# Photo editing programs: Lightroom, Luminar, Affinity Photo, Darktable, FastStone, ACSDSee and more



## wordie (Jan 11, 2006)

For those of you running top end Mac hardware to handle your pics.... especially large RAW files, check out the new Lightroom  beta software that Adobe have just released.

It looks really good, considering it's a beta software release designed to give Apple a run for their money on the slow and clunky Aperture software. (And I say that as a dedicated Mac user....)

Adobe say they are working on a Windows version as well, which I guess Apple won't be doing.

Would be interesting to hear others opinions.


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jan 11, 2006)

I was gonna post a thread about this, but, tbh I'm never gonna use it anyway so I thought it a bit pointless. It looks good to me. My understanding is that you would use it as a lightbox (obviously) to select and make adjustments to your raw camera files before you import them into photoshop. I think you could miss out photoshop if you wanted to, innit? E.g. if you just wanted a quick sharpen, levels, resize and then convert to jpg. Would you also use it for similar purposes as what you'd use iView MediaPro for (i.e. cataloguing your finished images)?


----------



## wordie (Jan 11, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> I was gonna post a thread about this, but, tbh I'm never gonna use it anyway so I thought it a bit pointless. It looks good to me. My understanding is that you would use it as a lightbox (obviously) to select and make adjustments to your raw camera files before you import them into photoshop. I think you could miss out photoshop if you wanted to, innit? E.g. if you just wanted a quick sharpen, levels, resize and then convert to jpg. Would you also use it for similar purposes as what you'd use iView MediaPro for (i.e. cataloguing your finished images)?


Well I don't think the object is to miss out Photoshop. That would seem to defeat the object of the whole Adobe CS software. 

And yeah, I reckon it's an organisation tool in the style of iView but with some extra editing and cataloging tools, primarily designed to compete with Aperture, which only runs on a Mac G5 and is incredibly slow even then!

I downloaded the beta of Lightroom and it zipped along quite acceptably, and since I use Photoshop a lot, it looks like a better bet to me than Apple's new contender. Oh, and I can't use iPhoto as a library/organiser anyway... another piece of Apple software that simply doesn't work as fast as it's competitors...


----------



## editor (Jan 11, 2006)

I've just been sent a copy of ACDSee Pro and that looks pretty good too - http://www.acdsystems.com/

I've tried just about every photo management tool on the market, but still find myself going back to ACDSee for everyday tasks...


----------



## wordie (Jan 11, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> I've just been sent a copy of ACDSee Pro and that looks pretty good too - http://www.acdsystems.com/
> 
> I've tried just about every photo management tool on the market, but still find myself going back to ACDSee for everyday tasks...


That looks good Ed, but I can't even try it as it's a Win only app.... But it does look cheap in comparison to Aperture or even my current RAW processor/organisation software which is the exceptionally efficient, but way too expensive, Capture One Pro. 

ACDSee Pro looks like a very similar product to iView, which is both Mac and Win.

Does anyone know of a comparison of these different digital management tools anywhere on the web?


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2006)

wordie said:
			
		

> ACDSee Pro looks like a very similar product to iView, which is both Mac and Win.


I've got iView Media Pro and it's a great image management tool. 

Thing is, like all such programs you have to import your images into the program for them to be catalogued, whereas ACDSee is more of a digital management/image browser tool rolled in one.

I guess that's why I've always ended up going back to it despite some other programs being more powerful - it's just a lot more handy than using two programs.


----------



## wordie (Jan 12, 2006)

There's an interesting review of Adobe Lightroom here!


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2006)

wordie said:
			
		

> There's an interesting review of Adobe Lightroom here!


Gotta be logged in to read it   

Can you give us a summary please?


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2006)

In depth first impressions here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml


----------



## wordie (Jan 12, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> Gotta be logged in to read it
> 
> Can you give us a summary please?


Sorry.... forgot about that!
Here's the bottom line.


> CONCLUSION
> 
> Adobe has come out with a product that will appeal to many photographers. It’s easy to use, intuitive, and fun to work with. It makes quick work of sorting, culling, keywording, and adjusting your photos. Edits are done to RAW files in a non-destructive manner. It can be used by itself, to create final output for web or print. It can be used in conjunction with Photoshop CS, CS2 or Elements, or your image editor of choice. For my work, it suits my style and workflow. Does it have a place in yours?



Additionally, there's a reprise of this review here! 

And you can browse Adobe's Lightroom forum here  although you may need an Adobe/Macromedia password if you want to post!


----------



## pengaleng (Jan 12, 2006)

I had a look at this yesterday actually on computer arts... I just breifly skimmed the article and the adobe site and thought naaah cant really see myself using that, I dont take enough pictures, I can kinda see how it might be useful though...


----------



## wordie (Jan 12, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> In depth first impressions here:
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/lightroom1.shtml



And this quote from that Lightroom review is pretty much how what I've heard about Aperture.....



> _If you've read my Aperture comments you'll know that I found the program to be almost unusable in its current form. Too slow on today's hardware, too many bugs, using a restrictive unitary database architecture, Mac only, fancy looking but under-featured, and not able to produce competitive raw conversions. I wrote that I believed that the program has great potential, but that in its current form I can't use it myself, or recommend it to others. Great promise though._


Shame really, but it costs way too much to be so slow..... Maybe Apple will get it running properly, but by then, most serious photogs will probably have gone with The new Adobe offering, to compliment their Photoshop software. I certainly will be.


----------



## sovietpop (Jan 12, 2006)

Are there any free photo organisational photo for macs that people would recommend (the Adobe demo ends in june)? For the PC apparently Picasa (googles product) is good, but its pc only.

I've been using iphoto 5 which has managed to loose all my cataloguing information twice, so I have to move on to a product that does what it says on the box.


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jan 12, 2006)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> Are there any free photo organisational photo for macs that people would recommend (the Adobe demo ends in june)? For the PC apparently Picasa (googles product) is good, but its pc only.
> 
> I've been using iphoto 5 which has managed to loose all my cataloguing information twice, so I have to move on to a product that does what it says on the box.


 I don't know of any free ones. I know of ones that you could obtain for free, but that would be illegal...

edit: Actually, you might be able to get Photoshop Album for free. It comes free with a lot of stuff like scanners and cameras. I don't know if it's any good though.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 12, 2006)

5T3R30TYP3 said:
			
		

> I don't know of any free ones. I know of ones that you could obtain for free, but that would be illegal...
> 
> edit: Actually, you might be able to get Photoshop Album for free. It comes free with a lot of stuff like scanners and cameras. I don't know if it's any good though.



iphoto 6 is supposed to be much better...,.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 12, 2006)

Hmm. I wondered why iView MediaPro 3 - released in November last year - had something called "lightboxes". I've not even tried them actually, but that's not a beta, it's a finished product that also does lots of other stuff. Perhaps Adobe's does more. Or, well, perhaps it doesn't.


----------



## wordie (Jan 12, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> iphoto 6 is supposed to be much better...,.


iPhoto is not really a very good organisational tool for digital media because it makes so many aliases of original files and puts them into folders that you can't name or store where you want. If you move something outside the heirarchy that Apple decides then it sort of screws up your organisation....

So, it may be simple for home users, but not really much good for people that need to orgaise and catalogue lots of images.

And it tends to be slow!


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 12, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> iphoto 6 is supposed to be much better...,.


It gets better with every revision, but it's still not much good for anyone but an occasional snapper. That's probably okay for a lot of the consumer market, but I'm not a pro and every version I've tried has absolutely choked on my photo album. Which is why I paid for MediaPro.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2006)

FridgeMagnet said:
			
		

> Hmm. I wondered why iView MediaPro 3 - released in November last year - had something called "lightboxes". I've not even tried them actually, but that's not a beta, it's a finished product that also does lots of other stuff. Perhaps Adobe's does more. Or, well, perhaps it doesn't.


The one thing that ACDSee has got which others don't appear to have (and I could be wrong here) is an 'image basket' which lets you make an ad hoc collection of images from all over your folders and then print/edit them ets. It can also look directly at new image folders without having to import them first, so it's a great all round image fiole browser.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 12, 2006)

Hard to say without having seen the image basket thing... I know that iView lets you organise items into arbitrary groups, and then only view/act on items in those groups. I use that for image galleries sometimes. I don't know if that's the same sort of thing.

An image browser would certainly be a good idea. At the moment if you want to import just one or two images from a folder into MediaPro, you have to drop them on from the Finder or go through an Open... dialog, which is not at all ideal.


----------



## Crispy (Jan 12, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> The one thing that ACDSee has got which others don't appear to have (and I could be wrong here) is an 'image basket' which lets you make an ad hoc collection of images from all over your folders and then print/edit them ets. It can also look directly at new image folders without having to import them first, so it's a great all round image fiole browser.



Picasa will do that (the basket thing) - there's always a box in the bottom left which shows the currently selected file(s). Click the 'hold' button next to it and you can go and select some more files.

When you go to import, you get a page of thumbnails in your source - so you can see what you're browsing before you import, but I expect ACDSee is a bit better on this one.

I'd really reccomend you give picasa a try, ed. I find it very useful. The fact that all the image edits are non-destructive is a real plus for me. When you've got to publish them somewhere, you can just export to a folder at a resolution of your choosing. It's incredibly easy to use and doesn't mess around with any of your folders or filenames (only downside is that its folder display is flat, ie no subfolders) Plus it's free!


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2006)

Crispy said:
			
		

> When you go to import, you get a page of thumbnails in your source - so you can see what you're browsing before you import, but I expect ACDSee is a bit better on this one.


I've had a look around but I suspect that with over 35,000 images I need something a bit more flexible and able to handle RAW.


----------



## wordie (Jan 12, 2006)

editor said:
			
		

> The one thing that ACDSee has got which others don't appear to have (and I could be wrong here) is an 'image basket' which lets you make an ad hoc collection of images from all over your folders and then print/edit them ets.


Well, as I understand it, you can make arbitrary collections with LightRoom, and as far as I'm aware you can do the same with iPhoto - in much the same way you create a playlist in iTunes.

You can also do it in Capture One Pro, but it's a fiddle.

Obviously, in both lightroom and iPhoto, you can then go on to edit and print from that collection, but if you want to do serious work on an image (or collection) you need to get out of both apps and get into PhotoShop.

To be blunt, I tend to use PhotoShop CS and it's browser as much as anything else, although I understand CS2 has got rid of the browser and has something called "Bridge" which is also supposed to be an organisation and cataloging tool....

Get's confusing doesn't it?


----------



## wordie (Jan 12, 2006)

This looks like an interesting place to learn everything you need to know about Lightroom.


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jan 12, 2006)

editor, 

can you do AND searches in ACDSee? For example if I wanted to make the program only display pictures that were in colour and were of bmx riders and were taken in Birmingham. iView doesn't let you do this, and at the time when I was using iView I was on a mac so couldn't have ACDSee. Now that I'm on Windows I'm thinking of getting it, but only if it lets me do AND searches....


----------



## sovietpop (Jan 15, 2006)

I've been playing with I View Media Pro and it looks pretty good. But I have a question. What is it like in terms of doing back ups of your photos? The problem I had with Iphoto is that when I backed up my photos and then copied them back onto my hard drive (after a crash), I lost all my folders etc etc etc. Will this happen with I View? Is it possible to back up the catalogue info?


----------



## snadge (Jan 15, 2006)

If people are after an excellent free raw converter for windows ( with loads of function) try this


----------



## 5T3R30TYP3 (Jan 16, 2006)

sovietpop said:
			
		

> I've been playing with I View Media Pro and it looks pretty good. But I have a question. What is it like in terms of doing back ups of your photos? The problem I had with Iphoto is that when I backed up my photos and then copied them back onto my hard drive (after a crash), I lost all my folders etc etc etc. Will this happen with I View? Is it possible to back up the catalogue info?


 I'm pretty sure this is possible, in fact I'd be surprised if any program labelled "Pro" wouldn't let you do this (even though it doesn't let you do 'and' searches). I think you have to export some sort of database. I'd tell you how if I had the program, but you'll have to find out. Wait! I remember now - you can export the catalogue, because I did it before. It's easy as pie - you just save the catalogue (again, you'll have to find out how but it's a piece of piss). The file extension of the catalogue is .ivc , all you need to do is back this up with your photos.


