ON1 announces Photo Raw 2019

[Rhossydd]

Big pull indeed. 
Here's the copy and paste of the email about the upgrade. I'm keeping it to ensure they honor it (no reason to suspect they would not). Maybe the free upgrade if purchased "today" is just good timing on my part.

I sent a similar email today and got the same reply, so it's just a reasonable way of not killing revenue whilst the new version is readied for release after it's been announced.

Having played with the 2018 version a bit today I don't think it's worth getting the credit card out for yet.

[digitaldog]

Not sure about the next version, but the one I got doesn't appear to support custom .DCP profiles that I build from a Passport. 

[stormyboy]

It looks as of today that the $69 deal has gone the way of the $5 foot-long.

[digitaldog]

It looks as of today that the $69 deal has gone the way of the $5 foot-long.

Sorry, I can't find the web page deal either. But I did get 2018.5 for $69.99 and I guess I should be even happier now with the deal. Maybe yesterday was the last day.

[kirkt]

If previous iterations are any indication of what will happen after the release of this "new" version - you will get offers after the intro of 2019 with steadily reduced pricing.  A lot of "last chance at this reduced price" emails.  I have tried twice to have my email address removed from their mailbot - i think it finally worked.

I have really tried to give this project the benefit of the doubt, and I bought the original version (2017) and the upgrade (2017.5) but abandoned even testing it after I tested the intro of the 2018 version.  It is kludgy and slow and the raw conversions are mediocre.  There are some highlights, but application is trying to be all things and not very good at any of them compared to other applications.  The original version was essentially a paid invitation to beta test their terrible software.  I hope the new version is good for some people's workflow, but I'm pretty sure I will not even bother trialing this iteration.

kirk

[Rhossydd]

It is kludgy and slow and the raw conversions are mediocre.

To be fair, the develop section is actually quite responsive, better than LR6 here. The only advantage is that you can see just how horrible the conversion is in real time.

After a day playing with it, it seems to be the sort of package aimed at the filters and preset crowd, rather than creative types who want their own control and the best possible high quality results.

Uninstalled.

[kirkt]

To be fair, the develop section is actually quite responsive, better than LR6 here. The only advantage is that you can see just how horrible the conversion is in real time.

After a day playing with it, it seems to be the sort of package aimed at the filters and preset crowd, rather than creative types who want their own control and the best possible high quality results.

Uninstalled.

I agree with your assessment - I was referring more to the entire environment (switching between the views, going in and out of the develop and filter environments, etc.).  Maybe that has changed for the better since the initial 2018 release that I tested.

kirk

[Alan Smallbone]

They have made a lot of improvements in speed, especially if your video card has a gpu. The next versions sounds promising with the integration of the non-destructive layers workflow I think is a real improvement. Also the ability to align layers etc. which they say will be in the Dec. update as it will not be ready at initial release. Like any major software upgrade there will probably be some hiccups, but their support has been real good and they do respond. I have gotten to really like their masking, it can be quite easy to get the desired results that way. Their highlight recovery is not the greatest but they do control shadows well and have plenty of adjustments, I usually shoot for highlights anyways as a matter of course.

Alan

[Rhossydd]

Their highlight recovery is not the greatest

It's pretty terrible adding lots of false colour artifacts, LR has never been that bad, even RAW Shooter wasn't as bad back in 2005.

It's this sort of basic quality issue with the conversions that makes it a non-starter for me.

[digitaldog]

It's pretty terrible adding lots of false colour artifacts, LR has never been that bad, even RAW Shooter wasn't as bad back in 2005.

Not as bad but pretty awful, I have plenty of examples that I sent long ago to Eric Chan which he greatly fixed with PV2012.

[Rhossydd]

Not as bad but pretty awful, I have plenty of examples that I sent long ago to Eric Chan which he greatly fixed with PV2012.

Curious. I've never seen the same sort of coloured artifacts in recovered highlights in any other RAW converter, maybe it's the camera format ? I use Canon and Sony.

[digitaldog]

Curious. I've never seen the same sort of coloured artifacts in recovered highlights in any other RAW converter, maybe it's the camera format ? I use Canon and Sony.

