-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Hutchinson's review of PR 2026
- Thread starter Adam2
- Start date
I bought ON1 two or three years ago and came to the same conclusion then.
Just his comparison with how other editors handle shadows is enough for me to discount ON1. It's such a basic feature that really should work properly.
I almost started to construct a lengthy and detailed review of the review ... and because I'm not a Hutchinson affiliate, it would not be particularly flattering. But to save myself the time and trouble, I'll just say I'm glad I did not rely on a review like that before buying PhotoRAW 2025. I can get results from it that are nearly as good as those from PhotoLab, my primary converter/editor, and I can do so with files that DxO doesn't support at all. I also get access to capabilities that DxO either charges for exorbitantly or doesn't even offer.
One brief comment: The video spends eight or nine minutes on complaints about how PhotoRAW's tone sliders operate compared to other apps. Many of us dislike how PhotoLab's tone sliders affect too wide a range, although Hutchinson apparently loves those. If he had tried using PhotoRAW's Linear Raw profile (something that PhotoLab doesn't provide), I think he would see that the tone sliders then become much more restricted and focused - but of course that's not something he tests.
Photo RAW is indeed flawed, and some parts of it don't work properly ... but it also does a number of things quite well, especially for the $49.99 price I paid during a promotion last year. That said, I had already decided not to upgrade to v2026 because there are no changes in it that I find compelling enough.
One brief comment: The video spends eight or nine minutes on complaints about how PhotoRAW's tone sliders operate compared to other apps. Many of us dislike how PhotoLab's tone sliders affect too wide a range, although Hutchinson apparently loves those. If he had tried using PhotoRAW's Linear Raw profile (something that PhotoLab doesn't provide), I think he would see that the tone sliders then become much more restricted and focused - but of course that's not something he tests.
Photo RAW is indeed flawed, and some parts of it don't work properly ... but it also does a number of things quite well, especially for the $49.99 price I paid during a promotion last year. That said, I had already decided not to upgrade to v2026 because there are no changes in it that I find compelling enough.
Last edited:
Have you ever tried to use the highlight slider? Half the time it flickers and increases highlights as the user tries to pull them down.
It's unfortunate that you didn't try to refute his review as I promptly validated every single one independently.
If you watched the video, you would see that he compared the operation of the shadows slider against nearly every common photo processing software and in all cases, they applied the adjustment primarily or exclusively to the shadows sometimes parabolically and in other cases it's logarithmic. PR does not and it shifts the entire tone curve rightwards including midtones and highlights.
I'm glad you paid $49.99 for it. I had been a supporter of PR since before it was PR and now, in good conscience will not be renewing my subscription.
I can't 'refute' his review of v2026 because I don't have it. It's not about refuting anyway. Even if his and your opinions of what you don't like about v2026 apply equally to v2025, opinions vary considerably. Much of what Hutchinson chooses to make a big deal with big complaints in his reviews matters very little in a practical way to me personally.
Of course I watched the video.
He did not use PhotoRAW's Linear Raw profile - as I said. That behaves differently, at least in my tests.
So? PhotoLab users know how sloppy those 'Selective Tone' adjustments are. There are complaints about them here frequently, while Hutchinson has praised them in the past. Regardless, there are other ways in both apps to make the desired adjustments. And I don't really care how apps that I don't use do things as long as I'm able to get the things I want to accomplish done with the ones that I use.
I have a perpetual license, so I'll continue using v2025 for at least another year, along with my flawed PhotoLab v7.
Last edited:
ms960
Active member
He saved me some money, and I agree with his review. I have purchased a few years worth of PR, including 2025, always hoping the raw developer would improve, but watching his video it hasn't. Glad I didn't bite on their too-numerous-to-count marketing emails.
When Hutchinson reviewed the version when Brilliance AI was introduced, he did not know that several settings can be adjusted to change how Brilliance AI works by default. This meant analysis wasn’t very illuminating because it wasn’t from an informed position.
However, a bigger issue to that is that these settings aren’t hidden away but are in the Preferences section - something that in my experience, any fairly competent reviewer will go through. If someone doesn’t, it’s a red flag.
