• Iridient Upgrades Its Powerful Raw Image Processor For Mac Pro
• Iridient Upgrades Its Powerful Raw Image Processor For Mac Mac

Click to expand.Haha. Yes, I'm well aware of that, thanks.

But what really matters when doing skin retouching a lot of the time, is that the underlying layer ( if in PS ) has as much detail as possible. Sure, you can start with a less sharp file and even fake it with blurring or shooting at a wider aperture, or any other number of techniques. But if there is good detail, then you not only have the option to work with skin textures in an artful way, you also have the option to tone that detail down without making the skin look plasticky and fake. Better to have more detail and remove it slowly, than to not have it and attempt to fake it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. But the problem is - it doesn't make sense. De-mosaicing and creating a TIFF from a raw file requires a certain amount of sharpening.

1. Because of its roots as a plug-in maker, ON1 essentially is a new generation of image management and processing with all kinds of capabilities that would require plug-ins were you to use Lightroom.
2. If you deal with lots of images and want to manage them (culling, rating, keywords, searches, etc.) and have a broad array of useful tools for processing along with fabulous masking capabilities, then ON1 Photo Raw is it. It does a great job with Fuji X-Trans files.

You can't really turn off sharpening. What you push into Iridient when you say 'Edit in.'

Best X-Trans RAW Converter. And a lot of my creative processing in Nik’s Colour Efex. Images move back and forth from Lightroom seamlessly. PhotoNinja also appears to be grabbing onto any noise that might be in the file as seen in the Bokeh! Iridient Developer is guilty of this too, but to a lesser degree.

The TIFF has the whole de-mosaicing (and a lot more) already done. The very step the Lightroom critics say sucks in Lightroom. If you want to compare Lightroom to Iridient, you'll have to start both from the same raw file. Iridient by finding the RAF file on disk and opening it.

Lightroom by importing the RAF file. Click to expand.Just for clarification here. Yes, when you use the external editor interface of Lightroom it does create an intermediate, processed image (TIFF or JPEG, etc) and if your intention is to reprocess from the RAF you definitely do not want to work with that intermediate file. However, Iridient Developer (and some other RAW processors too) can simply use that intermediate image as a 'pointer' to the original RAW image and then load the original RAW for processing.

When edits are finished in Iridient Developer it is then possible to simply overwrite the intermediate file from Lightroom and the Iridient Developer edits will then automatically appear in Lightroom. Drag and drop, reveal in Finder, folder sync and various other methods can also be used for integration with Lightroom. Detailed instructions on all the various ways of integrating with Lightroom can be viewed in the Iridient Developer Help by clicking on the 'Help' button in the Settings window and clicking the 'Working with Lightroom' topic in the left sidebar.

Brian Griffith (author of Iridient Developer) Iridient Digital. Okay, yet another question about the demosaic process. If I bring a photo into Iridient from Finder, do a minor temp adjustment, choose the RAW process type and sharpening only, I'll likely want to do further editing in another application.

When said file returns to LR as a TIFF, and I choose the 'Open In' dialog and let it go to Photoshop using the 'Original', then I guess that no further demosaicing is being done, right? But, let's say that I bring the file back and do further editing IN Lightroom. I suspect that means if I intend on editing more in Photoshop/Viveza etc.

That because I would have to choose the 'Edit with LR edits', then further demosaicing would be done out of LR? If so, it once again defeats the purpose of using this type of workflow. Edit: Hey Brian, it's awesome that you've decided to join us here, thank you so much! I'm really glad that you've noted how some RAW developers might use the intermediate file as a point of reference, and then basically re-create a duplicate file from the original with the edits baked in. For a little while, I was utilizing a workflow that seemed to create several dupes from one file and I wasn't sure of what was happening. This could explain that, if I've understood correctly.

The files would be named as: edit.tiff; edit.edit.tiff and so on. Okay, yet another question about the demosaic process. If I bring a photo into Iridient from Finder, do a minor temp adjustment, choose the RAW process type and sharpening only, I'll likely want to do further editing in another application.

When said file returns to LR as a TIFF, and I choose the 'Open In' dialog and let it go to Photoshop using the 'Original', then I guess that no further demosaicing is being done, right? But, let's say that I bring the file back and do further editing IN Lightroom. I suspect that means if I intend on editing more in Photoshop/Viveza etc. That because I would have to choose the 'Edit with LR edits', then further demosaicing would be done out of LR?

