Photo editing programs: Lightroom, Luminar, Affinity Photo, Darktable, FastStone, ACSDSee and more
- Thread starter wordie
- Start date
mauvais
on reddit or something
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 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
Must fly!
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
Well-Known Member
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.
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
hiraethified
It is good, but it's not tied-to-a-rising-subscription-for-life good.
mauvais
on reddit or something
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
hiraethified
And here's the end of the support for the stand alone Lightroom
Adobe released the last update for the standalone Lightroom - 43 Rumors
Adobe released the last update for the standalone Lightroom - 43 Rumors
editor
hiraethified
Bernie Gunther
Fundamentalist Druid
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.
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
Well-Known Member
Never heard of it before, but like you I am suspicious of the Lightroom/Photoshop CC bundle.
editor
hiraethified
I'm trying out Luminar now as it's had great reviews.
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
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?
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
hiraethified
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
Administrator
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
Well-Known Member
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
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
Last edited:
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
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
hiraethified
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
All aboard the 303 bus.
It is, but it also means more backup space.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
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
All aboard the 303 bus.
D800
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Aha, me too since January. But I refuse to do the full size raws!!
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
I do, but they monster my machine.Aha, me too since January. But I refuse to do the full size raws!!
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?
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
Starry Wisdom
neonwilderness
What would Badgers do?
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.
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
Administrator
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.
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.
Similar threads
