# Alternatives to Lightroom for someone who isn't locked in to it yet?



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi Folks. 
I would like some help from the collective wisdom of the forum please. 
First of all I am not opening this topic to a debate between perpetual and subscription, I have stated my thoughts else where, I intend to purchase LR 6 perpetual if I get Lightroom as I am a novice user and won't (ever? ;D) know what to do with 90% of the ability of the software let alone need all the new stuff that may come along! 

I have recently been trying Lightroom, (5 days free trial really flew by) and I have realised that it has the possibility to raise the level of my post processing, no surprise there then! I particularly like the ability to auto select a whole area, for example the sky around a plane and make adjustments to that whilst completely ignoring the plane, making this my main requirement, (I don't have a steady enough hand or the patience to draw round something pixel by pixel) so my main question is, is there any other software I should be looking at before going ahead with Lightroom? 
Thank you in advance. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Woodwideweb (Jan 7, 2017)

Good Morning

My first post here, but thought I'd point you in the direction of Affinity Photo. I'm by no means an expert at post processing, but Affinity has loads of tutorial videos available. It's more like the full photoshop, but only costs £29 or $39 I believe at present.
It's not as simple as Lightroom to get started, but I find that I can do most things that I need to do quite easily.

Cheers

Chris


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2017)

As much as I've moaned and groaned about the subscription model, as things stand right now, for the money, initial ease of use, and future room to grow, PS CC is the way to go. You get LR included for the $8-10 monthly fee, and if you don't want the catalog features of LR, Bridge works great. You can stick to the Adobe Camera Raw module, but you get all the truly easy, simple power of PS.

If working on selections is a main requirement, wow, I don't know anything that beats PS CC. Sure, LR/ACR is nice with the brushes and gradient tools, but currently selections in PS are so easy it's FUN.

Your many posts suggest a much deeper knowledge of photography and processing than this current one; however, if one is truly new to PS, or has tried it and been overwhelmed, Scott Kelby has a new little book out that shatters the myth of learning curves, complexity, etc that the tutorial industry thrives upon. It is called _How Do I Do that in Photoshop?_

https://www.amazon.com/How-Do-That-Photoshop-Quickest/dp/1681980797

I use On1's and AlienSkin's latest stuff for plug-ins, and I've tried using them with images from scratch. They are not as good as LR/ACR for RAW, and I don't think they are better than Bridge for organizing and accessing files.

I've heard people say that PS CC is too complicated and has more features than they will ever use. My car has a speedometer which suggests it can go 140 mph. I'll never go that speed, or even 100mph now that I'm a family man, but I bought the car anyway...
My two cents. Good luck!


----------



## Labdoc (Jan 7, 2017)

Been processing photos since computers were invented and the first digital cameras were sold. Tried just about every type of software and have to say the LR/PS combo is hard to beat. 

Yes, I liked it better when you could buy them on disks instead of a subscription, but there were so many bootleg copies going around I see why they changed it. Also it's constantly updated. Heard a new "sky replacement" feature is coming for PS. You can still buy LR2015 in disk form.

I bought the 5 day deal and learned some new tricks for LR and PS. I actually did some advanced courses advertised through some of the videos and learned a lot. I don't know when the 5 Day deal will be offered again but it's a great value, especially for novice users. 

About the steady hand. I found a tablet and a stylus was better than a mouse, don't know what you're using. Also tried Topaz Remask, a PS plugin, which does work relatively well.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi Chris. 
Welcome to the forum. 
Thank you for your reply (and taking the time to register so you could reply) I will have a look at affinity, hopefully it will do what I desire without being too complicated. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Woodwideweb said:


> Good Morning
> 
> My first post here, but thought I'd point you in the direction of Affinity Photo. I'm by no means an expert at post processing, but Affinity has loads of tutorial videos available. It's more like the full photoshop, but only costs £29 or $39 I believe at present.
> It's not as simple as Lightroom to get started, but I find that I can do most things that I need to do quite easily.
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi YuengLinger. 
Thank you for your reply, I'm fairly certain that for the foreseeable future a standalone version of Lightroom will suffice. 
I found out about the auto select from watching several YouTube videos, it seems very easy to do the selections, and so far I am very impressed, I was trying to export a shot done with LR to post here and ask what I had done wrong (and I know that something was wrong, just not sure what ;D) when the trial expired and it seems to be the export that is disabled. Not unreasonable, but I would have liked about twice as long to try it out.  
I appreciate your flattery regarding my abilities, and I think I have a fair grasp of photography, but my post processing skills are only recent and only with DxO so far and I find I struggle with that. I think I have reached that point when new info needs to displace older info from the memory and I think the erase is broken! : ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



YuengLinger said:


> As much as I've moaned and groaned about the subscription model, as things stand right now, for the money, initial ease of use, and future room to grow, PS CC is the way to go. You get LR included for the $8-10 monthly fee, and if you don't want the catalog features of LR, Bridge works great. You can stick to the Adobe Camera Raw module, but you get all the truly easy, simple power of PS.
> 
> If working on selections is a main requirement, wow, I don't know anything that beats PS CC. Sure, LR/ACR is nice with the brushes and gradient tools, but currently selections in PS are so easy it's FUN.
> 
> ...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2017)

Afinity isn't what you are looking for as it is primarily a PS clone.

The true strength of LR is the double barreled core functionality, it is a very good DAM (digital asset management) tool and is a very good RAW processor and editing tool.

