Summary from personal review of processing packages & final choices

[Adrian]

RAW processor and library tools - Deciders

Affinity £24 Bought it for my son, and back up for me for a few tasks.

There is nothing that we use in Photoshop that this can’t do. User interface is a mess. Layers for doing things like skin healing is very usable, though I needed to watch a tutorial first. But I bought it partly because it shows camera focus points which I used to like in Aperture and as far as I found nothing else does this. It’s handy as my wife takes a lot of horticultural shots with a 100mm L macro lens and later we often struggle with what she meant to focus on. This will be an occasional user, not an everyday tool.

Capture One 21 £20 a month subscription. Did not buy.

I really like the usability, and some elements of cataloguing, layout tethering and quality of images. But…when I compared it with “difficult” images processed in Photolab DxO 4 Elite or Adobe Lightroom Classic no one could tell the difference except that DxO was better at noise reduction with deep Prime on relevant images. Overall it’s the best piece of software I tried. Best library, best training tips and instruction videos, best user interface. But only 2 “seats” which is a bit of an issue.

Why didn’t I buy? A lot of moans on the internet, mostly about high cost and too short upgrade cycle stopped me just before I pressed the buy button. I’m not a professional and I felt I might have buyer’s remorse due to the price. It’s annoying that they penalise Canon users with significantly higher prices than the other major brands.

On a monthly subscription it’s twice the price of the Adobe photography package. It’s far better integrated but is not twice as good and currently does not offer the sky replacement module that Photoshop has.

On1 2021 £79 (discount vouchers reduce this by about 15%)

I tried this and thought it was satisfactory so I bought it. Then I needed to process some difficult images taken from a Canon 5DIII with a 400mm lens in low light and at high ISO. These were of a robin feeding under a bay tree in the snow. The On1 image was really noisy and so I tried it against my trail copy of DxO 4. The difference was massive, with DxO producing a very usable result and On1 failing to get close. I also experienced several crashes to my Mac Pro with On1 after I had bought it. Technical support tried to be helpful but I ended up with a prompt refund.

In terms of processing capability the lesson for me was with a good quality picture out of the camera, all of the software packages did a satisfactory job. The differences really appeared with images where noise is unavoidable. DxO and Capture 1 stood out to me, each for slightly different reasons.

Luminar AI £59 after discount. Bought it, rejected it, got refund.

An odd one. Bought it at the outset, thought it was brilliant for an hour or so, like many people, then decided it was deeply compromised (which it is), so got a refund (like lots of others I subsequently discovered). They paid me back straight away, but I still had a 7-day free trial. However, during that time I processed a few shots nearly all taken by my wife with two cameras at an air show on a dull day. Cockpit shots are always difficult due to reflections off the instruments and canopy, and the sky was basically white and grey for the hundreds of aerial pictures. The sky replacement AI tool simply transformed some pictures that would otherwise have been average at best. I tried various methods, including processing in DxO and Capture One and then doing the sky in Luminar. Also doing the job in Lightroom Classic and then doing the sky in Photoshop. However, everyone seeing the pictures side by side on the big screens chose the ones directly processed in Luminar AI. However, this was a rather unusual picture of a Supermarine Spitfire propellor, just before I fired up the engine, and perhaps this just suited the software as it has a very nostalgic feel.

I couldn’t use it as a daily processor, as it’s gimmicky unless you mainly post to Instagram and social media, but there are some things Luminar does that nothing else can do as quickly. Sky can be changed in PS and this works very well, but is much slower.

However, the Luminar forum is awash with complaints: no layers, no ratings, no batch processing, no watermarks, missing EXIF and histograms. Some of the effects, like adding fog and mist, are simply rubbish in my experience. The “fun” things like adding balloons and planes are childish. The sunray app is quite usable. And there is a massive caveat with the Sky effects: I processed some images of our garden covered in large expanses of deep snow. A white sky and everything shrouded in snow made for dull image. I tried a Sky replacement in Luminor and this was dreadful, mainly because treated the snow as a reflective surface and replicated the new sky on the ground. LRC plus Photoshop handled the same job perfectly (but it took ages as the whole set up is apparently designed to be as difficult as possible).