Here's one example sent to Eric, I believe at the time, it was off my 5D.
http://digitaldog.net/files/PV2010_2012HighlightRecovery.jpg

[Rhossydd]

That's nothing compared to stuff ON1 generated, it was truly horrible. I should have grabbed some screen grabs, but life's too short to waste going back to it now.

[digitaldog]

That's nothing compared to stuff ON1 generated, it was truly horrible. I should have grabbed some screen grabs, but life's too short to waste going back to it now.

Compared how considering you don't have my raw file for comparison? Yes, you should grab some examples, life expediencies or otherwise, if you'd like us to see your actual experiences. Me, I've provided one that illustrates the fixes Eric provided in the new PV with respect to highlight recovery in the ACR engine.

[digitaldog]

BTW, the way in which Highlight Recovery in the ACR engine works, and I know this based on my work with Eric, is that if one or two channels are blown, they are 'recovered' from the 3rd. The best approach is not to blow any color channels. Highlight Recovery in other products, I don't know the process, but would still recommend no blowing out any color channels that you desire to hold image detail.

[Rhossydd]

Compared how considering you don't have my raw file for comparison? Yes, you should grab some examples, life expediencies or otherwise, if you'd like us to see your actual experiences. Me, I've provided one that illustrates the fixes Eric provided in the new PV with respect to highlight recovery in the ACR engine.

I'm not sure what your point is here. The example you posted isn't horrendous, almost subtle from what I can see in compassion to the mess I've witnessed with my files into ON1.
The highlight recovery tests I did with ON1 with my files were terrible with very obvious and vivid colour artifacts added to parts of the image. It was so bad I simply uninstalled the program, I didn't bother to save conversions as  'trophy horrors'.

I'm surprised if you find the ON1 conversions comparable to LR.

[digitaldog]

I'm not sure what your point is here. The example you posted isn't horrendous, almost subtle from what I can see in compassion to the mess I've witnessed with my files into ON1.

My point is, you're comparing something that doesn’t yet exist; my examples from my raws showing the differences in Highlight Recovery between two versions of the ACR engine and ON1. You seem to feel ON1 is far worse and that's possible. When you show us an example from that product and ACR, with or without various PV's as I have, we'll have something to compare. In fact, the so called horrendous examples you state as yet are not provided. I'd love to see them but you've told us it's too difficult so let's move on otherwise. 

I'm surprised if you find the ON1 conversions comparable to LR.

Where exactly did you see me stating that? 

[Rhossydd]

My point is, you're comparing something that doesn’t yet exist;

Of course it exists, I've seen it with my own files. In time you will too.

I can understand why if you've spent money on the software you don't want it criticised, but once you've spent some time with it and hit it's limitations you'll end up having to regard it as money spent on hoping it will get better. Right now it's pretty poor.

[digitaldog]

Of course it exists, I've seen it with my own files. In time you will too.

Probably not, I don't over expose my raws. If it exists, you could show us but will not.
If you've only imagined it (IF I've only imagined it), you (I) haven't experienced it. When you desire to show your experience with actual examples, again I'm happy to examine them.
YOU asked for examples from ACR, and yeah, I have them and shared them.

I can understand why if you've spent money on the software you don't want it criticised, but once you've spent some time with it and hit it's limitations you'll end up having to regard it as money spent on hoping it will get better. Right now it's pretty poor.

I'm more than happy with criticism that can be backed up. I'm more than happy with my rather inexpensive purchase thus far and wanted to test the product anyway. I'm always looking for Adobe exit strategies for the future and, I'll be getting a free upgrade to the 2019 version. So no, you don't understand but you're doing a good job of assuming, like your text that you're surprised I find ON1 conversions comparable to LR, something I never commented on.
"I never guess/assume. It is a shocking habit -- destructive to the logical faculty." -Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

[Rhossydd]

YOU asked for examples from ACR

No, I've never asked for anything from you. Go on, back read the thread and stop being such a....

It's really simple; ON1 just doesn't cut the mustard yet. Capture One is still LR's closest competitor. Who else can compete is still up for argument.