Photo Ninja
Posted: Tue 07 Nov 2017, 08:22
Another in my series of posts about a possible Lightroom replacement. I mention this post since it features a Raw converter of which I was previously unaware, namely Photo Ninja.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... ekend.html
As Michael Johnston says in his post, ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) is a very capable Raw converter. It would not be so popular were it not. From time to time I see other people claiming that this converter or another is better, although I suspect that might be due to ACR not applying too many initial adjustments when a Raw file is first opened. I know that it applies some contrast and Color (sic) Noise Reduction has a default value of 25, but so far as I am aware that is about it. Raw files can look a bit flat when first opened, which I suspect is the reason for applying some contrast. Most people will be adding more anyway, so that seems sensible.
Adobe takes the view that the user should be free to adjust images to their own tastes. The Martin Evening article to which I linked recently showed that Capture One and takes a different approach and does a lot more by default. That is fine if you like that particular look and are aware of what the application is doing. When I see a statement along the lines that images look better from the outset in Capture One than ACR from the outset, it makes me think that the author does not understand what is going on beneath the covers. After all, it is the final result which counts. It is something to be aware of when evaluating alternatives to Lightroom.
What is stopping me from moving away from Lightroom is not the lack of an alternative Raw converter, of which there seem to be many, but a replacement for the Library function. As I said before, that is where Adobe really has achieved lock-in and at present there are not too many options. I expect that to change over the next few months as other developers scramble to take advantage of the mistrust and resentment Adobe has created with its ongoing migration to subscription based services.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.co ... ekend.html
As Michael Johnston says in his post, ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) is a very capable Raw converter. It would not be so popular were it not. From time to time I see other people claiming that this converter or another is better, although I suspect that might be due to ACR not applying too many initial adjustments when a Raw file is first opened. I know that it applies some contrast and Color (sic) Noise Reduction has a default value of 25, but so far as I am aware that is about it. Raw files can look a bit flat when first opened, which I suspect is the reason for applying some contrast. Most people will be adding more anyway, so that seems sensible.
Adobe takes the view that the user should be free to adjust images to their own tastes. The Martin Evening article to which I linked recently showed that Capture One and takes a different approach and does a lot more by default. That is fine if you like that particular look and are aware of what the application is doing. When I see a statement along the lines that images look better from the outset in Capture One than ACR from the outset, it makes me think that the author does not understand what is going on beneath the covers. After all, it is the final result which counts. It is something to be aware of when evaluating alternatives to Lightroom.
What is stopping me from moving away from Lightroom is not the lack of an alternative Raw converter, of which there seem to be many, but a replacement for the Library function. As I said before, that is where Adobe really has achieved lock-in and at present there are not too many options. I expect that to change over the next few months as other developers scramble to take advantage of the mistrust and resentment Adobe has created with its ongoing migration to subscription based services.