If so, it once again defeats the purpose of using this type of workflow. Click to expand.Lets see if I can clear this up. It can be confusing for sure.

The full details below are really only 3 key steps. The workflow you are interested in is possible and easy to do once you get the hang of all the sort of behind the scenes stuff going on. Lightroom currently does not support any sort of direct 'external edit' functionality for RAW. Everything coming out of Lightroom's edit in functionality is pre-processed by Lightroom and the edits are 'baked in' to an intermediate image for later processing by the external editor.

For non-RAW image processors this is perfectly fine, but makes things a bit more difficult if what you are trying to do is external RAW processing. Some RAW processors have basically 'worked around' Lightroom's lack of support for external RAW editing by using the intermediate processed image simply as a file reference that can be used to search for and load the original RAW file. In Iridient Developer this requires the Preferences dialog option 'Find & load RAW.' To be enabled.

When using 'edit in' in Lightroom you'll see it immediately creates another 'copy' of the image which is 'stacked' with the original. In Lightroom you should see the original image show '1 of 2' etc. This extra image is the 'copy' or 'intermediate' or 'external editor' version. This is now a completely independent image from the original. In the 'Edit In' dialog in Lightroom you generally have 3 options, Edit a Copy With LR Adjustments (the ONLY option available for any RAW images), Edit a Copy and Edit Original. Depending on the option selected here the Lightroom edits may or may not be 'baked in' to the image.

The first option applies Lightroom's edits and the others do not. Here would be the workflow I would recommend if you want to both use Iridient Developer with the Edit In (or external editor) functionality of Lightroom plus do further post RAW conversion edits in another program outside of Lightroom. 1) Setup Iridient Developer as described in the Help documentation for external RAW editing with Lightroom. See the Working with Lightroom topic in the Help sidebar section.

2) After finishing RAW processing in Iridient Developer (white balance, overall exposure and contrast, highlight recovery, capture sharpening and noise reduction would all be very important edits to make during, not after, RAW conversion) and exporting the processed image using 'Process Image and Overwrite.' From Iridient Developer you'd go back to Lightroom and will now have 2 copies of your image.

The original RAW file and a copy (TIFF, PSD or JPEG depending on options selected in Edit In dialog) that would be the RAW processed image from Iridient Developer. This RAW processed file (TIFF, JPEG, PSD) is no longer a reference to the original RAW. Lightroom is not going to apply any of its own RAW processing to this image at this stage (this would include demosaic, RAW camera white balance, RAW based lens corrections, RAW color profiles, etc, etc). If you do for example apply a RAW specific preset to this image it would not typically look 'right'. Another example would be if you apply RAW specific lens corrections to this image you would basically be overcorrecting the lens (assuming lens corrections were applied at the RAW stage). Once a RAW (RAF, etc) image has been edited by any RAW processor many critical 'RAW' processing stages will have been applied.

This typically includes the demosaic process, basic exposure/brightness/contrast tonality, white balancing, extended highlight recovery or HDR type operations, often some sharpening, some noise reduction, often lens corrections (distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration in most cases with recent X-Trans models for example), initial color matching from camera native color space to some more common intermediate color space (like sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProPhotoRGB, etc). After initial edits in Iridient Developer, Lightroom, Capture One or other RAW processors the above processes will all be 'baked in' to the processed image. Ability post RAW to make adjustments to operations that have major advantages in working with RAW image data (like white balance, highlight recovery, etc) will be greatly diminished. For the most part this is just as if editing a JPEG file produced in-camera. If you severely miss white balance (or exposure, etc, etc) in-camera the ability to 'fix' in post with a JPEG is radically different than with a RAW especially for some operations again white balance, exposure, highlight recovery would be probably the top 3. There are potential downsides with some of the others listed above as well though.

For example you wouldn't want to apply really strong sharpening at the RAW conversion only to again apply strong sharpening with the post RAW processed image as potential for ugly artifacts goes way up such as double 'halos' etc. 3) For further, 'non-RAW' type edits in Photoshop, Viveza or any other external editor it is perfectly fine to use Edit In to send the processed (copy/intermediate/external edited) image to another program (Photoshop, Viveza, etc). If you want to be certain that NO additional Lightroom edits are applied to the image just do NOT choose the 'with Lightroom Adjustments' option. You would most likely want to choose 'Edit a Copy'. In this case if you were unhappy with the external edits in Photoshop or Viveza you could simply go back to the RAW processed copy from iridient Developer without re-doing the RAW processing stage.

