An alternative to Negative Lab Pro and Lr has to exist (C-41 reversal and orange mask removal)?!

[wiltw]

I'm still using LR5. However, with restrictions ending business is going to pickup and I can now justify $10 a month on a sparkling new version of LR. I'd rather just buy it straight out but thems the breaks. Moving my catalog over is a new thing for me though. Dumping everything on a massive external and hoping it works.

I hope you DO understand that you do not have to copy all the RAW files, unless you are moving them from InternalHarddisk1 on OldPC to InternalHarddisk2 on NewPC.
Simply Export Catalog (filename) from current PC to an external HD unit, then plug the HD into new PC and tell LR to Import Catalog (filename)

If the above does not apply, and you are merely loading a new version of LR onto an existing PC, that is very straightforward!

 

[Cholentpot]

I hope you DO understand that you do not have to copy all the RAW files, unless you are moving them from InternalHarddisk1 on OldPC to InternalHarddisk2 on NewPC.
Simply Export Catalog (filename) from current PC to an external HD unit, then plug the HD into new PC and tell LR to Import Catalog (filename)

If the above does not apply, and you are merely loading a new version of LR onto an existing PC, that is very straightforward!

Moving all RAW files from InternalHDDoldPC to ExternalHDD which will then get plugged into newPC.

 

[urnem57]

I have been pretty happy with FilmLab, but cannot understand if it will do whole folders at once. Kinda lame that I haven’t been able to figure that out. Any help? Thanks.

 

[wiltw]

Moving all RAW files from InternalHDDoldPC to ExternalHDD which will then get plugged into newPC.

OK, then the task is necessary.
OTOH, if your data (the folder with the RAW files in it) is not copied to a second HD, you have been running the risk that your internal HD fails and you have no second copy of data to save your Ess! I strongly urge you to routinely make a second copy of data. Like a monthly copy of RAW data added to the primary HD during the past month, which is copied onto the second HD is easy and very rapid to do incremental copying.
I have had two internal HD units fail within the past 20 years. But all my data is backup up, I actually have copies on two 2-disk RAID 1 units...4 copies of data in addition to what is on the internal HD. So my data has never been at risk of loss.
If you had a second copy on an external HD as data redundancy, you would not have the consumtion of time to make that copy before decomissioning your present PC.

 

[Cholentpot]

OK, then the task is necessary.
OTOH, if your data (the folder with the RAW files in it) is not copied to a second HD, you have been running the risk that your internal HD fails and you have no second copy of data to save your Ess! I strongly urge you to routinely make a second copy of data. Like a monthly copy of RAW data added to the primary HD during the past month, which is copied onto the second HD is easy and very rapid to do incremental copying.
I have had two internal HD units fail within the past 20 years. But all my data is backup up, I actually have copies on two 2-disk RAID 1 units...4 copies of data in addition to what is on the internal HD. So my data has never been at risk of loss.
If you had a second copy on an external HD as data redundancy, you would not have the consumtion of time to make that copy before decomissioning your present PC.

I have backups but my work was scattered all over the place. I'll risk it all being in once place for the time being so I can organize and then I'll duplicate to a backup.

 

[PhilBurton]

I'm throwing in the towel and getting NLP as soon as I get my stuff transferred to my new PC. Wish me luck.

Why do you say that? Did you try other approaches which you decided not to use?

 

[Cholentpot]

Why do you say that? Did you try other approaches which you decided not to use?

Yes. I have currently an excellent workflow but it takes up way to much space on my hard drive. Add that to results I've seen from people that use NGLP and I just got a new PC, might as well try it. I'll get back to you all.

 

[urnem57]

From my experience, the time spent on playing around from “free” software usually far outweighs any savings from not paying for purpose built software. There’s often (not always) a reason why software is designed to complete certain tasks. It is often because someone either discovers that none exists or becomes too frustrated working with what already does.

 

[grat]

From my experience, the time spent on playing around from “free” software usually far outweighs any savings from not paying for purpose built software. There’s often (not always) a reason why software is designed to complete certain tasks. It is often because someone either discovers that none exists or becomes too frustrated working with what already does.

