Why did you switch raw developers?

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) .

I just bought Photoshop elements '23. It's pretty good. m4/3 has inbuilt lens corrections, so that isn't a problem for me with Elements. It's moved on a bit since the last version I bought, which was 9. About the only annoyance with it, is that for some crazy reason it doesn't have any CA correction tools.
The panorama stitching feature is worth the price of admission all on its own. It's very very good. I think I only changed to get the ability to work with layers, if I wanted to do something a little bit more advanced. Been playing with Darktable & the Gimp for a couple of months, Elements is much more intuitive than those.
And for a one off $116 Au payment, it's cheap as chips really.

When I started photography again in digital after a long hiatus from film, I wanted to understand the medium as well as I did with film (not that I understood film that well, in my stupidity-laced youth... :D ). So, I ended up writing my own raw processor, coding each operation from a combination of figuring out the algorithm myself or pulling code from others, with the proper license of course. In doing that, I learned the raw processing process soup-to-nuts, no surprises in my renditions.

Sounds tedious, but I wrapped it in an interface that allows both specific control of the toolchain as well as convenience defaults. I also decided early to embed the toolchain that made the rendition in the rendition (JPEG, mostly) file. That has proved to be a conceptually significant factor in my workflow, where I have only two types of files: 1) raw data files from the scene, and 2) various renditions of that raw data for different purposes. I sometimes produce intermediate renditions to take to other programs for work my raw processor doesn't support, but it's still just a rendition.

As I've moved into other aspects of photography such as camera profiling, it's become important to produce renditions that don't have such default processing like the tone curve or even white balance (ha, did you know you can white balance an image by just making a target-shot camera profile that isn't white balanced? Rather tedious way to do it, but it works quite nicely...). Even to make a standard target-shot camera profile you need to have a "scene-linear" rendition to feed the profile software, and with my software I can reliably apply a toolchain specifically for that objective.

So, to the intent of the thread, I really didn't "switch". I just looked at the others at the beginning, and decided to go my own way...

rawproc - Github

I started off with dpp4 because I had a canon camera. When I switched to micro 4/3 I switched to Darktable as a cost effective way to try a more complex editor that provided a wider range lens corrections. Ironically, there were no corrections for the lens I used the most, the Panasonic 100-300 tele. I do like the access to more advanced processing though.

I do struggle with Darktable as I do not find their menu system intuitive, particularly image management.

Like other here, this is a hobby for me. With my workload lately, I barely have time for photography let alone playing with complex software. I'm curious to hear the experiences of those moving from Darktable to DXO as DXO appears to be the noise reduction gold standard and it would be nice to have everything in one package rather than having to convert raws to an intermediate format to do further editing.

You are a tremendous inspiration, Glenn!

If I should ever have enough free time, I'd love to follow in your footsteps.

Could you elaborate on that concept? What other types of files could there be?

I made the Darktable to DxO transition when my Linux laptop died and I bought an M1 Macbook Air. PhotoLab was not very expensive when purchased the week of so-called Black Friday. I liked Darktable, especially on Linux, but PhotoLab is easier to use.

With Darktable, I could recompile code to support a new camera. The downside of PhotoLab is laggy support for new cameras and lenses (no X-S20 yet) but your Panny 100-300 is on their list. For organization, PhotoLab can use the regular filesystem no problem.

I really really liked Lightroom. It did 99% of anything I ever wanted to do with my photography. As a rank amateur. I did hate the catalogue system though. With a passion. Major PITA if you ever changed/upgraded computers, & Adobe seemed to want to infiltrate & take over your whole system. When they brought in the drip feed forever tax, that was enough to make me jump ship. Being a Panasonic user, SilkyPix was the natural progression for me, as I'd played with it a bit being the supplied software with the camera purchase. The Panasonic only Pro versions are very very reasonably priced on sale, you could comfortably upgrade every 12-18 months if you felt the need, for a fraction of the price of Adobe products. I still have the current Silkypix Pro 11 software on my desktop & laptop, it's great software.
When I noticed that Elements was still available as a one off purchase, I thought I'd give it a try. And happy that I did. You don't HAVE to import files into their catalogue system, all edits are simply in an XMP? file along with the originals. Very very easy to keep both together, & shift them around exactly wherever YOU want. I like the more natural colours of Panasonic, Elements does a very good job of replicating them, & also recognises the camera settings on import. Saves a bit of dicking around, quick & simple.
Elements also seems to have taken big strides in noise reduction with Camera raw in the latest version. I also have standalone Pure raw, it seems to be just as good as that. So far, I'm rather pleased with the addition of elements.