The only tools worth looking at that offer similar double duty are ACDsee Photo Studio Ultimate and Capture One Pro. Both have their fans, though normally this is because they started out with a strong anti Adobe outlook, they also both offer free trials so give them a go.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi Labdoc. 
Thanks for your input, not withstanding having a look at Affinity Photo as suggested by Chris, Lightroom is looking like the solution, I'm not in a hurry so I will wait for any other recommendations whilst I try Affinity. 
I have been working on a laptop with a poor screen, slight change in angle=huge colour and contrast change and occasionally my desktop with a better screen but the 'you don't spend much time with me' caveat. 
Christmas sales saw a Surface Pro 4 with pen and keyboard which has a nice screen and very good viewing angle added to the tool kit. 
I really like the functionality of the Surface. 
Regarding cost, I have found a standalone LR6 for £89. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Labdoc said:


> Been processing photos since computers were invented and the first digital cameras were sold. Tried just about every type of software and have to say the LR/PS combo is hard to beat.
> 
> Yes, I liked it better when you could buy them on disks instead of a subscription, but there were so many bootleg copies going around I see why they changed it. Also it's constantly updated. Heard a new "sky replacement" feature is coming for PS. You can still buy LR2015 in disk form.
> 
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi PBD. 
Thanks for your reply, I can eliminate Capture One Pro on a price basis, just looking at ACDSee Photo Studio, do you know the difference between the Pro and Ultimate products, I couldn't find a comparison facility and from reading the descriptions it looks like either one would do what I want, and cost is a big consideration. 
I should have said that I'm not anti Adobe, I am trying to minimise outlay and maximise potential. 

Cheers, Graham. 



privatebydesign said:


> Afinity isn't what you are looking for as it is primarily a PS clone.
> 
> The true strength of LR is the double barreled core functionality, it is a very good DAM (digital asset management) tool and is a very good RAW processor and editing tool.
> 
> The only tools worth looking at that offer similar double duty are ACDsee Photo Studio Ultimate and Capture One Pro. Both have their fans, though normally this is because they started out with a strong anti Adobe outlook, they also both offer free trials so give them a go.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi Folks. 
Whilst looking at alternatives I realised I forgot one of my questions, I have read the licence for LR6 (perpetual licence) and still don't understand if I'm allowed to run it on 2 machines, it says I can have a copy at home if I use it at work, but I'm unclear whether that means I could legitimately run it on my desktop and laptop providing I'm not using both at the same time?
Anyone using LR6 perpetual on 2 machines at home? 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2017)

Pro 10 is closer to LR, Ultimate is closer to LR+ PS with layers processing etc.

I didn't think you were anti anything, just pointing out that many peoples reviews of other software comes from a very negative position that minimises issues. If you have an open mind you'll get the best fit 

Yes you can run LR on two machines, though I believe they both have to be either Windows or Mac.

P.S. You can run them at the same time too, I do all the time.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi PBD. 
Thanks for that, I think if Pro is closer to LR alone then it is closer to where I'm looking, although if I can buy it in $ then ultimate could be in the running. 
Sorry, the anti Adobe bit was not aimed at you, it was merely clarifying the situation along the way. 
Yes I understood the Windows and Mac licences were different, they make that crystal clear, the muddy bit for me was the 2 installations at home yea or nae!  Work and home is clear yes. 
Edit. Oops, Sorry, I was looking on my iPad, I just looked on the Surface (to download the trial) and the product comparison is right there! 
I'm really not that lazy, to get someone else to do the work for me. 

Cheers, Graham. 



privatebydesign said:


> Pro 10 is closer to LR, Ultimate is closer to LR+ PS with layers processing etc.
> 
> I didn't think you were anti anything, just pointing out that many peoples reviews of other software comes from a very negative position that minimises issues. If you have an open mind you'll get the best fit
> 
> Yes you can run LR on two machines, though I believe they both have to be either Windows or Mac.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jan 7, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes you can run LR on two machines, though I believe they both have to be either Windows or Mac.



Correct. That is one advantage CC has over the perpetual: you can install cross platform.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi 3kramd5. 
Thank you for the reassurance, fortunately I'm not in need of cross platform installation. 

Cheers, Graham. 



3kramd5 said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Yes you can run LR on two machines, though I believe they both have to be either Windows or Mac.
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 7, 2017)

Hi Folks. 
Ok, so anyone using ACDSee Photo Studio Pro10 know what the licence is, can it be installed on more than 1 machine, I did see Capture One is single user 3 seats, and I found the licence for LR but I can't seem to find one for ACDSee. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## greger (Jan 7, 2017)

We bought PS Elements 15 from Cost.co.ca for $124.99 CDN including shipping. We ordered on a Thursday and it was here by Tuesday. I prefer full versions of Photoshop. I plan to buy Lightroom 7 when it comes out. I have Lightroom 5. I use DPP to make adjustments to my raw files then convert to Tiff and JPEG. The jpeg can be sent by email to friends and I have the Tiff If I want to open in Elements or PS 5 and print it from there. I haven't done much printing so can't comment on how well this works. I couldn't eliminate noise from a picture that I took of an Eagle in a tree last winter. I should open the raw file in Elements 15 and see if I can fix it there. The Adobe Camera Raw in Elements is not as full featured as the version in PS or LR. It might be good enough for what you do.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 7, 2017)

It all depends on your goals...is good enough all that is necessary, or, do you strive for something more?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 7, 2017)

chauncey said:


> It all depends on your goals...is good enough all that is necessary, or, do you strive for something more?



