Why did you switch raw developers?

I started the digital adventure using Picture Window because I hated the incomprehensible complexity of Photoshop v6.01 :-).

Then I started using raw, and the only things available were terrible raw convertors from the camera manufacturers.

When 3rd party convertors became available I used a neat package that had no drop down windows whose name I forget which eventually got swallowed up into another package, so I switched to Bibble. I stayed with Bibble all through the interminable wait for v5 (which later got rebranded as Aftershot) then switched to LR when they were running the free beta programme.

I like LR and would still be using it now, if it weren't for the damnable subscription model. It's not so much the subs model that bothers me, but the way they operate it. If you decide to stop subscribing they should stop you importing but let you continue to edit your existing photos in perpetuity. The decision to chop of edit access to all those back catalogue of edit stacks that can't be exported to another program, just seems too much like holding your raw edits hostage to me. And the more files you have, the more work they hold hostage.

So currently running Ubuntu/darktable for new stuff, and win/LR 6.14 perpetual for older stuff in a dual boot config.

I really like darktable. It's gradually grown into an excellent program. Perhaps confusing for beginners, it can take a long while to figure out an effective workflow. But once you get there it's very powerful. In some respects it's almost like a blend of LR and Photoshop for some functions. The masking is great, as is the ability to re-use multiple instances of a processing module with separate masks. Kind of a bit like using PS layers in a raw environment.

Fascinating! I didn't realize that Lightroom was such a relatively recent development, as it all happened before I got into photography.

I used Aftershot, too, back when it was still maintained.

There's a lot of love for Darktable in this thread. This seems somewhat counter to the usual perception online. Interesting.

Yup. And this is exactly the reason I dumped Lightroom; I didn't want to be forced to continue paying a subscription fee to keep working access to my earlier edits.

One solution I saw proposed (can't even remember if it was theoretical or if someone actually uses this sub system) is an ongoing subscription where you could pay a flat fee, at any time, to convert the subscription into a perpetual license. So if you wanted to get off the subscription, you could, and keep access to your prior work.

(Emphasis added)

Yeah, that's my problem there. I don't really care how powerful it is once you invest the time to learn it, if it takes too long to learn it. This is still a hobby for me, and I don't want to turn it into a job. :)

Besides, with a lot of things that aren't simple to learn/use on their face, if you don't use it for a while, the knowledge fades, and you have to start the learning curve all over again. Another of my software design maxims: the stuff used least often is where the developer needs to put in the most work making it intuitive and easy to pick up. Because if you're not using it often enough to turn it into muscle memory, you're effectively re-learning to use it every time.

Interesting that you'd put it that way. For me, my raw developer is a bit like my programmer's text editor: it's a tool I use so often that the learning curve really doesn't matter. It's a lifelong commitment anyway.

On the other hand, software development is my job, and therefore I need to keep up efficiency. Which means I can't switch tools easily at work. For play, however, I can take the efficiency hit as often as I want. My current interest in DxO, for example, is mostly out of curiosity, and despite the fact that I'm quite proficient in darktable.

In general I find that I like to mix things up every now and then, to keep things from getting boring. Investing five hundred euros into such frivolities (DxO+FP+VP) is a bit much though.

Do you use everything in the software that intensely all the time, though? I find myself using some features all the time, and some features once every couple of weeks, and some features every other month... if that often. Which is, again, where the learning curve gets you.

Same here, though it's all in-house custom software. For an awful lot of my users, my software is maybe their third or fourth priority, so they can't invest that kind of time learning it; I have to make it easy to pick up and use when they don't use it very much of the day.

Take the project I was working on a few years ago, inventory management for a big metro school district; the librarian was the one stuck dealing with it at a lot of the schools, so you can imagine how much time they could devote to learning the software.

I guess it depends on what part of it is "play".

For me and photography, the photos are the "play" part; I don't enjoy playing with the photo software itself, I want it to get out of my way so I can spend more time with the photos. Spending time wrestling with the interface is the last thing I want.

You make a good point: when you're proficient with a workflow, you build up an inventory of techniques to deal with various problems. Rebuilding that arsenal in a new software takes a long time, since some problems are rare. While techniques can usually be translated between tools, they are rarely idiomatic, and there are often better ways than a straight translation.

On the other hand, I find that each new tool also teaches new techniques, which add to the arsenal even if you don't stick with the tool. Sort of how traveling to a foreign country changes your perspective about your home and expands your horizon.

That's true, because your software (or mine) is not central to their work. I'd argue, however, that a programmer's text editor or raw developer has a different role. We build our workflows around these tools, as opposed to integrating them into our work. Thus, they warrant investing time to learn them well. Life is short, however, so the number of tools that fall into this category is very small, and must be chosen wisely.

Fair enough. I definitely get some enjoyment out of playing with software, which may be at the heart of our different perspectives.

Thank you for this enlightening exchange, by the way.

Interesting observation, but that's not what I was talking about.

