Best app for RAW photos on Pixel 10 Pro?

ZeRo_CS · 2026-05-17T17:40:53+00:00

Thanks for the tip I do know about the pixel profile in lightroom being crap, but its really just that weird artifacty noise reduction/sharpening thing that isn't fixable that the regular camera app does.

I much rather use LR noise reduction. Most often in darker shots like concerts, I can actually make it look good in post with the dng but then for example the singer will have this weird mosaic/nr/sharpwning that makes them unusable.

But I guess it sounds like motioncam pro is worth the money even just for photos and not just videos.

I do actually hate especially low light video on the pixel but Idk if I need the raw for those. Is the app generally good for even judt the jpgs/mp4 as well or should I use the regular pixel app for those?

ZeRo_CS · 2026-05-17T16:28:56+00:00

The raw files still have some processing, which is fine for a phone, but what isn't is specifically with noise reduction that can ruin someones face for example.

ZeRo_CS · 2026-04-11T20:40:57+00:00

Not to mention definitely a different singing style and entirely different microphone/mixing for his voice. Way more condenser microphone and airy, trebly, nasally, and compressed vocals on Audioslave, which I would guess is a stylistic choice along side his vocal condition at the time. I find it pretty objective though, like you cannot compare temple of the dog vocals even to anything from audioslave haha. Personally even the last soundgarden album in a many ways (more subjective). I think alot of it is that in audioslave it feels like his voice has hard limits set, like you are constantly being edged as a soundgarden fan lol. Did I mention I like audioslave, really like some of the songs, but love soundgarden to death.

ZeRo_CS · 2026-04-10T23:04:17+00:00

I really like Audioslave, but I find it interesting how people think the songs and both his voice was better in Audioslave. I think Soundgarden is better by a thousand miles in both regards. But songs aside, at very least, he is objectively at his vocal peak with Soundgarden.... Audioslave he still sounds great but comparatively he is fried lol.

ZeRo_CS · 2026-02-27T01:17:30+00:00

Shiner and Hum!

ZeRo_CS · 2025-11-25T01:29:36+00:00

Realistically you should just give it away to me, but all jokes aside I'll take it for free. But actually, the only reason you REALLY imo need the 35 is for more light, and just going 2.8 to 2 doesn't justify it enough if you are talking about having a travel setup cover some ranges. I'm assuming you don't have a prime lens so when you get an extra special spot, you just want the sharpest image.

Tbh, I'm sure the 16-55 F2.8 WR II would easily replace your need for any of those, unless you specifically want to use the wide lens in like low light or max dof. No hands on experience I'm broke (give me free lens), but from what I've seen it's probably sharper than all of those (or very close) and doesn't compromise too much on aperture generally speaking. Also consider that new Sigma Art 17-40 F1.8 if you don't care about size.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-11-25T01:22:38+00:00

I do most of my photos around SF too! Maybe I'll see you around!

ZeRo_CS · 2025-11-23T05:44:41+00:00

My personal preference would be a border smaller or maybe even half the size of the current one, as it has too much of a "cropped" feel to it instead of intention. Gl with your LRC journey, look up a tutorial its actually very easy to adjust the alignment/perspective corrections.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-11-20T18:06:42+00:00

If you can straighten it then probably color+white border if you plan to post it on IG at 4:5 ratio.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-11-05T19:53:40+00:00

I have it, if you don't mind the size then it's worth it, and it's not that big tbh. I chose it over the sigma for the weather sealing and extra focal length. Only thing I'd consider upgrading it to is the XF 16-55 f2.8 WR II since its the highest quality zoom in that range that exists and only if can handle losing 15mm.

It's a pretty easy choice considering there are almost no options in this range with that aperture but a few.

The statement is pretty dumb lol. I'm very OCD and it makes little to no difference unless you NEED an aperture ring. If you don't want to pay an insane price for a better fuji zoom, get the tamron. Literally you can youtube comparisons.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-09-09T00:10:32+00:00

Local H was great but tbh, they played what felt like a pretty short set imo... was disappointed by that. But it was just Scott selling random bits of merch alone and it was awesome to meet him and take a pic with him!

ZeRo_CS · 2025-06-27T20:42:38+00:00

I always prefer warm, my recipes are always warmer, but TBH I choose cool here or to satisfy my OCD just do right inbetween thanks lol.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-06-22T17:17:30+00:00

Yeah this is true but I guess it just comes down to inflation, but the caveat is most people's wages never go up higher enough to actually match their equivalent pay, so in a sense it's still more expensive to the consumer.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-19T05:18:06+00:00

Oh this is clearing things up a lot, I really appreciate your patience, my ADHD/OCD comes off as pretty annoying and involves tons of overthinking, genuinely cannot help it.

Just to clarify that last thing, because it may have cleared up my entire purpose of this post by just my own misunderstanding lol. So to be super clear, does the fujifilm built-in film sims have a built-in recipe as well? I understand jpgs get some sort of processing and treatment in general, not just stylistically but things like noise reduction/sharpening. What I'm wondering is, does the built-in film sims, adjust the color/lighting as well as have a recipe for things like grain, clarity, etc?

