Alternatives to lightroom - Image comparison

Which one is lightroom

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
ancient_mariner

ancient_mariner

Messages
23,537
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Following on from the 'alternatives to LR' thread, comments were made about how On1 Photos was crude and only suitable for making over-processed images, and some already very much liked DXO Optics Pro. I have all 3 on this computer, usually using DXO in high-contrast situations where I feel it handles extremes better than LR, and I use On1 effects and layers where LR lacks tools or can't make powerful enough adjuustment. Following the idea that either DXO OP or On1 Photos could replace LR, I wanted to try evaluation of basic image development of the same image in all 3 packages, processing the image as seemed best *with the capabilities of each package* - I have not tried to make each image identical. I also foundas part of the comparison that controls do not work the same in each application, so although On1 have tried to make their interface somewhat Lighroom-like, he results of moving a slider can be unexpected.

Doing this I also made a couple of observations:
DXO did not retain removal of dust spots when exporting, either back into LR or as a file to disc and I had to remove dust spots afterwards in LR, so possible mine is not working properly. When importing an image directly from file, the automated settings looked different (from memory) compared to the way the image looked when importing from Lightroom. DXO OP is VERY automated, and if speed of throughput is important then it could be helpful, although it lacks gradient filters (which should be fixed with their acquisition of Nik) which are an essential tool for image processing.
On1 Photos did not offer the ability to crop an image that had been imported from Lightroom, but would crop fine when able to work on the image directly from file.

In general, I'm most familiar with LR, and find it predictable and very effective. Both the other applications felt cruder & frustrating: in DXO it was very difficult to get much life into the image, while the On1 gradient tools don't work well IMO with everything happening in the final 30% of the gradient. The recently given away DXO Optics Pro 11 was used for this, but I also have version 9 Elite, and there are more tools available in that (curves, transform tools) that make it useful compared to the standard version 11 - the transform tools are much better than those available in LR.

The first image is the un-altered raw file. Of the rest, 1 was processed in Lightroom, 1 in On1 Photos, 1 was from the automated settings from DXO OP when the image was imported directly and 1 was my settings applied when imported from Lightroom. I'm not making any claims about the image being wonderful - it was just a slightly difficult 'test bed' for the software.

Base raw image
Process evaluation-6889.jpg

1
Process evaluation-6889-2.jpg

2
Process evaluation-6889-3.jpg

3
Process evaluation-6889-4.jpg

4
Process evaluation-6889-5.jpg

Which is LR, which On1?
 
Last edited:
•


I don't think, Toni, that this is a valid test in the sense you mean.
Simply because this is not based on absolute metrics but relative
ones and that means there is too much space for interpretation
which, in turn and as it does not guaranty the metrics applied,
renders the exercise more than uncertain — read ambiguous.

The other thing is, though I do not appreciated Lr, I know it IS a
dedicated RAW converter as OnOne like AP are not. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
•


I don't think, Toni, that this is a valid test in the sense you mean.
Simply because this is not based on absolute metrics but relative
ones and that means there is too much space for interpretation
which, in turn and as it does not guaranty the metrics applied,
renders the exercise more than uncertain — read ambiguous.

The other thing is, though I do not appreciated Lr, I know it IS a
dedicated RAW converter as OnOne like AP are not. :cool:
Click to expand...

Hi Daniel. This isn't meant to be a 'serious test', but in the other thread someone suggested the on1 software was only suitable for over-cooked effects, and I would completely disagree, though that can be the result of poor use. But On1 photo does have a dedicated raw development module, just like lightroom, as well as separate effects and layers modules.

This was partly a test for me that I'm inviting others to be involved in too. I've never tried to develop the same image in all 3 sets of software before, usually selecting an alternative to lightroom where that package has not been so inspiring/useful. I usually find that using certain packages tends towards a particular result, and using a different package often gives a quite different look, and that's what I tried to follow here, rather than seeming what hoops I had to jump through to create 3 or 4 identical images.

To the people who voted already, thanks very much. Unless there's a sudden burst of attention I'll probably reveal tomorrow which was which.
 
Last edited:
Kodiak Qc said:
Yes… but limited in flexibility like the one of AP!
Click to expand...

I'd say they all have limited aspects one way or another. While the controls are a bit clunky, I'd say it's pretty close to LR now, and if I HAD to use it everyday then I could probably learn to use it better.

Out of interest, is there one of the images above that you prefer of dislike particularly?
 
ancient_mariner said:
Out of interest, is there one of the images above that you prefer of dislike particularly?
Click to expand...


I prefer the sky in #1 and #3 but no single frame is a favourite.
I dislike #2's sky.
 
I prefer 1 & 3. I have no idea what you used to edit each one. Are you using the auto tone feature of each program? Surely you could use Lightroom to get any effect you want by playing with tones & contrast etc.
 
Too many variables to be meaningful, in that user input is involved. Thus it can't be objective.
 
Idlefrog said:
I prefer 1 & 3. I have no idea what you used to edit each one. Are you using the auto tone feature of each program? Surely you could use Lightroom to get any effect you want by playing with tones & contrast etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for commenting Andrew. The only program where I used any king of automation was DXO OP, where automation is an inescapable aspect of the way that software works, and requires deliberate un-picking to acheive personal processing objectives. You're correct that all of these packages can be used to replicate what the other packages produce, but I find that different packages tend to shape my final results - I often come to develop a photograph with a slightly open mind, and seldom have a specific finished image as my objective because the processing is a substantial part of the creative process for me. There are exceptions, but that's unusual.

droj said:
Too many variables to be meaningful, in that user input is involved. Thus it can't be objective.
Click to expand...