----------



## sovietpop (Jan 17, 2006)

ta


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 11, 2006)

Is this the best app ever? and atm for free?  it's a beta and avaliable from here

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/ 

you need an adobe id and password to download it.

It comes in both mac and pc format and is basically like irfanviewer or acdsee but from adobe with photoshop links so it can cross polinate etc between the cs/cs2 range. 

It works like and image viewer but also allows you to sort and store your photos from their native storage place into shoots and collections which means no more hunting for that shot you took back in ...damnit when was it again... it also allows you to convert your exisint photos into digital negative format which is wundarbar and add keywords/descriptions to your images.

the other features are slide show (kinda pointless but i guess good if you are to show clients their images before sign off) Print which allows you to quickly set up everything from one page prints to multiplies and contact sheets.  and there's the Develope feature whish is bacially a histogram and tonal/exposure changer with some filters thrown in for good measure.  There's the usual features you'd expect from a cut down image editor too such as crop and rotate etc.  

For me the thing which sells it though has to be the shoot's feature...

Anyone else using it?  have any settings tweaks perferred methods of using etc?


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 11, 2006)

Got it last week. TBH haven't had much of a chance to explore it yet. 
Also my mac's misbehaving and doesn't seem to like processing stuff very quickly in it - lots of spinning beachball of death action.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 12, 2006)

it's certianly quiite ram intensive however considering the sze of the files i shoot most things are... 

That and adobe crapola "won't work over 2 gig's of ram" due to instablity problems i assumed it was the lack of ram in my machine...


----------



## mauvais (Aug 12, 2006)

Raw Shooter Premium was better, IMO. Alas, Adobe have acquired Pixmantec, and it is no more.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 14, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> it's certianly quiite ram intensive however considering the sze of the files i shoot most things are...
> 
> That and adobe crapola "won't work over 2 gig's of ram" due to instablity problems i assumed it was the lack of ram in my machine...



After seeing this thread I had another look at it over the w/end.
It isn't my machine  - the bloody thing is just useless in it's current unstable shape. 
Couple of other mates - another photographer & a re toucher - also confirmed it's shiteness (and the re toucher has some real fuck off G5 set up.)
Shame, as what I did manage to frustratingly do in it looked pretty good.
I guess that's Beta's for you


----------



## Chorlton (Aug 15, 2006)

<gets interested>

<reads thread>


<sits back with picasa>


----------



## Firky (Aug 15, 2006)

Chorlton said:
			
		

> <gets interested>
> 
> <reads thread>
> 
> ...



That is exactly what I thought when I first read it.


----------



## Firky (Aug 15, 2006)

Pie 1 said:
			
		

> Couple of other mates - another photographer & a re toucher - also confirmed it's shiteness (and the re toucher has some real fuck off G5 set up.)



Some of the industry reviews I have read and discussions on other graphics forums have said simlair things. It is still in its early days though and apart from GoLive! Adobe always make good software. Photoshop is a work of genius. One thing Lightroom has in its favour is a black background - about bloody time! Your working background has a *massive* impact on how the eye sees colours.

I reckon they'll integrate into Photoshop or the Creative Suite.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Aug 15, 2006)

This is a recommended spec for Aperture, which seems to be a similar type of thing. 





> Recommeded Mac Pro Photographer’s Workstation
> 
> * Two 3GHz Dual Core Intel Xeon
> * 4GB 667MHz DDR2 FB DIMMs
> ...


 source

All I can say is that my poor old powerbook has enough trouble running Bibble.


----------



## Firky (Aug 15, 2006)

that sounds like my wet dreams


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 7, 2006)

*Adobe calls Windows users to test public beta version of Lightroom*

Just got e-mail of BJP

Can't read the article 'cos I'm not a subscriber, and cant be arsed to sign up to the free 2 week trial

But you can download Lightroom from here if you want to test it

http://labs.adobe.com/

Dunno if you win a prize for submitting the best feedback or what... (obviously you don't)


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 7, 2006)

Herbsman. said:
			
		

> Just got e-mail of BJP
> 
> Can't read the article 'cos I'm not a subscriber, and cant be arsed to sign up to the free 2 week trial
> 
> ...




You join the racist backward bigots of UK photography today. I wouldn't touch any freebie from the backward fuckers.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 7, 2006)

WTF man?!!??! I'm not racist, ive got black people in my family


----------



## Stanley Edwards (Sep 7, 2006)

Herbsman. said:
			
		

> WTF man?!!??! I'm not racist, ive got black people in my family



 

I don't like BJP. That's all. Some right fuckers have been abusing their forum. They don't seem to want to deal with it - that's all.

'Black people in your family'


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 7, 2006)

I dont like bjp either, but i thought the lightroom beta would be in urban75 photographers interest 

*goes to look at bjp forum*


----------



## Pie 1 (Sep 8, 2006)

There was a thread on lightroom a few weeks ago. It looks nice but unfortunately the beta's got some serious running problems, even a decent spec. Constant beachball of death action on mac's.

Shame, cause what I have managed to frustratingly do looks promising.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 8, 2006)

Hmmm I remember that thread. If it was available that long ago, then it appears that I have been conned!


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2006)

It would be pretty good if it wasn't so fucking slow... Not really anything new mind you.


----------



## Firky (Sep 28, 2006)

Cid said:
			
		

> It would be pretty good if it wasn't so fucking slow... Not really anything new mind you.



Try Picasa. It reminds me of Apple Aperture. 

The kind of thing that is marketed at fools who have bought a dSLR. The ones who think of themselves as professional photographers because they own a copy of Photoshop, and a dSLR. You know the kind... the mate who offers to do your wedding photos, the work colleague who shows you what photos he took on the weekend. (Which invariably consists of 600 JPEGS shot over the an afternoon in Dorset.)

Christ I have typed that so many times in other forums that it has almost become rehearsed


----------



## wordie (Sep 28, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Try Picasa. It reminds me of Apple Aperture.



But Picasa is only available for PC isn't it?

Apple users should use what exactly oh wise one? Photoshop maybe.. Lightroom maybe... Aperture maybe...




			
				riot sky said:
			
		

> The kind of thing that is marketed at fools who have bought a dSLR. The ones who think of themselves as professional photographers because they own a copy of Photoshop, and a dSLR. You know the kind... the mate who offers to do your wedding photos, the work colleague who shows you what photos he took on the weekend. (Which invariably consists of 600 JPEGS shot over the an afternoon in Dorset.)
> 
> Christ I have typed that so many times in other forums that it has almost become rehearsed



Hmmm... sounds like you have some issues here. Quite a broad stroke of your brush don't you think? Personally I don't recognise either of the characters you describe, but maybe I lead a sheltered life.

Do people who buy a dSLR and a copy of Photoshop really consider themselves professionals? And are they fools for buying that equipment to take photographs?

But to get back on thread, the new Lightroom beta, (which is free, so hardly marketed to delusional fools) is slow when working on big files (over 20MB), on a fast G5 Mac, albeit it is bringing those files from a separate 500GB hard drive.

I tend to be one of those fools that uses Photoshop, (which also pulls files from the same HD) and that seems more intuitive to me now, and faster to get around, and more versatile, subtle and flexible.

My view is that Aperture, as well as a number of similar programmes started using a single window GUI and it's become quite fashionable to use rinky-dink little sliders for all your image adjustments.

Bottom line on Lightroom (and Aperture): There may well be potential in these programmes, but they still have some way to develop - Aperture looks like it's going in the right direction with the release of 1.5, but Lightroom seems to have dropped back, and it's taken Adobe longer to get to this latest beta release, than Apple have taken to develop two (free) upgrades.

Download the trial versions and judge how they fit in your workflow.


----------



## Herbsman. (Sep 28, 2006)

wordie said:
			
		

> Do people who buy... a copy of Photoshop really consider themselves professionals? And are they fools for buying that equipment to take photographs?


TBH I think anyone who pays £500+ for a piece of software must either be a professional or a fool.


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Try Picasa. It reminds me of Apple Aperture.



Great for organisation but, unless I'm missing something, shit for RAW.


----------



## Firky (Sep 28, 2006)

wordie said:
			
		

> But Picasa is only available for PC isn't it?



Don' think so - don't quote me on that!



> Apple users should use what exactly oh wise one? Photoshop maybe.. Lightroom maybe... Aperture maybe...



Photoshop works, as does iPhoto, ACDsee - there's dozerns of alternatives if you look in some reviews in mags. The interesting thing is people in the industry scoff at the new stuff, and continue to stick to the old and tested ways. I guess that is why Quark is still hanging on with a quite a good grip too!



> Hmmm... sounds like you have some issues here. Quite a broad stroke of your brush don't you think?



No not at all. Work in a gallery, and you'll be amazed how many people come in with a shit business card asking you can they advertise. Or even hang up some of their pics. Plus, just take a look on the web and flikr. I have charged a few quid to cover my expenses for some photographs but I wouldn't consider myself a pro and I wasn't as sad to get a business card done! 



> Personally I don't recognise either of the characters you describe, but maybe I lead a sheltered life.



Yes, if you say so.



> Do people who buy a dSLR and a copy of Photoshop really consider themselves professionals? And are they fools for buying that equipment to take photographs?



Some do yes, and they are fools if they're going to pay £500+ for a bit of software that isn't going to improve their photography. 



> I tend to be one of those fools that uses Photoshop, (which also pulls files from the same HD) and that seems more intuitive to me now, and faster to get around, and more versatile, subtle and flexible.



Me too. Good file management helps in the first place.



> My view is that Aperture, as well as a number of similar programmes started using a single window GUI and it's become *quite fashionable to use rinky-dink little sliders for all your image adjustments.*



Nail on head. Style over substance.



> Download the trial versions and judge how they fit in your workflow.



Be interesting to see what the image houses use... 






			
				Cid said:
			
		

> Great for organisation but, unless I'm missing something, shit for RAW.



Why would anyone use it for RAW (Picasa that is)? - the primary use of these progs is for workflow management. Which PS can do albeit in its own clunk way. The likes of ACDsee, Picasa, etc. all do it better and sometimes for a much smaller fee.


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> Why would anyone use it for RAW (Picasa that is)? - the primary use of these progs is for workflow management. Which PS can do albeit in its own clunk way. The likes of ACDsee, Picasa, etc. all do it better and sometimes for a much smaller fee.



Well hopefully they wouldn't... which is kind of the point. If I can have a programme that doesn't just nicely organise my files but also allows fairly comprehensive RAW manipulation and conversion to .tif I'm going to use it over something like Picasa.


----------



## Firky (Sep 28, 2006)

Cid said:
			
		

> Well hopefully they wouldn't... which is kind of the point. If I can have a programme that doesn't just nicely organise my files but also allows fairly comprehensive RAW manipulation and conversion to .tif I'm going to use it over something like Picasa.



http://www.bibblelabs.com/

Oddly enough I hate the GUI but it is bladdy good for RAW. DNG never really took off did it 

Talking of which, new version of Camera Raw

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 28, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> http://www.bibblelabs.com/
> 
> Oddly enough I hate the GUI but it is bladdy good for RAW. DNG never really took off did it
> 
> ...


it intergrates fine with potatoshop you know ... there's abible plug in which takes over from the adobe raw converter...


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2006)

riot sky said:
			
		

> http://www.bibblelabs.com/
> 
> Oddly enough I hate the GUI but it is bladdy good for RAW. DNG never really took off did it
> 
> ...



Cheers...

Didn't you say PS was for fools btw? 

Unfortunately I only have a er... less than legit copy of CS1 and can't get camerRAW to work. Usually just use CS2 at uni/my mum's house but it's irritating to have to do that.


----------



## Firky (Sep 28, 2006)

GarfieldLeChat said:
			
		

> it intergrates fine with potatoshop you know ... there's abible plug in which takes over from the adobe raw converter...



Yup, got that! Bloody great it is too, and when you're done fiddling you just hit ctrl+w and it pops into photoshop.

