Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: jimhuber on September 27, 2006, 02:09:33 pm

Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: jimhuber on September 27, 2006, 02:09:33 pm: Canon's raw conversion software, Digital Photo Professional, is so useless I don't even bother to try to install it any more. Complaining got no response whatsoever.

Adobe Lightroom beta won't even install on Windows 2000, only XP. Why?

And now I just upgraded from DxO Optics Pro v3.5 to v4 and it won't run unless you're logged in as a member of the "Administrators" group, even after resetting file and registry permissions that shouldn't have been restricted to "Administrators" in the first place.

Argh!

Hopefully Adobe will learn from the author of Raw Shooter Premium, a great little program with a clean, simple installation, small memory requirement, fast thumbnail generation, logical workflow, and great results. RSP is the only all-around "good" piece of software I've found since going digital, and now it's dead.
Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: Dale_Cotton on September 27, 2006, 02:49:48 pm: Couldn't agree more regarding RSP. I'll be holding out as long as I can on buying any new camera just to keep using RSP.
Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: paulbk on September 27, 2006, 04:04:40 pm: I also though RSP had a bright future. sigh........

Try the 'new' DPP 2.2. Much less clunky interface and better speed. And the batch feature using Auto WB and Picture Styles is a big time saver. I use "Standard" Picture Style mostly. DPP 2.2 is borderline not user hostile. A few more refinements and it could even be called marginally okay.

p
Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: jimhuber on September 28, 2006, 09:02:36 am: We must really be desperate to be seriously considering using Canon's software. The last time I griped at them about how bad their software was, I strongly suggested they buy or license Raw Shooter Premium. If they had, Adobe would at least have a little competition, if only in the raw conversion market. But with Canon's strategic thrust into printers against Epson I suppose it makes good business sense not to open another front with Adobe on software and spread resources too thin.

I should probably upgrade my PC and laptop to Windows XP so I can use Lightroom, but the PC is less than 4 years old and the laptop less than 3. I like my computers stable. I don't like constant upgrade cycles. Too many years as an IT professional, I guess (almost 20).

Does anybody know why Lightroom won't even install on Win2k? How about Aperture, is it usable on Win2k?
Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: Frere Jacques on September 28, 2006, 09:46:17 am: Aperture is Macintosh only at this point & I would bet it would stay that way -- none of their other Pro apps are cross-platform.

I would guess that Lightroom uses some newer DirectX versions for its video tricks that may not be supported in Win2K. Plus, with Vista coming (eventually) Adobe doesn't want to have to write to 3 different OS revs.

Quote
Does anybody know why Lightroom won't even install on Win2k? How about Aperture, is it usable on Win2k?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=78114\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: Serge Cashman on October 02, 2006, 12:52:15 am: Try Bibble Pro. Works on everything, even Linux.

http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble/specs.html (http://www.bibblelabs.com/products/bibble/specs.html)
Title: Why does photo software have to be so bad?
Post by: Josh-H on October 02, 2006, 07:58:37 am: DPP 2.2 is actually worth more than a look - it does DAM fine conversions. It is at its core a RAW processor - not a program for pixel level editing or asset management - ala Light Room. It needs support from PS CS2 for sharpening, local contrast enhacement etc... But as a basic RAW conversion program it does a fantastic job.