Discussion in 'Photography Beginners' Forum' started by cathexis, Oct 19, 2017.
"dadwlunchbox" is my fav! Go figure.
Everyone has great points on the software they use. With my financial state, as of now, I'm currently using GIMP, Photoscape, and Paint.net as my go-to for photo editing. I will look into paid ones once I'm financially able to, but for what I'm doing right now, those three are serving my purposes just fine.
I do think when editing a raw file the software can have an input. I use lightroom and Photoshop (to be honest Photoshop is rarely if ever used) on the Adobe plan. Due badly written or maybe badly interpreted articles, I looked elsewhere at alternative options the last week or so. ACDsee seems a good option, but I couldn't get the same image quality from an edit. I found the noise reduction all or nothing, and the rendering overall disappointing. But that's just an opinion, others may use it better.
The lightroom standalone will be updated til the end of the year. Newer camera raw files are normally updated in Adobe dng converter, so by adding a step to your workflow, you could in theory keep using lightroom
Capture 1 is a perpetual license with free updates "within the version you buy". If they come out with a new/updated version, you have to buy the update. The stand alone is priced at $299 for 3 users. Interestingly they offer a subscription at $20/mo for 12 months, or $240 for the year, which includes all version updates. So basically you're going to pay every year if you want to stay current regardless.
@smoke665 et al,
Do you think it's that important to stay current? I know some people always feel the latest is the greatest.
I'm a skeptic and often feel that when you feel you need the latest you should first ask what's wrong now?
Climbers have vastly superior equipment to the 1950's but the route to the summit is unchanged. Ansel
Adams re-worked his prints of, "Moon over Hernandez" many times during his life but I don't think he felt
that his current print invalidated previous prints. He's on record as eagerly anticipating what we call, "The
Digital Age." But I don't think anyone expected him to sell his 4x5 for a D850. As I said before, I'm a Noob
so if I'm missing something please feel free to enlighten me otherwise. This is a great group.
Thanks again to all who reply,
it often depends on what the updates are. sometimes the upgrades are minor, sometimes pretty significant.
you roll the dice on a stand-alone product. will the next update add features you really need/want? or will you be able to skate by another few months with the older version? i know people that used the same PS version for many years without upgrading. for me, the adobe CC service takes all that guesswork out of the equation. for quite a few years i was upgrading cameras a lot. at least once a year. also, i was seeing a lot of LR upgrades I liked that i wasn't going to get with my stand-alone LR5. the adobe CC photographers package just made sense for us.
everyone has to look at their individual situation and decide what option is best for them. no software is a "one size fits all" solution, not even the mighty Adobe CC. that being said....considering you get LR AND PS for only $120 a year, it really seems like a pretty hard deal to beat.
Good point and worth considering. I keep reasonably current much of the raw processing software available because of my job. Teaching college photo classes it's fair to say I teach LR and Photoshop. At one of the campuses where I teach the department in fact requires photo classes to use and learn LR. So I have to know LR well enough to teach it. For most of my own work I use C1 as I prefer it. I haven't over the years bought every single C1 update. Phase One is good about that and will let you update at the $99.00 price even if your current version is a couple updates old. So I end up paying Phase One a hundred bucks about once every year and half to two years. Starting with the C1 initial purchase price and then skipping every other version update factored over 5 years and C1 costs a little less than LR. And yes that's considering the addition of PS with LR. Add $50.00 to the C1 cost to purchase Affinity Photo and it's still less over time than paying the monthly Adobe subscription.
Caveat to that: Are you and can you be happy/productive without the latest version of the software. If version 10 is out are you OK still using version 9 until they release version 11 (save yourself $$$). Does version 10 have some killer feature that you can't live without. More importantly did you just buy a new camera that only version 10 supports -- gotcha! That's the forced update mechanism that all the raw conversion software vendors use to keep opening your wallet. A lot of folks are excited about the new Nikon 850. Raw processing support isn't fully in place right now. You could buy the camera and get caught with no ability to process raw files until your software gets out the new camera support update. That's a consideration: How fast are they and how often will they likely catch you with a forced $$$ update. I keep a copy of ACDSee current and those bleep bleep bleepin bleeps seem to be throwing an update party round the clock. The minute the new version hits new camera support for the old version get's buried in the tomb -- time to update $$$. So this is another aspect of the software choice that should be evaluated.
Another Caveat: Divorce is hard and they know it and I wouldn't want to suggest conspiracy type behavior but..... When you chose a raw processing app you're getting married and divorce is hard. The longer you stay married the harder it gets. Case in point: I'm shooting a Fuji X camera right now. Fuji uses a non-conventional (non-Bayer) color filter array that they call X-Trans. Demosaicing X-Trans is tricky and there's considerably more variation in the results one raw converter to the next than you see with Bayer CFA cameras. Unfortunately LR turns in one of the weaker performances doing a poor job rendering fine detail from Fuji X-trans RAF files. Hanging out on some of the Fuji specific boards I see this play out all the time: New Fuji user loves the camera! New Fuji user didn't know about LR demosaicing weakness. New Fuji user comes to forum WTF!!! how do I fix this! Now what! The rest of the board says, use Iridient or PN or RT or____ as your raw processing app and you'll be fine. New Fuji user screams: BUT I HAVE 60,000 photos in my LR catalogs! I AM NOT CHANGING SOFTWARE -- divorce is hard. New Fuji user sells the Fuji and switches back to old camera or begins the long process of denial trying to convince himself that LR fixed it in the last update or it's barely noticeable and it doesn't bother her/him.