I tell you what does annoy me... you can't go 'save as -> jpeg' with a raw file, you have to do the 'save for web', which sucks as it uses sRGB, removes exif data and uses a far harsher compression engine.




			
				Cid said:
			
		

> Cheers...
> 
> Didn't you say PS was for fools btw?



I love Photoshop, no really I do. I know it is sad to say but it is more than a tool for me


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2006)

Right, but bibble isn't free.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 28, 2006)

Cid said:
			
		

> Cheers...
> 
> Didn't you say PS was for fools btw?
> 
> Unfortunately I only have a er... less than legit copy of CS1 and can't get camerRAW to work. Usually just use CS2 at uni/my mum's house but it's irritating to have to do that.


mac or pc?

not that it matters as i have either format ... at cs2 level... pm me for more info...


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Sep 28, 2006)

Cid said:
			
		

> Right, but bibble isn't free.


ditto...


----------



## Firky (Sep 28, 2006)

Cid said:
			
		

> Right, but bibble isn't free.



yeah it is

*nudge nudge etc*


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2006)

I've had a quick play with it. There's no denying that it looks absolutely lush and hi-tech, but it all seems a bit over-engineered right now.

I'll give it a proper look over when I'm not so busy, so for now I'll carry on with my trusty Photoshop/ACDSee combo.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2007)

I've just downloaded v1.1. Fuck it's a resource hog, all right.


----------



## indigo4 (Jul 2, 2007)

*(coughs...)*

ummm "The kind of thing that is marketed at fools who have bought a dSLR. The ones who think of themselves as professional photographers because they own a copy of Photoshop, and a dSLR. You know the kind... the mate who offers to do your wedding photos, the work colleague who shows you what photos he took on the weekend. (Which invariably consists of 600 JPEGS shot over the an afternoon in Dorset.)"

Well that's pretty much described me down to a T...well done F!


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2007)

I was ready to be wowed by the super slick interface and the power of Adobe, but after seeing the program gobble up 400meg of RAM while doing precisely nothing, my enthusiasm faded.

The fact that you can't even drag images straight into Photoshop didn't exactly impress, so I found myself going straight back to ACDSee.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 2, 2007)

Lightroom's _great _if you've got the PC for it. Fortunately I have now. It's still got bugs like out of memory errors but it's stable enough.

One thing's shite about it. Minimum color temperature of 2000, like Camera Raw, and not like my beloved Pixmantec RSP. What does this mean? No infrared colour conversion, that's what. Black/white or red, that's it.


----------



## Firky (Jul 2, 2007)

I have it on my laptop 2GB DDR blah blah, runs like a dream, but runs like a dog on my the desktop 512MB.


----------



## editor (Jul 2, 2007)

firky said:
			
		

> I have it on my laptop 2GB DDR blah blah, runs like a dream, but runs like a dog on my the desktop 512MB.


It runs on my 4GB RAM-packing dual core Athlon fine - just so long as I don't have lots of other programs open.

Which I always do.


----------



## baffled (Jul 2, 2007)

I don't have the time or patience to sit down and get to grips with PS so Lightroom has been perfect for a beginner like me, admittedly I have nothing to compare it to as apart from PS it's all I have used.


----------



## Dr_Herbz (Jul 3, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> It runs on my 4GB RAM-packing dual core Athlon fine - just so long as I don't have lots of other programs open.
> 
> Which I always do.



Ditto... My puter is a bit of a screamer and it runs Lightroom pretty well on its own, although it is slower than I'd expect but if for some strange reason(?) you want to run it at the same time as Photoshop, it really slows things down and it gets much worse if you have Flash running at the same time. I've had to shut it down occasionally to stop my puter going into meltdown.

I've moved my pagefile and scratch disk onto a dedicated drive and it has helped somewhat but I certainly wouldn't want to be trying to use it on anything with less than 2 gig of RAM and a screaming processor.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 3, 2007)

editor said:
			
		

> I was ready to be wowed by the super slick interface and the power of Adobe, but after seeing the program gobble up 400meg of RAM while doing precisely nothing, my enthusiasm faded.
> 
> The fact that you can't even drag images straight into Photoshop didn't exactly impress, so I found myself going straight back to ACDSee.



Speaking personally, I find a dedicated keyboard command a lot quicker than drag 'n' drop. 

Since I moved over to Lightroom, I've found that I can process a bunch of photos in about half the time it used to take me using Canon DPP or ACR with Photoshop. 90+% of the time I don't need to do any further PP in Photoshop, so I'm making a big saving on the disk space I'd be using to store a TIFF for that purpose (I do shoot RAW almost exclusively; it would probably be far less important if I was working with JPEG files out of the camera).

As much as anything, though, it's the way it handles metadata and organising my photos that is attractive. Bridge, even in CS3 isn't as flexible for IPTC tagging. It's the _organisational_ features that that make Lightroom different from a plain old RAW converter. It's not going to improve my photography by any significant degree, but it makes my life easier, and for that it's worth the price of admission. I don't think that makes me a fool.

Judging by other users' reports, it does seem to be a little more perky on the Mac than Windows. I'd probably agree about needing 2GB of RAM to make effective use of it in combination with Photoshop, but you probably don't want to be running PS on its own with much less than that these days if you're using it seriously. It works fine on my Dual 2.3 GHz G5 desktop (2.5 GB RAM) and it flies on my new 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (2GB RAM) 

Either way, it's a lot faster than Aperture, which was my major alternative for a library tool.

It ain't perfect. firky's comment about 2K°C white point minimum strikes a note with me. It's fairly clearly not aimed at large agencies who need to shift stuff around between different users a lot.


----------



## mauvais (Jul 3, 2007)

cybertect said:
			
		

> It ain't perfect. *firky*'s comment about 2K°C white point minimum strikes a note with me. It's fairly clearly not aimed at large agencies who need to shift stuff around between different users a lot.


 

I submitted a feature request, but I doubt anything will come of it. It should be piss easy - in theory it's only removing the limit.


----------



## cybertect (Jul 3, 2007)




----------



## editor (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm mulling over actually spending my own dosh on this program. I'm currently using ACDSee Pro and it's pretty damn good, but I keep hearing good reports about Lightroom. 

At some point, I'm going to have to take a week out and _finally_ tag and categorise my thousands of images, so I want to make sure that whatever program I do it with, it's the one I'm going to stick with. 

So anyone using the latest version yet?


----------



## cybertect (Apr 26, 2012)

Yep, v4 since about the day it came out and Lightroom in general since the v1 public beta. Tagging and keywording take a bit of time to do, but it pays off when you're looking for a specific photograph six years later. Even taking that extra work into account, it streamlined my old Photoshop-based workflow by about 50%.

New stuff in v4 that I like: The new 2012 Process Version RAW converter can pull a lot more detail and colour out of highlights than the old one, the Geotagging/Map module is excellent and one-click CA correction is a godsend.

Frankly, I couldn't do without it. I barely ever need to go into photoshop unless I'm doing Pano stitches.


----------



## gentlegreen (Apr 26, 2012)

Coincidentally I have only just installed it as a demo on 12 PCs for a training course that's happening on Friday.
Given the specialism of the person concerned, I have no idea what it's in aid of ...
Hence my subscribing to this thread ...


----------



## RoyReed (Apr 26, 2012)

I haven't upgraded to v4 yet (I will very soon) but I've been using LR since it first came out. I really rate it and I'm looking forward to the upgrade.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2012)

I'm seeing quite a lot of people complaining on various forums that it's painfully slow if you have a lot of images (and I have over 112,000). Anyone having this trouble? I'm loathe to hand over my dosh to Adobe if I end up with some hideously slow software.


----------



## cybertect (May 14, 2012)

I have 83,000 in mine and I can't say v4 is any slower than before (on a 2007 Mac Pro)

Why don't you download the trial and see how it works for you? No need for dosh until 30 days are up.


----------



## RoyReed (May 14, 2012)

I'm waiting for v4.1 to come out (it's in public beta now) as that's meant to improve the speed issues that some people were having in edit mode. It's also meant to import Point Curve adjustments from v3 which v4 doesn't do correctly. And it will have a much improved Colour Fringe Correction control.


----------



## cybertect (May 14, 2012)

RoyReed said:


> And it will have a much improved Colour Fringe Correction control.


 
I've been using 4.1 RC2 and that is very useful - allows correction of Axial Chromatic Abberation in addition to the Lateral CA correction that was already available.


----------



## editor (May 14, 2012)

I'm trying the demo - 751MB ffs - and it's already annoying the fuck out of me with its clunky interface. So far, so bad.


----------



## sim667 (May 15, 2012)

im an aperture guy, but still on an old version.


----------



## fractionMan (May 15, 2012)

editor said:


> I'm trying the demo - 751MB ffs - and it's already annoying the fuck out of me with its clunky interface. So far, so bad.


 
Damn.  I really want some all-in-one application decent to organise and tweak my photos.  No way I can download that over 3g


----------



## Crispy (May 15, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> Damn. I really want some all-in-one application decent to organise and tweak my photos. No way I can download that over 3g


Picasa too basic for you?


----------



## fractionMan (May 15, 2012)

Crispy said:


> Picasa too basic for you?


 
The image tweaking is pretty bad. No curves or levels.  Auto contrast sometimes does the job but sometimes gets it totally wrong.

The organisation isn't great either. I want to be able to have a place for source images, a place for editied ones and software that understands the difference. Plus tagging.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

It seems to be doing nasty things to my computer as it's trying to import all those images. Hmm.


----------



## fractionMan (May 15, 2012)

editor said:


> It seems to be doing nasty things to my computer as it's trying to import all those images. Hmm.


 
tbf, you have like a million photos.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

fractionMan said:


> tbf, you have like a million photos.


83,000 ackshully. Which isn't that much if you're pro/semi-pro/very keen indeed.


----------



## mauvais (May 15, 2012)

If you're not doing it in Lightroom then you're doing it wrong. PS is almost redundant now.


----------



## RoyReed (May 15, 2012)

Maybe you could try Corel AfterShot. It's the renamed version of Bibble after Corel took it over.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

mauvais said:


> If you're not doing it in Lightroom then you're doing it wrong. PS is almost redundant now.


I'm trying to do it in Lightroom but it's just a resource hogging muthafucka that it's causing my machine to grind to a  halt. 

It's only importing files at the moment and is already up to nearly 2GB of RAM


----------



## mauvais (May 15, 2012)

Mine's using 171MB. In any case, 1.8GB isn't actually that unreasonable for serious photo work, especially cataloguing.


----------



## editor (May 15, 2012)

Actually, I've got more photo files than I thought:


----------



## mauvais (May 15, 2012)

Are they all JPG or something? I've got 183GB over 33k files (25k photos).

Anyway if you want stupid resource usage you're not trying hard enough:







I put 12GB in that machine and it still ran out. I don't even know what it wanted.


----------



## fractionMan (May 17, 2012)

Ugh. I can see where Ed is coming from now and I'm only importing 8000 photos. It's a dog, took at least an hour and a half.

Then, I copy 80 new photos in my picture folder, synchronise it and it's still bloody working on it 10 minutes later. Only 80 new photos. Urgh. There must be a quicker way.


----------



## editor (May 17, 2012)

I think I'm going to have to get a book to work out how to do this. Every time I put in a memory card, the great lumbering beast that it is Lightroom roars into life and I. Do. Not. Want. That.


----------



## mauvais (May 17, 2012)

Edit > Preferences > General tab > Untick 'Show import dialog when a memory card is detected'. Might be a Windows action too.


----------



## fractionMan (May 17, 2012)

wow, it's actually unusable on my machine.  stutters madly just zooming in and out.


----------



## fractionMan (May 17, 2012)

It seems to get stuck importing.  This time on photo 59.  I expect it'll take off again in a minute but in the meantime it's eating CPU like a CPU eating thing, which is not good when importing a paltry 80 pics.


----------



## fractionMan (May 17, 2012)

Sod this, I'm going to stick with picassa and get gimpshop out to fix anything specific.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2012)

I downloaded this and then was politely informed that it won't run on xp.


----------



## mincepie (Jun 2, 2012)

Indeed v4 won't run on XP.
I'm a great fan of Lightroom, but it's a resource hogger - you need a decent PC - even if it did run on XP - on a 4 year old machine it's soooo slow as to be too painful.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2012)

Maybe a pc upgrade is required then.


----------



## mincepie (Jun 2, 2012)

Yeah - or you'll end up like this  (below)  - I had to upgrade too for the same reason.
Its annoying really - the FREE picasa is super quick even on any old machine, whereas this seems to need a super computer.


fractionMan said:


> wow, it's actually unusable on my machine. stutters madly just zooming in and out.


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2012)

What should I use in the mean-time to play with (nikon) RAW files? I've got PS CS6 but don't have a scooby what plug in to use. That's why I was going to start using Lightroom.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 2, 2012)

I've just upgraded to 4.1. It's a bit slow on my laptop (still usable), but runs just fine on my desktop. I thought it might take ages to import the old catalogue (about 30,000 images, almost all RAW) but it did it in less than a minute. So far I'm liking the upgrade.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 2, 2012)

Citizen66 said:


> What should I use in the mean-time to play with (nikon) RAW files? I've got PS CS6 but don't have a scooby what plug in to use. That's why I was going to start using Lightroom.


Doesn't PS CS6 come with Camera RAW plugin? If not FastStone Image Viewer can view and do basic edits on NEF and save to JPG.


----------



## mincepie (Jun 2, 2012)

The free DNG converter will turn your RAW files to DNG  - if you can't open them natively.
http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5389


----------



## Citizen66 (Jun 2, 2012)

Cheerrs.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 27, 2013)

Any users out there?

It seems like quite a powerful program. And good value.

If I had Lightroom I am not sure I would need PhotoShop much - if at all.


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 27, 2013)

I use Lightroom and really like it. And depending on what you want to do you might indeed find that you don't need PS. The best thing (for me) is that any editing you do is non-destructive, with the changes you make to the original file being stored in a database. You can always go back to the original whatever you do. There are plenty of things that PS can do that LR can't, but it might be that even then you don't need the full blown PS, but PS Elements might do instead.

Got any specific questions?


----------



## FunkyUK (Mar 27, 2013)

I dont like it. I want to like it, and despite trying for a good 3 years on various versions I keep going back to ACDSee.  I find ACDsee quicker, less clunky and its file management makes far more sense.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 27, 2013)

RoyReed said:


> ..Got any specific questions?


 
Hi RoyReed,

I was shown Lightroom last night and was impressed. I liked the actions like colour balance that you can do to a group of images at once, that it is non destructive, the shadow and highlights adjustments seemed very powerful. I liked the way you can attach key words into the exif info to more easily find images in your catalogue. The wide support for Raw, it copes with my Fuji S2 *.raf files for example.

I wondered why Adobe had created this as a seperate product as it seems to me it will only reduce purchases of PhotoShop.

Not sure about minimum system requirements. I only have a back catalogue of about 10,000 images because I ruthlessly delete. I suppose I could have multiple catalogues to keep their size down but the person who showed me Lightroom has a very uber pc, a very fast processor and multiple hard disks.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 27, 2013)

Oh and it can correct for the distortion of your particular lens! I have never felt the need to do this before. Not sure I will bother with it but it is a powerful feature ...


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 27, 2013)

weltweit said:


> I wondered why Adobe had created this as a seperate product as it seems to me it will only reduce purchases of PhotoShop.
> 
> Not sure about minimum system requirements. I only have a back catalogue of about 10,000 images because I ruthlessly delete. I suppose I could have multiple catalogues to keep their size down but the person who showed me Lightroom has a very uber pc, a very fast processor and multiple hard disks.


I think Adobe see them as being complementary, with maybe Lightroom being more focused to photographers and Photoshop to designers who use photography - although there's obviously a very big overlap.

I use LR both on my desktop (quite powerful) and on my laptop - both accessing the same database. This currently has over 15,000 images in one catalogue. What is slower on the laptop (Win7 32bit 3.2G RAM) is editing and displaying RAW images at 1:1. It's still usable, but notably slower than my desktop PC. If you mainly use JPG images you might not even notice.


----------



## RoyReed (Mar 27, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Oh and it can correct for the distortion of your particular lens! I have never felt the need to do this before. Not sure I will bother with it but it is a powerful feature ...


They have a database of most of the top Canon and Nikon lenses and quite a few for other makes. For these the correction is pretty good (and automatic if you turn the feature on). For lenses not in the database there's a set of manual controls that allow you to correct for various lens distortions (barrel, pincushion, vignetting, chromatic aberration) as well as vertical/horizontal architectural correction. Some people say that DXO is better for this, but Lightroom is still very good.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 28, 2013)

I've always stuck with aperture..... never tried lightroom


----------



## weltweit (Mar 28, 2013)

I wonder what the system requirements are for Lightroom 4 .... the guy that showed it to me has a very powerful computer with loads of RAM.

From adobe's Lightroom website

Windows
•Intel® Pentium® 4 or AMD Athlon® 64 processor
•Microsoft® Windows Vista or Windows 7 with Service Pack 1 or Windows 8
•2GB of RAM
•1GB of available hard-disk space
•1024x768 display
•DVD-ROM drive (if installing from DVD)
•Internet connection required for Internet-based services*


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2013)

FunkyUK said:


> I dont like it. I want to like it, and despite trying for a good 3 years on various versions I keep going back to ACDSee. I find ACDsee quicker, less clunky and its file management makes far more sense.


That's exactly where I am. I want to like it. I know I should use it. But ACDSee just does the job.


----------



## Firky (Mar 28, 2013)

I just can't get away with it, Photoshop is engrained in me. I am sure it's a good programme but Photoshop is better.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 28, 2013)

Firky said:


> I just can't get away with it, Photoshop is engrained in me. I am sure it's a good programme but Photoshop is better.


Photoshop is a pretty shit program for organising a photo library, and also I would argue worse than a lot for simple image manipulation - not in terms of results obviously but ease of use and startup time and so on.

I mean, obviously I don't give a shit what you use, plus they're both Adobe and I hate Adobe  but just saying.


----------



## Firky (Mar 28, 2013)

My library consists of dumping the photo I like into a folder named Location / Event - Date and forgetting about them. I like the idea of tagging but I CBA to do it 

Photoshop does have a convoluted way of doing the most basic of things but I know all the shortcuts and things off the top of my head and have a load of actions. It's just what I am used to... although it does feel like taking a sledge hammer to a nut for some things.


----------



## mincepie (Mar 28, 2013)

Yes, use it, love it. But imho badly programmed - needs powerful hardware or it's just irritating. (Compare with the free Google Picassa - super snappy on any old machine)
Some blokes written some software "paddy" that allows you to drive it from MIDI - so  got a small box with dials on it - makes editing much faster.
If you have Mac then see also Apple Aperture - I think this is easier to use?

hardly ever use PS  now - 95% in Lightroom. Much faster.


----------



## mincepie (Mar 28, 2013)

weltweit said:


> Oh and it can correct for the distortion of your particular lens! I have never felt the need to do this before. Not sure I will bother with it but it is a powerful feature ...


I have it do it automatically. When you import images you can assign stuff to happen while imported - maybe auto levels, sharpen etc, add your name to metadata, rename files  or in this case correct for distortion.


----------



## Firky (Mar 29, 2013)

Does Aperture have a good think about things when using RAW files the same way LR does? I guess I could download it and find.


----------



## Firky (Apr 10, 2013)

I've installed Aperture. It's OK... but it has that annoying thing of wanting to organise your library when I can do a perfectly good job myself. It doesn't feel as clunky as Lightroom, in fact it whizzes along.

Will it replace my 20 years of using Photoshop? Will it shite.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Apr 10, 2013)

You can just set it to leave files where they were.


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 29, 2013)

Currently being offered at a substantial discount, until January the 9th. I picked it up myself.


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2013)

I bought v4, installed it once but was overwhelmed by the choices, so fled back to ACDSee. Where/how much is the discount?


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 29, 2013)

editor said:


> I bought v4, installed it once but was overwhelmed by the choices, so fled back to ACDSee. Where/how much is the discount?


If you buy it from Amazon it's currently £72.99 (disc or download), but if you buy it direct from Adobe as a download it's £71.80. Normal price £102.57.

It really is a very powerful program. I like the fact that you can use the adjustment brush, or the graduated filter, to alter parts of image rather than just the whole thing


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 29, 2013)

There's a free trial you can download at Adobe's website.


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 29, 2013)

I just noticed you already have four, the upgrade edition is £54.99 on Amazon. Don't know if that is the regular price or not.

Edit: Yes and no.  No discount on that version, but it is £57.64 on Adobe's website.

If you already have four, I'm not sure it's worth the upgrade. Best look at the new features to see if they appeal to you.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 28, 2014)

Just got LR5. Fuck me, it's awesome! 

Going to take some time getting used to it though.


----------



## Bungle73 (Sep 28, 2014)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Just got LR5. Fuck me, it's awesome!
> 
> Going to take some time getting used to it though.


Best things for me, as opposed to the free offerings like RAW Therapee (that I used previously), are the ability to do local adjustments (very, very hand), and also the ability to edit one photo, then apply those changes to a whole load of others - saves a lot of time. 

You even get it to automatically geotag  your photos (if you have a gpx file), then show all their locations on a map.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Sep 28, 2014)

Not fussed with the geotag stuff, but just the power & ease of editing is awesome! And the mail export which I can use without buying photomechanic. Top stuff!


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2015)

I've merged several old threads on Lightroom as I'm mulling over finally making the leap after being hugely disappointed in ACDSee's latest efforts.

Who's using it now? Is it still beastly complicated?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

If I can bend my head around it Ed, so can you. You'll love it!

E2a There's some great tutorials online if you get stuck with certain aspects.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2015)

The bit I've never liked is all this importing business. Seems a real faff compared to ACDSee which lets you browse folders from the off.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2015)

A friend of mine who's used to just having big folders of files and editing them with Photoshop got hold of it recently. I tried to take him through the idea, as he wasn't used to using photo management software at all, but I ended up finding it really confusing and unintuitive myself, and he hated it, so he's back to folders and Photoshop now.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2015)

One of the things that has made me reconsider Lightroom is that I really need to properly catalogue my photos and I don't want to commit to software with an uncertain future. 

Given ACDSee's response to a recent problem - a shrug and a refund that was almost too willingly offered - I need to find something I can trust. 

Trouble is, every time I've tried Lightroom I've really hated it.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

editor said:


> The bit I've never liked is all this importing business. Seems a real faff compared to ACDSee which lets you browse folders from the off.



Importing is easy. I import the whole folder, then go through them & _flag_ which ones I want to keep, bin the rest. 

What I don't use LR for is a catalog. What images I want to keep, are then exported to where ever I want them (great phtotoshelter plugin available) & then delete from LR. My use for it is as an import/export & editing tool.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

editor said:


> One of the things that has made me reconsider Lightroom is that I really need to properly catalogue my photos and I don't want to commit to software with an uncertain future.
> 
> Given ACDSee's response to a recent problem - a shrug and a refund that was almost too willingly offered - I need to find something I can trust.
> 
> Trouble is, every time I've tried Lightroom I've really hated it.



LR6 is a very good catalog if you want to use it. Fuck me, I sound like an Adobe rep!


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Importing is easy. I import the whole folder, then go through them & _flag_ which ones I want to keep, bin the rest.
> 
> What I don't use LR for is a catalog. What images I want to keep, are then exported to where ever I want them (great phtotoshelter plugin available) & then delete from LR. My use for it is as an import/export & editing tool.


That already sounds hideously complicated.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

editor said:


> That already sounds hideously complicated.



If I can do it, you'll piss it. It really isn't difficult once you've learnt to use it.

Sign up for a subscription, 8 quid a month i think I pay. If you can't get on with it, bin it.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2015)

£96 a year? Just for one program? Do you think I'm made of money?!


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

editor said:


> £96 a year? Just for one program? Do you think I'm made of money?!