By definition we all want good enough, now your good enough might be different than mine, but that is a different matter. I'd expect Graham wants good enough for him!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 7, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Folks.
> Ok, so anyone using ACDSee Photo Studio Pro10 know what the licence is, can it be installed on more than 1 machine, I did see Capture One is single user 3 seats, and I found the licence for LR but I can't seem to find one for ACDSee.
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



I have ACDSEE Ultimate Pack, I've used ACDsee since we were using Unix for Internet and the World Wide Web did not exist!

I upgraded to the lifetime version for $79 just last week when they offered a special deal.

I get 3 users per product, there are 4 products in the pack(+1 Mac Product). Some of my family members like the basic ACDsee program, while I install the Pro or Ultimate on my Computers. There are 4 of us in the family, and a lot of computers, so all those licenses are handy.

For editing, I could not spot any difference between Pro and Ultimate, so its likely some function that I do not use that is different.

I also subscribe to Adobe CC Photographer package, which I use for serious editing.

I do not use ACDsee to edit raws unless I am desperate, its slow and a pain compared to Lightroom. I use ACDsee for jpeg edits for images where I want a quick and easy image, for craigslist or ebay. If I want to remove the background though, Photoshop is fast and easy. ACDsee does catalogue your images, so you have some search capability, but not a match with Lightroom.

My wife uses the base version of ACDsee.

In the past, ACDsee has been slow to update the raw modules for new cameras, it can take months. They tend to have lots of bugs, and they nag you incessantly when time for a upgrade comes along. No one has been able to remove the nagging. Its very unprofessional.

If I only had one, it would recommend the Adobe CC package but the standalone Lightroom is fine. They may stop supporting version 6 at any time, updates often come in the Spring.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 7, 2017)

I try very hard to use the Raw Converter for all of my processing, but, as hard as I try I can't avoid having to use Photoshop for any retouching (cloning/ healing) or selective sharpening/ colour adjustment using masks. Lightroom/ Adobe Raw/ Capture One are just not good enough for these tasks. 90% of Photoshop I don't use, but that tiny essential amount mentioned above cannot be found in the Raw Converter, so, like it or not Photoshop is essential.
Never be put off by the alleged complexity of Photoshop, there is only a small amount you need to know.
Were I not to have Photoshop I would need something similar, after a lot of thought over several months I came up with Adobe Elements to cover the lot.
Maybe couple Lightroom with Elements. 
Be careful with auto select in Photoshop or Lightroom, zoom in and check the results afterwards, I was horrified with some of the results, I don't use it any more.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Chauncey, PBD. 
I do want good enough for me, I'd also like a little in reserve to allow for some improvement over time, I think pretty much all of the software mentioned far outstrips my capabilities or needs so it is now about which one I can get along with and will do what I want. 

Cheers, Graham. 



privatebydesign said:


> chauncey said:
> 
> 
> > It all depends on your goals...is good enough all that is necessary, or, do you strive for something more?
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi greger. 
Thanks for your input, I am definitely not going to get in to photoshop, all I want to do is adjustments to things like a series of plane shots that I have, planes quite nicely lit, best angle shot has a crappy white out sky behind on most of the planes and the LR auto mask is so far doing a pretty decent job allowing me to mask the bottom of the plane for a slight lighten and then mask the whole of the sky for some darkening and dehaze to retrieve some detail in the sky. I will probably carry on using DxO as my main processing software especially as they seem to have the ability to import and export to and from each other, I have not tried that yet though. 

Cheers, Graham. 



greger said:


> We bought PS Elements 15 from Cost.co.ca for $124.99 CDN including shipping. We ordered on a Thursday and it was here by Tuesday. I prefer full versions of Photoshop. I plan to buy Lightroom 7 when it comes out. I have Lightroom 5. I use DPP to make adjustments to my raw files then convert to Tiff and JPEG. The jpeg can be sent by email to friends and I have the Tiff If I want to open in Elements or PS 5 and print it from there. I haven't done much printing so can't comment on how well this works. I couldn't eliminate noise from a picture that I took of an Eagle in a tree last winter. I should open the raw file in Elements 15 and see if I can fix it there. The Adobe Camera Raw in Elements is not as full featured as the version in PS or LR. It might be good enough for what you do.


----------



## chauncey (Jan 8, 2017)

In my entire life...good enough just never has cut it.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Mt Spokane. 
Thank you for that info, I'm currently trying ACDSee, the masking method seems somewhat more long winded and less intuitive than LR but I guess if I'd tried them the other way round, ACDSee first, I might be saying it the other way round too! 
I have lots of software that I probably use the bottom 10-20% of the abilities, Word and Exel to mention just two! 
Mhmm nagging, I can get that at home, don't need software doing it too! I think the big *PURCHASE* is annoying enough! 
Are you suggesting I should wait for LR7 to launch, are there rumours about it being due or is it it more about historic version changes and if they follow a pattern it should be soon? 
Am I going to see vast price differences between 6&7 at launch? 
As for the raw module updates for new cameras, no new bodies for me for the foreseeable future, and I can see a long way in to the future! ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Folks.
> ...


----------



## pwp (Jan 8, 2017)

Having tried just about everything over the years, I just keep coming back to Lr, and have done since the public beta. The whole workflow and depth of functionality makes it a global favourite.

While I'm not a fan of Canon software with the exception of EOS Utilty for tethering, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned DDP. It's free and delivers extremely good conversions. 

-pw


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 8, 2017)

chauncey said:


> In my entire life...good enough just never has cut it.