And last but not least: You really want to pay attention to how your software choice influences your workflow and how that's going to effect your productivity over time. You've made the choice to process raw files. Your workflow end product has to be an RGB image file. There's a fair amount of variation and complication in how you get from start to finish depending on the software you select. Your software choice can set you up for more work over time and/or force you into a partially destructive workflow that would require you re-do all or most of your work to effect a change. LR's popularity isn't an accident in this regard and I'd rank it at the top of the list for most productive and efficient workflow. That fact should not be taken lightly. C1 is neck and neck competitive with the rest of the pack falling in behind those two. ACDSee, SilkyPix Pro, and surprisingly DarkTable are the only followers who aren't eating dust in this race.
I have ZERO interest in updating any of my imaging software. And for four reasons.
1. They've all been abandoned by their producers, so no updates will ever be available.
2. I am not updating any of my gear that would require an update to software.
3. I'm thoroughly comfortable in the apps I use. I can fly through editing and not have to worry about learning the latest and greatest. It seems like whenever there's an upgrade, the UI is required to be radically altered. What used to be in the top right will now be on the bottom left. What was under the Filters tab is now moved to Tools. Why they do that is beyond me. But by sticking to what I have, know and use means I can almost edit my images blindfolded.
4. What I already have garners me the final images I want.
I am still using LR 3.6 and older PS versions. I HAD Adobe CC, but saw zero benefit to their infrequent updates, so I dropped Adobe's $10 a month contract after around $240 or so, money which was totally wasted basically, since I STILL USE version 3.6 which I payed $120 for IMMSMC, some years ago.
I have a newer camera now, Nikon D610, which requires me to convert the raw files to Adobe's DNG format using their free app, before I can import those raws to LR. SO, that is what I do.
My tack has always been to STAY WITH software I have learned to use...to upgrade slowly, or not al all, for long time spans. As far as software goes, I prefer the familiar and the stable to the unfamiliar and the buggy.
Upgrading is a personal decision; do what works for YOU!
Not necessarily, I use silver effex quite a bit, granted there are canned presets available but I rarely use them choosing to make my own slider adjustments.
Like others have already said it depends on your individual situation. Software is designed with obsolescence, how else could they stay in business. The financial software I used for years would come out with a new "version " every year, and routinely stop support of older versions, forcing you to upgrade at some point. Same with image software.
DXO Optics Pro
I’m really scratching my head wondering what Adobe was thinking with their “new” Lightroom CC. Last week I saw Adobe pushed out the updates for the new CC version of Photoshop and ... well, Lightroom... except they forked Lightroom into two versions.
“Lightroom Classic CC” (which kinds of makes you think they’re planning to get rid of it... they may as well have named it “Legacy Lightroom” — from a marketing perspective it’s a terrible name because it makes you think this it might not have a long future with a name like that. Anyway it’s the new version of Lightroom that works the way Lightroom works.
I was always annoyed with the fact that they slap the name “Cloud” on. Their products because there is literally nothing cloud about them. That was another marketing “let’s call it ‘cloud’ because everybody thinks cloud is the new ‘in’ thing these days” even though it doesn’t run in the cloud, it doesn’t provide elasticity of services like cloud software, and you can’t even pay for it in units like any cloud software (it’s the same-old locally installed software... but they want you to keep re-paying for it.)
So now they have the NEW “Lightroom CC”. It’s photo software where ALL of your photos live “in the cloud” — except you don’t get a lot of space. But you can buy more space. If you’re a photographer who takes a lot of photos (which probably describes most of the people on this forum) then you’ll likely run out of space and have to keep swiping your credit card for more space. But the same software with the same user interface is available on your phone or your tablet.
Ok... so for those who have Apple products, Apple has this free program called “Photos” (oddly enough) and it manages your photos on your iPhone, your iPad, and your Mac. It’s free. You can choose to store photos on your own hard drive. You can also choose to store photos in the cloud (but you aren’t forced to). It’s adjustments aren’t quite as powerful as Aperture of “Lightroom Classic” but they are EASILY on-par with anything in the new Lightroom CC.
Given that Apple has a free “Photos” app that runs on your iPhone, iPad, and Mac, can store photos locally or in the cloud and syncs across all devices, and is free (as in beer), I just can’t see anyone with an Apple product using this new “Lightroom CC”. So now ... this leaves those who have Android phones & tablets and Windows. Do those users have a free basic photo editor? Because if so, I’m not sure who would actually pay cash money to use this rather limited Adobe monthly subscription software.
Adobe still has their head in the “if we make it, everyone has to buy it” sand. That’s just not as true today as it was a few years ago. I’m seeing hard-core photoshop users take notice of the Affinity Photo (basically it’s Photoshop, does everything Photoshop does... but it’s a bit nicer than Photoshop.)
Separate names with a comma.