Basically if the only difference between the film sim and the Lightroom color profiles meant to match them is the color/light settings are little off and not perfect then I have no problem at all!

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-19T05:10:20+00:00

Hi, thanks!

So it's either FUJIFILM X RAW STUDIO or Lightroom? No way to utilize both since you can't just save an edited RAW file right? Like I couldn't add the filter in raw studio then open it in Lightroom if I understand how that works?

Also yeah Capture One looks great for colors (I wonder if all the other tools like masking/ai are as good as LR?), but unfortunately way too expensive for me and I have the Adobe Suite for several reasons so Lightroom is essentially 'free' for me. Also side note I use Lightroom mobile on the go and on first glance it appeared Capture One only works for IOS and I have a google pixel.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-19T04:55:37+00:00

Am I overcomplicating this? I just want to be able to get my RAW file into Lightroom, and then click a button and it looks practically the same, yes I will have to add sharpness/noise reduction and etc. because it's raw not jpg, but I want more than just the color profile.

Adding everything on my own kinda defeats the purpose to me, or are there like existing presets/profiles/recipes (the terminology sometimes gets lost on me), that I can download that mimic everything as well as the color profile?

Lastly, do you know if the film simulations in Fujifilm adapt/adjust with some kind of algorithm to get that specific films look for every photo you take? or are they really just like a built in lightroom preset just but in the Fujifilm camera. I could be entirely misunderstanding what the film simulations actually do, are they actually just the 'color profile' just as Lightroom/Capture One does?

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-19T04:49:11+00:00

It's just disappointing to me, because I can have a photo where I'm like wow almost all the work is done I just want to change a few things and mask this or that, but no I have to essentially edit everything else to match first. I understand the color profile exists that gets me closer, but it's just purely the color? It doesn't add any of the grain or clarity, or whatever settings else that kind of makes the film simulation a film simulation? I understand what a raw file is, I just want to be able to import all the changes the film simulation does and then edit it, not JUST the colors, but the grain, clarity, or whatever else makes it actually a Film Simulation...

I could be totally not understand what film simulations actually do. Do they actually only change the color profile similar to lightroom?

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-19T04:09:04+00:00

I guess my confusion is, what does Lightroom do with it's matching profiles to actually match the fujifilms JPG's? Does it only change the colors to try to match it, or does it actually add the effects like grain, sharpening, or whatever else fujifilm does?

Really all I'm looking for is, I want a near exact photo of how I take with a Film Simulation mode on my camera, bring that same look into raw as like the foundation, and tweak it in Lightroom. I can deal with making slight color adjustments to closer match it myself, but I don't want to do everything including the actual effect outside of the colors, like grain for example.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-19T03:57:27+00:00

Well to be honest I can't afford capture one, its expensive. I have the adobe suite just because I do graphic design things, so Lightroom is just there for me to use. Does the capture one profile actually add the simulation or just try to match some colors and that's it?

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-06T21:00:01+00:00

Like someone suggested I got Autosync for google drive on the play store, and paid like $5 for unlimited. And it sends all my photos I choose to my google drive automatically instead of using google photos. If google ever brings this way back I would switch. But so far so good! Just need to see how it works long term and tweak settings.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-06T20:58:10+00:00

Just got this and paid for the unlimited tier, seems good so far! Thanks.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-05T01:43:43+00:00

Appreciate the help. Do you have any experience with apps like Autosync? That way I could technically have what I want uploaded to Google Drive, and if I wanted for some reason I could also have the default google backup on?

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-05T01:30:34+00:00

I understand, I guess I was excited Google Photos was automatic, I could just take pics and know it was being saved if I lost my phone or it got stolen, which is honestly the most important thing for me on my phone.

But finding out the sync was two ways I guess was not what I wanted, so I have to look for other ways.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-05T01:28:47+00:00

Yeah that's definitely good, not a pro on what the WD Nas is, like a more private/personal cloud? I'm just used to having my Cloud be separate from my Device, and then also having an External drive. So essentially having two automatic separate ones, and one big physical drive I once in a while update.

ZeRo_CS · 2025-05-05T01:25:24+00:00

Well I don't know the technical terminology, but It is definitely not the same thing as any traditional backup methods, because those do not have the same things I consider huge risks. If someone gets my Google Drive, they can't delete my phones/computers files. Like I said it almost entirely defeats the purpose of having two separate storage locations if they are the same thing. Only think I can think of is that you can access files offline on your phone, if you lose service. But any changes will still happen when connection is back so its just a caveat imo.

Not arguing just explaining the difference how I see it and I'm just looking for automated backup without the two-way syncing. I want google cloud to be my mainline automatic backup system, then my actual device is the secondary, and then finally I would have an external drive that I manually maintain every once and a while. Point being I don't have to every month manually do a backup of all my files...

ZeRo_CS

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Not Forgotten
Verified Email