[Thad E Ginathom]

Nice! Especially at this time when we are not going out together, I am glad of my dry cabinet.

I got a Sirui 50 litre. It is about twice as much space as I really need (at least now, probably not in a year or two) and I have only a small camera bag, so I had the idea to put the bag in the cabinet too. It is really amazing how dry it feels when I take it out. It will act as a moisture buffer, at least for a while, when we do all go out again. If I outlive this virus!

[Amrik Singh]

Pandemic time is when you have nothing to do yet so much to do that we run short of time.

Here are some Filters of bygone era found lying at a place rarely reached.

Just want to know if these are any use with the modern day photography or it is just a waste of time even cleaning them

Set of Polarizing Filters





Angle Mirror attachment used for candid photographsy of unwilling subjects







.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by Amrik Singh

Just want to know if these are any use with the modern day photography or it is just a waste of time even cleaning them

Any typical black and while filters would be useless for digital cameras. They are specific to analog B&W film. Same for special color filters.

Polarizer filters are always great to have/use irrespective of type of camera. It brings an effect you simple can’t replicate in post processing.

Everything else, like the polariser is likely to be of use if you’re into filters. Next to polarisers I use various ND filters to get longer exposure times and help with dynamic range.

The rule of thumb for some photographers is to try and capture the image best in camera, rather than to try in post processing.

Whether to use a UV/skylight on a digital camera at all, for protection or otherwise is subject of endless debates on all photographer forum. I have stopped using these a long time ago.

The one thing with filters is of course it does affect the overall optics. So unless you have very good (very expensive) filters, you might argue not use them at all.

My little Benro filter set cost more than most good quality point and shoot cameras.

Jeroen

[Thad E Ginathom]

I put UV filters on my lenses. I do so with the knowledge that they will not protect from anything other than my clumsy fingerprints. In the event of a fall they may even do more harm than good.

[sachinayak]

Not sure if this is the right thread to post this message. I have been into serious amateur photography for many years. Earlier it was primarily about bird and wildlife photography, with my Canon Gear (Canon 40D + the 100-400L IS Lens, first generation). With 2 kids, travel to the forests just kept dwindling and finally i sold of my gear. Switched to Nikon Gear (Nikon D7200 + a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8 and Nikon 70-200 f/4) which would suffice for my general photography.

Subsequently, last year, when I started trekking, I could see the shortcoming of heavy photography equipment (as on summit days or tough days, i would just leave my photography gear in my packed baggage). I invested in a budget mobile phone, with unbelievable photography capability (the Google Pixel 3A). I was amazed at the quality of pictures this would take. Computational photography certainly has made unbelievable advances. Even now, so long as I do not need a zoomed-in view, even with my DSLR around with a fast wide-angle lens, I still end up with my cellphone camera as the first choice.

The latest experiment with my phone was to test the unbelievable low-light capability of the in-built camera using Pixel Night Sight and sharing results of what I took handheld (with my phone supported on a railing) for a 1-minute shot in almost pitch darkness. Came out totally impressed.

[JMaruru]

I wouldn't know this is the right thread for this question. If NOT request mods to move this to one of the same.

I would like to know which would be the best RAW image edit tool out there?
Any free to download for personal use? Please advise!

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by JMaruru

I wouldn't know this is the right thread for this question. If NOT request mods to move this to one of the same.

I would like to know which would be the best RAW image edit tool out there?
Any free to download for personal use? Please advise!

I use the Nikon supplied Capture NX-D.
. It is free.
. It reproduces the colours perfectly.
. You have a lot of options in manipulating the images.
. It is not Photoshop, so image manipulations and selective masking is not there.

Overall it is perfect for processing Nikon RAW images.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Best? No idea. Probably different people will give different answers!

Free? Certainly! Check out Rawtherapee or Darkroom, to name but two. They are native to the Linux environment, but I think Windows versions are available.

Best and Free, is it possible? Both are highly spoken of. Both have many many features, overwhelming at first, but maybe Lightroom is too. A YouTube tutorial or two will focus you in on how to get quick and easy results. You can then dip into the deeper stuff, and the multiple ways/choices, at your leisure.