In the context of digital asset management and non destructive RAW 'editing' I don't understand where you are coming from with the "if it's good enough" comment in the first place. If this years edit isn't 'good enough' next year just use a different algorithm to non destructively do another edit, or put the file in a different folder.

Asset management and non destructive editing are not an issue, they are entirely non destructively changeable after the fact. The place to look for 'good enough' is capture; camera, settings, lens, support etc, getting that RAW data and it's quality is king, what you do with those 1's and 0's non destructively subsequently is entirely irrelevant, if your priorities change, change.


----------



## Zeidora (Jan 8, 2017)

There is also Luminar. A bit more intuitive than the full menu driven Affinity Photo (or PS, but not in the running any more anyway), but not as full blooded either (e.g., no Lab support). Certainly has the sky replacement option. After using PS for about 20 years, I switched to AP. It's all there, may just be a bit different than PS. If you are new, then you won't have to "un-learn" PS ways anyway.

For organizing, I come from it as a museum professional, so import-export in some general format (tab delimited) is critical. Never used LR, built a custom db in FileMaker Pro. Images are continuously numbered. Data input takes longer, but if you use multiple/odd imaging systems (say LF chromes, next to dSLR, microscope cameras, and SEM images), LR is not going to be able to cope with it. I started 25 years ago, have adapted it once in a while, but never had to start over from scratch.

Besides of AP, I also use DxO, Aurora 2017 HDR, and ZereneStacker.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Steve. 
Thank you for your response, what should I be looking for, in what ways does it fail?

Cheers, Graham. 



SteveM said:


> I try very hard to use the Raw Converter for all of my processing, but, as hard as I try I can't avoid having to use Photoshop for any retouching (cloning/ healing) or selective sharpening/ colour adjustment using masks. Lightroom/ Adobe Raw/ Capture One are just not good enough for these tasks. 90% of Photoshop I don't use, but that tiny essential amount mentioned above cannot be found in the Raw Converter, so, like it or not Photoshop is essential.
> Never be put off by the alleged complexity of Photoshop, there is only a small amount you need to know.
> Were I not to have Photoshop I would need something similar, after a lot of thought over several months I came up with Adobe Elements to cover the lot.
> Maybe couple Lightroom with Elements.
> Be careful with auto select in Photoshop or Lightroom, zoom in and check the results afterwards, I was horrified with some of the results, I don't use it any more.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi pwp. 
Thanks for the input. 
Regarding DPP, I tried it a couple of times, to me it seemed slightly less intuitive than solving simultaneous quadratic equations! Also does DPP do the auto area select for masking (is that the correct term)? 

Cheers, Graham. 



pwp said:


> Having tried just about everything over the years, I just keep coming back to Lr, and have done since the public beta. The whole workflow and depth of functionality makes it a global favourite.
> 
> While I'm not a fan of Canon software with the exception of EOS Utilty for tethering, I'm surprised nobody has mentioned DDP. It's free and delivers extremely good conversions.
> 
> -pw


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Zeidora. 
Thanks for the suggestion of Luminar, but unfortunately that is exclusive to macs. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Zeidora said:


> There is also Luminar. A bit more intuitive than the full menu driven Affinity Photo (or PS, but not in the running any more anyway), but not as full blooded either (e.g., no Lab support). Certainly has the sky replacement option. After using PS for about 20 years, I switched to AP. It's all there, may just be a bit different than PS. If you are new, then you won't have to "un-learn" PS ways anyway.
> 
> For organizing, I come from it as a museum professional, so import-export in some general format (tab delimited) is critical. Never used LR, built a custom db in FileMaker Pro. Images are continuously numbered. Data input takes longer, but if you use multiple/odd imaging systems (say LF chromes, next to dSLR, microscope cameras, and SEM images), LR is not going to be able to cope with it. I started 25 years ago, have adapted it once in a while, but never had to start over from scratch.
> 
> Besides of AP, I also use DxO, Aurora 2017 HDR, and ZereneStacker.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Are you suggesting I should wait for LR7 to launch, are there rumours about it being due or is it it more about historic version changes and if they follow a pattern it should be soon?
> Am I going to see vast price differences between 6&7 at launch?
> As for the raw module updates for new cameras, no new bodies for me for the foreseeable future, and I can see a long way in to the future! ;D
> 
> Cheers, Graham.



I have no insight into what will happen with LR6. Every Spring, there are rumors that LR7 is on the way.

I was merely pointing out that there is a risk to buying it, since its been out for a long time, and Adobe probably wants to generate more cash.


----------



## greger (Jan 8, 2017)

I mentioned using DPP for converting raw pics to Tiff and jpeg. I wasn't trying to be anything but helpful when I wrote Element 15's raw converter might be good enough. I think some people interpreted it to mean just good enough. We all want the best we can get. Sometimes good enough is what we are wanting to get. Wiki has a better explanation for good enough, it even refers to software. I thought it was appropriate as we are talking about software. Try a good enough search to see for yourself that it isn't a bad comment.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi greger. 
There is a lot of ambiguity to the written English language which is generally eliminated during speech by tonal inflections in the voice, unfortunately those inflections cannot be written. 
I'm sure that everyone who has taken time to answer my question is trying to be helpful, even those who question an answer as yours was, may just be trying to bring clarity to the discussion. 
I like the benefit of the doubt, it has been good to me over the years! ;D
I'm trying not to get in to creating Tiffs or any other intermediate file type to bring in to edit, too much work and storage space. (My immovable opinion  )