And I am? Try it. If you don't like it, fuck it off. A damn sight cheaper than buying it out right, plus you get all the upgrades & latest versions, like I have. A great piece of sw tbh


----------



## Crispy (Dec 9, 2015)

Why not picasa? Let's you keep your folder structure, but adds useful nondestructive editing and categorisation etc.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

LR is nondestructive in all aspects, & pisses all over picasa


----------



## RoyReed (Dec 9, 2015)

AfterShot is a good alternative to Lightroom if you don't want to go down the Adobe route (I use Lightroom, but not the subscription model) and slightly cheaper too. It's currently on offer at £58.99 - Lightroom is just over £100 for the non-subscription version if you can find it on Adobe's website.

If I was starting from scratch I'd seriously consider AfterShot, but there's no way of converting a Lightroom database, so it would mean re-importing, sorting, tagging and manipulating getting on for 50,000 images. Not going to happen.

AfterShot Pro 2 Review | PhotographyBLOG


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 9, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And I am? Try it. If you don't like it, fuck it off. A damn sight cheaper than buying it out right, plus you get all the upgrades & latest versions, like I have. A great piece of sw tbh


A "damn sight cheaper"? LR 6 stand alone is £103.88; that's a difference of £7.88, and of course you get permanent use of the program and not a year's worth. The downside is, of course, that you don't get the free updates, so if you want the new version when it comes out you need to shell out again. The stand alone version is missing features you get with the CC version too.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

Subscription for me, at 8 quid a month is a no brainer.

3 pints of fuckin' beer a month!


----------



## weltweit (Dec 9, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Subscription for me, at 8 quid a month is a no brainer.


Is that £8 just for Lightroom or do you get Photoshop for that as well?


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Is that £8 just for Lightroom or do you get Photoshop for that as well?



Not sure, would have to look at my sub for a breakdown.


----------



## Bungle73 (Dec 9, 2015)

Lightroom, PS, and a bunch of other stuff: Lightroom and Photoshop | Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan

Edit: I should have added in my previous post that of course buying it outright only gets you LR.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 9, 2015)

weltweit said:


> Is that £8 just for Lightroom or do you get Photoshop for that as well?



Yep, you get PS CC 2015 as part of your sub, plus at least 20 other sw apps to try. Not a fuckin' bad deal tbh


----------



## pocketscience (Dec 9, 2015)

Organizing photos in LR is all about finding a workflow you're comfortable with and sticking to it.
There are tons of tutorials on organizing your photos in LR. When I started out I found this one really practical:



It really is a great program for photographers. Once you get through understanding the import/ library/ organization (just watch the 1st quarter of the vid) then you can open up to the fine editing which is obviously where the fun's at. Serge Ramelli's Youtube channel is a good place for that.


----------



## paolo (Dec 9, 2015)

When I do 'pro' photography event work, looking round the media office, it's 9/10 macs, and 10/10 Lightroom.

The import thing though, it's a bit of workflow most casual photography doesn't need.

I like the idea of something like iPhoto (shoot anywhere, edit anywhere).

Maybe one day cameras will let you choose a provider. Everything you shoot goes to the cloud (eventually). Edit from the cloud. Publish from the cloud.

Transferring photos from one place to another is fucking dull. Lightroom has some automation for that, but why do I need to care about setting that up?


----------



## pocketscience (Dec 9, 2015)

paolo said:


> When I do 'pro' photography event work, looking round the media office, it's 9/10 macs, and 10/10 Lightroom.
> 
> The import thing though, it's a bit of workflow most casual photography doesn't need.
> 
> ...


Couple of points about that:
My camara's photos are over 25MB each and sometimes I'll have a few hundred pictures after a morning session, half of which are basically useless and will be deleted. I'm fucked If i want to be uploading that lot to a cloud and then accessing them on the cloud to delete, edit, catagorise, etc... Much better to have a local machine with a powerful graphics card and SSD HD to manage and  edit before (automatically) uploading the final cuts to a cloud or flickr.
Also, I've given up worrying about the time wasted on setting up automation processes (particularly on organizing) and carrying them out, mostly because it only takes about 5% of the time. It's the spending 95% of your time cropping and faffing around tweaking the sliders for exposure, contrast, temperature, etc for the best 5 pictures of the session that worries me.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 9, 2015)

I'm pretty happy with Photos so far. I can import stuff on my iMac, do some editing, open my laptop sometime later, the edits and the originals are there (presuming I have wifi), do a bit more tweaking, they're on my iMac when I get home.

It does give me a lot of pause though to know that all of these systems—Apple, Adobe, Google, Facebook et al—are designed to tie you into their infrastructure forever. They've learned from Facebook that people want to keep their photos and the metadata attached. I'm a programmer, so as long as I have the data on my system somewhere, I can fuck with them and transform them into any other format I like, but once they're up in the cloud i.e. on somebody else's computer, I can't. So I will always want local copies, and I'm thinking I should just create a filesystem-based system of my own to manage photos, or use an open source one that can sync. Filesystem syncing is still available.


----------



## Crispy (Dec 9, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> LR is nondestructive in all aspects, & pisses all over picasa


Sure, but if you balk at the price for LR, then Picasa can't be beat on that front


----------



## pocketscience (Dec 9, 2015)

It might be worth mentioning that Adobe do offers every so often. I got my LR for about 50 quid


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2015)

Mr.Bishie said:


> And I am? Try it. If you don't like it, fuck it off. A damn sight cheaper than buying it out right, plus you get all the upgrades & latest versions, like I have. A great piece of sw tbh


I bought LR4 so upgrading wouldn't be that much. There's something about 'renting' software that rubs me up the wrong way.


Mr.Bishie said:


> Subscription for me, at 8 quid a month is a no brainer.
> 
> 3 pints of fuckin' beer a month!


My budget really is remarkably tight, so committing to software I have to keep paying for forever is not something I want to do.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 10, 2015)

Maybe keep your eye on fleabay in the New Year for a copy.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Dec 10, 2015)

I'm thinking along the same lines as FridgeMagnet about the cloud stuff (as well as looking hard at Lightroom alternatives)

Seriously considering setting up some kind of private cloud server just 'cos I'm so pissed off about being frog-marched into someone else's cloud by most of the other alternatives.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Dec 15, 2015)

Has anybody tried Affinity Pro? Affinity Photo - Professional image editing software for Mac

Mac only, but there are some good recommendations, and it's relatively dead cheap (and doesn't require a subscription obviously, unlike that of Certain Other Companies Who Are Coining It In Right Now From Forcing Everyone To Go Cloud).


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 23, 2016)

They've got free trials for Affinity Photo and also Designer (the latter is half price right now), only 10 days though rather than the usual 30. Pretty good so far as I can tell from playing with it for a few hours over the last day or two, but I'm not a graphics pro.

What I can say is that the retouching stuff in Photo is significantly closer to Photoshop than the limited local adjustment layer stuff in Capture One (C1 is the main thing I'm using at the moment, excellent for RAW development, even works properly with Fuji x-trans, and pretty good at asset management in the latest version)

Affinity software seems to have all the proper colour management capabilities, and no cheezy consumer-aimed FX like say Pixelmator.

It seems to work ok with tablet input too, although I haven't tested that properly yet. Not being able to use a tablet without a whole lot of hassle due to GTK issues was what put me off GIMP.

I'm thinking Capture One (assuming a suitable 'special offer' on it is available) replacing Lightroom / Aperture and Affinity Photo for PS.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 23, 2016)

Why this anti Adobe Bernie Gunther, I thought Lightroom was rated pretty well?


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 23, 2016)

I dislike Adobe's rental model and my old version of Lightroom doesn't support Fuji X raw files.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 23, 2016)

Oh, Ok. I was just thinking the rental deal might be for me. But I suppose once you have gone that route you will be persuaded to stick with it or lose all the investment you have put into managing your workflow that way.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Jan 23, 2016)

I got the standalone Lightroom. I don't want to rent Photoshop or Lightroom in perpetuity; although I suspect the day is coming when all utility-type software is marketed that way.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 23, 2016)

I am considering lightroom and PS for a camera upgrade. But it seems I may need a PC upgrade also to cope with the much larger raw files I am considering having.


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 23, 2016)

If you want to try a non-Adobe alternative then AfterShot Pro and PaintShop Pro are well worth a look - particularly ASP. I'm pretty much stuck down the Adobe path as I have about 75,000 RAW shots in Lightroom, but I hate their subscription model and won't ever go down that road. (Hopefully they'll keep the standalone version going for the next few versions.)


----------



## weltweit (Jan 23, 2016)

RoyReed said:


> If you want to try a non-Adobe alternative then AfterShot Pro and PaintShop Pro are well worth a look - particularly ASP. I'm pretty much stuck down the Adobe path as I have about 75,000 RAW shots in Lightroom, but I hate their subscription model and won't ever go down that road. (Hopefully they'll keep the standalone version going for the next few versions.)


That is interesting, the link to PaintShop Pro also features PhotoImpact X3. I used Ulead PhotoImpact for many years, it wasn't a bad program.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Jan 31, 2016)

Affinity Photo is pretty good. It works similarly enough to Photoshop that you can follow along with many tutorials and have them work, although you'll eventually run into a situation where it doesn't have a brush or filter or whatever that comes as standard with Photoshop.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Feb 1, 2016)

I got around to trying Capture One tethering at the weekend. There were a few limitations that I think were due to my D700 being an early live view implementation, but for the most part I really liked it. I could muck about getting flash exposures and composition (still life stuff) sorted without generating a zillion raw files.

I can see myself using C1 for 90% of what I do: raw developing, asset management, retouching and now tethered shooting and using Affinity for the odd bit of half arsed graphic work.


----------



## Helen Back (Feb 4, 2016)

Like most people, I have thousands of photos to store, keep track of and view and having so many small files is a real problem, not very convenient at all. I need a program that can store them and video files in one file. I've been thinking of using Adobe Acrobat to make each folder into a PDF file with the video files as attachments but there are some drawbacks to this. You can't save out individual files, attachments aren't searchable, etc.

Is there a free program that can easily and conveniently store and display my collection?


----------



## Fez909 (Feb 4, 2016)

Picasa ?


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

This is a great free program: FastStone Image Viewer - Powerful and Intuitive Photo Viewer, Editor and Batch Converter


----------



## Helen Back (Feb 4, 2016)

Thanks but those two are image viewers and I have ACDSee for that. No, what I'm thinking of is something like a PDF file where the images are stored in a single file that can be read by a free and easily installed program like Adobe Reader. 

I'd make PDFs but if I want to save out any photos from a PDF I'd have to save out the whole lot and then the file names would be Filename page 1, etc. instead of the actual photo's file name.

I may end up either just going with PDFs or not bothering as this is only a whim and not an urgent need. It's a would-be-nice.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

Helen Back said:


> Thanks but those two are image viewers and I have ACDSee for that. No, what I'm thinking of is something like a PDF file where the images are stored in a single file that can be read by a free and easily installed program like Adobe Reader.
> 
> I'd make PDFs but if I want to save out any photos from a PDF I'd have to save out the whole lot and then the file names would be Filename page 1, etc. instead of the actual photo's file name.
> 
> I may end up either just going with PDFs or not bothering as this is only a whim and not an urgent need. It's a would-be-nice.


Fast Stone can create PDF contact files showing as many photos as you want in whatever grid pattern you want. ACDSee does it too although it will probably be more fiddly. It's a bit slow but I'll come back in a minute with an example.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

Yep, Fast Stone does exactly what you want. You can change the font, titles, filenames, thumbnail size etc. Here's a detail from an 11 page PDF file of one folder.


----------



## Helen Back (Feb 4, 2016)

Thanks Ed. It is useful and I'll keep it for the slideshow facility but it doesn't do anything like what I wanted. I think if you don't know anything that does what I described then there probably isn't anything out there. Thanks for showing me FS, though. Much appreciated


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

Helen Back said:


> Thanks Ed. It is useful and I'll keep it for the slideshow facility but it doesn't do anything like what I wanted. I think if you don't know anything that does what I described then there probably isn't anything out there. Thanks for showing me FS, though. Much appreciated


I'm afraid I'm totally confused as to what you want. It sounds like you should be using a photo database but then you've got this thing about PDFs that I don't get.