I use Linux, so Lightroom, etc is not an option for me. I use Rawtherapee. Have to admit, though, that when ooc jpeg is good, or just needs quick level adjust in GIMP, I use that.

[Aiel]

Originally Posted by JMaruru

I would like to know which would be the best RAW image edit tool out there? Any free to download for personal use? Please advise!

If you are using Canon equipment, I have found Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) to be brilliant for editing RAW files.

It is free, once you have provided your Canon product details.

[JMaruru]

Originally Posted by Aroy

I use the Nikon supplied Capture NX-D.

Originally Posted by Aiel

If you are using Canon equipment, I have found Canon Digital Photo Professional (DPP) to be brilliant for editing RAW files.

My equipment is Sony 'Nex-5N'. Hope these tools work with RAW images produced by Sony.

[ampere]

Originally Posted by JMaruru

My equipment is Sony 'Nex-5N'. Hope these tools work with RAW images produced by Sony.

No I guess they wont. The most standard solution these days is only the one from Adobe. But the creative cloud will make you spend about 11-12k/year.

Raw Therapee works for many. I have not tried.

For my Canon set-up DPP-4 works very well on my 7D-II generated raw. But since I also use Sony, I chose to pay the cash. Overall it standardizes your work flow very well.

[Thad E Ginathom]

Sony has a relationship with Capture One. There used to be a free version, a quick look at their site seems to show 30-day trial and then around 5k to buy.

As I have no Windows system, I cannot run any of the major commercial photo/graphics software (not even, as far as I know, in Wine) so I have no experience. Corel is the only paid-software maker to sell a Linux version: I have it, but still choose to use Rawtherapee/GIMP.

It is incidental, but it matters these days: I would not sell myself to the increasingly-popular blood-for-life subscription/cloud model people, so even if I had a Windows PC/licence I would exclude Adobe.

[earthian]

Originally Posted by Thad E Ginathom

I would not sell myself to the increasingly-popular blood-for-life subscription/cloud model people, so even if I had a Windows PC/licence I would exclude Adobe.

I have the LR 6 perpetual licence. The last offered. No more support or updates from Adobe. BUT i shall not ever go for the subscription model. Never.

The goal posts get shifted conveniently, based on the business model currently in vogue. Though there has been protests about scrapping the perpetual licence by Adobe, they don't seem to care. Evidently, the majority of their customers are commercial photographers who don't seem to mind the monthly subscription fee model. Amateurs? Who wants them?

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by earthian

I have the LR 6 perpetual licence. The last offered. No more support or updates from Adobe. BUT i shall not ever go for the subscription model. Never.

The goal posts get shifted conveniently, based on the business model currently in vogue. Though there has been protests about scrapping the perpetual licence by Adobe, they don't seem to care. Evidently, the majority of their customers are commercial photographers who don't seem to mind the monthly subscription fee model. Amateurs? Who wants them?

I am also still using the perpetual license on LR6. But at some point in time I will move to the new model. Just because there are more features available.

I am not so sure, but I would think the amateur users of both LR and Photoshop outnumber the professionals by a very large margin. (although Adobe always describes their market share as 90% of the creative professionals.)

If anything LR and Photoshop have and still are for many professionals and amateurs the default editing programs. In all honesty, I used to upgrade both LR and Photoshop whenever new releases came out. So I have spend quite a bit of money on licenses for LR and Photoshop in the past.

In fact, if I am very honest the license model would probably work out slightly cheaper because they are bundling LR and Photoshop.

So we have always been paying to go from one release to the next. (e.g. from LR5 to LR6). In that sense the new licensing model is nothing new. But under the current usage model, you pay for usage and feature in a monthly fee. Whether that works out more expensive compared to the old model? Like I said, I don’t think so. The problem starts when you don’t want to upgrade, or upgrade at a lower pace. A perpetual license tends to work out cheaper, on the negative side, you’re editing software doesn’t evolve. (which for many is not that big a thing, at least for a while)

Jeroen

[DaptChatterjee]

Originally Posted by JMaruru

My equipment is Sony 'Nex-5N'. Hope these tools work with RAW images produced by Sony.

Sony has a similar free software called Imaging Edge. I have not used it as I have Nikon gear but worth a look for you, supports Nex-5N.