If disk space is a major concern you could 'Edit Original' which would not create yet another copy and instead would destructively edit this image. If you saved the edits in Photoshop, but then later decided you didn't like them you would need to go back and re-do the RAW processing as well. At this point the post-RAW processed image copy from iridient Developer or other RAW processors would be like a JPEG out of camera or any other non RAW image (say a scanned TIF).

No need to be concerned with Lightroom applying its own RAW processing to this copy of the image as the file is no longer RAW to begin with. However, you will now have multiple copies of the image present in Lightroom and one of them will be the original RAW file. You do NOT want to choose the original RAW image and then send that directly out to Photoshop or Viveza or any other non-RAW image processor as this would result in Lightroom doing its own RAW processing of the image first and then you'd be back to working with Adobe's RAW processing for this particular 'copy/intermediate/external edit' image. In Lightroom to double check that you are not working with the original RAW image itself you can check the file extension of the selected image, for Fujifilm RAW files it should be 'raf'. Also when choosing 'Edit In' if both of the 'Edit a Copy' and 'Edit Original' options are grayed out you are most likely working with a RAW image. Best regards, Brian Griffith Iridient Digital. Thank you so much for your prompt reply Brian, wasn't expecting that.

And I promise, I will TRY not to take advantage of your presence here! Lol That said. I get it now, thank you.

That was a very detailed explanation of the workflow, and also sort of what I had suspected in my 'if it's not this, it's that' thought process. There's only one thing stopping me from from doing all of the most basic adjustments in Iridient though. And honestly, it is a very frustrating part of this workflow. I find that Lightroom still has much better highlight and shadow recovery. I don't know what kind of Elvish magic they're using for those things, but given the fact that Iridient has multiple sliders for both highlight and shadow adjustments, and that LR only really has one for global adjustments (that seems to work for each region independently anyway) plus hue and tint, I'm quite surprised that Iridient doesn't have LR licked in that dept. Plus, being able to utilize brushes and masks for highlights/shadows is just. Irreplaceable at times, ya know?

I hope you don't take offense at that, but rather something to improve upon? Brian, have you had a chance to check out Affinity's Photo App? If so, what do you think about it?

I'm really glad that Adobe might be getting a run for their money with the prospect of legit alternatives to their CC suite. Have you ever thought about employing a couple of people to work on expanding Iridient, for things such as say. A file/database browser? All Iridient really needs is a companion UI for browsing through file systems and linking up directly. I know that if Affinity winds up being all I'd need for retouching and such, that I'd be able to ditch Adobe and work exclusively with it and Iridient. Heck, I'd even consider jumping ship without Affinity Photo being perfected, so long as Iridient had those components.

Okay Paul, so what does your workflow look like then? What do you do catalog with/ingest/keyword/label etc etc. I find it hard to believe that anyone would want to utilize a several step workflow if there was a more integrated/efficient method. Especially if it didn't involve bloat, as you seem to think it would.

Doug Edit: For what it's worth, I find LR to be plenty fast and not bloated, considering how many tools it has to offer. My only gripe with it at this point is how it handles RAF files. Nothing else.

I'll admit my workflow is probably different than most here. Mostly shoot tethered so the day's folder is already in the computer. Transfer that folder to a raided unit into that client's folder under the date and that's it. No keywords, no labels.

So let's take Friday's shoot as example. Two art directors, two people from the client side (a winery in this case), one hair and make up, one model flown up from LA, me and an assistant in the studio. Work all day and shoot two ads that will go in the food and wine magazines in the US.

Two images are picked out. I will work those up into two many layered Photoshop files, 16bit ProPhoto colorspace and with this particular client probably go through approx 3- 5 rounds of Photoshop tweaking. Invoice them and wait for the check to arrive. I can find any file in a matter of minutes only because my head is the filing system. Like I say, I'm a different animal than most here.

Get me the best file I can from the Iridient and then start to polish ever single pixel in Photoshop. From Friday's shoot. People standing around commenting on the shot. Thank you so much for your prompt reply Brian, wasn't expecting that. And I promise, I will TRY not to take advantage of your presence here!