My experience is very different-- Many years ago, AutoDesk released a major update to AutoCAD. Since I was responsible for installing software for students to use at the local university, we got our copies early in the release cycle, and installed the software. A few days later, a professor in Architecture calls up, complaining about a bug in the new version of AutoCAD.

The bug was that you couldn't add a door to a wall-- the software would crash. AutoDesk already had a patch available for download-- they knew about the bug WHEN THEY SHIPPED THE CODE. And it was such a basic bug, that it should have never, ever made it into a release.

Having used Linux, FreeBSD, shareware packages going back to the days of PC-Write, open source packages like Gimp, Blender, Audacity, and indeed, Darktable, I can honestly say that open source, aka "free" software can be just as good, if not better, than it's closed-source, proprietary, paid-for competition. The only weakness tends to be the user interface, which is rarely designed by UI experts-- but seeing where UI has been going for the past 15 years, I'm not sure the experts know what they're doing either.

 

[urnem57]

As mentioned before - YMMV.

 

[Cholentpot]

Here's my comparison. Photo #1 was DSLR scanned, Canon T2i with Magic Lantern and an EF 100 2.8 macro. Tethered to LR the exported stitched, and inverted in PS. I used a lightly modified version of Iamthejeffs technique. It was then saved back into LR as a tiff and balanced with color correction and light levels.

LR5, PSCS6. Bronica S2, Portra 160NC cut down from 70mm rolled into a 220 roll. Expired in the early 00s. C-41 home dev in a wrung out kit somewhere around roll 30, kit recommends 8.

Below is the same photo using NLP and the current LR. Everything was done in LR.

This final one is the NLP exported as a TFF so I can tease just a little bit more out of it.

Of the three I think #2 is the nicest looking one while #3 is probably closest to real life. #1 looks sharper but on zooming in it is quite a bit softer.

Pros of using NLP is everything is done in one program, right out of the inversion the photo is 90% there and you get a sharper image. Cons are cost, you'll need a current computer, and you lose access to LRs native controls unless you export as a TIFF.

Other method I use makes massive files through two programs switching back and forth and skin tones are awful to work with. However I do have more control to a point. And it was free. It also helped me learn the ins and out's so I can take full advantage of NLP. I'd suggest learning alternate methods first and then moving on to NLP when you've pushed the method you've learned as far as it can go.

P.s. Sorry about the massive photos.

 

[wiltw]

I'm throwing in the towel and getting NLP as soon as I get my stuff transferred to my new PC. Wish me luck.

Your phrasing makes it seem that in spite of efforts to find the right software, NLP is 'the best I can find' but there is something about it which causes the towel throw....What is it that you seem to be 'setting for'?

 

[Cholentpot]

I think the 1st one is by far the most accurate. Yes it lacks charming warmth in the shadows, but it wasn't in the scene, ice can't be red - it was added digitally by NLP. Generally, hand inversion (when done well) always beats any of these robo-inverters. @Cholentpot which "Iamthejeffs technique" are you referring to, I wasn't able to find. Thanks.

EDIT: nevermind, found it. Not loading at the moment...

Issue with the first one is the slush is not the right color. Slush is dirty and almost brown, not grey. I don't really like the blue shadows either. Main issue though is the time and space that #1 takes up.

Edit: I don't see red snow. My monitor is nicely calibrated. Who knows...might need to recalibrate.

 

[Cholentpot]

Your phrasing makes it seem that in spite of efforts to find the right software, NLP is 'the best I can find' but there is something about it which causes the towel throw....What is it that you seem to be 'setting for'?

Spending the money. $100 is still $100 to me despite the economy. I'm also giving up the complete control I have over the process and allowing a program to make decisions based on presets. So far though NLP seems to be doing a fine job for my tastes. I've only been using it for a about a week so I'll withhold full judgment.

However the time and hard drive space the program saves me is worth the money spent.

 

[wiltw]

Spending the money. $100 is still $100 to me despite the economy. I'm also giving up the complete control I have over the process and allowing a program to make decisions based on presets. So far though NLP seems to be doing a fine job for my tastes. I've only been using it for a about a week so I'll withhold full judgment.

However the time and hard drive space the program saves me is worth the money spent.