In the comments, he was called out over some inaccuracies, which in fairness he did respond to but also in fairness, didn’t come across very well in doing this.
For a good number of years I worked in journalism, I reviewed a lot of stuff and commissioned reviews, edited them etc for various publications, mainly computing and technology. That’s given me a decent feel for when a review is much cop or not - I don’t need to agree with a reviewer to think they’re any good, but I don’t have a much tolerance for slapdash work.
However, a bigger issue to that is that these settings aren’t hidden away but are in the Preferences section - something that in my experience, any fairly competent reviewer will go through. If someone doesn’t, it’s a red flag.
In the comments, he was called out over some inaccuracies, which in fairness he did respond to but also in fairness, didn’t come across very well in doing this.
For a good number of years I worked in journalism, I reviewed a lot of stuff and commissioned reviews, edited them etc for various publications, mainly computing and technology. That’s given me a decent feel for when a review is much cop or not - I don’t need to agree with a reviewer to think they’re any good, but I don’t have a much tolerance for slapdash work.
I don't agree with Hutchinson's conclusion, but I do see why he came to it. ON1 has been pitching PR as the best & cheapest way out of the big name subscription-based editors; if a user who's familiar with how things work in those editors comes to PR and tries some of the sliders, they are going to get a shock and very possibly uninstall it on the spot.
ON1 would definitely be wise to address these issues, and reviews like this might press them to do so.
All that said, I like ON1 PR very much. I find it does a lot of things very well, punching way above its price point. Once you've worked with it a bit, you learn workarounds for some of its foibles. For example, in the dusky beach scene of the video, if I wanted a big shadow lift I wouldn't do it with the sliders of the Develop module; instead I'd probably use a local adjustment with a luminosity mask, or even just a gradient mask.
For me, the stuff that ON1 PR does well, and quickly, greatly outweighs the odd bit of lost time when I need to use a workaround. YMMV.
ON1 would definitely be wise to address these issues, and reviews like this might press them to do so.
All that said, I like ON1 PR very much. I find it does a lot of things very well, punching way above its price point. Once you've worked with it a bit, you learn workarounds for some of its foibles. For example, in the dusky beach scene of the video, if I wanted a big shadow lift I wouldn't do it with the sliders of the Develop module; instead I'd probably use a local adjustment with a luminosity mask, or even just a gradient mask.
For me, the stuff that ON1 PR does well, and quickly, greatly outweighs the odd bit of lost time when I need to use a workaround. YMMV.
No, it's not, and that's why I said the video was damning. The shadow adjustment issue is a big deal IMHO and the highlights slider doesn't work properly either. Paradoxically, it increases the highlights when you pull them down. It is very disturbing that On1 can't get the basics right and they continue to paste on features.
I applaud you. It was an exceedingly long video which he could have shortened up considerably.
I've used Linear Raw and just repeated his test. Sadly, the shadows adjustment works the same way, pushing the midtones/highlights to the right.
Not a PhotoLab fan.
Sorry that you wasted your money on Photolab.
So as a journalist, would you like to fact check his latest video? Because every one of his observations were correct. Moreover, there are many attributes which he may not have appreciated because of his lack of detailed familiarity with the product. For example, mask adjustment has now become more complicated, requiring additional clicks to accomplish the same task. There are other tasks which have been made more difficult as well.
If you find PR 2026 suits your needs, then by all means buy it, though again, you haven't been able to dispel his assertions.
That's fair though you don't say why you disagree with his conclusion.
I've been asking On1 to fix these issues (shadows, highlights) for years. Also, they've corrupted one of my default camera profiles and that too they say they're going to fix - they haven't.
While I respect your opinion, having to work around basic functionality is a poor approach.
Care to expound on what PR does really well? It's not masking, it's not basic adjustments, it's not resizing, it's not noise reduction, and it's not AI. What I do like is that I don't have to play around with catalogs anymore and that's why I looked at it in the first place when LR1 was unstable and crashed repeatedly. Personally, I'm no fan of Adobe, but On1 could do a lot better.
What is not what?
Sure - opinion. It matters very little in a practical way to me personally, as I said. I have not felt unduly confined by the behavior of the sliders, which perhaps is simply because of the type of photos I shoot and the type of editing I do.
I'm looking at that slider right now and not seeing what you describe. In any case ... don't use parts of an app that don't do what you want. That's how I deal with them.
Even if it does, I've never had an issue with it. But rest assured that if I were unable to get the results I want from this app, or any other app, I'd be as unhappy as you are.
Okay, noted.
I didn't waste it. I got a flawed tool, just like every other app I know of, but I use it for the things it does well. I'm glad that I own both apps. You just have to stop thinking that everyone's needs are identical.
Last edited:
If all the complains are about extra clicks, difficulties of using new tools, siders that have to be moved in opposite directions, these are user's problems.
And personally I have found all 3 sliders (highlights, midtones, shadows) work well for me.
One observation more: all Raw photos are different, and respond differently to adjustments we make.
Andy Hutchinson
Member
While that is perfectly true, it doesn't make that particular tool any better - its output is poor whether you tweak it or not. It's a tool that only a complete beginner would ever use, but that is not unique to Photo RAW - the same is true of the Auto button in Lightroom and other editors.
Me too! 15 years as a tech journalist at Future Publishing and another 10 as a freelance for many other publishing companies, newspapers and TV and radio.
--
Powered by coffee, swearing, and firmware updates
Last edited:
Andy Hutchinson
Member
You may be interested to know that, since the video was uploaded, Patrick Smith at On1 has contacted me and thanked me for (his words) my 'candid' review. He said that it was "never easy to hear the tough stuff," but that much of what I mentioned were areas he was looking to improve. He also invited me to have no-strings-attached access to upcoming builds such that I could offer some feedback.
I strongly believe that the photography scene is greatly improved by independent companies like On1 offering an alternative to global corporations and I give those companies coverage whenever possible such that people are aware that there are alternatives to Adobe. And so I will be taking Patrick up on his offer and hope that I can help in some small way to improve Photo RAW.
But it is worth remembering that they are businesses, not charities and the software they produce is a commercial product, not an open source app. Commercial products should be fit for purpose and work as advertised and if they are not then I am not about to pretend otherwise.
I never play favourites and I go into every review with an open mind, as evidenced by my recent reversal of opinion on Nitro 2026. Everything in my review is 100% factual and fully reproducible. And I spent 8 minutes on tone sliders because if something as fundamental as a shadow slider is sub-standard then it speaks volumes as to the quality of everything else.
Charles 1960
New member
- Messages
- 7
- Reaction score
- 1
This is exactly my problem with ON1, every year everything changes. The AI Auto button worked fine for me then Brilliance AI comes a long and it has a totally different effect, sure you can dig down and make adjustment but the very point of that button is one click and it's done.
bastibe
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,997
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,999
User skill always is more important than tool quality. PR2026 may be flawed, and at the same time useful in the hands of a skilled user.
Hutchinson's reviews are therefore in a difficult spot. Obviously he tries a lot of software, and is likely not an expert user of most of them. Hence, his reviews are "shallow" in the sense that he can't discover the various workarounds and tweaks that you'd learn with prolonged use.
I find his reviews difficult to watch for this reason. I'm much more interested in an expert user's workflow than a novice's first impressions. But there's rarely an expert in multiple tools, so that precludes comparisons.
I'd therefore take Hutchinson's reviews as superficial comparisons, and as such they're useful. The problem is, I couldn't do a better job myself if I tried those software packages. I'd be just as inexperienced, and come to much of the same conclusions; so at least in that sense his reviews save me time.
Hutchinson's reviews are therefore in a difficult spot. Obviously he tries a lot of software, and is likely not an expert user of most of them. Hence, his reviews are "shallow" in the sense that he can't discover the various workarounds and tweaks that you'd learn with prolonged use.
I find his reviews difficult to watch for this reason. I'm much more interested in an expert user's workflow than a novice's first impressions. But there's rarely an expert in multiple tools, so that precludes comparisons.
I'd therefore take Hutchinson's reviews as superficial comparisons, and as such they're useful. The problem is, I couldn't do a better job myself if I tried those software packages. I'd be just as inexperienced, and come to much of the same conclusions; so at least in that sense his reviews save me time.
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum