![]() Not so new photographers not yet hooked on Adobe. ![]() I saw that was going to make money and I bought some Adobe stock, and it has made enough money to pay for their subscription for the rest of my shooting life, but I didn't subscribe.Įxisting users have invested lots of time becoming proficient in the Adobe software and have thousands and thousands of images processed and catalogued in the Adobe environment so they can be expected to go along with the subscription in large enough numbers to make it profitable for Adobe to compel them to do so. Adobe was able to put the screws to its existing clients by forcing them into the subscription model. There can be a difference between short term increase in cash flow and a long term good business decision. It would actually be nice to see some numbers, of how many ppl actually abandoned LR for some other tool/workflow. Now back to Develop itself - have you tried on1? Luminar? Exposure X3 for styling your photos? Or even old good Nik? Or even our Czech Zoner? All those tools are being able to work with RAWs, non destructively and are actually much better in photo finalisation (effects stage). With stuff like Smug/Zenfolio, Smart Albums/Fundy, I can't imagine any pro would use those LR modules. Well, maybe a Print module, if you are printing yourself.Īnyone trying to utilise LR's Book, Web or Slideshow modules just wastes his own time imo. I can also find only a Catalog and Develop useful. Remember - you buy it in terms of their subscription along with PS. Oh my, LR, subscriptions, professionals As for me personally, I have nothing against subscription, although I can understand kind of "psychological insecurity" in I-am-not-owning-it point of view.Īdobe might have vital business, the question is, how many ppl do actually use LR. ![]() I guess my point is that I do not see any advantage to converting CR2 files to DNG, short of using a legacy Adobe program that doesn't support a new camera model. Even if the latest version of DPP doesn't read the files from a 4.2mp 1D, there is an earlier version of DPP out there- either on Canon's site or elsewhere. Given Canon's presence in the camera market, I do not see a point where being able to convert a CR2 file would ever be a concern. This may be an extreme example, considering that Adobe does not support some X3F file formats at all, but it does show that there is a difference. Maybe, for those that have never used DPP and only work in Lightroom, the resulting DNG conversion would be "the same".įar as I know, Canon does not license their RAW file details to Adobe.Ī few others over at DPReview have experimented with the DNG output available from the Sigma sd camera, and it was not the same as processing the X3F file (Sigma RAW) within Sigma Photo Pro- the X3F file provided better results. Nor are "RAW to DNG" or "TIFF to DNG" files the same. This approach is not practical for all images though. Unfortunately, Lightroom can't apply the DPP edits, so the DPP edited file must be saved as a TIFF, which Lightroom can see. I am of the opinion that a CR2 file processed in DPP ends up better than starting with the same CR2 file in Lightroom. I am not so confident that the results after conversion are the same, depending on the starting point.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |