Do different raw programs develop the same camera raw files? Do the programs treat different camera brands equally? Examining them side by side, the answer to both of those questions is no. This is how Lightroom Classic stands up.
Sometimes I start an article thinking this will be easy to write, but then it grows and I find there is too much information to include in one article. Such was the case for this article, which has grown into a series that compares Lightroom Classic with other raw development programs.
For a previous article, I downloaded some of those different programs and some I used. I decided to take this opportunity to walk them through their steps and see what yielded the best results. Also, does loading the raw files of different cameras through these programs without making adjustments yield different results depending on the camera brand?
In this series of articles, I will be using the same images from different camera brands: Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fujifilm, and my OM System cameras, and what they look like when opened in different settings. various raw development programs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that some shows work better for some brands than others, and I wanted to see if this was true.
There are real-world tests that are meant to guide you, giving you an idea of what to look for when investing in software. Minor differences can be ignored as they are fixable in software or plugins. However, there are some significant differences that I noticed and those are the differences that I focus on.
I’m not trying to develop images for these tests to get the best possible end result. That, after all, is subjective. Instead, I start by looking at the details in the shadows and highlights and whether they are equally recovered using the adjustment slider, especially the amount of noise created in the image. case of dark areas.
Of course, the results shown here will not be the sole determining factor in choosing a program. Price may be important to you – these are reflected in previous article – and you may find some programs more intuitive than others. Furthermore, each program has its unique features and they may be necessary for some and not for others. In other words, it’s perfectly fine if one person loves Lightroom (or insert another program name here) and another person hates it. The point isn’t to tell you that any show is great or scary.
I’m using Lightroom Classic as a benchmark for these tests. I use it almost daily, so I’m used to it. I find it intuitive, although I’ve had some people have trouble using it; that’s true of any program. It is also probably the most popular program. The layout is reasonable too. Although not perfect, I consider it a good program. The cataloging is second to none, but others are catching up, if not surpassing it.
Lightroom Classic test results
Classic Lightroom and Nikon
Out of all the cameras I’ve tested, with the Lightroom Classic, the immediate results from the camera are the most impressive. Nikon Z7 II. Close-up 100%, clean test image noise. There’s no sign of over-sharpening, and the resulting image seems to benefit from increased sharpness over the default. Highlights can be restored and shadows increased with little evidence of noise. If I were a Nikon owner, I would be satisfied. However, in future articles, I will demonstrate that even better results can be achieved when it comes to fine details.
Classic Lightroom and Canon
The Canon EOS-CHEAP results are slightly sharpened by default and benefit from a reduction in sharpness. Highlights can be recovered, but slight light noise can be seen in dark tones. As the shadows are increased, this is seen more clearly and the noise reduction softens the image, so further sharpening is required. With this in mind, when shooting with Canon, I will tend to use a plugin to reduce noise, such as Topaz DeNoise or ON1’s NoNoise. More worryingly, the colors aren’t accurate; I will discuss this in a later post and the skin tone is dull at the default values.
The following image compares versions of Canon’s live camera images with Lightroom (left) and DxO PhotoLab 6 (right). Skin tones are much more appealing with default DxO results.
Lightroom Classic and OM . systems
Lightroom processing OM-1 raw files are worse than other programs I’ve tried. By default, there are many ugly artifacts in the image that are not present in other programs. Even with the sharpening slider reduced to 0, there is invisible graininess on load ON1 Raw Image or DxO 6 . Photo Lab. Removing this with Lightroom’s noise reduction slider makes the image look muddy. That can be balanced out with the sharpening slider, but that also introduces noise.
Furthermore, the shadow enhancement works poorly, leaving purple noise and not showing details.
Of course, one can blame the camera noise and the smaller sensor size. However, as you will see in later articles, this is not the case with some of the other programs I have tried, plus the latter two cameras with larger sensors also suffer from detail issues. when running through Lightroom Classic. My results seem to support the OM System experts’ claim that Lightroom doesn’t do a fair job of OM System raw files.
Classic Lightroom and Sony
Likewise, the sony a7 IV the image appears noisy at default values that I can’t see in other programs. Increasing the shadow accentuates that noise. In fact, increasing the shadow produces more noise than the OM-1, which is surprising given the difference in sensor size. However, the OM-1 has a newer stacked sensor, which might account for that.
There is a marked difference between the flatness of the raw file previews that are apparent in Lightroom and other programs. One can see a big difference by placing the top image alongside the same image at default settings in DxO PhotoLab 6. Notice how dull the mountaineer’s face looks on the Lightroom transition. on the left compared to the PhotoLab version on the right.
Classic Lightroom and Fujifilm
Pictures from Fujifilm X-T5 without any noise at the default values. However, the sharpening applied by Lightroom produced a strange effect at the default values, especially with the fine details of the green foliage. Sharpening requires a reduction, but that seems to soften more quickly than other brands.
Highlights are easily restored and shadows are increased with little noise. However, it still seems to struggle with fine yellow/green detail. I can only speculate if this has something to do with Lightroom having trouble processing the green from the X-Trans sensor.
What I like and what can be improved with Lightroom Classic’s Raw results
Lightroom is a good program. I like its workflow and have a lot to say in favor of it. The layout of the Develop module is great, and the raw results by default aren’t bad. However, they are not the best.
I was able to hear some screaming that these are just defaults with no adjustment settings applied. That’s true, but the point is: with some other programs, even new ones to me, I can get better results than the Lightroom Classic I’m fairly familiar with. I found color, tone, sharpness, and noise control better elsewhere. However, you will see in future articles, as I reveal which programs have done better or worse, that each other has its advantages and disadvantages as well.
I like Lightroom Classic. Its library module is very impressive and to apply the rapid developments, which I do for writing, I will be happy to continue using it. The results weren’t bad. Furthermore, many people will gladly address its shortcomings by opening their images into Photoshop and various external plugins, especially AI sharpening and noise reduction plugins. However, for my high quality limited edition prints, I will now choose another program to develop my raw files and my conclusion will be in one of the next articles. follow.
The other limitation of these tests is that I tried one high-end camera of each brand: what applies to Canon EOS CHEAP can not let a Rebel T7and less sharp set lenses may also give different results. However, I hope these tests show that it’s worth looking at raw development options other than the obvious ones.
As I always advise people to buy a camera, don’t take anyone’s word for what they own will be the best choice for you.
I would also emphasize that all cameras perform well and are able to produce clear images with recoverable highlights and shadows. They all meet professional standards; I would happily own and use any of them.
Probably the most important learning point for me is that when reading camera reviews, especially when they consider detail and noise, we should look at the program the reviewer used. to give their comments.
I want to thank my fellow writers for generously sharing their images for me to play with: Used with permission of Peter MorganCanon; Gary McIntyre, Fujifilm X-T5 and Nikon Z7-2; and Andy’s Daysony a7 III.