I was thinking of how some parts of a single program you might use all the time, others you use rarely - if at all. So with On1 Photo RAW, I use levels/color balancing all the time. The AI-flavored denoising I use sometimes; creative effect filters, rarely. (And I've never used focus stacking, to the point where I had to check the manual to answer @AlainCh2 's question above.) Since I use effect filters so little, I'm effectively re-learning each one from scratch every time I use it; that's why it's important, for me, to make the interface intuitive.

Or take the AI-flavored sharpening feature they added in a recent update. I've never been able to get my head around the way their old sharpening system worked, so I never used it. But the new punch-it-and-it-works addition... well, I often don't like the effect, but at least it's something I can use now.

It's a matter of where you put the focus.

I do enjoy playing with software... when that's what I'm focused on. Which is part of why I have a large collection of vintage computer hardware. :)

But when I'm focused on something else, I want the software to get out of my way, so I can do what I'm focused on without interference. When I'm reading historical articles on the web, for example, I want to focus on the articles, not messing with CSS settings in the browser. And when I'm focused on photos, I want to pay attention to the photos, not to wrangling the software to get the result I want.

You're welcome!

First I used PS elements. Then to LR CC.. To DXO and quickly back to LR. I have added Topaz denoise years back. Last Black Friday I got Photolab with a nice discount since I had an old version too. I use PL for denoise better pictures and then to LR (and maybe Topazfor sharpening) . Or just LR to Topaz. Also have Luminar AI an Neo. Never used Neo but use AI now and then :-) So basically I didn't switch but added :-)

I've done ACR, ACR in photoshop, lightroom, threepee, and AE. And right now, it's ACR all day, every day. Simpler. Cleaner. Faster. Don't have to do all that cataloging and building databases. If I had more exports, this workflow would probably change, but for now, just simple ACR.

I have never moved from RPP (RawPhotoProcessor). Simply the best.
Regards
Raul

I started with Canon DPP (Digital Photo Pro). Too slow.
I then purchased a copy of Adobe Photoshop Elements 2022 at black friday 2021. As I soon found out, it wasn't suitable. Element's version of ACR does not do lens corrections.
Next, I actually got a freebie from Canon - 3 months free of the Adobe Photography Plan. LrC worked way better than Elements/ACR. I paid a year of the Adobe subscription after that. I worked through a backlog of unprocessed RAWs using LrC. LrC was great, especially after the AI masking tools were added.
However, paying a subscription simply didn't make sense for me. I am a very low-budget photographer, and I was spending as much on software as I was on gear. I tried out various other paid options - ON1 PhotoRAW, DxO Photolab, etc. I was fixed on ON1 PhotoRAW 2023, and I followed it's development. When the program was actually released, however, it was pretty disappointing.
In the end I decided to not pay anything. I moved all my DAM to digikam. My plan is to learn and use darktable. Currently I'm having an easy life and using mostly OOC JPGs. The plan is to learn darktable (eventually).

Removed a double post.

I started in digital photography back in the day when Lightroom was still in beta, so my initial raw conversions were with ACR/Bridge. I was happy using Lightroom up to version 6 but really didn't want to rent my software so for a few years I experimented with Darktable and DxO, with DxO PhotoLab being my converter of choice in that time. Recently I've had to have access to Lightroom and Photoshop again so with some reluctance I'm paying the yearly Adobe tithe.

I personally found Darktable too quirky and poorly documented for my needs. I admire the work the volunteer team has put into creating the software but it was just too janky for me. I still use DxO's noise reduction as part of my workflow when the need arises, but Lightroom is a solid all around option for both organization and processing so most of the time it's the only tool I use these days.

As a Sigma/Foveon shooter, I have never switched raw developers. Also, I have never "upgraded" to their latest version either.

I have tried developers by others but never for long enough to consider it a switch.

The Sigma Quattro cameras can save DNG files, which work in most image processors. Earlier Sigma cameras do need the program SPP to convert their raw files.
SPP is a tedious program, I think; but the results from my DP3M are almost worth the effort.

Don

I have 2 DSLR's that shoot RAW. The software for the first one is incompatible with the second one's RAW files, but the software for the second one is compatible with it's RAW files and is thus worthwhile.

Besides very occasional dabbles with gimp-dcraw, the first raw developer I used was Bibble Pro, which turned into Aftershot Pro.

Somewhere around 2014 or 2015 I ended up trying RawTherapee and quickly noticed that I was getting superior image quality from my images it without trying hard. Combined with Aftershot's rather glacial development pace and me preferring open-source solutions where available, I ditched Aftershot and never looked back.

When RawTherapee went a fairly long time without new releases, I tried Darktable and found it being way better than it had been when I had last tried it, maybe half a decade ago, so I moved mostly into using it. I haven't ditched RawTherapee (or its fork ART) completely, but I mostly prefer Darktable and use RT/ART as an alternative if I'm having a hard time with Darktable for a specific image.

As for the user interfaces, I guess I'm pretty adaptive; I'm pretty much at home with Windowmaker on Linux as my desktop environment rather than using so-called modern desktops (Gnome/KDE), and I switch between vi/emacs/VS Code as my editors of choice, depending on what I'm working on in my day job as software developer (although to be honest, in case of customer-provided laptops etc, I mostly just choose Ubuntu and Gnome; it's more convenient to use the same tools the customer developers use too) .