Cheers, Graham. 



greger said:


> I mentioned using DPP for converting raw pics to Tiff and jpeg. I wasn't trying to be anything but helpful when I wrote Element 15's raw converter might be good enough. I think some people interpreted it to mean just good enough. We all want the best we can get. Sometimes good enough is what we are wanting to get. Wiki has a better explanation for good enough, it even refers to software. I thought it was appropriate as we are talking about software. Try a good enough search to see for yourself that it isn't a bad comment.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Valvebounce
The auto select was some time ago, I was using it lighten or darken the Bride's dress from a wedding (can't remember which), and I found a lot of artifacts were introduced which were very visible when zoomed in - clearly can't have that for professional work. When I made a looser selection without auto select the artifacts were gone. Takes a little longer but no big deal with a feathered brush. I did google it at the time to find others had had the problem. Maybe with the advent of Lightroom 6 the problem has been resolved.
I use CS6 and I checked for the artifacting in my version of Lightroom 5....it was still there.
Before blasting a load of money on Lightroom, have you tried Canon's own software, dpp? Most of us instantly ignore it assuming paid for software is far better. There is one top American wildlife photographer (Birds) who uses dpp for his editing, so it can't be that bad. Give it a try before burning a lot of money, it may be all you need. For the vast majority of my editing I use 3 or 4 sliders only...most don't need super complex software. If you buy Lightroom both sharpening and noise reduction are very very good within the program.
Don't write off Adobe Elements, I believe it does layers now. Layers are very very useful, and quick. I hear what you say earlier about editing, but you are going through the same editing process we all went through. I was happy with basic editing for a quite a while, then one day.......


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Mt Spokane. 
Unfortunately this is that 'vicious cycle' that we can all end up in, do I wait for the new version/model or do I just get what will do the job now and take it on the chin if the new version arrives shortly after I purchase. (Some software vendors are kind enough to update you to the new version if you bought within a certain time frame!) 
I realised that you were not privy to insider info, but I have taken almost no interest in the LR life cycle, whilst you mentioned that you are using it routinely so I thought you might be in a better position to hypothesise! 
You say 'every spring' there are rumours, how many springs, is it possible LR6 is the last stand perpetual version? 

Cheers, Graham. 



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Are you suggesting I should wait for LR7 to launch, are there rumours about it being due or is it it more about historic version changes and if they follow a pattern it should be soon?
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Steve. 
Thank you for the update, I did try DPP 3 and couldn't find my way around it (possibly back then I didn't know what I was looking for : ) I now use cameras that are covered by 2 generations of the software, 40D DPP3, 7Ds DPP4 and don't want to have 2 versions on the go. (I haven't looked recently to see if the DPP4 coverage has expanded to the 40D yet.)
I have no idea if DPP can do the task I'm after, is that layers? Selecting the plane and the sky separately to lighten/darken respectively. 

Cheers, Graham. 



SteveM said:


> Hi Valvebounce
> The auto select was some time ago, I was using it lighten or darken the Bride's dress from a wedding (can't remember which), and I found a lot of artifacts were introduced which were very visible when zoomed in - clearly can't have that for professional work. When I made a looser selection without auto select the artifacts were gone. Takes a little longer but no big deal with a feathered brush. I did google it at the time to find others had had the problem. Maybe with the advent of Lightroom 6 the problem has been resolved.
> I use CS6 and I checked for the artifacting in my version of Lightroom 5....it was still there.
> Before blasting a load of money on Lightroom, have you tried Canon's own software, dpp? Most of us instantly ignore it assuming paid for software is far better. There is one top American wildlife photographer (Birds) who uses dpp for his editing, so it can't be that bad. Give it a try before burning a lot of money, it may be all you need. For the vast majority of my editing I use 3 or 4 sliders only...most don't need super complex software. If you buy Lightroom both sharpening and noise reduction are very very good within the program.
> Don't write off Adobe Elements, I believe it does layers now. Layers are very very useful, and quick. I hear what you say earlier about editing, but you are going through the same editing process we all went through. I was happy with basic editing for a quite a while, then one day.......


----------



## LDS (Jan 8, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Unfortunately this is that 'vicious cycle' that we can all end up in, do I wait for the new version/model or do I just get what will do the job now and take it on the chin if the new version arrives shortly after I purchase. (Some software vendors are kind enough to update you to the new version if you bought within a certain time frame!)



Unluckily Adobe is usually very silent about its new releases (unless it has specific reasons to do otherwise), people involved in betas are under NDA, thereby there's little or no info/rumors available. Very difficult to make purchase plans. Now, it became also a reason to move people towards the subscription. LR may be among the products (together Photoshop Express, for example) for which a 'perpetual' license could still make sense for Adobe (but again, only Adobe has the numbers telling how each version sell).

My opinion is LR is very good at RAW processing, image management (for a single user), and printing (it takes care of output sharpening and up/downsampling automatically, and proofing is simple). The local retouching capabilities are not bad, but there are better tools, especially when the task is a bit more complex. For example a few months ago I took copies of some a century old photos, to make restored images. For some retouching I had to use Photoshop, because with LR I couldn't get the required result.

Adobe sells both, so I guess it's not interested in overlapping the tools too much. Other tools may have a different 'sweet spot' because product placement and market targets are different.

For your need I would give a look to Affinity, Photoshop Elements, and even some of the Corel tools like Paint Shop Pro (although I stopped using it some years ago when I switched to Lightroom, but I rarely perform local retouching), they are all cheap enough if you don't want go to the Adobe CC route.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Jan 8, 2017)

If you are good with keeping your file structure tight just use Bridge and the raw editor...