Yeow, if you follow my footsteps you'll end up in the swamp... 😆

raw/rendition is really pretty simple. For any rendition I need, e.g., proof image, I start with the raw file and process it to a 800x600 JPEG. Yeah, kinda small, but those usually display nicely on web pages and are easy to email or post to websites over slow internets (they're out there, I'm posting this through one now). I usually do this with a batch tool for my day's or event's shooting.

Now, what my raw processor does is to store the toolchain in the metadata of the proof JPEG, no sidecar crap. That way, the recipe follows that rendition around with no extra hassle. I really think this is a better way to manage image processing...

Then, I have a special open menu item, "Open Source..." (not a great name, overloaded with FOSS, oh well...), and that menu selection will first extract the metadata from, say, a proof JPEG, and if the toolchain is present will instead open the source file of the toolchain and re-apply the toolchain processing. So, you end up at the same point as just before the original JPEG was saved. Now, I can alter that toolchain, e.g., delete the proof resize and sharpen tools, and then save the image as a new, full-sized JPEG, a second rendition. This also works for TIFFs and PNGs, the other image formats rawproc currently supports.

So, for any other rendition, I usually use the proof JPEG with its embedded toolchain to start with the original raw file and processing I like.

Now, my software has tools to support it, but I think the raw/rendition thinking can be applied with most any software. The key point is, always start with the raw file...

FWIW, YMMV, all dat...

That's a very interesting approach! I like it. Thank you.

Really?
I might just try PSE 23 if that's so.

There's a trial version you can try for 30? days. Give it a try, see what you think

Why did I switch? I didn't!

Lightroom started as Rawshooter Pro about 20 years ago. Then Adobe bought them and it became Lightroom. I've been there since the start. I'm too old to want to try and learn new tricks.

At first I was hesitant about the subscription model. But Lightroom has motored ahead since its adoption. The added features justify the cost. And it's not really any more expensive than the old model of buying an upgrade every year or two.

I put dislike of subscription in the same folder as buying third party batteries. A false economy.

I understand that some folk are on a tight budget. But, equally, there are folk that think nothing of spending over $5000 on gear and then moan about battery and/or software cost............

When PhotoShop was over £500 in the UK with charges for upgrades I used free early versions of what is now Nikon Studio.
For Nikon shooters Studio is the best free software though being free not the most advanced or quickest to use.

When Adobe Cloud Lightroom/PhotoShop became relatively affordable (currently under £10 a month in the UK) I switched - getting many free upgrades.

Recently Adobe Cloud was lagging for denoise but with recent extensive layers in Lightroom in seconds, denoise and advanced AI, I consider it now the front runner at a cost of about 3 coffees a month.
Adobe Cloud includes free website hosting and considerable free cloud file storage.

There are of course other packages - but right now overall little if anything to match Adobe Cloud for features and a relatively affordable monthly payment - or less if you opt to pay annually.

I'm not on a tight budget, nor am I moaning about software cost. I simply hate the subscription model vehemently. Probably much of the reason I'm not on a tight budget.

^ Yeah, renting a piece of software for one year is dumb no matter how much money you have, and people who have money know that it is dumb better than anyone.

So avoiding subscribing to software is a matter of budget after all. Thanks for confirming.

false analogy - better analogy is what HP does with printers and ink :-)

subscription and the need for online activation regardless of the model ... both make sure that you do not really own what you paid for ( if you want to stay clean of course )

The idea that a software would not be improved or updated if it did not force subscription upon its users is the false economy.