How good is AfterShot Pro 3 compared to other RAW editors such as Capture One?

[jungleexplorer]

So, a few years ago, I bought a Sony iclc camera and it came with an offer for a free copy of Capture One. I had never worked with RAW files before and did not see the point until I started working with Capture One. It really opened my eyes to the expanded possibilities of working with RAW files. But my copy of Capture One is limited to only opening files that were captured on a Sony ICLC camera. I used to shoot with a Pentax camera and have many PEF files from that camera that I would like to play with, but I cannot work with them in Capture One. I recently upgraded to PaintShop 2021 Ultimate and it came with a free copy of AfterShot 3. I was pretty excited to try it out on some of my old PEF files. I opened some and I was immediately disappointed in the options it offered for working on RAW files. I mean, it really only has the very basic minimum of photo editing and enhancement option. I bet I could find a much better editor for free out there with ease.

So an AD popped up in the AfterShot 3 program offering an upgrade to AfterShot Pro 3 for only $19.99. Now that is a pretty low price and I would not mind paying if, I am going to really get something. I mean, I can get Abobe Essentials for only $49.99 right now. So, my question is, how much of a difference is there between AfterShot 3 and AfterShot Pro 3? It had better be a pretty big improvement, if you ask me, because there is not much to AfterShot 3 basic. Comparing AfterShot Pro to Capture One, how would you rate them against each other? Or should I just spend an extra $30 and grab Adobe Essentials for $50 while it is on Cyber Monday extended sale?

[Voiceofexperience]

If I wanted to use a musical analogy, I'd say that Capture One is a Mahler symphony; AfterShot 3 is like randomly banging a dustbin lid with a dog-dirt covered stick - and you're holding the end of the stick the dog got to...

[jungleexplorer]

So I take it you are not too impressed with AfterShot.

[bcoley]

I don't know that anyone is following this thread, but I want to add a few comments on the ASP3 v. Capture One question.

I was a BIG fan of ASP, immediately and eagerly purchasing each new release. The fact that Corel didn't produce an ASP4 in 2017 or 2018 didn't bother me much, as the program met my needs as a nascent photographer. But in 2019, as my skills grew, so did my impatience with the absence of an update. So at some point in that year I sent an email to the company's customer support team asking whether ASP4 was in the works. After an exchange of three or four emails, a representative finally told me that Corel was working on ASP4 at that time. That turned out not to be true; what Corel was working on at that time was a collection of new camera profiles for use in ASP3. By then, it had been more than three years since the release of ASP3, so I concluded there wasn't going to be an ASP4 and decided to purchase Capture One (a decision aided by the fact that in November of 2019, Capture One offered the then-forthcoming version 20 free to those who purchased version 12). I've not made a better decision when it comes to computer software.

In short, Capture One is FAR superior to ASP. Yes, there is a steeper learning curve and it takes time to adjust to the myriad of customization options available to the CO user, but tutorial and webinar support, both from the CO website and on Youtube, is superb, and the results on images processed by the application are stunning. Other than cost of purchase (CO Pro full version license costs $299; annual upgrades to new versions are $159, less 20% if purchased during pre-release offer; camera brand-specific versions are $129) and simplicity of use, I can't think of a way in which CO isn't FAR, FAR better than ASP; it's truly not even close.

If in the future Corel somehow releases ASP4, I'll be happy for the company and for the people whose needs it meets, but I won't buy it. I'm now a CO convert.

[Voiceofexperience]

So I take it you are not too impressed with AfterShot.

It is - without a shadow of a doubt - by far the worst commercially-available converter on the market, by a huge margin.

And I speak as someone who was using and supporting it way back from its original incarnation, Bibble.

Bibble was far from perfect - its highlight recovery capabilities stunk, for example - and many (if not most) of the bugs and other image quality failings that we users brought to the attention of the Bibble developers still exist in AfterShot to this very day.

I'm not just "not impressed" by AfterShot, I'm disgusted by it, and by Corel's continuing marketing of it as a viable solution.