Lol That said. I get it now, thank you. That was a very detailed explanation of the workflow, and also sort of what I had suspected in my 'if it's not this, it's that' thought process. There's only one thing stopping me from from doing all of the most basic adjustments in Iridient though. And honestly, it is a very frustrating part of this workflow. I find that Lightroom still has much better highlight and shadow recovery. I don't know what kind of Elvish magic they're using for those things, but given the fact that Iridient has multiple sliders for both highlight and shadow adjustments, and that LR only really has one for global adjustments (that seems to work for each region independently anyway) plus hue and tint, I'm quite surprised that Iridient doesn't have LR licked in that dept.

Plus, being able to utilize brushes and masks for highlights/shadows is just. Irreplaceable at times, ya know? I hope you don't take offense at that, but rather something to improve upon? Click to expand.Hi Doug, Regarding highlight/shadow recovery Iridient Developer should be excellent in this regard, but some seem to struggle with the controls on Exp panel to make the most of the RAW dynamic range. Iridient Developer also takes absolutely full advantage of all the special Fujifilm sensor technologies (like the old EXR sensors) and camera modes for extending dynamic range. I made a lot of changes with version 3 to try to label some of the controls more clearly, however my controls will work a bit differently from Lightroom. In some cases the iridient Developer controls tend to work more like Photoshop so I think people familiar with Photoshop tend to get the hang of Iridient more quickly than say people who've only used Lightroom.

When Iridient Developer was first written Lightroom didn't even exist so back then Photoshop was more the 'reference' editor. The 3.0 control changes seemed to have been a big help for many, but some still struggle here. A couple tips: 1) The Exposure slider is 'linear' in Iridient, it works just like applying an exposure compensation adjustment would in camera or in Photoshop or like it should mathematically, in other words a +1EV adjustment of exposure will exactly double the RAW values, all of them. Lightroom for the most part does not act like Iridient (or Photoshop either.) with its Exposure adjustment which tends to behave in a more non-linear fashion. In Iridient (or in camera) if you have values near clipping and increase Exposure you will naturally get more clipping. If you want to increase overall brightness yet minimize clipping use Fill Light instead. Fill Light is a more content adaptive, non-linear adjustment and will result in less highlight clipping and shadow blocking when doing overall brightness type adjustments.

2) Extreme Highlight Recovery is the key adjustment to recover blown highlight information. This can recover a LOT of information, often 1-2 full stops of extended highlight range. In special high dynamic range or 'EXR' type modes often even more. With some of the old Fuji EXR sensors you could recover up to 4-5 stops of extended highlight information!

However, if you have an image with no 'extreme' highlights, in other words no information that is actually hard clipped near 100% maximum white then this control may not do much of anything. In some cases you may see little to no change for example with an underexposed image. There simply is no extended highlight information to recover.

3) Highlights (Neighborhood Adaptive) - most often this will be the control you want to adjust wider ranging highlights. This control is used to darken highlights but also acts adaptively depending on image content to better preserve contrast while darkening the highlights. As you get into stronger levels this control may start darkening a wider range of tones in order to preserve contrast so it is not as selective as the above or below controls would be. 4) Brightness Highlights - this control is more strictly limited to just the brighter highlight tones. This control will give up contrast more quickly than the above and for all intents could be duplicated with a tone curve adjustment whereas the Highlights processing cannot.

For shadows it's the same deal basically as above just substitute: For (2) Black Fine Tune - here the native camera bit depth and other factors can play a role in how much deep blacks can really be pushed up, all this processing in Iridient Developer is 32 bit/ch floating point so if any data is present near black For (3) Shadows (Neighborhood Adpative) and for (4) Brightness Shadows To best maintain ultimate dynamic range when making Contrast slider adjustments be sure to use on of the 2 S-Curve style options. The 'linear' contrast adjustment will tend to give more clipping both in the highlights and shadows.

To really access absolutely the lowest levels of camera RAW data there is also the Camera Curve panel which can be shown by clicking the Edit button next to Camera Curve text. This curve allows you to have total control over the low level curve which sets the baseline brightness and contrast for all the other slider based adjustments on the Exp panel. For super precise adjustments that can sometimes be critical, especially near zero, it is possible to move points even in fractional value increments (see keyboard shortcut notes in the panel). Selective/layered/brush style edits for some adjustments (dodge and burn for example) are on my possible future feature list and something I'd definitely like to get to soon.

