I’ve long thought about this, Moose: I don’t know how you can deal with a
2-step system that ACR must entail. Is it not immensely time-consuming?
LR. Apple Aperture and Capture One provide a single-step process of Raw
conversion, requiring that you import the images to the programme’s library;
the Raw conversion is automatic and provides you with a preview and a library
system. Once that is done any other process is fine-tuning and the user has no
further file management to carry out. I picture you opening a Raw file in ACR,
fine-tuning and exporting the file to your storage location. I understand that
you can do it in batches, but it’s still 2-stage, is it not?
I know that Chuck could never get his head around how LR dealt with its
catalogued files, but for me that is what makes these programmes so useful. I
don’t like LR, having tried it several times, but it must be useful for
millions of photographers.
Chris
> On 7 Jan 17, at 23:02, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/6/2017 12:45 PM, Ken Norton wrote:
>> . . .
>> I totally agree with you, it's the best deal for the computer side of
>> photography in the industry right now. While the actual raw converter
>> itself is a bit pedestrian, nothing else about it is.
>
> I'm a bit mysterified here. Isn't LR still mostly an alternate GUI for ACR? I
> know they've added some localization ability, Dehaze and ???
>
> Or are you talking about the conversion alone, sans any sliders, etc.?
>
> I do try others, but so far always end up back at ACR for day to day Raw
> conversion. It had better color than Canon's DPP, when I shot Canon. It has
> as good, if slightly different, color as Oly Viewer 3, IMO, and better than
> DxO and SilkyPix, distortion and CA correction that most don't. Best
> highlight recovery I've seen, that ranges from infinitely better than V3 and
> SPix to somewhat better than DxO.
>
> Given any random images from cameras it supports, I'd bet it's overall the
> best conversion about 98% of the time. Yup, DxO distortion correction is both
> better and smarter for WA, but it only matters on some shots. If I were an
> architectural photographer, I'd have a different opinion. :-)
>
> I've not tried Phase One for quite a while, so may be out of date there. No,
> I can't recall Topaz, and my ON1 doesn't actually work yet. RawTherapee is
> decent in many ways, but doesn't do distortion and CA, doesn't do plug-ins
> for them and doesn't recover highlights. I haven't used PWP since dinosaurs
> ruled the Earth, but it has at least two of RT's problems.
>
> But really, for day to day µ4/3, the only sensible options are ACR, DxO, V3
> and SPix, two of which are crippled and one does color funny. Is Sony SPix,
> too? ACR does a fine job with the A7 files.
>
> A. C. R. Apologist Moose*
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|