Oh, understand. Good to learn of general satisfaction, as I have been looking for alternatives that are as easy and convenient -- but not as slow -- as scanners.
Look at it this way...$100 spent once is better than $10 per month forever!
I fail to understand, "It's only $10 per month..." as they bend over.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

Oh, understand. Good to learn of general satisfaction, as I have been looking for alternatives that are as easy and convenient -- but not as slow -- as scanners.
Look at it this way...$100 spent once is better than $10 per month forever!
I fail to understand, "It's only $10 per month..." as they bend over.

because it’s not $100 spent once and never will be. At some point the maker of the software will charge for an upgrade to support the latest hardware or operating system because support costs money, and you’ll have to pay it when your hardware breaks and you get a new computer.

it’s true, $100 spent once every ~5-10 years, or however long your computer lasts is less expensive than $10 a month, but free software upgrades for life isn’t a sustainable business model because at some point, everybody who is willing to pay for that software will have done so and the money stops coming in, or trickles down to almost nothing. Those users will expect that software to keep working over time, and given how everything else changes over time, supporting that costs time and money. The only way you can do that is to either charge your users for it (whoops! There goes the $100 spent only once right out the window), or pay for it from another revenue stream, if you have one. If the maker chooses to do that, thank your lucky stars they’re being so generous and charitable with their money.

I’ve worked in the software industry for a very long time before starting my lab. That’s how it works. It’s not rocket science.

 

[wiltw]

because it’s not $100 spent once and never will be. At some point the maker of the software will charge for an upgrade to support the latest hardware or operating system because support costs money, and you’ll have to pay it when your hardware breaks and you get a new computer.

it’s true, $100 spent once every ~5-10 years, or however long your computer lasts is less expensive than $10 a month, but free software upgrades for life isn’t a sustainable business model because at some point, everybody who is willing to pay for that software will have done so and the money stops coming in, or trickles down to almost nothing. Those users will expect that software to keep working over time, and given how everything else changes over time, supporting that costs time and money. The only way you can do that is to either charge your users for it (whoops! There goes the $100 spent only once right out the window), or pay for it from another revenue stream, if you have one. If the maker chooses to do that, thank your lucky stars they’re being so generous and charitable with their money.

I’ve worked in the software industry for a very long time before starting my lab. That’s how it works. It’s not rocket science.

I understand the issue for the company. I was involved in the industrial usage of software for over 20 years.
The issue I find is that as a hobbyist in retirement, I derive zero income from my hobby, and yet I am expected to pay the same fee as some professoinal user making income for himself and/or his company via its useage. And, as a hobbyist for over 40 years, a mandatory annual $120 is owned, even when I derive zero value from any new upgrades..I own a 7DII and until I decide to upgrade to a new model, I do not need RAW conversion for the 2021 models.
I have lived both sides of the argument, and while companies are due a revenue stream, to put as much financial burden on the hobbyist as the professional is unjust.

 

[Helge]

because it’s not $100 spent once and never will be. At some point the maker of the software will charge for an upgrade to support the latest hardware or operating system because support costs money, and you’ll have to pay it when your hardware breaks and you get a new computer.

it’s true, $100 spent once every ~5-10 years, or however long your computer lasts is less expensive than $10 a month, but free software upgrades for life isn’t a sustainable business model because at some point, everybody who is willing to pay for that software will have done so and the money stops coming in, or trickles down to almost nothing. Those users will expect that software to keep working over time, and given how everything else changes over time, supporting that costs time and money. The only way you can do that is to either charge your users for it (whoops! There goes the $100 spent only once right out the window), or pay for it from another revenue stream, if you have one. If the maker chooses to do that, thank your lucky stars they’re being so generous and charitable with their money.

I’ve worked in the software industry for a very long time before starting my lab. That’s how it works. It’s not rocket science.

There is the alternate scheme of paying once for one version and then have a smaller number of iterative fixes and upgrades for free.

The next big revision will cost full price again though.

Then you have to make the choice, as a buyer and user, of whether upgrading is worth it and/or necessary.
And the developer will have to make an effort to make the upgrade worth it.

That was the standard way for decades.

