vadims: The only image editing program that does non-destructive editing the right way is, to my knowledge, ACDSee. "The right way" means that users have immediate access to the *result* of editing from any other application. Want to share an image, or complete retouching using another program? The file is already there. The original files, along with sidecar files containing editing instructions, are in the hidden "[Originals]" folder (similar to "Alien Skin").
As to UIs, both ACDSee and LR suck. They are utilizing "modes" (implemented as modules in LR) that were the curse of UIs for decades... Good Lord, that distinction between "quick edits" and "developing" is horrendous. When I view an image in editing application, I must be able to immediately drag the sliders and do all the adjustments I need, period. No switching to "developing" or "editing" modes BS.
Is Exposure X different in that (UI) respect?
The only app that I know of that got UI right was early, very early version of Picasa.
When I was trying all things; I saved as a .png file for no-loss 9X compression (or any other format ; like .tif).
Topaz was not better than Wavelet Denoise in Gimp.
No brand name program did any final sauce and to a matched body that ufraw and Gimp could not easily do. Really.
It was more about knowing thy program. Since ufraw (with loaded cam model profile) and Gimp (+Gimp plug-ins and the transition to gimp from ufraw applet) is the whole ball of wax then one learn just those and simply uses only the parts one needs. This has been invaluable for any need; that should arise. A one stop shop to Gimp pimping anything.
So saving as a PNG (or other format needed) work file is only needed when going from say ufraw and then any other tested developer. Once you come back to Gimp it's automatic, FULL FEATURED and everything else sucks.
Some of you will run screaming like a child from ufraw; because it's a no training-wheels type program. That's over in about 5 minutes to smart people.
Neodp: Great new software. Now a word about non-destructive.
Why is this a selling point? Current (non)reality mean it is and that's great for this new software. But what is the deal with "non-destructive".
I spent years with Lightroom (Lr) and it's claim to fame was "non-destructive" edits. This is really crap and snake oil (mostly). Editors do this with something like the Lr "catalogs". We bought this because a lot of folks start off with JPEG only and want to edit them. It is what it is; but as you know every time you save a compressed JPEG it then degrades. EVEN if you only shoot JPEG then are you afraid of accidentally saving over it or what? Aren't they backed up anyway?
Also, the idea is to have tens of sprawling version of the one original file. Such a B&W and the one with a chickens head on a squirrel; that took you a week to get right. Thus protecting the base mother file. Else what makes the most sense is one highly edited picture from which many other rendition are made....
...and since one needs to save (export in Gimp) to your suited and finished output anyway then there is no extra step or thing to remember. The rare "work in progress" unicorn is NOT difficult to save and finish later if you must stop and continue later. Thing is no one experienced takes very long to do anything and all things anyway and that's what you are probably missing. There's practically no need to continuing in-progress OR to save a part-edited base; to make make variation from. Should that be the rare case one simply can save a base work with the likes of no-loss, maximal compression .png file. However THAT NEVER HAPPENS. YMMV. Not only do I have better (no catalog, no Lr) choices for those kind of jobs; we basically never need them. I'm telling you the secrets to NOT wasting more time. BECAUSE that is the #1 case against ANY editing and not just using right-out-of-the-camera JPEGs. Take it or leave it. Mine is the absolute best of both worlds AND I said how. Raw embedded JPEG
Communication is never the sole responsibility of one party. I have recognized my responsibility. Even though I am no good writer. Did you? You have also judged yourself to do better. Are you?
My point was targeted at the "non-destructive" issue. Most of you seem to be stuck with old school thoughts about it. I gave new ones. If you can't listen to what I was at least trying to say then you do not get the benefit of them.
I NEED NO CATALOG NOR OTHER "non-destructive" FEATURES! THEY ARE NOTHING. Anyone get that? What you have been told is a necessity... isn't. That means it is a meaningless selling point. This does not mean these new programmers know it's bad. Then too you may still continue on your convoluted path *and* that’s good choice(of bad). I just know it is not better.
If I want different rendition I can make it from Raw faster than you can access your catalog. Is my writing clear enough?
Plus Raw always has been and is basically unchangeable; but for maybe meta tagging.
StrokerAce23: Question is, how does it do with reading Nikon secret sauce on default rendering? The scale is a million miles away for LR and buggy-perfect for Nikon software. If it's not the latter, it might as well be the former.
There are easy quirks to ufraw that are extremely easy to work around; when new. Many never get to the gold. It's not a Kindergarten type program. It does the real job. Simply set all ufraw at default and save once to set a "pattern" and profile. It's that easy. One does not typically use all the many options inside ufraw. Nor do I recommend things like NR there. (Note ufraw has auto distortion correction and much more; that Raw needs) Save noise reduction for the Gimp. Don't forget the load the transition program for no loss one click form ufraw to Gimp. "EXPORT" final product from the Gimp simply by add .jpg (for JPEG and any others) to the name and it will automatically decide the best compression depending on the picture.
