I use Digikam to load the files from camera or card reader, and manage them in project/s albums / tagging etc, most editing can be done from there (aspect ratio crop tool is superb) you can do raw conversion from there if required, but ufraw gives much more control. I really want to send Bill Gates packing!
Lightzone 3.2 software#
If I can get a Linux Distro that will compete effectively with this software and work as quickly as it does on my Winblows box then somebody tell me which Distro and software to get!!! Has it gotten to the point now where it is actually competitive to windows? I use Sony Vegas 7 for video work, Photooshop CS3, Lightroom and DPP for my photo work. I tried Linux for my multimedia work flow several years ago in a number of different flavors and gave up. My guess would be that for the vast majority of work you see on Flickr the differences between DPP and Lightroom will be indiscernible. Just like with bodies and lenses, use the right tool for the job. I tend to dial in a deeper curve in the darks in Lightroom to get more DPP-like results, or use the Strong Contrast curve.īottom line - it's not an either-or proposition for me. DPP's curves are pretty steep, and so I think generally the images come out a bit more punchy. One of the keys to getting DPP-like results in Lightroom is to play with the tone curves. For stuff that matters - anything with really strong colors or high noise levels or will printed very large - will get processed in DPP, but that's a real minority. The vast majority of my stuff has final processing done in Lightroom. Everything goes into Lightroom for basic processing, tagging, etc. I use both, depending on the demands of the photo. It's far more powerfull then DPP, with many more possibilities.Įffiix, on Linux try Ufraw: it's based on DCRaw headers, the same of lightzone. I used to love DPP, but since I have tried Lightzone, I can't work without it.
Lightzone 3.2 free#
I now use Lightzone (the 2.4 version was free for Linux's users) rather than DPP. If I have any doubt about the colors, then I fire up DPP just to compare the colors and if an image is noisy, then I fire up DPP and compare the noise with the file from Lightroom.
Lightzone 3.2 iso#
I use Lightroom I've played with DPP 3.2 the colors I get are similar to Lightroom and I think DPP handles noise better as well (I shoot a lot at ISO 1600) though this is the first I am hearing about DPP's Dust removal feature.īut I like Lightroom's workflow better so this is what I use. When I tried the beta of lightroom I tohught it had a good approach to workflow but was weighted down by unecessary 'bells and whistles' which made the performance chug a bit. The lens correction in DPP is a god send, much quicker and easier than any other package I have used. I hope some day to purchase a high quality lens because as of now im stuck with the kit and low end lenses.Ībsorbed beginner edited this topic ages ago. People talk about using the unsharp mask and that is something I guess I need to learn about but I much prefer to have the photo sharp from the start. Sharpening has always been a mystery to me. I have photoshop CS3 but have yet to master it. I have the same issues with sharpening as you though. I use Lightroom because the work flow is easier and the I love its organizational abilities.
DPP is very useful to remove dust on a photo better than Lightroom. I prefer the interface of Lightroom so i mainly use Lightroom. I use DPP 3.2 exclusively now, I really like the tools available and personally think that Adobe is overkill. DPP as I learn RAW processiing - slowly trending to what I perceive as greater power in ACR Originally posted at 3:33AM, 25 January 2008 PDT So i think i can't develop a raw with dpp & after with lightroom :( :( I played with the sharp tool, but i can't never obtain the dpp sharp (that is the state of art)Īnd i played with camera raw, i can't obtain the fidelity color of dpp The colors & the sharp are amazing and very much different compare to lightroom Canon dpp 3.2 is amazing if i compare to lighroom
0 kommentar(er)
