Darkroom or Lightroom?

[Thiophilos]

Some great answers in this thread, and I can't do better.

But I thought I should mention that Lightroom Classic is a VERY complicated program and has a steep learning curve.

I use LrC and am pretty handy with it. But it took me a long time to get to that point. Now even after 15 years, I am still learning new things about it.

I think it is the best raw processor but be prepared to struggle at first.

There are free and easy-to-use editors around and they are worth looking at. I still use them from time to time. Two excellent choices are Irfanview and Faststone.

 

[foxleybob]

I've just bought the Lightroom 5 book (used of a book company) and indeed it does look like a steep learning curve.
I'm not the best at learning stuff, But I'll give it a go, 500 pages should last me the rest of the year

 

[smoke665]

I've just bought the Lightroom 5 book

While reading can help, the current version of LR is 13.3. Over the last 6 months there's been a rapid string of AI updates such that what you learn about 5 may or may not be valid anymore.

I didn't find LR that steep of a learning curve. There are literally thousands of YouTube tutorials out there that can get you up and running quickly by learning while your doing. PS is a different story, it's biggest advantage is its ability to accomplish the same thing in multiple ways, however the best way can change with different images.

 

[Ysarex]

I've looked at Capture One many times, the basic (non subscription) purchase is $299. It's a stripped down version, doesn't include updates, and is only available on one device. To get the added features and updates, you have to go to a subscription plan, still only on one device it's $24/month or $179.04 if you pay yearly. The semipro, "all in one", plan gets you multiple devices, is $34/month or $258.96 if you pay yearly. The pro "Studio" plan is $59/month or $549 if you pay yearly.

I've never used DxO and didn't have time to try and filter through their confusing website for what they actually include, but to buy it, the one time license is $229 and upgrades are $99.

My CC subscription which includes LR, LR mobile, Bridge, Photoshop and about a dozen more web apps, on two devices, is $9.99/month on the annual plan, making it the most value for the money.

Adobe's subscription plan is no question the less expensive alternative. Value for the money can depend a lot on what you value. I place a very high value on a raw workflow that is 100% non-destructive. I abandoned Adobe/LR/PS over a decade ago for that reason. Adobe has improved LR since but not in ways that would entice me to return. I suspect Adobe has dragged their feet improving LR's retouch capabilities because you can always just hand the image over to PS. But for me that adds a destructive element into the workflow and I'll gladly spend more to avoid that. Other folks have different priorities and that's fine.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex your preference for parametric vs raster is well documented here. Truthfully though, of all the images I've edited in PS over the years, not once have I ever had a problem with my workflow that wasn't easily corrected, or made me wish the editing had been non-destructive. I will say that over the last year or so I've actually done much less editing in PS. By concentrating on lighting and camera, for better SOOC images, and continuing improvements in LR, I've found less need to. Only those limited few that need special treatment or those destined for advance creative work go to PS. Advanced editing (in any software) tends to lose its charm after awhile.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex your preference for parametric vs raster is well documented here. Truthfully though, of all the images I've edited in PS over the years, not once have I ever had a problem with my workflow that wasn't easily corrected, or made me wish the editing had been non-destructive. I will say that over the last year or so I've actually done much less editing in PS. By concentrating on lighting and camera, for better SOOC images, and continuing improvements in LR, I've found less need to. Only those limited few that need special treatment or those destined for advance creative work go to PS. Advanced editing (in any software) tends to lose its charm after awhile.

There's nothing to do with lighting and camera that will ameliorate a retouch need like trash in a landscape or a utility pole that's in the way, etc. My exposures in camera are typically perfect. But I photograph what I find as I find it and I often enough encounter minor retouch circumstances like utility wires that LR still handles poorly. Again I think they don't prioritize the need because they have PS as a fall back. Too often LR would force me to go that PS route. I consider that a problem which fortunately I have solved.

 

[JoolsW]

Affinity Photo - Very good, full featured photo-editing application, very cheap (no ongoing fees, no Adobe exploitation!)

 

[smoke665]

There's nothing to do with lighting and camera that will ameliorate a retouch need like trash in a landscape or a utility pole that's in the way, etc

Therein probably lies the difference in us. I'm not a random shooter, my primary intrest is portraiture with some landscape and misc stuff thrown in the mix.

In studio, "everything" is planned/controlled, with ambient shots there's less control but they're no less planned. Even with landscapes, or city scapes I can generally shift perspective enough to get a clean shot. I'm at an advanced level in PS but I'd rather pass on a shot than spend hrs trying to save something just for the heck of it. Plus the new Generative remove tool in LR is pretty awesome now. Here's a crop from the trash bin.

Now here it is with the car and light pole removed, took 3 passes with the generative remove brush and about 3 mins total. Could use a little touch up but still this would have taken much longer in PS.

 

[Ysarex]

Therein probably lies the difference in us. I'm not a random shooter, my primary intrest is portraiture with some landscape and misc stuff thrown in the mix.

