Alternative Post Processing Programs.

I have people asking me what kind of post processing software they need to be using. A lot of people can not afford the Bucks for and of the Adobe products or really don't have a need for expensive software. I am of the opinion that many of them really do need something more than the basic photo editors out there. I have recently been looking for a free open source editor that I can learn so that I can teach others how to edit their photos. Today's find is LightZone

Has anyone here used LightZone and if so do you think it would be good for a beginner?

Never used that Don, the only open source one that I have used is GIMP Oz

This is supposed to be an alternative to LightRoom. Playing with it now but tired so I am going to put my toys up and go to bed.

I haven't used LightZone either, but am always open to something else (Free). My alternatives that I use are View NX-2 , Capture NX-D . and GIMP.. Sometimes Irfanview. Notice the trend here--- FREE!

I downloaded RawTherapee for the Mac this morning. It's free and looks promising. It comes in Windows too.

RawTherapee Blog

I'll give it a test run later on.

J-see said:

I downloaded RawTherapee for the Mac this morning. It's free and looks promising. It comes in Windows too.

RawTherapee Blog

I'll give it a test run later on.

Click to expand...

I have the Windows version of this, but found it to be quite steep in figuring out what was going on with various settings. It was before I started using Capture NX-D which sets the camera settings for starting ground. Saying that, I may look at RAW Therapee again now that I understand the parameters a little better. Ha!

i only use darktable darktable.org
it is available for linux, mac, solaris and freebsd. is very sophisticated software. I will check out lightzone though!

Englischdude said:

i only use darktable darktable.org
it is available for linux, mac, solaris and freebsd. is very sophisticated software. I will check out lightzone though!

Click to expand...

I've been using Darktable recently too. It took a bit to learn, but it definitely offers more than Aperture did! I like being able to use it under Linux and OS X.

cwgrizz said:

I have the Windows version of this, but found it to be quite steep in figuring out what was going on with various settings. It was before I started using Capture NX-D which sets the camera settings for starting ground. Saying that, I may look at RAW Therapee again now that I understand the parameters a little better. Ha!

Click to expand...

I'm giving it a test run and it is indeed not the easiest editor I used. It gets complex real fast and it'll require some reading before I actually know what I'm doing. But it provides a level of control that is fantastic.

Here's a shot I did using the LR/PS combo.



I ran the same NEF through RAWTherapee which is about as hard as it can get for an editor.

This is the SOOC:



This is what I got out of it without really knowing what I was doing. I need to work on the colors.



Since the shot is a high ISO equivalent, let's see how LR noise/sharpness does vs Therapee. I don't expect miracles from these low light shots.




Not bad for a free editor.

I did a little playing with Lightzone, I find something similar to lightroom, you can create your own presets, white balance has an eye dropper tool, the existing "What it came with" presets can use some adding too.

Overall I found it pretty easy to use, it also opened D800 Nef but did not open tiff, didn't check with D810 file.

I prefer Lightroom but it is a free alternative worth recommending if someone can't afford Lightroom.

I'm still testing Therapee and I think I like it more than LR. The colors are more natural and it has some splendid tools LR lacks. On the other hand, there's a lot LR has that isn't in RAWTherapee.

And it's certainly not the kind of program you want to explain to someone unfamiliar with RAW editing. The documentation available isn't very extensive.

One in LR/PS, one in RE. It's purely about natural colors. I still need to figure out highlights/shadows and such. And yes, I can tweak the colors too in LR but there it costs more effort reproducing them.

Something more colorful:

SOOC:



LR/PS:



RE:



Crops:




Both need further tweaking.

I use Capture NX-D and that is it.

In general I try to get it right in the camera itself. All the RAW processing I do is to change the exposure (to recover the shadows or blown highlights), play a bit with contrast and at times when required set the picture to "vivid". Of course crop out what I do not need.

vs



Both do a good job. RE has loads of curves and sliders and values and about everything is adjustable but it's whole or nothing. No local adjustments, no removal or clone options. At least none I discovered at the moment.

As a workhorse it is fantastic but when the work is done and you need to fine-tune a shot, another is required.

J-see said:

Both do a good job. RE has loads of curves and sliders and values and about everything is adjustable but it's whole or nothing. No local adjustments, no removal or clone options. At least none I discovered at the moment.

As a workhorse it is fantastic but when the work is done and you need to fine-tune a shot, another is required.

Click to expand...

RE = RAW Therapee? Not sure...

Whatever "RE" is, are you not seeing the significant loss of detail and contrast in the "RE" processed shots as compared to the Lightroom versions?
....

Horoscope Fish said:

RE = RAW Therapee? Not sure...

Whatever "RE" is, are you not seeing the significant loss of detail and contrast in the "RE" processed shots as compared to the Lightroom versions?
....

Click to expand...

RT indeed, must be the old age.

There's actually little detail difference but because I'm a noob with RawTherapee, I need to figure out how to get the best quality there. It's not like LR where you got one slider for the highlights and shadows and they go up or down. RT is pretty complex, or at least it appears pretty complex at the moment. I'd say it certainly does a better job at the level of sharpening, noise, colors and tones.

J-see said:

RT indeed, must be the old age.

Click to expand...

That I can relate to...

J-see said:

There's actually little detail difference but because I'm a noob with RawTherapee, I need to figure out how to get the best quality there. It's not like LR where you got one slider for the highlights and shadows and they go up or down. RT is pretty complex, or at least it appears pretty complex at the moment. I'd say it certainly does a better job at the level of sharpening, noise, colors and tones.

Click to expand...

Understood... I was basing my comments, primarily, on your flower crops where I can easily see significantly more fine detail in the LR version. Look closely where the "veins" run to the tip of the petals; I see a lot of difference in the amount of detail there. Maybe it's a matter of contrast though; the RT version appears to me to needs bump there and that might bring out some of the finer detail.
....

Horoscope Fish said:

Understood... I was basing my comments, primarily, on your flower crops where I can easily see significantly more fine detail in the LR version. Look closely where the "veins" run to the tip of the petals; I see a lot of difference in the amount of detail there. Maybe it's a matter of contrast though; the RT version appears to me to needs bump there and that might bring out some of the finer detail.
....

Click to expand...

In the flower image I managed to get rid of all highlights but I was that busy with the colors, I didn't even notice until I compared both. Of the two birds, the one having more color is RT and I'd say there it does a better job than LR. The head of the gull shows the difference.

I just used the standard sharpening of both without upping the values. But RT has a lot more options when it comes to sharpening/noise.

I reprocessed one of my older macro shots to see it at work in colors and details.

This is as I processed it in LR back then:



This is when reseting and quickly running it through RT:



More cropped:





I didn't use any noise reduction in RT which shows in the crop.

At first sight it looks as if the LR shot is simply underexposed compared to the RT but if you look at the bug, it is fairly similar in both, at least when it comes to exposure. If I up the LR by 2/3th, I simply can't get the same result. That would require a load of tweaking.



It's good and it is free. I'd advise anyone to try it. It's not for all but for those that love control, it might be a good addition to the post-kit.

Here's some info about the options:

RawPedia

With the impending demise of Aperture, I've been looking at alternative post processing software. From what I've seen, the combination of PaintShop Pro X7 and AfterShot Pro 2 from Corel look great, but they aren't Mac compatible. That's a Bummer. I refuse to make monthly payments for software, so Adobe products are out! Plus, once you dump Adobe, as I did, you realize what a heavy load their overweight code puts on your system.