These REALLY free programs run on Win, Mac and Lin. You want to newest; BUT STILL STABLE NOT TEST versions. Unless you're a programmer, of course. I say that because you must limit yourself. No training wheels.
Fine business StrockerAce23. Lr is not fro me anymore; but you are welcome to it. I leave you this nugget....
I downloaded the Color Profile for my Nikon Model that is specifically for and already created for ufraw. I then simply told ufraw to use it always (until I pick another model) and this ufraw profile require the setting of two easy tweaks. Theses numbered settings come as instructions with the models color ufarw profile. They then match Nikons nice and model dependent JPEG output!!!! I could make subtle changes to my BASE PATTERN. Note: Also savable are secondary curves that one can set exactly like Nikon "D-Ligthing" (local color contrasts) notches, if desired. Or many more and UNLIMITED......
Nikon (and any other) HAS NOTHING SPECIAL; that a a flexible Raw editor (like ufraw) plus something like the Gimp (smooth no-loss auto app transition) and your preferred Gimp plug-ins and add-ons (and scripts) can't do.
Stop thinking Nikon editors are required to get Nikon's goodness. Or Canons. That is not true. I've been there and proved that. That's a primary reason I use ufraw (rarely) and Gimp+. These are made by extremely hard work and they are 100% free an without tier feature limits to you. THEN you get the real improvements and versions free also. They are THE most flexible and you can use them fully or just partly and quickly as is your preference or needs. They are the "kitchen sink" so to speak. You can learn the parts you need and not use the rest. Layers OPTIONAL. The point is: What ever you need is there and in programs not hard to get and use. What else do you need to know?
2. Easy alterations per shot. As all shots are different. At least like kind groupings on very large jobs. Where these sub groups might do well with a set sub pattern in addition to the base profile.
Now I said: Raw should be developed SPARINGLY; because that's only how much it makes a difference, anyway. Plus that's different from shooting ALL shots in Raw; which I am saying to do. Shoot ONLY Raw basically. (You know BASICALLY. Unless rarely your cam requires features working only from JPEG, like drive mode).
It is extremely fast to pull all JPEG's right out of your Raw only files. You can preview (cull both JPEG and RAW dogs) and 99% of the time (If you're good) utilize the pulled JPEG as finished products.
You are welcome to do it differently *and* the pulled JPEG quality does depend upon the model.
Nikon's "sauce" is built in and while it's in it's full completion as a JPEG ROC(Right on of the camera picture), Nikon's pallet (+sensor and processor latitude) are also in the Raw (typically UN-FREKEN_CHANGABLE) mother-file as well.
So it is the Raw developer programs SETTING that exact a similar Nikon flare. It is a mistake to think you can buy this. You actually can, to a point; but see. That is still just a pattern for all pictures and the whole point of Raw dev is maximizing the picture IQ (in the higher bit latitude AKA what the system recorded fully).
Therefore in the rare case where Raw dev is warranted (among all your shoots) and that means better WB, Exposure and Local Contrasts; because (in SOME cases when) it was impossible to get that while taking them, then you have two parts for rare (TIME SAVING) Raw dev.....
1. The base pattern or color profile specific to the camera model and program.
Ears and can't hear. Eyes and can't see. You is what you is. I really apologize if you don't get me. Likely only few will and I am just fine with that. If I were to expand now and restate to the dead then those would just accuse me of rambling. As it is; if all this was to long for you then you can kiss it. You know there are several possibilities to why you might not be able to understand me.
Do people even try anymore? Think; or you are certainly welcome to get feed what you will.
Come on. Catalogs to keep up with are HARDER to manage than simply saving your finished copies and starting over on the rare occasion; that you might need more. USUALLY you want to start all the way from scratch anyway. Especially with Raw as your correct starter (Mother) file. Guess what the kicker is? Raw file NEVER change anyway *and* the have embedded JPEG files (with settings as taken and unlike the Raw). Yes Raw only has JPEG's; that can be used 99% of the time with ZERO editing time. What's the point of editing unless it's somehow better. Right? Therefore even if you shoot only JPEG then you CAN do that by shooting ONLY Raw. Which has many other advantages. Not the least is full choices.
Great new software. Now a word about non-destructive.
MikeDPR: That 16MP sensor spec should not be used for this camera. Tallest photo is 3088 pixels tall (from 4:3) and widest photo is 4480 pixels wide (from 16:9). That makes it only 4480*3088=13.8M pixels for the largest rectangle area that encompasses all aspect ratios options. I think it's fine to say it has 13.8M sensor even though not all of them is used for a given aspect ratio. But to say it has a 16MP sensor is quite misleading.