On forums and even the official Skylum forum, complaints about Luminar AI abound. They have stupidly removed basic features like ratings in the library, layers and so on that were present in Luminar 4. AI seems widely regarded as a step backwards and they have unwisely not maintained library compatibility which has really upset their customer base. They also spam your screen a lot during the trial.

Lightroom Classic £10/month in Photography package with LR, LrC, Bridge and Photoshop. Did not buy.

I’ve used LR and PS for years, so I knew most of it fairly well. Not wild about their subscription model or their desire to tie one into their library set up. They added some functionality since I last used it properly getting on for a year ago. I know lots of people love the library but I’ve never enjoyed it. Capture One does it better but at twice the monthly cost. I thought the LR images processed were absolutely fine, but I just felt that trickier things (fewer pixels for example due to long reach, or more noise) in Capture One and DxO looked less flat. I felt it was similar to Affinity but a bit easier to use.

My feeling was that for our use LR did everything fine but was not the best for me in any category. I just wish Adobe would make the whole thing a LOT more user friendly. Their various bits of software simply do not integrate in the way that modern programmes do – the architecture and user interface feels old now. However, its all round “good enough” ability probably makes it the best compromise as a stand-alone solution. It has two seats (i.e. will run on two computers).

Photolabs DxO 4 Elite £179 but discounted to £69. Bought it.

This gave me the best workflow for what I mostly do. I use in in conjunction with Fast Raw Viewer. The noise reduction is miles better than anything else and the AI presents for initial processing work extremely well. I bought it because, on a Mac it integrates remarkably well with my desktop folder system and OSX Photos cloud. I like the fact I could click on a file or folder on one screen, and DxO would put it in its library ready to work on, instantly. No dragging or selecting or switching around between programmes. I liked the lens corrections, watermarking and easy processing and of all the products I tried I felt that the pre-set scenarios were the most useful and least fake. Batch processing suited my workflow, and with a large backlog to deal with, this was the decider for me. Plus it runs on 3 machines so my wife can have her own copy. The library is not as bad as people tend to say: it works OK for me as my images are already organised into folders, projects, days etc. No spamming during the trial.

I already had an old copy of DxO optics pro 8 (which still works) and this allowed me to upgrade at a substantial discount and I also used a 15% off voucher on line. DxO Viewpoint was bundled free and the old Mik plug ins stil work. At this price DxO4 it is a serious bargain for me.

Fast Raw Viewer £15 after £5 discount. Bought it

I discovered this by accident when trialling the other software. It takes CR2 files straight from the camera and renders them pretty much instantly without creating misleading jpegs. It helps review and grade images very fast, and usefully shows detail highlights etc so it is easy to see what is usable in images. At £15 it is a no brainer as part of the workflow, though I do wish it had an easier method of getting rid of discards.

I know there are more highly specified raw viewers out there, but this was dirt cheap and did the job sufficient for my needs. It is not used to process anything.

My library system now is my own folder structure that is independent of any photo software supplier and is triple backed up. Issues with old Aperture, iPhoto and Lightroom libraries dating back a good many years taught me that I need to avoid getting stuck when software providers change their systems or business models.

[DanK]

Fascinating. Thanks for posting all this detail.

I do have questions about one thing you wrote:

Then I needed to process some difficult images taken from a Canon 5DIII with a 400mm lens in low light and at high ISO. These were of a robin feeding under a bay tree in the snow. The On1 image was really noisy and so I tried it against my trail copy of DxO 4. The difference was massive, with DxO producing a very usable result and On1 failing to get close.