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 8, 2017)

mycanonphotos said:


> If you are good with keeping your file structure tight just use Bridge and the raw editor...



That makes little sense, and I am a real Bridge fan. To get Bridge you have to have PS or a qualifying product, which Graham has already said he isn't interested in at this point.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 8, 2017)

There are plenty of options available, but if they were as good as Lightroom and Photoshop more people would use them.

Like it or not, the subscription model is the future of software. Microsoft is moving toward subscriptions and OnOne's new raw processor follows a subscription model. The reality is, with annual updates, almost all software has been effectively a subscription model for many years now.

The Lightroom/Photoshop subscription is dirt cheap, offers guaranteed updates as soon as they are available and gives everyone access to state of the art tools. Individually, each new feature may not seem all that significant, but when you look at all the improvements that have been added since the release of CS6, it's pretty impressive. Although you may not need them everyday, some of the new masking tools and algorithms can be lifesavers when they are needed.

I say that even though I am "paying" for a program I never use (Lightroom). I have all the same features in Adobe Camera Raw and don't care for the way Lightroom handles file management. Still, it's all worth the price to me and I pay far more than most because I need access to the full suite of CC programs at times.


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 8, 2017)

I'm in the subscription mode for LR, not sure you get new lens/camera updates with LR6? I've used LR since it first came out and it keeps getting better with each release. It satisfies 95%+ of my editing and file management needs. Easy to get started and learn more about it as you go.


----------



## RGF (Jan 8, 2017)

Labdoc said:


> Been processing photos since computers were invented and the first digital cameras were sold. Tried just about every type of software and have to say the LR/PS combo is hard to beat.



Have you tried Phase One? From afar it looks good.


----------



## LDS (Jan 8, 2017)

BeenThere said:


> I'm in the subscription mode for LR, not sure you get new lens/camera updates with LR6?



The perpetual license gets camera/lens updates as long as it is supported. It doesn't get any new feature.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 8, 2017)

If you want to go the perpetual licence route, after a quick bit of research and my own experience, this is the route I would take:
Lightroom as a Raw converter - Elements has too much missing in its Raw converter
Elements for further post - Elements has good layer making facilities and good selection tools which you can use for accurate aircraft selection

Although I own and use Capture One (as well as CS6), I would suggest it is a huge investment in time to fully understand its operation, and I find it slower to edit in - mainly why I mostly use CS6 for editing

I doubt you'll miss much of everyday value if you buy Lightroom now as opposed to waiting for Lightroom 7 - which may or may not come. April is a sensible deadline for its release.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 8, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Mt Spokane.
> Unfortunately this is that 'vicious cycle' that we can all end up in, do I wait for the new version/model or do I just get what will do the job now and take it on the chin if the new version arrives shortly after I purchase. (Some software vendors are kind enough to update you to the new version if you bought within a certain time frame!)
> I realised that you were not privy to insider info, but I have taken almost no interest in the LR life cycle, whilst you mentioned that you are using it routinely so I thought you might be in a better position to hypothesise!
> You say 'every spring' there are rumours, how many springs, is it possible LR6 is the last stand perpetual version?



I had mentioned in the past that I am on the list of "Adobe Advisors" so it was possible that someone had thought I had inside information. All I do is take periodic surveys about how I use existing products, and if adding certain features would make any difference. Things like adding a stock photo service (No longer a secret).


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 8, 2017)

Hi Folks. 
Thanks for all the responses, since my last reply here I have been playing with ACDSee Pro 10 (doesn't do layers), and then Ultimate 10, I have watched a load of the tutorials and played like mad. So far ACDSee having layers seems to be big benefit over Light Room, yes I know I could get photoshop elements, but then I have 2 bits of software, and my understanding is that elements is 8 bit software (I think this matters?). 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 8, 2017)

Graham
I am an amateur and I seek simple solutions and don't like software that is anti-intuitive. Most of the post processing packages require quite a bit of work to learn as they are idiosyncratic. Unless I have missed something, I find noise reduction on PS pathetic, which is why people buy additional noise reduction software. The commercial noise reduction software is also hard work to get good results - the standard routine soften cropped birds too much. The NIK free noise reduction software is quite good and simple to use and works as a plugin with older PS but not the latest cloud offering. So, I use as raw converter DxO optics Pro, whose PRIME is the best noise package I have come across. Basic processing is also done in DxO. If I want to use layers I export to jpeg or tif and open in PS CS6, which I purchased a couple of years ago. Also, when DxO hasn't updated to the latest Canon release I export from DPP to jpeg or tif and use CS6 with the NIK plugins.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2017)

AlanF said:


> ...The NIK free noise reduction software is quite good and simple to use and works as a plugin with older PS but not the latest cloud offering...



I'm curious what problem you are encountering. I use the Nik Plug-ins, including the noise reduction plug-in almost daily with the latest Adobe CC (2017) with no problems.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 9, 2017)

AlanF and unfocused, I'd be very interested in comparisons you have that made yu choose Nik over PS for noise reduction.

I'd love to get something 'better' than PS but never seem to find it, please could you post some comparisons? I must say the LR combined 'Detail' panel with NR and sharpening combined is probably the worst area of the program for the most persnickety of users, and I always print from PS because I just don't care for the auto sharpening/resampling LR does.


