guess itâs no surprise that Capture One deals with Fuji so well, given how they are partnered and everything.
Yes, thatâs why I wrote
I did not want to say that FOSS does not cost money because setup and maintenance have still do be done. Companies and institutions pay with money (wages and support contracts) and private users mostly with their personal time.
Not so much. Amazon sells all brands so their reviews donât need to be biased towards a specific one.
1 Like
I would like to be able to use Nikonâs own software, despite knowing how bad it is, just to give me the option of using HE* (darktable doesnât support this) from the Z9. But it wonât run under wine, so I canât.
No, but they will push you to their website to buy things. Build an advertisement profile better against you etc. Maybe conflict of interest wasnât the best term, but they profit from it in the end.
2 Likes