Best regards, Brian Griffith Iridient Digital. Brian, have you had a chance to check out Affinity's Photo App? If so, what do you think about it? I'm really glad that Adobe might be getting a run for their money with the prospect of legit alternatives to their CC suite. Have you ever thought about employing a couple of people to work on expanding Iridient, for things such as say. A file/database browser?

All Iridient really needs is a companion UI for browsing through file systems and linking up directly. I know that if Affinity winds up being all I'd need for retouching and such, that I'd be able to ditch Adobe and work exclusively with it and Iridient. Heck, I'd even consider jumping ship without Affinity Photo being perfected, so long as Iridient had those components. Click to expand.I used Affinity Photo very briefly during their beta.

Plan to look into it more. Regarding a file/database style browser, its on my list but very low priority. Just not much personal interest there for me and these sort of tools tend to really need a boat load of features to be competitive and this field is probably already too full (see Apple Aperture exit) from free (Apple Photos, Google Picasa, Adobe Bridge (heard it may be free now.

Not totally clear), etc) to low price (Lyn, PhotoExtreme) to very full featured and more expensive (Photo Mechanic, Lightroom, Capture One, Portfolio, etc). I'm probably missing a bunch more as well. There's always the Finder (or folder/file/alias base management) too and now with MacOS 10.9 or later can even add tags for key wording right from the Finder. Personally I think some base file system level management is critical if you don't want to be locked into proprietary photo management tools. I tend to use a whole lot of different tools myself so the file system is always of my core management tool. If you are comfortable working from the file system you can use absolutely whatever tools you want quickly and easy and never have to hassle with application limitations for working with your files exactly the way you want to.

For me personally 'whole workflow' programs like Lightroom and Aperture aren't super appealing so I've never really had the desire to go in that direction with Iridient Developer. I tend to like to pick and choose programs for specific tasks.

That said some improvements in the area of image browsing/management are certain to be added to Iridient Developer over time, for example a grid style view for the thumbnails is a popular request and something I'll likely add. Some additional management type options such as capacity for XMP metadata edits (version 3.0.3 just added support for Finder Tags and XMP key wording for example) is also likely in the future. Hiring more help is definitely being considered too, I thought I had found a good consulting company to do a Windows port this last year, but that unfortunately didn't work out.

Hiring some additional people or an outside consulting company is still something I'm considering for a number of potential projects in the future. Best regards, Brian Griffith Iridient Digital.

This is a very pertinent topic for me at the moment as a long time user of Photoshop / bridge. I have no intention of migrating to Adobe's cloud as Adobe has had more than enough money out of me over the last thirty years. A couple of weeks ago Adobe announced that the current ACR is the very last update for Creative suit 6. There will be workarounds but that means yet another step.

I feel this is likley the begining of the end for Adobe's physical applications. Also over the last year I have felt that particularly with high frequency images PS and LR are not quite as acurate as they once were in comparison to work coming out of other work flows.

This is not cut and dried by any means because there are so many other variables. I have just come to the end of two trial periods of Capture 1 and its developing capabilities are good really good but I could not acclimatise to its database and file handling system without totally revamping my own filing system. So my next learning curve is Irident. I have used it slightly before as I also use a Sigma DP2 Merrill and Irident is one of the few applications that handles Fovean sensor files. A couple of days ago I learned that camerabits.com are in the process of developing a comprehensive image cataloguing application to accompany Photomechanic so that looks like a suite of interesting possibilities.

Iridient Upgrades Its Powerful Raw Image Processor For Mac Pro

We live in interesting photographic times! Please login or register to view linksd with ACR PS and Topaz Clarity I will see what can be done with Irident.

I will keep you posted on my progress. I find this whole scenario with Adove versus (some of ) the People as an interesting drama. From being a hero in the photo and graphics marketplace Adobe by their attitude to its long term customers has alienated many for the sake of keeping their accountants/shareholders happy. Whilst many will say this is the way of the world I will counter with the view that it is the way of a greedy world! Some of us have fed Adobe for a long time.

I have used Adobe products since 1994 others possibly have greaterh istory. OK philosophy over!