It often doesn’t feel fair that the developer, whether a small team or one man, should be able to work hard for half a year or a year, and then rake in the dough for a decade or more by doing essentially small fixes, compatibility assurance and iterative upgrades.
Often the marked will fix such money syphons automatically, but with smaller niches it’s often a question of happenstance as to whether it will get filled by more than one or two offers, essentially creating a natural but equally harmful monopoly.

A monopoly that will sour people from thinking about entering either the hobby, or give the niche program genre a stab.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I understand the issue for the company. I was involved in the industrial usage of software for over 20 years.
The issue I find is that as a hobbyist in retirement, I derive zero income from my hobby, and yet I am expected to pay the same fee as some professoinal user making income for himself and/or his company via its useage. And, as a hobbyist for over 40 years, a mandatory annual $120 is owned, even when I derive zero value from any new upgrades..I own a 7DII and until I decide to upgrade to a new model, I do not need RAW conversion for the 2021 models.
I have lived both sides of the argument, and while companies are due a revenue stream, to put as much financial burden on the hobbyist as the professional is unjust.

there is no requirement to use Adobe software in order to shoot raw. Canon provides very capable software, which is included with your camera, and excellent support for it to run on your computer provided you have your cameras serial number. DPP is a very capable piece of software. It’s actually better than ACR in many ways because canon knows how to handle their own raw files better than Adobe ever will.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

There is the alternate scheme of paying once for one version and then have a smaller number of iterative fixes and upgrades for free.

The next big revision will cost full price again though.

Then you have to make the choice, as a buyer and user, of whether upgrading is worth it and/or necessary.
And the developer will have to make an effort to make the upgrade worth it.

That was the standard way for decades.

It often doesn’t feel fair that the developer, whether a small team or one man, should be able to work hard for half a year or a year, and then rake in the dough for a decade or more by doing essentially small fixes, compatibility assurance and iterative upgrades.
Often the marked will fix such money syphons automatically, but with smaller niches it’s often a question of happenstance as to whether it will get filled by more than one or two offers, essentially creating a natural but equally harmful monopoly.

A monopoly that will sour people from thinking about entering either the hobby, or give the niche program genre a stab.

well, there will also be a point where you can’t add any new features or change things just for the sake of changing things. We’ve seen how that works too. Just look at the path of Microsoft office, or really any major piece of software used in business that’s been around for the last 15-20 years. How much has been changed for the sake of change as opposed to actually improving it and making it better, easier to use, or faster?

as a user, I would very much rather have a relatively static and well designed user interface that does what it’s supposed to do and gets out of the way, and pay a small amount of regular support to ensure that it always works, even if I upgrade my computer or get a new one all together.

Let’s be real here, much like word processors peaked in terms of actual functionality over 10-15 years ago, raw image conversion and basic image catalog management peaked a long time ago. We’re well past the 80% functionality mark and have been in the ‘add useless features and change the UI because we can” phase for a long time. If we want that software to keep working, it costs time and money.

 

[wiltw]

well, there will also be a point where you can’t add any new features or change things just for the sake of changing things. We’ve seen how that works too. Just look at the path of Microsoft office, or really any major piece of software used in business that’s been around for the last 15-20 years. How much has been changed for the sake of change as opposed to actually improving it and making it better, easier to use, or faster?

as a user, I would very much rather have a relatively static and well designed user interface that does what it’s supposed to do and gets out of the way, and pay a small amount of regular support to ensure that it always works, even if I upgrade my computer or get a new one all together.

Let’s be real here, much like word processors peaked in terms of actual functionality over 10-15 years ago, raw image conversion and basic image catalog management peaked a long time ago. We’re well past the 80% functionality mark and have been in the ‘add useless features and change the UI because we can” phase for a long time. If we want that software to keep working, it costs time and money.

I started with Microsoft Word v1. I graduated to Microsoft Word for Windows, then up through the many upgrade versionis until Word 2007 completely changed its user interface, and I could not longer find functions which I had mastered up through Word 2003! IOW, if Microsoft charged me a monthly fee and then broke it for me in Word 2007, For several years I struggled with it, less effeciently, because my employer provided it. For my home PC, I would have become very angry at the destructive 'improvement' foisted upon me; I never paid for Word 2007 on my home PC
I know I am not alone in the frustration of the UI change that came in Word 2007. Was the ANY 'benefit' to 2007?...I could not identify one that I needed. At present, I am in the same situation with Lightroom...there is no feature I need from the latest version.