----------



## RGF (Jan 9, 2017)

LDS said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > I'm in the subscription mode for LR, not sure you get new lens/camera updates with LR6?
> ...



In regards to new cameras, no but you can convert to DNG and that will allow you an end around. Not ideal but workable


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 9, 2017)

Hi Alan. 
Like you I'm an amateur and I use DxO for most shots, this quest all came about from revisiting some of the images from this series, 


SE0A7119_DxO by Graham Stretch, on Flickr
but with much worse drab grey background and running out of scope with DxO to darken the sky to retrieve some detail without darkening the plane. I know the detail is there as DxO can show it but only to the detriment of the plane, I am having reasonable success with the ACDSee Ultimate (pro didn't do too bad but seeing the benefit of layers had me shift focus to the Ultimate version) the problem I'm having is the selection tool only seems to want to detect the plane at the first attempt, trying to add different effect layers ends up with the whole image selected, probably something I'm not getting right but I'm darned if I can crack this problem, I had to stop and watch some NCIS as I was starting to get frustrated with this. Back to watching the tutorials and practicing tomorrow. 
Funny thing is Adobe has probably lost my investment in their software because of the short trial period. But then they are probably not worried about my insignificant payment not swelling their coffers if some here are to be believed. 

Cheers, Graham. 



AlanF said:


> Graham
> I am an amateur and I seek simple solutions and don't like software that is anti-intuitive. Most of the post processing packages require quite a bit of work to learn as they are idiosyncratic. Unless I have missed something, I find noise reduction on PS pathetic, which is why people buy additional noise reduction software. The commercial noise reduction software is also hard work to get good results - the standard routine soften cropped birds too much. The NIK free noise reduction software is quite good and simple to use and works as a plugin with older PS but not the latest cloud offering. So, I use as raw converter DxO optics Pro, whose PRIME is the best noise package I have come across. Basic processing is also done in DxO. If I want to use layers I export to jpeg or tif and open in PS CS6, which I purchased a couple of years ago. Also, when DxO hasn't updated to the latest Canon release I export from DPP to jpeg or tif and use CS6 with the NIK plugins.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> AlanF and unfocused, I'd be very interested in comparisons you have that made yu choose Nik over PS for noise reduction.



That's an interesting request. Candidly, I had never made any comparisons. I don't like to apply noise reduction during raw processing. I'd rather wait until the end. I also like simplicity. I'm usually under time constraints and the one-click and your done features of Nik fit my working style. 

So, I just now decided to try some comparisons. Keep in mind that I've never used the noise reduction filter in Photoshop, so this is a first attempt.

First, the original image, which was processed, straightened and cropped slightly, with no noise reduction. (Shot with a 1DX II at 6400 ISO)

Next, is a crop from the original with no noise reduction applied.

Then, we have the Photoshop default noise reduction filter

The Define 2 default filter

The Photoshop filter with strength of 10, preserve detail of 7, Reduce color noise of 72% and sharpen details at 0%. In this case, I was trying to match the noise level of the background in the Define image as closely as possible.

The differences are subtle and when printed or posted, I'm not sure it would make all that much difference. I use Define 2 because it's quick and fits my workflow because I need to process photos from games pretty quickly.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > ...The NIK free noise reduction software is quite good and simple to use and works as a plugin with older PS but not the latest cloud offering...
> ...



We tried over Christmas to install it on my grandson's new MacBook Pro with the latest CC of PS but the plugins didn't work and it says on the NIK home page it is compatible with up to CC2015. Are you using the NIK on a PC or Mac? If it's a Mac and others get NIK to work on Macs then we must try to install again.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 9, 2017)

I can't beat Photoshop for noise reduction either. About 12 months ago I spent a week comparing various plug ins with each other and Photoshop for noise reduction. Some of the plug ins took quite a while to get the best result, Photoshop was much quicker and none bettered the Photoshop result - I tried very hard to beat it.
The best results are achieved in Photoshop by painting in the noise reduction only in the areas that need it thus retaining detail in brighter areas that don't need noise reduction - doesn't take long. Can be done in the Raw Converter or in Photoshop. Unless you are seriously strapped for time, global noise reduction isn't great.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2017)

SteveM said:


> I can't beat Photoshop for noise reduction either.



How does it compare with DxO PRIME?


----------



## LDS (Jan 9, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Unless you are seriously strapped for time, global noise reduction isn't great.



Are you using masks while applying noise reduction? They are useful to concentrate the effect only when it is more needed.


----------



## LDS (Jan 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> I must say the LR combined 'Detail' panel with NR and sharpening combined is probably the worst area of the program for the most persnickety of users, and I always print from PS because I just don't care for the auto sharpening/resampling LR does.



LR sharpening/NR workflow is a lot based on Fraser/Schewe "theory" of sharpening and noise reduction (see their book "Real World Image Sharpening With Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom") that advocates for managing both capture sharpening and noise at the same input stage.

The print module too uses PixelGenius (a company where Fraser and Schewe were among the founders) PhotoKit Sharpener algorithms for screen/inkjet output (the full product supports other devices like continuos tone and halftone ones). Again their "theory" is based on the idea that output sharpening is deterministic for a given paper, output device and output resolution.