----------



## Helen Back (Feb 4, 2016)

editor said:


> ...but then you've got this thing about PDFs that I don't get.



Only as an example of the sort "single file holds everything" type of thing. I'll look into photo databases, see what I can find.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

Helen Back said:


> Only as an example of the sort "single file holds everything" type of thing. I'll look into photo databases, see what I can find.


Do you mean you want one almighty PDF file that has thumbnails of every single photo in your collection?


----------



## UnderAnOpenSky (Feb 4, 2016)

Fez909 said:


> Picasa ?



It also backs up into Google drive which is handy


----------



## Helen Back (Feb 4, 2016)

editor said:


> Do you mean you want one almighty PDF file that has thumbnails of every single photo in your collection?



No, that would be too unwieldy but something like one file per folder maybe.


----------



## editor (Feb 4, 2016)

Helen Back said:


> No, that would be too unwieldy but something like one file per folder maybe.


I'm guess I'm missing something, but that's what I did in the example: I got Fast Stone to make a single PDF file containing thumbnails of all the images in a specific folder.


----------



## Mr Smin (Feb 4, 2016)

Looks like you mean a pdf with a number of *full size* images embedded in it, not a 'contact sheet'.
I wouldn't do that as it's a lot of work to create followed by even more work if you want to extract single images. Why do you not want a normal image manager like picasa?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 18, 2016)

Update on using Photos + iCloud as I've been doing this for a few months now. I imported my old Aperture library into Photos and merged it with my existing one (this is easy but slow, even with fast broadband).

Plus:

* The syncing of originals and edits and folders is really useful, and I'm not even the most mobile of users. The ability to sync edits and libraries across laptop and desktop is really, really handy, and it does "just work", on my Macs at least (see below).
* Photos is quite decent and easy to use for most general editing purposes. I don't do a lot of post, admittedly, but I find that most tools are there—WB and simple contrast/brightness things are the main things I do, some sharpening occasionally. (I'm mostly putting the final touches on film scans.)

Minus:

* While Photos syncs brilliantly between Macs with large hard drives, and doesn't fill up my laptop with photos I'm not using but just downloads them on demand, it doesn't work very well with my iPhone. It seems that even just the thumbnails need more space than I can free up, and you can't reconfigure the space allowed. This was one of the reasons I liked it in the first place and I'm pretty disappointed.
* Photos is not exactly the most reliable piece of software. I suspect it was not really developed with users with over a hundred gig of photos in mind. It regularly beachballs for no apparent reason, and sometimes crashes completely. I've never lost data because of this, and it hasn't reached the point of being too annoying to use, but it's annoying.
* It seems to have dicked up when importing some of my early Aperture shots which had edits done on them. I don't think I messed up the edits _that_ badly. More recent stuff is okay.
* If you have a large photo library you're paying noticeable money. I have to use the 1TB iCloud storage plan which costs £6.99 a month, and I don't use that storage for anything else. I can get the Adobe "Photography" plan for £8.57 a month, with considerably more functionality—just £1.58 a month more. If anything would make me switch it's that.

I think Photos + iCloud is workable, and if you use Apple devices generally and also don't have a massive photo library and don't do heavy post processing you'd probably find it really handy, but for even a serious amateur it seems limited. Kind of what you'd expect as it is designed to be a consumer product.

I'm going to try the Adobe Photography plan... I'm going on a short holiday soon which will give me an opportunity to do stuff. The problem is that I have never got on with Lightroom. I just don't like it. But I'll give this a fair go.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 19, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Update on using Photos + iCloud as I've been doing this for a few months now. I imported my old Aperture library into Photos and merged it with my existing one (this is easy but slow, even with fast broadband).
> 
> Plus:
> 
> ...


It's really not too difficult.. As mentioned above, I really,really recommend finding a workflow that bests suits your needs _as a first priority_. Once that's done you'll settle into all the tweaking opportunities Lightroom has, without constant disruption/ annoyances.
Hope it works out this time


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 26, 2016)

So I've been playing with Lightroom a bit. It's certainly a lot more powerful than Photos for post processing, as you'd expect—better than Aperture too, though you'd also expect that given that there's been no development on Aperture for many years. It does launch rather slowly and has the usual Adobe contempt for OS X interface standards.

Unfortunately what I've realised is that it doesn't actually do sync between different computers at all. It has a system for syncing between computer and mobile, but that's it. (This seems to only have 2 gig of space as well.) I could live with just syncing selected catalogues but having to import and export catalogues, well, I might as well keep using Aperture if I have to do that. "Creative Cloud" appears to mean basically "Adobe App Store".

There's also the fact that there's no import option from Photos (though there seems to be one from Aperture now) so I'd have to recreate all my metadata over the last six months or so, as well as duplicate master and edited files unless I want to redo my edits or lose my masters. I _could_ theoretically write a script to export data from Photos (using Applescript) and import it into Lightroom (requiring me to learn Lua first)... I _think_ this is possible... but that's really quite serious work that would take up lots of time that I could spend doing other things.

It's annoying because an organising app of some sort is a must—individually editing every file in <image editing application X> is far too slow for my workflow and also wastes disc space. I don't see any great reason to trade one walled garden for another here though, and every time you jump a wall, if you can, you lose something on the barbed wire.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 26, 2016)

I had kind of assumed I would plump for the Adobe package but since have been dissuaded from this as apparently my computer is not up to it. This means, as I have no plans to upgrade my computer, that I will probably muddle along as is with dated and named folders, file explorer, and elements.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> So I've been playing with Lightroom a bit. It's certainly a lot more powerful than Photos for post processing, as you'd expect—better than Aperture too, though you'd also expect that given that there's been no development on Aperture for many years. It does launch rather slowly and has the usual Adobe contempt for OS X interface standards.
> 
> Unfortunately what I've realised is that it doesn't actually do sync between different computers at all. It has a system for syncing between computer and mobile, but that's it. (This seems to only have 2 gig of space as well.) I could live with just syncing selected catalogues but having to import and export catalogues, well, I might as well keep using Aperture if I have to do that. "Creative Cloud" appears to mean basically "Adobe App Store".
> 
> ...


oooofff... can't help you on the cloud/ syncing thing as I only use it locally (although I do sync my library and catalogs to an external HD with freefilesync for a backup)
Concerning the Import from Photos. Is there not already an export function in Photos you could use first (instead of faffing around writing a script), then re-import to LR? or is that just all too manual?


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 31, 2016)

pocketscience said:


> oooofff... can't help you on the cloud/ syncing thing as I only use it locally (although I do sync my library and catalogs to an external HD with freefilesync for a backup)
> Concerning the Import from Photos. Is there not already an export function in Photos you could use first (instead of faffing around writing a script), then re-import to LR? or is that just all too manual?


It's not so much the export as the import. I have hundreds, over a thousand different albums in Photos/Aperture, plus lots of tags that are important and that I can't abandon. I could export originals and finals from Photos fairly easily into album directories, and it sets OS X file tags for them too IIRC, but that's useless unless I can import them into Lightroom and retain the collections and tags. This wouldn't be possible manually. Photos and Aperture are scriptable but Lightroom isn't—well, not using Applescript at least, from all I can see you have to basically write a plugin if you want to interact with it. I suppose maybe I could write something that moved my stuff back from Photos to Aperture, and then use the Aperture import tool.

There is also the issue that, while Lightroom is an advance over my current software, it's not so much of an advance that it's worth paying at least £8.50 a month for (this will go up, I'm sure) basically forever. I could cope with losing the cloud sync if necessary—I coped for years without it—but I don't feel that I'm getting value for the CC subscription, given that I'm not interested in Photoshop.

I think I'm going to work on a filesystem-based solution.


----------



## pocketscience (Mar 31, 2016)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's not so much the export as the import. I have hundreds, over a thousand different albums in Photos/Aperture, plus lots of tags that are important and that I can't abandon. I could export originals and finals from Photos fairly easily into album directories, and it sets OS X file tags for them too IIRC, but that's useless unless I can import them into Lightroom and retain the collections and tags. This wouldn't be possible manually. Photos and Aperture are scriptable but Lightroom isn't—well, not using Applescript at least, from all I can see you have to basically write a plugin if you want to interact with it. I suppose maybe I could write something that moved my stuff back from Photos to Aperture, and then use the Aperture import tool.
> 
> There is also the issue that, while Lightroom is an advance over my current software, it's not so much of an advance that it's worth paying at least £8.50 a month for (this will go up, I'm sure) basically forever. I could cope with losing the cloud sync if necessary—I coped for years without it—but I don't feel that I'm getting value for the CC subscription, given that I'm not interested in Photoshop.
> 
> I think I'm going to work on a filesystem-based solution.


Fuck. A toughie!
I guess it's a matter of weighing up your priorities/ requirements: (Cloud vs File-based + standalone system) vs (hi vs low post-processing performance).
Do you really need the cloud version? for me it's way out of the question. I've had LR standalone for 3 years - I was lucky and got it for £50, but knowing now how useful it is, would  have gladly paid the £100 - so, If i bought into the cloud i'd have paid nigh-on £300 by now   Fuck That!

Still, even if you settle for a File-based and standalone solution, you've still got a massive task transferring the metadata and file structures.
There is no easy way really. Check this vid out, the lengths a pro-photographer goes to shifting files around when on location... (not saying there's a solution in there, but just trying to say nothing's one click )
Complete Workflow, Storage & BackUp for Photography + Video | Chase Jarvis Photography


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2017)

So Adobe - who made record breaking profits this year - are now rejigging the deal to subscription-only with mandatory cloud storage requirement. Lightroom Classic looks to bet set out to pasture at some point.

As one commentator observed, "I trust Adobe with all my pictures. It's not like they've ever been hacked or anything."

New cloud-friendly Lightroom has 1TB of photo storage, same UI across desktop and mobile

Adobe doesn't care what you think and quits the standalone version while launching the new Lightroom CC - 43 Rumors


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2017)

For anyone interested, there's a free license for the Optics Pro Essentials available  - DxO & PracticalPhotography | DxO.com


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2017)

This is interesting too. There's no way I want to nail myself to a subscription-only deal and give money to Adobe forever.

Macphun arming themselves for the war against 'Lightroom Classic'


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2017)

This article is pretty scathing
It’s time to stop living under the illusion Adobe cares what you think


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Oct 19, 2017)

ffs


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 19, 2017)

Adobe are just a bunch of cunts!


----------



## weltweit (Oct 19, 2017)

I am using faststone viewer at the moment and it copes with Fuji RAF files from my S2 but I don't know if it will continue to work for further cameras. Elements also converts my RAF files but again I doubt it will work for a more modern camera.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Oct 19, 2017)

The complaints that this isn't necessary and nobody wants it have to be seen in context I think. In a few years' time the idea of not being able to access any of your photos from any device will be something for former brokers who write articles in the Guardian about giving up the rat race and living in a wood.

Individual users hate software rental though, particularly if they're given no choice. It doesn't matter why, though there are often good reasons. If you introduce a standing charge for something everyone will hate it, particularly if part of your justification is features they never asked for. It doesn't matter that they might be future-proof if everybody hates them when they come out.

Adobe is one of the most arrogant companies around, and that includes Apple and even Facebook. They really don't seem to think they have to pay any attention to users at all; it's not just taking decisions that might aggravate a sector. It's going to bite them in the arse because it's just photo editing/cataloguing and it's not hard and being industry standard doesn't save you. Other companies have learned this.


----------



## editor (Oct 20, 2017)

weltweit said:


> I am using faststone viewer at the moment and it copes with Fuji RAF files from my S2 but I don't know if it will continue to work for further cameras. Elements also converts my RAF files but again I doubt it will work for a more modern camera.


The faststone people are bloody brilliant. The software is updated pretty regularly too.


----------



## Tankus (Oct 20, 2017)

Having been buttfucked by photobucket who are holding me to ransom ..Im a bit wary about cloud storage ...plus my elements  gone pants as it no longer supports my new canons RAW....?

There's  probably a workaround ......but its like ......wheres the auto update ..man ...


----------



## weltweit (Oct 20, 2017)

Yes Tankus I fear my elements won't support more modern Nikon Raws either, being as is it something like V9.


----------



## RoyReed (Oct 20, 2017)

If you're interested in alternatives to Lightroom there are several free and some not too expensive alternatives:

*Free*
RawTherapee (Win, Mac, Linux)
LightZone (Win, Mac, Linux)
IrfanView (Win)
DarkTable (Mac, Linux - Win in alpha)

*£50-£100*
AfterShot Pro (Win) currently on offer for £55 - reduced from £80
PaintShop Pro Standard or Ultimate (Win) similar to Photoshop Elements, but a bit cheaper and a bit better
DxO OpticsPro (Win, Mac)
Affinity Photo (Win, Mac) Affinity are apparently working on something closer to Lightroom as well - Affinity Photo is closer to Photoshop.

*More Expensive*
ACDSee have a range of products from about $30-$170 (Win, but with a different Mac version)
Capture One Pro (Win, Mac) $300 paid version - they have subscription version as well


----------



## weltweit (Oct 20, 2017)

Hi RoyReed that looks like a nice comprehensive list, many thanks for that. I certainly am interested in options other than Adobe though Elements 9 does everything I need at the moment. I am considering upgrading my camera and I am sure Elements 9 will become an issue when I have more modern raw files.

Photoshop CC alternatives < [code so I can find this message again ]


----------



## editor (Nov 1, 2017)

This is piquing my interest 



> Macphun (Skylum) today announced Luminar 2018. This edition offers everything a modern photographer needs for photo editing, including new filters powered by artificial intelligence, major speed improvements, a dedicated RAW develop module and a forthcoming in 2018 digital asset management platform. Users will also benefit from the new intelligent Sun Rays filter, LUT support and real-time noise removal. Luminar 2018 has been re-built from the ground up for dramatic performance boosts. Existing filters deliver richer colors and depth in less time. A brand new streamlined user interface speeds up working with presets, filters, and masks. With full support of pro options like layers, masks, and blending modes, complex repairs and photo composites can be easily accomplished. Luminar 2018 will become available in November 2017, and in 2018 a free update will provide a new image-browser / digital asset manager to help photographers manage their image libraries. Pre-order for Luminar 2018 will run from November 1 until November 16. New users will be able to purchase Luminar 2018 for $59, and current users of Luminar may upgrade at a special price of $39.



New Luminar 2018 Takes on Adobe Lightroom | PhotographyBLOG


----------



## mauvais (Nov 1, 2017)

Thing is, it's easy to forget just how good Lightroom is.

I can't say I've looked at them recently but over the years I've tried a lot of the items on that list above, and they were all terrible.

I have no love for Adobe, their practices or their monopolistic position, but when it comes to Lightroom, it was better than anything that came before, better than any other Adobe products, and is actually objectively very good at what it does. It will take a lot of effort and skill to displace it.


----------



## RoyReed (Nov 1, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Thing is, it's easy to forget just how good Lightroom is.
> 
> I can't say I've looked at them recently but over the years I've tried a lot of the items on that list above, and they were all terrible.
> 
> I have no love for Adobe, their practices or their monopolistic position, but when it comes to Lightroom, it was better than anything that came before, better than any other Adobe products, and is actually objectively very good at what it does. It will take a lot of effort and skill to displace it.


I pretty much agree with all of that, plus I've been using Lightroom for ten years and have a database of nearly 75,000 images edited and catalogued there. I really don't want to have to start again.


----------



## Nivag (Nov 2, 2017)

I'm still using Aperture as I only shot for fun rather than work these days but after testing a couple of new DSLR's last week I found out it doesn't work with the current RAW file format. So following this with interest. 
I tried that free DxO that Editor posted earlier, it's looks very simplistic on the surface and  a bit busy interface on a 15" display, though needs more testing to see if it's any good.


----------



## editor (Nov 2, 2017)

mauvais said:


> Thing is, it's easy to forget just how good Lightroom is.
> 
> I can't say I've looked at them recently but over the years I've tried a lot of the items on that list above, and they were all terrible.
> 
> I have no love for Adobe, their practices or their monopolistic position, but when it comes to Lightroom, it was better than anything that came before, better than any other Adobe products, and is actually objectively very good at what it does. It will take a lot of effort and skill to displace it.


It is good, but it's not tied-to-a-rising-subscription-for-life good.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 2, 2017)

editor said:


> It is good, but it's not tied-to-a-rising-subscription-for-life good.


No, but that's just because there's little value in the ongoing service element of it, not because the software itself is bad.


----------



## editor (Dec 20, 2017)

And here's the end of the support for the stand alone Lightroom 

Adobe released the last update for the standalone Lightroom - 43 Rumors


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

This is interesting and the price is very right.












> Darktable is a powerful RAW image processor – there’s no question about that – and for the price of $0.00 it is an attractive alternative to Lightroom. It’s not going to replace Lightroom for me and probably won’t for anyone who currently uses Lightroom, but if you’re absolutely set on paying nothing for a RAW file processor, Darktable might be the perfect choice for you.
> Darktable vs Lightroom - Does it measure up?



https://petapixel.com/2017/12/27/darktable-brings-free-open-source-lightroom-alternative-windows/

Lightoom and Darktable: the verdict two years after switching: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)




----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

Anyone using this? I'm interested as I'm never going to commit to a lifetime of Lightroom subscriptions.


----------



## Bernie Gunther (Mar 20, 2018)

I tried it a few years back. Was pretty RAW (see what I did there?)

I ended up with Phase One's thing but might have a look at where Darktable has gotten to before I commit to buying the latest version of Capture.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 20, 2018)

editor said:


> Anyone using this? I'm interested as I'm never going to commit to a lifetime of Lightroom subscriptions.


Never heard of it before, but like you I am suspicious of the Lightroom/Photoshop CC bundle.


----------



## editor (Mar 20, 2018)

weltweit said:


> Never heard of it before, but like you I am suspicious of the Lightroom/Photoshop CC bundle.


I'm trying out Luminar now as it's had great reviews.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 21, 2018)

Is it any good? 

I'm still running aperture currently. But I need to look at what I'm doing with my photo editing. I'm repeatedly running out of room on my mac.

Out of interest when you're all going through photos, do you delete the ones you're not going to edit and use as finals?


----------



## editor (Mar 21, 2018)

sim667 said:


> Is it any good?
> 
> I'm still running aperture currently. But I need to look at what I'm doing with my photo editing. I'm repeatedly running out of room on my mac.
> 
> Out of interest when you're all going through photos, do you delete the ones you're not going to edit and use as finals?


My process so far is:
1. Import images into folder with date details (e.g. 03_2018_brixton, 03_2018_oxford etc).
2. Copy all the images into a temp sub folder
3. Delete duff images and dit usable ones and then run batch file to resize for web use
4. Run batch renaming tool
5. Copy to local folder and upload onto server for website
6. Run copy and paste over <img src="..."> template in Homesite to change file names and description
7. Copy and paste the code into Wordpress and edit

I'm going to try and give Luminar a run through later this week. I may just dust off an old Photoshop CS4 instead mind.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 21, 2018)

sim667 said:


> Out of interest when you're all going through photos, do you delete the ones you're not going to edit and use as finals?


With digital I do - I'm pretty ruthless. I triage them and delete all the ones which are obviously shit or duplicates (before importing) then I go over them again and delete the ones which are fine but seem pointless and aren't saying anything to me. Often then I'll pare them down even more while looking through them. This is made a bit easier because I have them all in iCloud so can browse through and delete stuff on my phone when I'm bored.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 21, 2018)

My process is pretty simple.

Delete quite a lot of obvious duds in the camera as I go along.
Import (Jpegs and Raws) into PC from memory card into folder e.g."1803 snow"
Look at with Faststone Viewer, delete some more duds
Might look at with Nikon NX for the full exif
Process the ones I like with PS Elements9
Save to "1803 snow/output" folder appendixed "p" for print or "w" for web.

Edited to add, sometimes I shoot jpeg sometimes raw. I don't shoot raw+jpeg


----------



## sim667 (Mar 22, 2018)

Ok thats interesting....

I learnt photography on the basis of "never bin your negatives".... and had applied that idea to digital, but when your RAW images are 70 meg each it kills computer space.

I need to do some deleting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 22, 2018)

sim667 said:


> Ok thats interesting....
> 
> I learnt photography on the basis of "never bin your negatives".... and had applied that idea to digital, but when your RAW images are 70 meg each it kills computer space.
> 
> I need to do some deleting.


I don't delete shots I've scanned from film - I use them as contact sheets and cross-reference them with the negative sheets - but then they are way smaller, and there are fewer of them. Even a colour PNG scan of a 6x4.5 frame is only around 20 meg from my scanner, and a lot of the time I just scan to JPEG. I'll also regularly take 5x the number of digital shots as I would 35mm film in the same situation... I can't stop myself, but I don't get any more keepers.

The negatives themselves just sit in piles and boxes around my flat and don't do any harm apart from gathering dust. I suspect this is how people have been storing negatives forever.


----------



## editor (Mar 22, 2018)

sim667 said:


> Ok thats interesting....
> 
> I learnt photography on the basis of "never bin your negatives".... and had applied that idea to digital, but when your RAW images are 70 meg each it kills computer space.
> 
> I need to do some deleting.


Computer space is super cheap though. Unless something is completely out of focus or an obvious dud I keep them. You never know when even a background detail might be useful.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 22, 2018)

editor said:


> Computer space is super cheap though. Unless something is completely out of focus or an obvious dud I keep them. You never know when even a background detail might be useful.


It is, but it also means more backup space.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 22, 2018)

sim667 said:


> Ok thats interesting....
> 
> I learnt photography on the basis of "never bin your negatives".... and had applied that idea to digital, but when your RAW images are 70 meg each it kills computer space.
> 
> I need to do some deleting.


Sounds like you may have a Nikon D8XX with that 70mb. I am shooting 12bit compressed raw (when I shoot raw that is) and they are about 30mb. Still enough for me to wonder though.


----------



## sim667 (Mar 23, 2018)

weltweit said:


> Sounds like you may have a Nikon D8XX with that 70mb. I am shooting 12bit compressed raw (when I shoot raw that is) and they are about 30mb. Still enough for me to wonder though.



D800


----------



## weltweit (Mar 24, 2018)

sim667 said:


> D800


Aha, me too since January. But I refuse to do the full size raws!!


----------



## sim667 (Mar 26, 2018)

weltweit said:


> Aha, me too since January. But I refuse to do the full size raws!!


I do, but they monster my machine.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 26, 2018)

Nikon RAW compression is lossless. The only reason to use uncompressed is processing time in-camera.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 28, 2019)

Hi all.
I've been using a chromebook for a while now, so haven't been able to process images properly. I've just bought a new PC and will be looking to get back into photo processing.

In the past I used to use a cracked Lightroom copy- is this still possible?
I'd be up for paying for it (up to £200 I guess), but now it looks like they've moved to an expensive subscription model of a tenner a month. That is very pricey.

What are people using nowadays?
Is it still possible to use a standalone copy, or does it all have to be online?
Is there something as good/better that is reasonably priced?


----------



## Pickman's model (Jun 28, 2019)

editor Mr.Bishie


----------



## neonwilderness (Jun 28, 2019)

I never really got the hang of Lightroom properly, so still use Photoshop for my processing. I pay for the subscription (tenner a month for Photoshop and Lightoom), but I use it for work too.

I'm not sure what it's like now, but GIMP used to be one of the better free versions. IIRC there was a bit of a learning curve with it though.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jun 28, 2019)

The standalone copies still work but I don't use it - I think it offers a poor feature set for the price and has a bad UI. There are much cheaper standalone competitors around at the moment. I looked at Luminar (Luminar - The Best Photo Editing Software for Mac & PC | Skylum) recently and it seemed pretty good.

It isn't essential to use a cataloguing program anyway; it has the disadvantage of locking up your metadata. I know proper photographers who are quite happy just keeping their images in folders.