In studio, "everything" is planned/controlled, with ambient shots there's less control but they're no less planned. Even with landscapes, or city scapes I can generally shift perspective enough to get a clean shot. I'm at an advanced level in PS but I'd rather pass on a shot than spend hrs trying to save something just for the heck of it. Plus the new Generative remove tool in LR is pretty awesome now.

I never spend hours to process a raw file -- a difficult image maybe 20 to 30 minutes. I just went back through processed photos over the last two months (May/June) and counted 32 that required no retouch of any kind and 30 that did. Of those 30 that did require some type of retouch LR would have been able to handle some of them but not all -- grounds for it's dismissal. I processed all of those images 100% non-destructively in C1 and I'm happy. LR would have p*ssed me off and I would not be happy. Would I spend twice what LR costs to be happy? Absolutely.

I posted the above before you added those two photos. I never do retouch that extreme. I have tried LR's generative remove tool on some of the retouch I do require and it screwed up on work that needed much less. What the bleep is all that junk it invented to replace the light pole under the bldg. and what the bleep did it create that is blue next to the tree it extended behind the car? I don't need that kind of retouch but the simpler tasks I do require LR does poorly or can't do.

 

[Ysarex]

Affinity Photo - Very good, full featured photo-editing application, very cheap (no ongoing fees, no Adobe exploitation!)

Affinity is a raster editor. It's a very good (and great price) raster editor but unfortunately as such it's destructive. Affinity can convert raw files and pass them on to it's raster editor but what it makes available to handle raw files is very weak -- really not ready for prime time. If you're going to use Affinity you need to consider a second application to handle raw file conversion and then you're basically stuck with a destructive raw workflow.

 

[smoke665]

I posted the above before you added those two photos. I never do retouch that extreme. I have tried LR's generative remove tool on some of the retouch I do require and it screwed up on work that needed much less. What the bleep is all that junk it invented to replace the light pole under the bldg. and what the bleep did it create that is blue next to the tree it extended behind the car? I don't need that kind of retouch but the simpler tasks I do require LR does poorly or can't do.

This was a crop off the edge of an image, I purposely picked it because it bordered on the extreme, especially the car. LR "guesses" what's behind the car by analyzing the whole scene, and composing an image to replace what you remove. I didn't do it here, but multiple passes (rather than a single stroke) with the Remove Tool will refine the area, much the same way you have to refine a patch or clone stamp in PS to blend properly. I purposely included the original to make it easier to spot places it messed up on, I'm surprised you missed the most glaring (removed the window behind the pole, replaced with shutters). Also, in the original there was no water or rock wall showing around the car, LR created it from a tiny sliver visible under the house. Still had I not included the original or told you what I removed, you'd be hard pressed to see the errors. I've found it to be extremely fast and very good at removing smaller less complex items.

never spend hours to process a raw file -- a difficult image maybe 20 to 30 minutes

As per above, our editing requirements are very different. On a finished portrait in PS I'll have from 5 to 15 layers on the face group alone, throw in adjustment layers, tone mapping, textures, sharpening, composite layers and assorted other edits, you quickly end up with a large stack, that might take 2-3 hrs or more to complete. I've been doing this many years so "I don't reinvent the wheel" on each edit, my workflow is such that I use actions to populate the stack and perform certain functions, and once I have the first image in a series complete, I copy and paste layers to subsequent images to save time, but many layers like D&B, frequency separations, blemishes, etc., require individual attention.

Yes editing nondestructive is good..... to a point, but carrying it to the extreme, almost a fanatical obsession is not required. As I said earlier, I can't remember a single instance of editing thousands of images in PS over the years where there was any problem editing in it. Adobe Camera Raw (available in both LR & PS) is non-destructive same as C1. If it's embedded as a smart object in PS it can be changed at any time. Interesting quote from Martin Evening's 10 page comparison of Adobe and C1 published in 2016 - “Capture One’s philosophy is to produce a more optimized look that doesn’t necessarily require further editing. This may have led to the perception that Capture One is sharper and punchier, but in reality neither program is inherently better than the other when it comes to actually working on your images and adjusting the settings to suit individual tastes.” For me I'm happy with Adobe because it fits my needs, obviously you feel different, doesn't make either of us right or wrong in our approach.....just different.

 

[foxleybob]

no text.

 

[foxleybob]

Right you guys are obviously not beginners like myself.
I've now downloaded the free version of Affinity photo 2 in the hope of being a capable editor
anyone here have any comments for me please?
Bob

 

[smoke665]

Right you guys are obviously not beginners like myself.
I've now downloaded the free version of Affinity photo 2 in the hope of being a capable editor
anyone here have any comments for me please?
Bob

Open it up and start using it. If you can find some Youtube videos even better.

 

[foxleybob]

yep, I've done the YouTube search and yes there are some good tutorials.
But it's always nice to hear from the photographers here and there