It doesn't make any sense for Canon to incorporate the code to open Nikon .nef files in it's software, for instance. Of course they could if they wanted. It ain't secret code, uncrackable by anyone outside Nikon. Otherwise how could Adobe open raws from any and every new camera in their software with updates?

This is quite the same as being able to view QuickTime files on computers other than Macs. Just because Apple developed that particular file type does not mean that it looks any better in QuickTime Player than in VLC Lan, or that your Word document looks better in Microsoft Office.

It is true that different programs, after opening a raw file, have a different "starting point" of how they interpret the data to create a viewable file, but where it goes from there depends on you and your skill, and the capability of the controls in the raw editor.

And it is also true that a given manufacturer, knowing the problems and weakness with their own sensors and lenses, can use the EXIF data to correct for that. For instance, if a manufacturer knows the levels of vignetting and chromatic aberration of one of their lenses at a given aperture, and the distortion at a given focal length of a zoom lens, they can write code that will automatically correct for that when the program sees that data in the EXIF. Certainly that is useful, but it is not because they have secret data in the raw file that others cannot crack. DxO Optics Pro, for instance, makes downloadable correction modules for hundreds, if not thousands, of lens/body combinations, that are arguably better than what proprietary makes inculde in theirs.

I'm not knocking proprietary software, but we shouldn't propagate myths here.

Ron, thank you for taking the time to visit this thread and for your interesting and welcome comments.

I have been researching and talking to several professionals about all this including an electronic engineer that deals with computer and programs, not necessarily related to photography. He also told me that if I wanted the best in the file when printing I had to use the proprietary software made by the camera manufacturer. Some of the professional photographers I talked to had no idea while one in specific, a wedding photographer, told me that in the monitor of my computer ALL files regardless of editor will look great. He is right.
When it comes to show his clients the best that he can offer he works with Capture NX2, an excellent software that is no longer available or supported by Nikon. As you know, that program has been replaced by Nikon NX-D that incorporates many of the features of Capture NX2.

When I talked to the Chief Technician at the professional color lab it was when I really understood what the camera manufacturer does. The software is designed to work the RAW data recognizing the file extension and that same file extension is recognized by ALL other RAW editors but the secrets of developing the true colors of the camera is only mastered by the software made for the camera by its manufacturer. As I said, landscapes are not that critical but when it comes to skin colors it does matter.

I downloaded Capture NX-D and Olympus Workspace to use as the main editor for my RAW data from those cameras. Now Affinity Photo or Photoshop will be what I will use for further refinements on those files once converted to TIFF.
The technician told me during our conversation that many photographers doing weddings and using other softwares have complained to him that their prints do not have accurate skin colors and he has gone with them through all that we have discussed so that they can improve on their photography. One thing is to look at the image in the monitor and another to print it. For internet use ALL editors will do an excellent job.

Once again, thank you for your interesting comments.

Hi. I'm hoping to find a simple way to use median or average blending to combine multiple exposures. I'm hoping I don't have to buy a whole editor just to get that feature, but if it wasn't silly money I would consider it. I already have the Nik collection but I'm not familiar with it as yet and I wouldn't even know where to start looking for that feature. If all else fails I would be willing to buy something like On1 which isn't too expensive and has other features that I would find useful, but I'm hoping to find a cheaper and simpler option.

I've read a little about ImageMagic and it sounded very interesting but haven't downloaded it yet so I haven't a clue how user-friendly it is. I suspect that Ps Elements has that feature but my experience of Elements is that whenever you want to do something useful with it, it takes a drop to 8 bit processing - which I don't care for.

Median blending sounded more interesting than average blending, but if I found a simple way to do average blending that didn't involve too much expense or too much of a learning curve I would consider that.

I would be very grateful for your thoughts, suggestions and/or experiences with that feature. My main editor is Lightroom 6.

RG.

Yes, I know that a lot of people say "Sierras" rather than "Sierra." A lot of people don't know when to use capitalization. A lot of people confuse "lose" with "loose." All of those errors are much more common than they used to be, for wh**ever reason.

Your statement that some police overlook law breaking by those whom they have decided are "law abiding citizens" is true, unfortunately, and that is a big problem. That statement is also extraordinarily political, since who is and who is not "law abiding" has nothing to do with who is actually abiding by the law, as you made very clear. Where the law in arbitrarily and unequally applied, there is no law. The attitude you are expressing is undermining the rule of law, and that is placing us all at greater risk.

They don't overlook breaking the law. In these remote areas there are so many places they can be at once. All they are saying is that "YOU" had best be prepared to protect your self until help arrives. If you should be out in the wilderness, they won't be there till it is too late. Common Sense.

I believe that you do not see your own politics as political. Only those disagreeing with you are "being political," I suppose, although I have scrupulously avoided making any political statements whatsoever.

What politics??????

People with whom you identify are "law abiding" whether or not they are breaking the law, and you think it is fine if law enforcement officers share that bizarre view of the law. People with whom you identify are not being political, no matter what statements they make.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Unless you are a felon, mentally challenged, or for some other reason, you are allowed to have a legal firearm.

I have not recommended that people do not recommend standing up for themselves, or their loved ones. I haven't made any argument against firearms, either.

Not directly, but the implication is there.

Why shoot snakes? There is no reason to be shooting snakes. Again, I am questioning the judgement of people who have been posting absurd ideas like that, and I am saying that it is people who are armed along with being fearful, suspicious and ignorant who are the greatest risk to all of us.

Because not all Rattlers will back off or let you back off.

How do I protect myself when out taking photographs? When I am on the trail I try to identify and avoid people like you. If I saw you shooting a protected animal, or shooting recklessly or in a prohibited area, or brandishing a weapon to threaten or intimidate others, I would not hesitate to report you.

Wow, that is getting pretty lame. What the hell makes you think I would be shooting protected animals or shooting in a protected area? What makes you think I would be brandishing a weapon to threaten or intimidate others? What makes you think I'm some Citified Yahoo that goes around shooting at anything and everything? If you did come across me, you would never know if I had a weapon or not. All you would see is an older duffer lugging a bunch of packing gear. I would also make damn sure to keep away from you or anyone else when I'm out. I'm out there to get away from people.

Your reading things into me that you know nothing about. Your just making your own assumptions.

I'd go easy on the coffee and sugar, too.

Why? Kept me going for Seventy plus years.

Mike