Photo Editing

[Ysarex112 106]

Many thanks for you comments. After a lot of searching, head scratching, and trying various different programs, I've gone for DXO photolab 8, it's a little expensive, but I tried the free trial first, the results are just fantastic, unbelievable quality. Their helpdesk online are also brilliant, very patient and helpful, I'm still on the basic settings, easy to use with brilliant results. I just thought if I'm scouring the countryside for great wildlife pictures, I should probably use a good program.

Excellent choice. PL-8 editing capabilities are outstanding. A lot of what's in PL-8 is best-in-class and it'll show in your work.

 

[tinytmp3 2]

Lightroom is most popular and certainly one of the best. The two "best" LR alternatives are Capture One and DXO PL-8 (both +$$$ than LR).

Dropping to the next tier and -$$$ are ON1, ACDSee, Luminar.

Odd but worth noting is SilkyPix and then there's free open source = DarkTable, RawTherapee.

Make sure and check out what your camera maker offers, eg. Canon's DPP, Nikon's NXStudio, etc. check this out

Afternoon! For RAW photo editing, some of the best software includes Adobe Lightroom, which is excellent for organizing and non-destructive editing, and Capture One, known for its professional-level RAW processing and precise color control. DxO PhotoLab is great for noise reduction and lens corrections, while Luminar Neo offers AI-powered tools for quick enhancements. If you prefer free options, Darktable and RawTherapee are very powerful for detailed adjustments. ACDSee Photo Studio is another option that combines RAW editing with asset management. Overall, Lightroom or Luminar Neo are great starting points for ease of use and professional results.

 

[MontanaDave]

ON1 Photo Raw is great for non-destructive editing, noise reduction, lens correction, and AI-powered tools for masking, color and tone edits.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

ON1 Photo Raw is great for non-destructive editing, noise reduction, lens correction, and AI-powered tools for masking, color and tone edits.

ON1 is pretty good for non-destructive editing, but it's not 100% non-destructive and it should be. So I wouldn't say great.

 

[MontanaDave]

ON1 is pretty good for non-destructive editing, but it's not 100% non-destructive and it should be. So I wouldn't say great.

On1 is 100% non destructive as it creates an ON1 companion file to the RAW file and does not modify the RAW file.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

On1 is 100% non destructive as it creates an ON1 companion file to the RAW file and does not modify the RAW file.

We use the term non-destructive editing in two ways.
1. The original is never modified -- that's plain and simple.
2. Non-destructive editing also refers to the editor's tools and adjustments. They are non-destructive if they update any change made anywhere in the editing sequence and do not create a condition where should you want to make a change to an edit at a later date you're not forced to re-do work -- that's a destructive editing element and this is where ON1 loses the 100% label.

Open an image in ON1. Bring up the retouch tools. Select the clone tool and use it to clone over three separate blemishes in the photo. Then change to the eraser tool and use it to erase four separate blemishes in the photo. Make other edits as you please and close the image and close ON1.

Assume you've waited a month and are back looking at that image. You decided that the 2nd clone job you did was a mistake. Open the edit in ON1 and undo that 2nd clone job but leave all the other retouch work as originally done. ON1 will allow you to undo that 2nd cloning job however to do so it will force you to undo all the retouch work you did and then you'll have do over the retouch work you didn't want to undo and that's ON1 being a destructive editor. It's forcing you to re-do work in order to make a change.

 

[TJMcG139 22]

We use the term non-destructive editing in two ways.
1. The original is never modified -- that's plain and simple.
2. Non-destructive editing also refers to the editor's tools and adjustments. They are non-destructive if they update any change made anywhere in the editing sequence and do not create a condition where should you want to make a change to an edit at a later date you're not forced to re-do work -- that's a destructive editing element and this is where ON1 loses the 100% label.

Open an image in ON1. Bring up the retouch tools. Select the clone tool and use it to clone over three separate blemishes in the photo. Then change to the eraser tool and use it to erase four separate blemishes in the photo. Make other edits as you please and close the image and close ON1.

Assume you've waited a month and are back looking at that image. You decided that the 2nd clone job you did was a mistake. Open the edit in ON1 and undo that 2nd clone job but leave all the other retouch work as originally done. ON1 will allow you to undo that 2nd cloning job however to do so it will force you to undo all the retouch work you did and then you'll have do over the retouch work you didn't want to undo and that's ON1 being a destructive editor. It's forcing you to re-do work in order to make a change.

Only you define non-destructive as "if they update any change made anywhere in the editing sequence and do not create a condition where, should you want to make a change to an edit at a later date, you're not forced to re-do work ...' That is not destructive, that is just poor workflow. You don't get to redefine the most basic terms in editing workflow to suit your own shortcomings.

You have tried to convince me that Photoshop is "destructive" because if you make a change to one layer in a parametric filter and take it back to Photoshop, it is "destructive" if Photoshop does not update all other layers. That is utter nonsense. You can edit 100% non-destructively in Photoshop, or you can edit 100% non-destructively in Camera raw, but you cannot expect to mix two different types of editing workflows/programs and get the non-linear results you claim is the only non-destructive way to edit.