Why? In order to up the color sensitivity and highlight DR! Now those really matter. What we can't have (yet) is landscape resolution is smaller sensors AND sensitivity. Though progress HAS been made (including processing) it's been more than quenched by the numbers game. What's worse is most folks don't even shoot detailed landscapes blown to poster size! We need to work on the fact that old film cameras still have pros over digital sensitivity and highlight range; because we've not even covered that yet! Even with films many other cons. So you see we are NOT really do that much for true quality. Certainly not fast.
Accept that it's duly and wisely noted this does not even matter. It's not a major.
What matters is adding TOO MUCH mega-pixies to any sensor that can't really do it (say at ISO 1600 cleanly) yet. You see... if one camera with less Mpx can be enlarger more with better comparable cleanness then it wins over the more mega-pixels. Not that more mega pixels doesn't have some advantages. It's about the resultant total IQ and the end game. What's happening now is just as soon as some modicum of lower noise at high ISO (like just 1600 we'll say) is newly achieved they not only design more photo-sites into the sensor thus bring it back to older, less pixel per area IQ; but they unbalance it even farther because you don't by on IQ you still buy numbers assuming that has to be better overall. We desperately need improvement AND slightly lesser mega pixels per area.
Please let me tell you like you are two.
A. Incredible improvements in several areas. Yea!! Holiday feeding frenzy! Prices out of whack.
B. Several missing fundamentals. These effectively negate A's pros.
C. Go back to A. Makers win. Photographers lose; while supporting high prices. You can brag and feel like a professional. No one really cares.
Which models have no M-A-J-O-R photographic disadvantage? None. But you just keep believing they are losing money making larger flawless sensors. Just go ahead and keep thinking they automatically got your back and just need a little first adopter help in bringing in the newest overpriced breakthroughs. Send me $1000 and I'll write some more! You do want to support me, don't you? You may lose your right to comment if you don't. Can't have that now. Better hurry. Shop-mass is coming early this year. You don't want to lose your right to say how wrong I am now do you? Best pony up.
User6310699194: Finally, DPREVIEW.COM had the courage of expressing the opinion of an expert criticizing the current mirrorless cameras. It was told what everyone already knew and bothered in the mirrorless. The mirrorless are still far from meeting the minimum requirements needed to photographers. Sony who is investing millions of dollars cannot make a photographic camera for photographers, but a weird electronic device filled with unnecessary features and with heavy, expensive and poor quality lenses. All media try to convince us that Sony has the mirrorless solution. We still have to wait for Canon and Nikon. Only these companies will bring a better mirrorless solution for photographers. Let’s wait for them!
"Why so serious?" -The Joker
AKA the cry of the oppressor. The correct response is...
"I'm Batma...", no LOL. It's....
HECK NO WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE.
In case any of you cupcakes were confused. ;)
The point is not that anyones list is perfect for all. Nor do we all need one of a kind systems.
The point is we're being messed over. We are. It's more about psychology than cameras.
lenseye: One thing Ming and many others don't understand or know, is that the solutions he talks about aren't in one product because that is not the way Japanese marketers work. The Japanese never sell you a product that has everything you want, never! That's their philosophy. It's true that they probably have all the features necessary to make one camera great but those features are put into three or four models to milk the consumers. Even when a certain technology is already available they won't put it all in, they introduce it incrementally to empty your wallets! Just look at the PC market, how many years did it take to get the processor speeds to over 2Ghz, they had the technology long ago ...
"The gat dang Germans got nothin' to do with it!" -Buford T. Justice
I am agreeing most cams come from the East; but race isn't the issue anyway.
It's not germane to the subject. East, West (like zero LOL), all over the world; their making cameras for every market price tier and you can't even fix glaring negatives by throwing money at the problem.
Next to come is some market monkey to post how, "that's just the way business works". Let me tell you about business. STOP BUYING OVERPRICED CRIPPLED CRAP! Apparently this is the only way.
Bottom priced cams should be no less comprehensively complete. At least in what's truly cheap to make!!!!!!
A. Saying Japan does this does not say others do not.
B. You are taking away from the obvious. Dominate system makers can and yet still do not provide comprehensive cameras.
C. Go to A.
Martinka: Post about photography: 12 comments.Preview of camera: 300+ comments
A) You are wise to note that.
B) We know DXO data is still good to know.
JEROME NOLAS: NO wonder, Sony didn't get my money! Idiotic company.
Mike: Fine business. Thank you for your views. I also suggest trying all that one can.