First, when you processed these, did you include noise reduction? It wasn't clear to me how much of the difference is in the core processing and how much is in noise reduction routines. Second, did you try processing these images in Lightroom, and if so, how did it compare to the other two?

thanks

Dan

[Manfred M]

I use all of the software you have evaluated, with the exception of OnOne 2021 and Fast Raw Viewer. Your comments are very much in line with my own assessment of the products.

Adobe Camera Raw remains my preferred raw processor simply because of the integration with Photoshop and its support of SmartObjects. I find that DxO PhotoLab is probably the strongest raw processor, but I generally use it with high ISO / noisy data. In my view it is superior to the other raw convertors in that respect. I find the PhotoLab is a bit slow awkward to use, but the time saved in working with noisy images makes it worth my while.

I have worked with Capture One, but I generally do a lot of tethered shooting and it is far more stable than Lightroom, so I use it. I do play with it from time to time as a raw converter, but it really has no advantages over the other tools for my workflow.

Your assessment of both Affinity and Luminar are bang on. With the latest upgrades to Photoshop, the functionality I would use Luminar for is far better in the Adobe product, for my workflow.

[xpatUSA]

However, this was a rather unusual picture of a Supermarine Spitfire propellor, just before I fired up the engine ...

As an ex-RAF Engine Fitter, I am highly impressed. "Clear prop!!" Have worked on the Merlin and the Centaurus - but mostly gas turbines which are quite boring ...

[Manfred M]

mostly gas turbines which are quite boring ...

Unless they happen to throw a blade, at which point things can get messy. If the blade is contained things are not so bad, but if there is an uncontained failure then things can get quite messy very quickly.

I was on a flight where there was a contained failure; the plane (a DC-9) started to shake very violently and it got quite noisy for a few seconds. The flight attendant swearing like a trooper suggested this was not a good thing. A plane flying on one engine rather than two seems to fly very slowly and the landing was definitely rough.

[ST1]

RAW processor and library tools - Deciders

But I bought it partly because it shows camera focus points which I used to like in Aperture and as far as I found nothing else does this. It’s handy as my wife takes a lot of horticultural shots with a 100mm L macro lens and later we often struggle with what she meant to focus on. This will be an occasional user, not an everyday tool.
.

Thanks for documenting your investigations very interesting.

Just on your comment regarding the ability to show focus points, were you aware that there are "plug ins" available for Adobe Lightroom that give this functionality?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[billtils]

A nice, logical summary Adrian with the outcome tailored to your circumstances - well done!

I would add a few minor points for the benefit of others who may have a simliar but not identical starting point to yours:

1: The cost benefit conclusion in regard to CaptureOne depends on your camera body, and CaptureOne + Affinity Photo would come out higher for those with a Nikon, Fuji or Sony body

2: If you are interested in tethering for macro work, especially if you are going to focus stack, then CaptureOne beats LR hands down (or did with the versions I explored a year or so ago)

3: The noise reduction findings are in keeping with what would be expected from the various programs but I've tried all the ones you mention and did not find sufficient difference in DxO PL noise reduction over the others to make it worth while buying it for that purpose, but again that will be situtational and depend on the camera body and the type of shooting you do (and ironically that from the good old original NIK DFine does all I ever want).

[DanK]

2: If you are interested in tethering for macro work, especially if you are going to focus stack, then CaptureOne beats LR hands down (or did with the versions I explored a year or so ago)

The company that produces the stacking software Helicon Focus, which I don't use, sells an inexpensive program called Helicon Remote that autonmates stacking when shooting tethered with a Canon or Nikon camera. It is independent of the raw processing engine you use. I bought it and used it a bit some years ago, and it seemed quite good, although I had to tweak the default values a bit. I don't recall whether it can manage mirror lockup, that is, giving two signals to the shutter per image in the stack.

[Adrian]

To answer the questions:

Yes, I did try processing the exact same difficult noisy image of the robin in all of the software packages except Affinity. I did this using the CR2 file direct from the camera card, saved into a desktop "originals" folder so each processor was working on exactly the same thing. I could not get get very close to DxO with Lightroom, and On1 was just dreadful.

