Looking for a Photoshop alternative software

[Akira]

Thank you all, so far!

I gave a second trial with CNX-D (ver. 1.5.1), and this is the result.  I lowered the esposure by -1.5EV and applied the unsharp mask (+30).  I don't know why I couldn't recover the highlight when I first tried CNX-D (ver. 1.5.0).  Probably I failed to find the correct parameter slide.

The first image is the result of the retry of the entire image, and the second is the crop of the leaves.

Until December 3rd, I will use CNX-D as much as possible and decide if I will continue to subscribe CC.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I’m also a CNX user. I have CS6 which I use if I want to change a photo, but for the ordinary things I stick with the free Nikon tools. In my experience they preserve the appearance of an image best so often I just need to correct the horizon or correct white balance under mixed lighting. It is only useful with NEF files though. The control points are OK but seem less precise and useful then the old version.

I recommend giving it a thorough try.

[Eb]

Thank you all, so far!

I gave a second trial with CNX-D (ver. 1.5.1), and this is the result.  I lowered the esposure by -1.5EV and applied the unsharp mask (+30).  I don't know why I couldn't recover the highlight when I first tried CNX-D (ver. 1.5.0).  Probably I failed to find the correct parameter slide.

There is no doubt that CNX-D will do the job!  I tried it out recently, and used it, exclusively, in the distant past, back to Nikon Capture 4.  The problem for me is that I just don't like CNX, either/or, this old dog will not learn new tricks.  So, last week, I bit the bullet and bought the upgrade LR6 to my long dormant LR5.  (I had stopped at LR5 when I went to subscription.)  LR6 supports all my current cameras.  The integrated catalog approach of LR does not bother me.  I do rather like it, and the round trip capability with PS, ACR, opening as smart object, NIK filters, Zerene Stacker and using my custom camera profiles (ColorChecker Passport) are among the tricks I do not wish to give up.  It feels like I'm back at home!  If I should get a camera that is not supported, I will just use ViewNX-i as viewer and a router into PS through MetaRaw, (DNG/ACR,) or less ideally, use NX-i to make conversions, and filter in LR or ACR.  Yes, LR6 and my older versions of PS will eventually stop working, when operating systems evolve.  Might I outlive them!

Best of luck, Akira, in saving your money and finding the work flow that works for you!  Short of the subscription millstone! 

[Akira]

I’m also a CNX user. I have CS6 which I use if I want to change a photo, but for the ordinary things I stick with the free Nikon tools. In my experience they preserve the appearance of an image best so often I just need to correct the horizon or correct white balance under mixed lighting. It is only useful with NEF files though. The control points are OK but seem less precise and useful then the old version.

I recommend giving it a thorough try.

Thank you, Jack, for the advice.  I will look into CNX-D further.

[Akira]

There is no doubt that CNX-D will do the job!  I tried it out recently, and used it, exclusively, in the distant past, back to Nikon Capture 4.  The problem for me is that I just don't like CNX, either/or, this old dog will not learn new tricks.  So, last week, I bit the bullet and bought the upgrade LR6 to my long dormant LR5.  (I had stopped at LR5 when I went to subscription.)  LR6 supports all my current cameras.  The integrated catalog approach of LR does not bother me.  I do rather like it, and the round trip capability with PS, ACR, opening as smart object, NIK filters, Zerene Stacker and using my custom camera profiles (ColorChecker Passport) are among the tricks I do not wish to give up.  It feels like I'm back at home!  If I should get a camera that is not supported, I will just use ViewNX-i as viewer and a router into PS through MetaRaw, (DNG/ACR,) or less ideally, use NX-i to make conversions, and filter in LR or ACR.  Yes, LR6 and my older versions of PS will eventually stop working, when operating systems evolve.  Might I outlive them!

Best of luck, Akira, in saving your money and finding the work flow that works for you!  Short of the subscription millstone! 

Thank you, Eb, for the encouragement.  Originally, I liked the natural rendition (at least to me) of the NEF images yielded by Nikon software since Nikon Capture days.  I just renewed my impression aobut the genuine Nikon software, even though the developer has changed.  CNX-D operates definitely slower than Photoshop, but I don't process many files at a time and thus can tolerate that.