As per the above, it's a bit like reviewing some 85mm lenses by showing the pictures. We 'know' the software is capable of producing the same end result, more or less, but this is about the kind of end result it encouraged me to produce. It's meant to be about likes and dislikes, rather than whether it met product specifications or not.
 
OK, the reveal:

1) On1 Photo Raw 2018
2) DXO OP with my chosen adjustments
3) Lightroom
4) DXO OP automated results

Against expectations, having come back to these several times, my favourite is actually the On1 image which has pleasant natural colours and a certain sparkle to it, and my least favourite is the DXO version I produced (i.e. not automated) which comes over as a bit dull to me.

Thanks for looking.
 
ancient_mariner said:
OK, the reveal:

1) On1 Photo Raw 2018
2) DXO OP with my chosen adjustments
3) Lightroom
4) DXO OP automated results

Against expectations, having come back to these several times, my favourite is actually the On1 image which has pleasant natural colours and a certain sparkle to it, and my least favourite is the DXO version I produced (i.e. not automated) which comes over as a bit dull to me.

Thanks for looking.
Click to expand...
Interesting stuff. I'd rank them 1, 4, 3, 2 so would agree that the On1 Photo RAW is the pick of the bunch.

Thanks for posting [emoji106]
 
ancient_mariner said:
OK, the reveal:

1) On1 Photo Raw 2018
2) DXO OP with my chosen adjustments
3) Lightroom
4) DXO OP automated results

Against expectations, having come back to these several times, my favourite is actually the On1 image which has pleasant natural colours and a certain sparkle to it, and my least favourite is the DXO version I produced (i.e. not automated) which comes over as a bit dull to me.

Thanks for looking.
Click to expand...
thats funny how I use DXO and I went for 2 and 4 lol
 
jakeblu said:
I think the sky looks a bit muddy in two, of course not actually being there, it may have been that muddy. :)

Prefer the first one, might give on1 a try when my CC subscription ends
Click to expand...
Mine is due to expire in January. Still not sure I can make a jump over tbh.
 
Ian W said:
Mine is due to expire in January. Still not sure I can make a jump over tbh.
Click to expand...
Mines Feb, and I'm definitely not renewing. Gotta watch out for the auto renewal though.
 
droj said:
Can't see much wrong there, Paul - it must be your screen. Been sneezing lately?
Click to expand...
hehe, as it happens, yes - and fwiw I have in the past tried to clone out a dust bunny only to find it was a mark on my monitor - but on this occasion it is neither snot or any other mark on my monitor. Look at the first image posted, top right aprox 1cm down and 2cm in from right edge, same on image #3 :)
 
I'd need more muck than that before bothering with a sensor clean. Those swabs are expensive!
 
Retune said:
Just curious if you've tried the camera manufacturer's own software?
Click to expand...

Nikon software? No.

PaulButler said:
Well, no matter the s/w you used, it looks like you need to clean your sensor ;)
Click to expand...

This sensor seems to spot up very quickly, and I give it the blower treatment frequently with occasional swabbing. This isn't bad eenough to justify cleaning yet.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Nikon software? No.
Click to expand...
The last time I did this sort of comparison, I found the Nikon software gave me (subjectively) nicer NEF conversions than anything else, except perhaps Capture One, at least with the default settings. It was certainly quite a bit better than ACR.
 
Retune said:
The last time I did this sort of comparison, I found the Nikon software gave me (subjectively) nicer NEF conversions than anything else, except perhaps Capture One, at least with the default settings. It was certainly quite a bit better than ACR.
Click to expand...
What default settings? I thought that the whole point of converting raw's was to take control.
 
Retune said:
The last time I did this sort of comparison, I found the Nikon software gave me (subjectively) nicer NEF conversions than anything else, except perhaps Capture One, at least with the default settings. It was certainly quite a bit better than ACR.
Click to expand...

TBH image quality and conversions isn't the issue, except possibly with DXO, which is very automated.

SsSsSsSsSnake said:
Which Nikon camera?
Click to expand...

D610.
 
Interesting that nobody has chosen Lightroom as their preference...

I think the test would be better on a more challenging image.
One that requires a large degree of highlight recovery for example.
I have a favourite "torture" image, with burned out sky and blocked up shadows that I use for developer evaluation.
 
droj said:
What default settings? I thought that the whole point of converting raw's was to take control.
Click to expand...
The control is there when it's needed, but a lot of the time I'm not tweaking much in raw - perhaps just fine tuning exposure and white balance. I'd often be happy with the in-camera jpeg, but don't want to shoot both. The default Nikon conversion (just load and export without changing anything) is pretty close to an in-camera jpeg, partly because the software honours some in-camera settings that third party converters ignore, but mainly because they've gone to the trouble of closely matching colour profiles between the camera's raw processing engine and the desktop package (Nikon's camera-specific profiling data is presumably buried somewhere in the software installation).
 
That's curious - exposure and white balance are things I tend to change the least. To me it's mainly about tonal mapping - getting the picture to speak how I want it to speak.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top