----------



## mauvais (Jun 28, 2019)

I like Lightroom, I think it's great. I used to try every alternative but, much like Photoshop vs. GIMP, nothing I tried was ever any good.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jun 28, 2019)

I love lightroom. Then again I’m editing quite often. If I wasn’t then I’d probably look elsewhere. I’m happy with a tenner a month sub.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 28, 2019)

120 bucks a year, every year is a lot. But lightroom is very good. 

I suppose I've got a wage now so maybe I'll start paying for software for the first time in my life. 

Maybe.

It just seems wrong though.


----------



## weltweit (Jun 28, 2019)

My PC came with Photoshop Elements #9, I use that and FastStoneViewer (free) for converting NEF Raws, some editing is possible at that stage but I gather Lightroom is better if you feel able to afford it.


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 28, 2019)

It is still perfectly possible to use Lightroom V6 - the last standalone version before it went subscription. So long as your camera is old enough to be supported by the final version (6.14) then the only thing that won't work is the map module (Google changed their terms of service). You'll need to install v6.0, then the update to v6.14.

What you can't do is purchase this version. You'll need an existing serial number.


----------



## editor (Jun 28, 2019)

This works on any platform and is amazing 
Photopea | Online Photo Editor

I use ACDSee because I refuse to get into a subscription model for software


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 28, 2019)

Darktable and ON1 Photo Raw are the two alternatives that seem to be getting some interest at the moment.

And (although I don't like the UI) PaintShop Pro and AfterShot Pro are both very capable.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 28, 2019)

RoyReed said:


> It is still perfectly possible to use Lightroom V6 - the last standalone version before it went subscription. So long as your camera is old enough to be supported by the final version (6.14) then the only thing that won't work is the map module (Google changed their terms of service). You'll need to install v6.0, then the update to v6.14.
> 
> What you can't do is purchase this version. You'll need an existing serial number.



Do you use lightroom?


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 28, 2019)

kropotkin said:


> Do you use lightroom?


Yes, pretty much every day.


----------



## kropotkin (Jun 28, 2019)

RoyReed said:


> Yes, pretty much every day.


Subscription or tinkered-with?


----------



## RoyReed (Jun 28, 2019)

kropotkin said:


> Subscription or tinkered-with?


I'm still using a legit v6.14. I won't do their subscription model.


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2020)

It's now up to version 3. I haven't given it a go yet, but it certainly looks a lot better than my old version of ACDSee and FastStone Image Viewer.  
Anyone using it? 




















						darktable
					

darktable is an open source photography workflow application and raw developer



					www.darktable.org


----------



## editor (Jan 23, 2020)

There's also this one too that looks interesting










__





						digiKam
					






					www.digikam.org


----------



## RoyReed (Jan 23, 2020)

I've been watching Darktable's progress for a while. Of all the RAW editors it seems to be the best rival to Lightroom (which I'd love to be able to drop, as I hate Adobe's rent-a-software policy - I've stuck with the last version you could actually buy - 6.14). It wasn't there when I tested version 2.0, but it looks like it might be there now. It can import some Lightroom settings so long as these have been exported to XMP sidecar files (i.e. it won't read the Lightroom database) so for me that would mean a massive export before I could even start to import from Lightroom.

Metadata
• tags and hierarchical tags
• color labels
• ratings
• GPS information

Develop settings
• crop and rotate (crop and rotate)
• black level (exposure)
• exposure (exposure)
• vignette (vignette)
• clarity (local contrast)
• tone curve (tone curve)
• HSL (color zones)

Probably as many as 25% of my photos have had perspective correction applied (I used to be an architectural photographer) and those settings won't get imported which is a drag.

I'm hoping to be getting a new PC in the next few months, so I won't be installing it to test out version 3.0 until then.

If you only (or mainly) shoot JPG then the importing of the develop settings might not matter, and if you're not a Lightroom user then maybe not at all.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2020)

This is very tempting. Anyone using any of these packages?  My Ye Olde OoArrr Photoshop copy is looking well dated these days.




> The discounts will see the cost of the Mac and Windows versions of Affinity Photo, Designer and Publisher reduced to £23.99, with the iPad version at £9.99











						Affinity Photo, Designer and Publisher now offered on free 3 month trial with 50% discount for buyers
					

Affinity are looking to tempt photographers and creatives looking for an alternative to the costly Adobe offerings with a free three month trial of their powerful software suite which includes Affi…



					www.wirefresh.com


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2020)

So Darktable failed to impress me. Just a bit too clunky for me. 
I downloaded Affinity Photo (there's a free three month trial on and it's been reduced to £25) and it's pretty good. I was set to give the new version of Luminar a go but got pissed off when they wanted to charge me £57 for a one-version upgrade - but you can buy v4 now for £59 - so I'd be effectively buying the software twice. Fuck that.


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2020)

I've merged together several related threads that hadn't had a response for a while. 

So what are you using now? I'm still using an old copy of ACDSee seeing as all their updates have been buggy (I've had two refunds on upgrades) the a brilliant free   FastStone program and a really ancient copy of {Photoshop.


----------



## weltweit (Mar 28, 2020)

I use FastStone and Adobe Photoshop Elements 9 which seems quite out of date now - I find it does most of what I want but I am not a demanding PS user. 

I also have some free programs, a star stacker one and MS ICE a panorama program which works with Nikon RAW files.


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 29, 2020)

What's the star stacker one you use?


----------



## weltweit (Mar 29, 2020)

Ponyutd said:


> What's the star stacker one you use?


StarStax though 1) it was 2018 I last used it and 2) it only stacks jpegs and 3) for some reason it doesn't seem to be working now.


That was 177 images (taken over about an hour and 3/4), converted to jpeg in FastStone and then stacked in StarStax


----------



## Ponyutd (Mar 29, 2020)

Thanks anyway.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2020)

I'm waiting to see if Luminar are going to get back to me and offer me a less insulting upgrade deal, otherwise I'm sticking with the ageing ACDSee Pro 7.


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2020)

So Luminar got back to me offering an awesome upgrade discount of, err, £6 over the price of someone buying the latest program now. 
I like to support software developers, but an 11% discount is really fucking mean spirited - especially when you look at what their rivals Affinity are offering.


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2020)

Is anyone here using Luminar? I finally squeezed an acceptable upgrade price out of them but the interface is doing my nut in. Anyone able to help?


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 1, 2020)

At the risk of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted... Would you not just download a 'free' version of Lightroom? Or are you using it for commercial purposes? (in which case you should obviously buy something or find a free something)


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2020)

Saul Goodman said:


> At the risk of closing the stable door after the horse has bolted... Would you not just download a 'free' version of Lightroom? Or are you using it for commercial purposes? (in which case you should obviously buy something or find a free something)


I don't want to be tied into Lightroom's subscription deal and if I use a 'free' version there's a good chance it may stop working in the future or not support a specific camera. And I never liked its interface but maybe that's changed.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Apr 2, 2020)

editor said:


> I don't want to be tied into Lightroom's subscription deal and if I use a 'free' version there's a good chance it may stop working in the future or not support a specific camera. And I never liked its interface but maybe that's changed.


I've been using 'Try before you buy' versions of Lightroom for a long time. They've never stopped working, but the interface is pretty much the same as it's always been.

What I don't understand, is why more software manufacturers aren't adopting the strategy that if they provide a free, fully functioning version of their software, for non commercial use, there's a chance the user might purchase said software, if they ever decide to use it for commercial purposes. Lots of software manufacturers are now realising that this is essential. I have full versions of a lot of Autodesk products here, which would cost umpteen thousands if I wanted to buy them, but they realise that if they don't offer 'free' (In their case, student) versions, then people will simply download cracked versions, which may be beta versions, and contain bugs(and possibly/probably viruses), so if the user does make it big, they may not use said software, due to it not working very well, so surely the best option is to offer a free version, for non-commercial use.

But if you do want Photoshop or Lightroom, (or any other software), feel free to PM me.


----------



## editor (Apr 12, 2020)

Luminar is starting to fucking annoy me. Randomly the presets (or 'looks') won't preview. Is that carries on, I'm going to have to ask Saul Goodman  for one of his dodgy copies of Lightoom if he hasn't already been banned!


----------



## editor (Jul 1, 2020)

Affinity is 50% off (so just £24) until the 9th July. 




__





						Redeem your Affinity voucher
					

To redeem your voucher, just enter your code in the box provided and you’ll be redirected to the Affinity Store.




					serif.us8.list-manage.com
				




I'm not yet decided on it but it's cheap enough just to give a try anyway.


----------



## weltweit (Jul 1, 2020)

I am considering Affinity Photo, I don't think I will be rushed so the current deal may expire before I decide, no matter. What I can't do with elements and FastStone is HDR (don't really want it anyhow but might like the option) and focus stacking which I do want for macros and landscapes. AP can do both and pano stitching. Anyhow just thinking about it. Not looking forward to relearning things I know how to do in elements.


----------



## Saul Goodman (Jul 3, 2020)

editor said:


> Luminar is starting to fucking annoy me. Randomly the presets (or 'looks') won't preview. Is that carries on, I'm going to have to ask Saul Goodman  for one of his dodgy copies of Lightoom if he hasn't already been banned!
> 
> View attachment 206320


I'm uploading the latest Adobe Lightroom Classic (9.2.1).
I've just installed it myself, and it doesn't contain any coronas or similar nasties.
My upload speed is a bit shit, and it's over a gig, so it won't be finished for another few hours but I'll let you know when it's uploaded, and I'll send you a link.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2021)

I just 'upgraded' to ACDSee Photo Pro 2021 and it was shit. The program weighed in about ten times the size of ACDSee Pro 7 and was slower in just about every single task -  if it wasn't randomly freezing.

It seems that they must have peaked with ACDSee Pro 7!


----------



## weltweit (Jan 16, 2021)

I am sort of considering Affinity Photo. I am happy with Photoshop Elements 9 at the moment but it won't do panoramas, focus stacking or night sky stacking which I understand Affinity will do. 

Just sort of thinking about it at the moment. 
I do know I don't want lightroom on the monthly payment plan.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Jan 16, 2021)

I keep trying these whenever they release a new version that I can get a free trial on, but I have to say I've been super unimpressed so far. If you can't offer more than the basic Apple Photos why bother?

Luminar makes a big thing about its "AI photo enhancement functions" but honestly no thanks, I don't want to click a button to make everything look like bog standard Instagram fodder.

I'd rather use any of them than Lightroom because Lightroom is even worse, but when Photos will just sync everything between devices and give me the post-process and metadata options that I want, there has to be some reason to switch.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2021)

FridgeMagnet said:


> I keep trying these whenever they release a new version that I can get a free trial on, but I have to say I've been super unimpressed so far. If you can't offer more than the basic Apple Photos why bother?
> 
> Luminar makes a big thing about its "AI photo enhancement functions" but honestly no thanks, I don't want to click a button to make everything look like bog standard Instagram fodder.


ACDSee Pro 7 is great but lacks a handful of features that I'd ideally like. It's still as fast as fuck though so it looks like I'll be sticking with it for a while longer. 

If anyone is on a budget, the free FastStone Image Viewer is excellent.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 16, 2021)

editor said:


> ..
> If anyone is on a budget, the free FastStone Image Viewer is excellent.


I use FastStone viewer as a viewer and raw file converter. 
It isn't superb as a raw file converter but I can live with what it does for the time being.


----------



## editor (Jan 16, 2021)

weltweit said:


> I use FastStone viewer as a viewer and raw file converter.
> It isn't superb as a raw file converter but I can live with what it does for the time being.


For free it's amazing, really.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 16, 2021)

editor said:


> For free it's amazing, really.


Yes, that is true. 

My elements 9 came with the PC so it was also free really.


----------



## magneze (Jan 25, 2021)

Heads up. 50% off Affinity stuff atm.


----------



## weltweit (Jan 25, 2021)

magneze said:


> Heads up. 50% off Affinity stuff atm.


Hmm, they had a deal going last time I was thinking about it. It seems they often have deals. I won't be hurried I am afraid even by 50% .. wait 50% off, that is a lot!


----------

