As for the question if the application is active, well - I can see why it might not be: It feels like a specialist app that needs some real knowledge about advanced processing concepts to use successfully (or quickly) that I for one don't have, or at least not sufficiently in-depth. If you're inclined to tinker and experiment, it's a very nice place to do that, but I think I'll revert back to RawTherapee on Windows - and hope for darktable to come out soon. I tried Photivo again yesterday, and while there's a surprising multitude of interesting tools, the whole thing feels like an expert application - it's got some serious strengths (no stability issues on GNU/Linux, mind), but it's what I'd call fiddly to use with lots of places to do very similar things. those that don't seek to fully replace PS).Ĭlick to expand.I somewhat concur, actually. For me, it's sufficient in most cases, and since I have used a wide variety of free image editors, I must say that it's one of the most rewarding of the simple ones (i.e. I find Polarr to work really well for fast and pretty successful post processing - though its enhancement features are somewhat limited compared to more sophisticated applications. So much so that I have actually paid up because I want to use it as my sole editor when travelling, and noise reduction isn't available in the free version, which is a major downside. In fact, I like that a lot, and even the free version does a nice job for files at or near base ISO. ).ĭon't underestimate Polarr, anyway - it's a very handy app that can provide very nice results for something so simple and restricted in use. I was about the test PhotoScape X - but I think I'll postpone that (maybe indefinitely. This doesn't bode well, really - if the RAW engine already produces heavy artifacts, further processing will most probably make it worse. it's noticeable even at this rather modest resultion. It certainly looks as if PhotoScape X had some pretty grave issues with applying in-camera profile information additionally, the pixelating effects are rather harsh and ugly (not only in the face - the script, the greenery. Which is why I went to the RAW file expecting to be able to bring out more light. The image looks poorly exposed to me i.e. Is the Photoscape example a sign of poor software? Also, do you think a professional tool like Lightroom shows a superior RAW file to both? If Polarr seems fine I will just stick with that as I like the simplicity, but I will upgrade if it means higher quality images from the start. I assumed that I may not be getting everything from RAW files with Polarr, hence the upgrade. I did a quick edit with both tools and with Photoscape X there are far more artefacts, easily seen when zooming in on the lady's face. I am specifically wondering which is better in terms of showing the correct RAW file. Please could you take a look at the below photos and give me your opinions. But when I open RAW files they look very dark and I find it hard to make them look good. I recently got Photoscape X thinking it was an upgrade from Polarr.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |