‍Which RAW development software to choose?

Let's start immediately by saying that this article is not for everyone, we take basic skills for granted and therefore it will be more of a focused and no-frills speech.

Let's start with the excluded software: ON1 Photo RAW, Luminar Neo, Affinity Photo, Corel AfterShot Pro, Silkypix, Photo Ninja, Dcraw, GIMP, ACDSee Photo Studio, Zoner Photo Studio, FastStrawViewer, Libraw, Photoscape X, Photivo, Mylio, FastStone, LightZone.

They're not shoddy, I don't dislike them, and they're not necessarily for beginners. All software has strengths and weaknesses, but here I have considered a small part of them, excluding those that, while developing RAW files, emerged less than others due to technical gaps, support, compatibility, functionality, diffusion, stability or other..

Who did I choose to evaluate? Simple: Capture One, Adobe Lightroom, Iridient Developer, Darktable, RawTherapee, DxO PhotoLab.

Let's start at the beginning and in a hasty way: Do you need tethering? Do you shoot in the studio? Do you have an art director who follows the work? Do you have a customer on set who wants to see the images on a second monitor in real time? Do you share files for immediate evaluation/selection? Do you have to show the product to the model to show the correct poses? Do you need to check the set as best as possible for still-life complexes? Do you work with inserting images on 3D bases or in AI? Do you need a tissue layout to insert for the shot?

Speech already closed, choose Capture One and go, there are no alternatives, it's the best existing tool to work under these conditions. Let's also add that working for Cultural Heritage or for art reproductions he has a special version and we close the speech. Other software provides the ability to connect a camera but are very limited and in some cases unstable.

Let's move on to point two: Nerd Time! Do you need to better optimize the development of a file under complex conditions? Do you need to check all the parameters of the software to be able to get the most out of every situation? Do you need maximum control over your development flow?

We also close this discussion immediately with RawTherapee, there are not many competitors in this case, in extreme situations and for the development of individual files optimized in every detail it is extremely flexible but also complex and certainly slow to use. The one that comes closest is Darktable but does not reach the level of corrections possible with RawTherapee. A note of merit also for Iridient Developer, if we removed the nerd factor and left the high-end factor, he would certainly be the number one candidate. But RawTherapee allows you to set parameters such as demosaication algorithm, the DCP illuminant, choose the working color space, optimize the image with Lab corrections and much more, so it becomes a real rescue software, unique in its kind.

Point three: the one designed very well!

‍Certainly the most modern software in terms of operating logic is DxO PhotoLab, an exceptional product that works very well despite some functional limitations. It is built with professional logic but intended for everyone. It has serious structural limitations but it is really very very very beautiful and powerful. It is certainly not the first in everything and it is not the best ever, there is not one that stands out above the others, but among the software for developing RAW files it can earn its niche.

Point four: the tractor! Do you need software that works well and has a lot of potential? You don't use tethering because even if they tell you that it works isn't always the case? Do you need to integrate into a complex and articulated flow and do you want speed and stability?

Let's close it here, we're obviously talking about Adobe Lightroom Classic (the CC version is more for fun in many ways)

With these premises, let's go into more detail: we don't always have two or three screens available to work on, sometimes we are on the laptop or with only one screen and here the going gets tough. The software that transmits the most immediate in these situations is undoubtedly Adobe Lightroom Classic, there are no stories, it has all the functions of managing the catalog optimally articulated, the switch between the panels is immediate and the customization is optimal for a single screen, but... There is always a but somewhere. If we work in a more articulated way and move between multiple screens on a noteworthy workstation, I can say that Capture One emerges brilliantly. Let's not talk about the others, only DxO PhotoLab may in some way have a certain interest, but the static nature of Darktable, Iridient Developer and RawTherapee are known to be painful. Adobe wins in most cases, Capture One proves to be more aimed at an audience with an appropriate structure behind it.

Managing color corrections. Wow! A nice one to forget, it would be great for everyone, but we can't be so drastic. Who are we going to get out of the pile? I would say RawTherapee, unfortunately color management was not designed for those who work in color grading but for a more technical audience, it is very articulated and complex but precisely because of these prerogatives it also becomes difficult to manage and not immediate. Certainly it would be convenient for everyone to integrate panels for professional grading, in the photography sector I would say a bit like 3D LUT Creator or even more simply like the good old Color Quartet did twenty years ago, but we all know that these software are more appearance than anything else. So if I do something technical I do it for nerds so the less experienced don't get their hands on it and if I do something for everyone I make it simple so the less experienced don't get their hands on it anyway. Philosophy that rewards but does not solve the problem, the color output and the high-end optimization must always be done separately.

Input Color Profile! And here comes the cleaver! Let's leave Capture One aside or fry it immediately, it has excellent prerogatives in many areas but in this case NCS. Darktable immolates itself thanks to the love for ICC profiles and less talented than Capture One, the others resist, but... There's always this but what do we care! Iridient Developer allows you to manage DCP profiles with a decent ability to intervene, DxO PhotoLab overcomes it because it allows you to manage even a separate LUT .cube beyond the curve, RawTherapee even allows you to establish which demosaiczation algorithm to use, Adobe allows the use of DCP and XMP profiles with the implementation of the LUT and the related dimmer. Here, however, we must be very honest, the input profile must be simple to use, we cannot go crazy after millions of possible settings and above all we cannot think of doing the calibration work again for each individual image. RawTherapee falls brutally because it's too complex, it's not immediate. In the logic of use, Adobe Lightroom remains in first place for the simplicity with which it manages the workflow, DxO gives up positions for the gamut used and I am sincerely very sorry and Iridient does not manage the LUTs so poor thing falls into the abyss.