In my workflow I need the following: Image cataloguing (Original RAW and final output JPG/PSD/TIFF) RAW Image processing (RAW to JPG/PSD/TIFF) Image editing (pixel level JPG/TIFF) Since the start of the Adobe situation I have been looking for alternatives for my Adobe Design Studio software (Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop) plus recently Lightroom. I have managed to find a set of alternatives for; Image Cataloguing (DAM) (Lightroom) Phase One Media Pro (Windows & Mac), Extensis Portfolio (Windows & Mac), iMatch5 (Windows only). RAW conversion (Lightroom and ACR) PhaseOne Capture One Pro, Iridient Developer, Corel Aftershot Pro, Lightzone, PhotoNinja, Darktable, PPC64, AccuRAW. Image Editing (Photoshop) Acorn Editor, Serif Photo. Lightroom like RAW editing Corel Aftershot Pro, PhotoNinja. Personally I cant get the Phase One Capture One on Mac to catalogue my image set (125K images) so it doesnt work for me except in Session mode which is only suitable for individual directories.

If only I could have a Channel Mixer functionality in Phase One Capture One then I would be able to do most of what I need there. If only Acorn Editor or Serif Photo could run my Adobe Photoshop Actions and Plugins.

If only I had DAM functionality as good as iMatch on the Mac then I would be complete. So until there are some non-Adobe software improvements I am stuck with using Adobe software!

Technically, if you purchase the stand alone version of Lightroom, you've got your DAM covered and probably won't have to upgrade for any logical reason, unless the hardware architecture changes so much, that it becomes incredibly slow. Which is doubtful. I've been using Iridient to demosaic and sharpen and do basic exposure adjustments. Goes right back into LR as a tiff which can then be further processed in any other third party app you'd like. It's easier than it sounds, and is more realistic than say.learning new software or spending money on new software.

I find this whole scenario with Adove versus (some of ) the People as an interesting drama. From being a hero in the photo and graphics marketplace Adobe by their attitude to its long term customers has alienated many for the sake of keeping their accountants/shareholders happy. Whilst many will say this is the way of the world I will counter with the view that it is the way of a greedy world!

Some of us have fed Adobe for a long time. I have used Adobe products since 1994 others possibly have greaterh istory.

OK philosophy over! In my workflow I need the following: Image cataloguing (Original RAW and final output JPG/PSD/TIFF) RAW Image processing (RAW to JPG/PSD/TIFF) Image editing (pixel level JPG/TIFF) Since the start of the Adobe situation I have been looking for alternatives for my Adobe Design Studio software (Illustrator, InDesign and Photoshop) plus recently Lightroom. I have managed to find a set of alternatives for; Image Cataloguing (DAM) (Lightroom) Phase One Media Pro (Windows & Mac), Extensis Portfolio (Windows & Mac), iMatch5 (Windows only). RAW conversion (Lightroom and ACR) PhaseOne Capture One Pro, Iridient Developer, Corel Aftershot Pro, Lightzone, PhotoNinja, Darktable, PPC64, AccuRAW. Image Editing (Photoshop) Acorn Editor, Serif Photo. Lightroom like RAW editing Corel Aftershot Pro, PhotoNinja.

Iridient Upgrades Its Powerful Raw Image Processor For Mac Mac

Personally I cant get the Phase One Capture One on Mac to catalogue my image set (125K images) so it doesnt work for me except in Session mode which is only suitable for individual directories. If only I could have a Channel Mixer functionality in Phase One Capture One then I would be able to do most of what I need there. If only Acorn Editor or Serif Photo could run my Adobe Photoshop Actions and Plugins. If only I had DAM functionality as good as iMatch on the Mac then I would be complete. So until there are some non-Adobe software improvements I am stuck with using Adobe software! Click to expand. Hi Jknights, With a few exceptions I have also covered most of the above applications it can be a tedious business.

Having now spent a couple of days with Irident I feel confident enough to say that with both RAF and ORF overall Irident produces better files than ACR. I haven't done much with high ISO yet I seldom shoot above 640. It recovers blown highlights quite well. There is less noise than ACR, there is slightly less contrast. But colour render is clearer. Looking at it another way its almost like it clears a bit of the haze. Its default mode seems to be at least as good as Adobe's Auto ACR.

It can utilize lens profiles although I suspect I have more work to do on that front and lastly its output settings are logical. Bridge is still good for me as a browser sorter and the numbering naming utilities are excellent. I found Capture 1's database is almost as unforgiving as LR, fact is I have yet to find a DB that fits with my cataloguing system that has evolved over 30 odd years. Shoot dates and times don't fit with the bulk of my work. Anyway until a flexible library / DAM application arrives I can work with bridge and my brain which seems to cross reference as well as the majority of programmes I have tried.