This might be incorrect workflow (I am not a pro), but I did not apply NR to any image before I started. I don't generally do it anyway until I have cropped and sorted out exposure and any colour issues.

I agree that Capture 1 is well equipped for tethered shots. However, the macro enthusiast is my wife and she simply will not learn to use any software - she regards processing as something she can dump on me. She actually has a better eye than me as a photographer, especially for little details.

The Spitfire is brilliant plane and every chance to fly these old single seat warbirds is a privilege. On the same day we did a lot of shots from a DH60 biplane as well. I've never tried to take pictures from an open air cockpit before and it was extremely challenging to contend with wind, oil spatter and vibration. The other guy I shared duties with (it was supposed to be a display) was a dab hand at it though, so technique must play a part.

No I was unaware that there is a focus point plug in available for Adobe. I wish I had known that. I will seek it out and try it.

I agree that someone with a different camera and different photographic interests may well make a different choice of software. In my case I must admit that ease of use and speed of getting to a usable image was a big factor as I have a lot of stuff to process from past trips that my wife wants to use for a photo book she is doing on Japanese gardens, but which I never got round to doing much with apart from select a handful of my favourite shots. I am subbing some of it out to eldest offspring.

Cost was not really the main driver, though I avoid wasting money when I can.

Finally, on DxO 4, a few years ago we spend 2 weeks in northernmost Finland photographing night skies and aurora. (I wish I had had tethering software then). I have all the original images off a 5DIII and with long exposures on a tripod with remote electronic release these are often pretty noisy. I processed them in Lightroom at the time, but am experimenting with DxO now. It's quite interesting. It doesn't always work, but the software does seem to be able to distinguish stars from noise a lot of times. Elite NR is much better than the standard version.

[DanK]

Is this the plugin you use?

https://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/

[Adrian]

Thanks for that link. It appears similar to the feature in Affinity. In the much missed (by me anyway) Aperture, it showed just the red focus square rather than the grid.

[ST1]

Is this the plugin you use?

https://www.lightroomfocuspointsplugin.com/

That's one of them Dan, I use both Focus Point Viewer and Show Focus Points

https://github.com/musselwhizzle/Focus-Points

[tclune]

For Nikon shooters, Nikon has just released version 1.0 (caveat emptor!) of Nikon Studio. To my mind, it is best viewed as a .NEF file editor, but it's a good one. It has a much better user interface than Capture NX-D and a lot more functionality than View-NX2. It does not support layers, but it does allow selective editing via control points for color/contrast/brightness of easily-selected portions of an image. I wish they had expanded that functionality to include selective noise reduction and sharpening, but other than that it appears to be a very capable raw editor. FWIW

[pschlute]

For Nikon shooters, Nikon has just released version 1.0 (caveat emptor!) of Nikon Studio. To my mind, it is best viewed as a .NEF file editor, but it's a good one. It has a much better user interface than Capture NX-D and a lot more functionality than View-NX2. It does not support layers, but it does allow selective editing via control points for color/contrast/brightness of easily-selected portions of an image. I wish they had expanded that functionality to include selective noise reduction and sharpening, but other than that it appears to be a very capable raw editor. FWIW

We are lucky today as digital photographers to have such a wide array of options.

When I first started post processing, it involved 15 minutes of putting dark curtains up in my parents kitchen !

[dje]

We are lucky today as digital photographers to have such a wide array of options.

When I first started post processing, it involved 15 minutes of putting dark curtains up in my parents kitchen !

You must have had very understanding parents!

Dave

[billtils]

... Yes, I did try processing the exact same difficult noisy image of the robin in all of the software packages except Affinity. I did this using the CR2 file direct from the camera card, saved into a desktop "originals" folder so each processor was working on exactly the same thing. I could not get get very close to DxO with Lightroom, and On1 was just dreadful.

If you are shooting from a tripod and if noise reduction is important, try taking several shots and process as a stack in any software you have that will allow that.