Since we had saved Capture One with a bonus taken in the first round, Stay in the running with Adobe Lightroom Classic.

Why did these two software emerge? First of all, they are designed for photographers and professionals, but they are clearly intended for different uses. Capture One is the one dressed as an engineer while Adobe Lightroom Classic is the one dressed as a bricklayer, whether or not they are, this is another matter. Capture One takes care of the appearance, functions, and needs of an audience that works in the fields of advertising, fashion, design, architecture and so on. It is intended for those who must make use of articulated systems shared with the team and the client, it has a solid development base within a limited and limited workflow. The advantage of Capture One is that it has an excellent internal structure that works on the development of color profiles and tries to optimize the rendering and mood of the cameras also thanks to the development of combined .costyle. So far so good, Capture One is the cool one... On paper! Of course he has a degree awarded to him by those who work in a certain field and undoubtedly he has excellent prerogatives that make him unique, but this does not count in substance. If I were to consider the camera an instrument within a larger system I would undoubtedly consider it, on the contrary, since it sees the camera as a product for acquisition like a scanner it would be excellent. Photographs for cultural heritage must be taken with calibrated systems, possibly medium format cameras, certified lights and stable colors, as required by the FADGI and Metamorfoze specifications. And look at random Capture One has a Heritage version dedicated to precisely these workflows. It considers only one illuminant, uses ICC profiles that limit color space and interventions on the image, it has excellent tethering...

When it comes to direct reproduction, there are no competitors, the system works best precisely in those activities where limitations allow full control of the work, where the space is large and well organized.
But we don't always work like this, in fact, in all other cases, we need someone who gets their hands dirty.

And when it's time to get your hands dirty nobody beats Adobe Lightroom Classic. Could it do more? Sure! Could he do it better? Sure! Could anyone else do it? Hell no!

If you work for an agency or do a large number of images, you may be required to save the files in DNG format, Capture One does not (forget what you read, they do not comply with the DNG standard), you must use external software, Lightroom does it internally and keeps track of all the changes to the file itself. In addition to this, a not irrelevant point, is the management of the input profile and the resulting workflow. Lightroom uses DCP profiles that consider the digital camera a tool suitable for shooting in multiple lighting conditions, it allows you to combine the DCP profile with a LUT in .cube format to correct the style of the image or implement advanced features. Let's forget the technical difference, let's get down to the concrete, if I use the camera outside the studio with Lightroom I can operate without any limits and in full respect of the color. I can easily adapt my style to all conditions of use and synchronize images with each other quickly and functionally knowing that the profile will respect the different shooting conditions between different cameras... If done right! The profile I mean, if done well it works well and improves performance, the standard Adobe profiles are made with a short arm to avoid leaving too much freedom for the photographer but above all to reduce their development times and cover a greater number of cameras with different gamuts.

Neither of these two software has a good color grading system or the possibility of controlling neutrality or color mapping, they both have rudimentary tools and do not require the control of the black generation curve or the saturation, they are certainly limitations that could be overcome and create problems in many cases, but if it is easy for Lightroom to combine a specific LUT generated with an advanced color grading software, with Capture One, depending on the fact that ICC profiles are used, this situation is simple in study but very complex in the field. By managing only one illuminant, the ICC profile is extremely limiting and does not allow full control of all shooting situations. If we then talk about masks and AI, both companies are working to renew and improve themselves, but what may seem to be a limiting logic of Lightroom, namely having all the panels in a window, has now become an advantage also because, having to do things in a narrow way, they have tried to optimize everything. Capture One, on the other hand, is more opulent, you can configure the smallest detail but in the end you have to preform presets or costyles otherwise it becomes difficult to remember all the parameters.

Another point that logically hangs in favor of Lightroom is the use of masks that now work well. It was a sore point but at Adobe they have worked well on it and now we can work properly. In practice, it seems like a more logical implementation, a bit like working with Dicomed Imaginator instead of the Photoshop bag of that time. But Capture One undoubtedly has its advantages and is highly appreciated for its layered system that allows multiple mergers, something that with Lightroom, due to the type of software, is not possible.

Ultimately, although all software has their own prerogatives and qualities, only two stand out and are ideal for different conditions of use. The rest are currently optimal exercises for niches or specific needs, but they do not meet the needs of a wider range of users. If the image is static and structured for a work mainly in the studio, Capture One is the best solution, while if the image is dynamic and structured for outdoor work, Adobe Lightroom Classic is the indomitable collaborator in the field. There is no software that contains all the strengths and weaknesses, which is why in a professional workflow, more software is used depending on the work situation and is sometimes combined not only with Photoshop but with advanced color grading programs that allow full control of every parameter of contrast, tint, color and saturation. The reality of the facts, however, is that for video, advanced work tools are created for professionals, while in photography, a little antiquated and old logic is pushed based on preconceptions that existed twenty years ago. There is ample room for improvement, but at the moment the situation is still in the starting blocks and there is no champion in the field, only personal points of view or work needs.