[michel]

Akira, if it can help, DXO photolab 2 used
exposure correction : -1.78
contrast 29
lens sharpness global 0.86 details 50bokeh 50
unsharp mask intensity 100 radius 0.50

[Akira]

Akira, if it can help, DXO photolab 2 used
exposure correction : -1.78
contrast 29
lens sharpness global 0.86 details 50bokeh 50
unsharp mask intensity 100 radius 0.50

Michel, thank you for this promising example from DxO Photolab 2.  It looks neat.  When I would want anything more than CNX-D, I would look at DxO again.  I still have the upgrade license from DxO Optics Pro 9.

[Akira]

I unsubscribed and uninstalled CC.  I still keep my Adobe account, but there are a bunch of alternatives like DxO, Topaz Studio, Photo Ninja, etc.  I might be in need of CC again in the future, but I will stay with CNX-D for now.

Thank you, again, folks, for your cooperation!

[Gary]

I have always had a dislike for Adobe products.  I explored PhotoNinja, Affinity, Capture 1 and Iridient.  I have settled on Iridient for RAW conversion and global adjustments.  Then I polish the image in Photoshop CS6. I found that those four programs give me nearly the same final image. I been using Iridient just because it was the last program I checked out ... not because it was significant better.  I think you should check out Capture 1 and try out a free trail period.

PS- I shoot Fuji, which produces a different RAW file from a normal Bayer Sensor/CFA.

[Akira]

I have always had a dislike for Adobe products.  I explored PhotoNinja, Affinity, Capture 1 and Iridient.  I have settled on Iridient for RAW conversion and global adjustments.  Then I polish the image in Photoshop CS6. I found that those four programs give me nearly the same final image. I been using Iridient just because it was the last program I checked out ... not because it was significant better.  I think you should check out Capture 1 and try out a free trail period.

PS- I shoot Fuji, which produces a different RAW file from a normal Bayer Sensor/CFA.

Gary, thank you for your advice.  If I would decide that CNX-D lacks some functions I need, I would try the alternative software including those you suggested.  I would say Capture One is so pricy that its could be more expensive than subscribing CC over the years.  So, I would avoide Capture One.

Apparently, the Iridient and PhotoNinja (which is based on Iridient?) are the best converters of Fuji raw files from the X-trans sensor.

[pluton]

Gary, thank you for your advice.  If I would decide that CNX-D lacks some functions I need, I would try the alternative software including those you suggested.  I would say Capture One is so pricy that its could be more expensive than subscribing CC over the years.  So, I would avoide Capture One.

Apparently, the Iridient and PhotoNinja (which is based on Iridient?) are the best converters of Fuji raw files from the X-trans sensor.

Good point about C-1:  It's expensive, and has less powerful highlight/shadow recovery than the Adobe product.
My understanding is that both Iridient and Photo Ninja share a base raw converter called DCRaw, named after it's creator, Dave Coffin.
I have both, but prefer the U.I. of Photo Ninja. YMMV, as always.

[Akira]

Good point about C-1:  It's expensive, and has less powerful highlight/shadow recovery than the Adobe product.
My understanding is that both Iridient and Photo Ninja share a base raw converter called DCRaw, named after it's creator, Dave Coffin.
I have both, but prefer the U.I. of Photo Ninja. YMMV, as always.

Keith, thank you for the follow-up.

Apparently, some software ignores the Picture Control settings of the camera, even if it can process the NEF file, and do whatever it thinks the best.  So far as I'm aware, DxO and Affinity were of that kind.  At this point, I prefer the software in which the Picture Control is reflected, but the situation may change.

[Hugh_3170]

My understanding is that Dave Coffin's DCRaw is hidden under the fancy user interface's of more than just a few of today's raw file converters.

DCRaw is available in line command form for those familiar with older steam age user interfaces. 

[MFloyd]

Keith, thank you for the follow-up.

Apparently, some software ignores the Picture Control settings of the camera, even if it can process the NEF file, and do whatever it thinks the best.  So far as I'm aware, DxO and Affinity were of that kind.  At this point, I prefer the software in which the Picture Control is reflected, but the situation may change.

Lr retro-engineered all Picture Control settings, but the standard ones. If you fine tuned one of these, I’m afraid these would not be reflected.

[Akira]

Lr retro-engineered all Picture Control settings, but the standard ones. If you fine tuned one of these, I’m afraid these would not be reflected.

I've been using ACR in which all the Picture Controls are reflected.  I'm not sure if the "Auto" setting of D-Lighting was also reflected, but in that setting, the D750's inherent tendency to overexpose contrasty scenes was addressed quite a bit.

On the other hand, DxO and Affinity (so far as I actually tried) processed the same NEFs in the way they think the best right from the outset.  Their results didn't always coincided with the way I wanted to process them.