Just stop.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

Only you define non-destructive as "if they update any change made anywhere in the editing sequence and do not create a condition where, should you want to make a change to an edit at a later date, you're not forced to re-do work ...'

No. Here's someone else who understands: "There will also be times that you make an edit and then later decide that you want to make a small adjustment to it. A destructive workflow would normally mean that you have to start from scratch or, even worse, edit over the top of a previous edit.
This is where the power of a non-destructive workflow can save you time and headaches. You can completely undo any edit at any time or make small adjustments to any edit without having to completely start over." What is Non-Destructive Editing?
The article notes the more common meaning of preserving the original, but then takes it a step further referring to a destructive vs non-destructive workflow.
Here's someone else who understands: "Working destructively means applying all your adjustments to a single layer or a set of merged layers, which prevents you from refining your edits later on." Destructive vs. Non-Destructive Editing Workflow

That is not destructive, that is just poor workflow. You don't get to redefine the most basic terms in editing workflow to suit your own shortcomings.

You have tried to convince me that Photoshop is "destructive" because if you make a change to one layer in a parametric filter and take it back to Photoshop, it is "destructive" if Photoshop does not update all other layers. That is utter nonsense. You can edit 100% non-destructively in Photoshop, or you can edit 100% non-destructively in Camera raw, but you cannot expect to mix two different types of editing workflows/programs and get the non-linear results you claim is the only non-destructive way to edit.

No. The entire point of being able to pass a Smart Object from ACR/LR to PS is to allow you to return from PS to the editing work done in ACR/LR and make a change if desired. A raw workflow begins when you open the raw file. If anything occurs from that point till you complete the edit that forces you to re-do work or start the edit over then as the linked articles note you have a destructive raw workflow.

When you pass an image from ACR/LR to PS do you always pass a Smart Object or do you just click Open?

Just stop.

No. I'm right.

 

[smoke665]

@TJMcG I've had this same discussion with @Ysarex before, and while both of you have valid points, it boils down to, does it really matter? In professional photography, time is money. Edits are completed using a workflow the photographer feels comfortable with, once completed, and delivered to the client, they're relegated to the archives where they're never seen again. While hobbyists may like to do "what ifs" on past edits, Professionals don't have the luxury of second guessing and reworking past edits for fun. Add to that the rapidly evolving technology of software, makes it sketchy on re-editing old images, especially highly processed images.

I'll concede the point on destructive editing, but point out that like Don Quixote, idealism vs realism are entirely different, as are end users of editing software. I no longer do any paid work, but even as a hobbyist I could count on one hand (and have 5 fingers left) the number of times I've felt the need to go back and edit a PSD file. If this "was" a major problem Adobe would not be at the top and one member wouldn't be the sole protagonist on the pages of TPF.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

@TJMcG I've had this same discussion with @Ysarex before, and while both of you have valid points, it boils down to, does it really matter? In professional photography, time is money. Edits are completed using a workflow the photographer feels comfortable with, once completed, and delivered to the client, they're relegated to the archives where they're never seen again. While hobbyists may like to do "what ifs" on past edits, Professionals don't have the luxury of second guessing and reworking past edits for fun. Add to that the rapidly evolving technology of software, makes it sketchy on re-editing old images, especially highly processed images.

I'll concede the point on destructive editing, but point out that like Don Quixote, idealism vs realism are entirely different, as are end users of editing software. I no longer do any paid work, but even as a hobbyist I could count on one hand (and have 5 fingers left) the number of times I've felt the need to go back and edit a PSD file. If this "was" a major problem Adobe would not be at the top and one member wouldn't be the sole protagonist on the pages of TPF.

I appreciate it's not a big deal for you. That's your style and the editing workflow you've developed that you're comfortable with. It's not going to matter to the same degree for all of us. For me it's a very high priority. Enough so that I switched my processing software back in 2012/13 over specifically this issue. We're all going to be different. I didn't bring it up in this thread. I only responded on two occasions when it was brought up by others -- folks brought it up twice in this thread.
Another way to gauge how much it matters is to look at how the software vendors treat it in their advertising.
Does it show up in Adobe's, ON1's, Affinity's, ACDSee's, Luminar Neo's advertising to name a few? Yes it does.

Adobe has a view all features button on their PS opening page. That next page has 5 topics; What's New, Image Adjustments, Retouch, Add and Remove Objects, Paint and Draw. Looking under Image Adjustments Non-destructive editing is one of the six topics presented along with Upscale Images, Flawless Colors, Apply Filters, Swap the Sky and Modify Color and Tone. Not top of the list but it's there.

For Affinity Photo it's top of the list. They present a Full Features List page and under Image Editing and Retouch Tools the first item is; Live, Non-Destructive Editing (pretty important to be first).