 

[wiltw]

there is no requirement to use Adobe software in order to shoot raw. Canon provides very capable software, which is included with your camera, and excellent support for it to run on your computer provided you have your cameras serial number. DPP is a very capable piece of software. It’s actually better than ACR in many ways because canon knows how to handle their own raw files better than Adobe ever will.

I started using RAWshooter before Adobe bought it to create LR1. I still use LR 6.0 (purchased before the subscription model came about), and I do not upgrade, because my DVD copy of LR6 permits me to do that.
If Adobe had offered me one-time fee licensing for later versions, I might wellhave purchased newer versions; I purchased LR2, LR3, LR4, LR5, and LR6; but because they hold me hostage, they get nothing more from me instead. LR6 works fine, so I have zero need to find something to replace LR6. The 7DII might be my last camera, so there is no reason to find something new. and if I changed to something new, none of the LR edits to tens of thousands of RAW images would be recognized by the new brand of software unless I went back and exported DNG sidecar files first.

 

[Cholentpot]

Oh, understand. Good to learn of general satisfaction, as I have been looking for alternatives that are as easy and convenient -- but not as slow -- as scanners.
Look at it this way...$100 spent once is better than $10 per month forever!
I fail to understand, "It's only $10 per month..." as they bend over.

Oh I don't like the $10 a month either. However, I don't have TV, Cable, Netflix, Hulu, Disney+, Satellite, or any other paid subscription. I love cinema but not theaters. I love movies but I don't like sitting through two hours of useless camera motion and pointless plots. So, my $10 a month will go to Adobe. I'd rather pay the one time fee but sometimes we can't have what we want. One gig will pay off the fees for a year. No worries.

As for NLP charging again some day, when it happens it happens. I'm not going to fret over it.

 

[Adrian Bacon]

I started using RAWshooter before Adobe bought it to create LR1. I still use LR 6.0 (purchased before the subscription model came about), and I do not upgrade, because my DVD copy of LR6 permits me to do that.
If Adobe had offered me one-time fee licensing for later versions, I might wellhave purchased newer versions; I purchased LR2, LR3, LR4, LR5, and LR6; but because they hold me hostage, they get nothing more from me instead. LR6 works fine, so I have zero need to find something to replace LR6. The 7DII might be my last camera, so there is no reason to find something new. and if I changed to something new, none of the LR edits to tens of thousands of RAW images would be recognized by the new brand of software unless I went back and exported DNG sidecar files first.

well, I’d start compiling spare parts for your computer so you won’t ever need to upgrade because I doubt LR6 will actually run on any newer computers. It’s getting pretty long in the tooth.

all that being said, I do feel your pain of not wanting to have to pay a monthly fee. It’s a real shame the other image editing software companies aren’t putting the effort in to provide replacement functionality. The DNG spec isn’t a secret. Adobe stores all the metadata of what they do in the DNG files (assuming you converted to DNG). Anybody who wants to can write some code to read that metadata and provide a UI that does the same thing. There’s nothing in LR that is particularly ground breaking in features or functionality. They just happen to have a reasonable mix of UI and good ongoing support for newer hardware when it comes out.

 

[wiltw]

well, I’d start compiling spare parts for your computer so you won’t ever need to upgrade because I doubt LR6 will actually run on any newer computers. It’s getting pretty long in the tooth.

all that being said, I do feel your pain of not wanting to have to pay a monthly fee. It’s a real shame the other image editing software companies aren’t putting the effort in to provide replacement functionality. The DNG spec isn’t a secret. Adobe stores all the metadata of what they do in the DNG files (assuming you converted to DNG). Anybody who wants to can write some code to read that metadata and provide a UI that does the same thing. There’s nothing in LR that is particularly ground breaking in features or functionality. They just happen to have a reasonable mix of UI and good ongoing support for newer hardware when it comes out.

I bought a new PC a year ago, loaded with Windows 10, and LR6 loaded just fine! So did Office 2003.