It's truly abysmal, even judged in isolation. But compared with other software (I'm very familiar with Capture One; I used to be an official beta tester for what was then DxO Optics; and I was on the Adobe Certified Professional (LightRoom) program - I know my stuff) it's a disgrace that Corel has the nerve to charge money for it.

[Arnfinn]

I have used it as my main raw converter since back in the days before Corel purchased it and it was developed under the name Bibble Pro. Actually, Bibble was one of the first raw converters ever, of not the very first. It was always a bit buggy and development and bux fixes was slow, but they did a few very clever coding that in many ways was ahead of its competition, except those dreadful highlight recovery capabilities. Then Corel purchased the whole thing, renamed it to ASP and mothballed it to all current and new customers great frustration.

Too bad Corel didn't invest anything into its development when they had the opportunity and their lead in technology. They had their chances a decade ago.

It was a good product 10 years ago, and now it's almost exactly the same as it was those same 10 years ago. Where its competitors have rolled out new innovative functions with each major and minor update, Corel has focused most of its updates since V2.x on incorporating new camera profiles and a SnugMug integration. That's mostly what's happened at Corel for ASP during the past decade. It's not a bad product if you consider 10 years old vintage technology as your go-to solution, but put a few more dollars on the table and get a more up-to-date solution with better options, better workflow and better results. I now mainly use Photoshop, ON1, DxO PhotoLab, and Topaz AI series plugins. But as everything, it's cheap and if it suits your needs, by all means...

[jknights]

I agree with @Arnfinn.

I now use CaptureOne Pro as it is an excellent product.
However trying to compare a Skoda (even after being acquired by VW) with a Rolls Royce is not a good comparison. You need to compare with similarly priced softwares.
I suggest that Darktable is very good and free as is LightZone but they are different with maybe a less good or easy to use user interface.
You need to choose a software that suits you not what others think is better.

[Voiceofexperience]

You need to choose a software that suits you not what others think is better

But when nobody even tries to argue that AfterShot is "better" - well, that's a data point which can safely be taken at face value...

And no, it doesn't get a pass because it's cheap: not when there are free converters which massively outperform it.

The fact is that it's cheap because that's all it's worth - and many would dispute that it even reaches that low threshold.

[grubernd]

Well, to answer the original question ..
any running converter is indefinitely better than one that does not.

I could not install ASP after I upgraded to debian10. That was in 2020.
debian 10 had been officially around for more than a year,
more if you count the slow and predictable debian upgrade cycle.
Enough time to fix various dependency hickups even for a Junior Dev.

I installed darktable, learned a lot and never looked back.

Which makes me a little sad, I have been using Bibble happily since 2004.
Was a betatester and forum mod with a passion for the tool.
But those days are over, the original team we had so much fun with is long gone.
Corel does what Corel always does, milking software to a slow and cruesome death.

[Mick2034]

Hi,
I would like to switch to darktable (the sooner the better !) but to you have some scripts to convert the .xmp files from Aftershot to Darktable (at least to get the ratings and the metadata).
I am about to write some Perl scripts do to that but if anything exist I would be happy to start from that instead of starting from scratch...
Thanks.

[grubernd]

From my own switch-over I can tell you that the differences in editing are way too different to transfer any editing settings over. Especially with the modern scene referred workflow which is highly recommended.

For the metadata like caption etc you should write regular xmp-files from Aftershot and darktable should pick them up. But then darktable uses a different approach how to structure metadata, so you will very likely need some custom scripting anyway. Besides, I have not done anything in that regard.

[Mick2034]

Hi,
Many thanks for your inputs.
I have started to write the regular xmp files, but the labels and tags are not present...
I will also try to get the crop and the "straighten". Its not as trivial as expected but it seems possible.
I really would like to convert as many fields as possible before the switch...

[Voiceofexperience]

any running converter is indefinitely better than one that does not.

Even that is demonstrably untrue where AfterShot Pro is concerned: an OOC jpeg, or the embedded jpeg-based version of the image as shown by image viewers like Irfanview (for Windows) is invariably better than an AfterShot conversion.