For ON1 Photo Raw the 2nd sentence on the opening page: "This powerful software offers a complete set of advanced editing tools, including AI-powered features, non-destructive editing, and precise color control." [my bold]

For ACDSee Gemstone the 3rd sentence on the opening page: "With AI-driven enhancements, infinite layered editing, non-destructive RAW processing, and a dynamic multi-document interface (MDI), Gemstone propels your artistry beyond the expected. [my bold]

For Luminar Neo Scrolling down opening page -- big heading; Experience Luminar Neo's Capabilities -- 4th item mentioned: Non-destructive editing.

The software vendors think it's important enough to feature it in their advertising.

In addition to making revisiting and changing a previous edit easy/possible there are other benefits to a non-destructive parametric raw workflow. Most of my editing since I left Adobe back in 2012/13 has been done with Capture One. C1 is not the leader in noise processing by a long shot but back in 2022 they managed a major update to their noise processing algorithms and improved them substantially. All of my images immediately got updated because they're 100% non-destructive parametric edits. If all of my previous edits were PSD files none of them would have been updated.

 

[smoke665]

If all of my previous edits were PSD files

This ^^^^. Of the 30k+ images on my hard drives, only a small percentage of them are PSDs. You don't need the heavy lifting processing on every image, especially now with all the AI updates and masking capabilities in LR.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

This ^^^^. Of the 30k+ images on my hard drives, only a small percentage of them are PSDs. You don't need the heavy lifting processing on every image, especially now with all the AI updates and masking capabilities in LR.

Yep, LR is a 100% non-destructive parametric raw processor and it stays 100% non-destructive as long as you stay away from PS. That's what I abandoned in 2012/13. When I was able to complete an edit in LR everything was great, and admittedly that was most of the time. But of the top three leading parametric editors, LR, C1, and DXO-PL the weakest retouch tools are in LR. That's what kept tripping me up. I couldn't get the retouch job done in LR and so off I had to go into the destructive world of PS. C1 stopped that for me and DXO-PL is now even better.

 

[smoke665]

the weakest retouch tools are in LR. That's what kept tripping me up. I couldn't get the retouch job done in LR

What exactly could you not do in LR....there's been a lot of updates since 2012.

 

[Ysarex112 106]

What exactly could you not do in LR....there's been a lot of updates since 2012.

I've followed the updates.
Here's a photo I took last Fall. I saw the birdhouse and I didn't want it there, obviously. But I also didn't want to move and alter the rest of the scene. So, easy fix it in post and I took the photo.

I cloned the birdhouse to a different location, tilted it and shrunk it and then removed the original. Of course you can do that in PS, but can you do that in LR -- I don't think so. My edit remains 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. If I used LR/PS I'd have a destructive element in the final image such that should I decide I wanted to make a change in ACR that alters the color of the image I'll get stuck re-doing the PS retouch work. And for that reason I abandoned Adobe. I pay more for editing software now, Adobe's subscription price is good. But I'm very happy not having so much as 1 in 1000 photos I have to edit destructively.

It's been a year since I looked at the photo. My original edit is very saturated, warm and although realistic I'm not liking the sky color. So two quick changes; different input profile and a WB tweak and I get this: I may like this better, and if I had used LR/PS that's enough of a change I'd be forced to re-do the retouching.

 

[smoke665]

cloned the birdhouse to a different location, tilted it and shrunk it and then removed the original. Of course you can do that in PS, but can you do that in LR

The remove with Generative Fill is the same in LR & ACR as in PS. I do a lot of cleanup in LR because its faster. Composits are still the realm of PS, the addition of a new composite layer is not a part of the original image file. However converting a composite layer to a Smart Object makes any adjustments made to that layer fully editable. I had to think for a minute but here's the workflow. This is the original image in LR.

After doing my basic edits in LR, I created a virtual copy, used generative fill to remove the man. FYI I did a sloppy selection, so it got the safety sign also. This was opened as a smart object in PS with a profile set to Camera Natural. I opened ACR color graded, and changed the Profile to a custom profile. Above this SO layer I opened a curves adjustment layer and a gradient fill, I could have easily added more. The sky looked bare so I added some birds in the sky as another SO layer.

At that point I decided that color wasn't right, so I opened the base SO layer and using ACR changed the profile which gave me this.

Decided the birds were the wrong color, so I edited the SO layer with ACR to change it

Maybe I decided I want the man back in the image. Since I used Virtual Copies of the original image in LR to edit. I create a new Virtual Copy in Light room with the man, sync'd my settings and opened as a new SO layer just above the first one in PS. Viola the man is back with a few clicks and no additional editing.

I could go on adding more and more adjustment and SO layers, but this gives you the big picture. As a caveat, to this process, if you remove something in from the original base SO layer using generative fill, it will not work because generative fill is creating a new layer using the existing base layer, but the work around for that is to do you deletions in LR.

As you mentioned earlier "different workflow/priorities" . C1 is a competitive product to Adobe that I seriously considered but coming back to my earlier comment "does it really matter". To you the ability to edit nondestructive "forever" is a major sticking point, but if you look at the numbers, roughly 37 million CC users vs 260,000 C1 users it isn't a big deal. Now had you talked about C1's supposedly better color control or tethering then you'd have my attention.