If you want a package that is:
* proprietary
* based on secret algortihms
* doesn't tell you which digital filters are information-lossy
* doesn't keep track of how much information has been lost from your original photo
* doesn't display the image file as it will appear in the final image (e.g., paper dprint, or different monitor
type or size)
then you are in luck, because every commercial package meets those requirements.
Only the contractor who wrote a particular routine knows what it actually does to your
image. For example, different "sharpen" routines work differently, but as they are all
secret and no one is paid to compare them, no one knows which is best--or how much
damage it does to gradation or how many digitital "artifacts" it creates.
But hey, what you don't know can't hurt you, right? And if you can't trust software
vendors, who can you trust?
Some have more features than others, and some re easier to use than others, but all
assume that the monitor on which you are runnning the program is how you plan to
display the final print.
Of course, monitors differ widely in size, resolution and dynamic range, and and paper
prints can be any size and always have less dynamic range (even than an LCD/LED
monitor). But what--you-see determines what-you-get, even if you plan to print or
display on a different type of monitor.
But surprises are nice, right?
It's sad that photography is now full of secret camera firmware and secret processing
software, but that's the price we pay for bringing computers into the game, and letting
them make decisions for us.
Photography is inherently optical, but it is only chemical, electrical, electronic or
computerized if you want it to be. And its possibe to shoot film and print digitally
(by scanning the negative), or shoot digital and contact print (by computer printing
a transparency. There are many ways to skin a cat.
If you want a package that is: br * proprietary br... (