Of course you may like it or not, and use a different workflow, just LR is quite designed around it and doesn't leave much space to change it but using PS and/or plugins.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 9, 2017)

Hi AlanF
Didn't test it against DXo prime I'm afraid. I think it was four I tested it against, all of which were dedicated noise reduction programs. All of them, as you would expect I suppose, have a lot of sliders which take quite a while to hit the sweet spot. And, as I said none bettered CS6, which is also very fast to do.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 9, 2017)

Hi LDS
Were I using Photoshop I would use masks coupled with the opacity setting, but no, I do the noise reduction in the Raw Converter. I use the Adjustment Brush and reduce the 'flow' setting to build up the effect. Density I leave at 100%. This allows me to use different strengths of noise reduction in different areas.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2017)

AlanF said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



I am using a PC, so that may be the difference. On the other hand, I do know that sometimes the Nik tool box doesn't show up after a fresh install of CC and you have to go looking for it. Look in the Filter's menu and see if you have a "Nik Collection" option in the filters. Also, I know that with Windows, you sometimes have to reinstall Nik into the current CC folder because some versions of CC create entirely new folders for the program and don't transfer over all the plug-ins.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 9, 2017)

unfocused said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



It was in the Filter menu but wouldn't work.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 9, 2017)

AlanF said:


> It was in the Filter menu but wouldn't work.



Interesting. I have no idea.


----------



## Stu_bert (Jan 9, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > If you are good with keeping your file structure tight just use Bridge and the raw editor...
> ...



Adobe made Bridge free last year....


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 10, 2017)

Haven't been following this thread as carefully as I might, so maybe this is redundant or of limited usefulness but here's my comment on NIK Dfine2. It's not totally obvious so it can be missed. I use the eyedropper to work with colors for noise reduction and where I don't want it I select that color and reduce it to anywhere from 0 to 10%. The default levels of 100% is way too strong unless it's something like sky.

Method: Manual, Reduce, Control Points: Color Ranges, Eye drop each color you are interested in having and NOT having NR in and reduce those where you don't want it to zero. It's really nice to have the ability to slide across seeing the comparison L-R. Admittedly it's more tedious but the result is good.

Graham, Corel Paintshop is free for 1 month and it's possibly worth looking at (or is it a total joke??).

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 10, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
Thanks for the suggestion on Corel Paintshop, I have had free versions on disc (with a PC mag) years ago and I didn't like it much, I guess it might be time to have another go. 
I don't like swede (vegetable) but I keep trying it, tastes change!

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> Haven't been following this thread as carefully as I might, so maybe this is redundant or of limited usefulness but here's my comment on NIK Dfine2. It's not totally obvious so it can be missed. I use the eyedropper to work with colors for noise reduction and where I don't want it I select that color and reduce it to anywhere from 0 to 10%. The default levels of 100% is way too strong unless it's something like sky.
> 
> Method: Manual, Reduce, Control Points: Color Ranges, Eye drop each color you are interested in having and NOT having NR in and reduce those where you don't want it to zero. It's really nice to have the ability to slide across seeing the comparison L-R. Admittedly it's more tedious but the result is good.
> 
> ...


----------



## davidj (Jan 10, 2017)

Stu_bert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > mycanonphotos said:
> ...



But Adobe Camera Raw doesn't work unless you have PS.


----------



## YellowJersey (Jan 10, 2017)

If you want/need the cataloging feature, then Lightroom really is the only way to go. 

If you don't want/need the cataloging feature, then you've got a lot more options. 

I'm the oddball in that I don't want or like the cataloging feature, so I currently use a combo of Photoshop CS5 and DPP, but am seriously looking at shifting my workflow over to Affinity Photo once I get back from holiday. I manually maintain my photo library. If I shot a lot more, then cataloging in LR would make more sense.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 11, 2017)

Hi YellowJersey. 
My understanding is that you don't have to use the catalogue to organise your photos, I have my photos organised how I want, but I'm not opposed to having those locations imported in to a database that would give me additional options for searching my photos. 
Anyone know if I have misunderstood this aspect of Lightroom?
Still playing with alternatives, still don't know which way I'm going! 

Cheers, Graham. 



YellowJersey said:


> If you want/need the cataloging feature, then Lightroom really is the only way to go.
> 
> If you don't want/need the cataloging feature, then you've got a lot more options.
> 
> I'm the oddball in that I don't want or like the cataloging feature, so I currently use a combo of Photoshop CS5 and DPP, but am seriously looking at shifting my workflow over to Affinity Photo once I get back from holiday. I manually maintain my photo library. If I shot a lot more, then cataloging in LR would make more sense.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 11, 2017)

Hi Alan, Unfocused. 
Thank you for the very interesting detour about various sharpening results, it all adds to the learning curve. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 11, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi YellowJersey.
> My understanding is that you don't have to use the catalogue to organise your photos, I have my photos organised how I want, but I'm not opposed to having those locations imported in to a database that would give me additional options for searching my photos.
> Anyone know if I have misunderstood this aspect of Lightroom?
> Still playing with alternatives, still don't know which way I'm going!
> ...



LR started off primarily as a raw converter but with a powerful digital rights management (DRM) functionality bolted on. And at the time of first release, the adjustments available with LR made it almost unique and the cataloging added to its usefulness. It has now become bloated and there are alternatives.

The catalog is a very useful part of the digital rights management and is arguably one of its main differentiations to other products. To be honest if it was not for the cataloging I would probably find it easier to move away from LR but I sometimes wonder if I have LR because of the catalog or if I use the catalog because it is there (my keywording seems to have got out of control!).

So the question comes, when you say 'alternatives to LR' what do you want an alternative for:
- cataloging - there is almost nothing better
- raw converter - this is personal taste but there are a load of options and everyone has their views on what is 'best'
- ease of global changes at the point of raw conversion - I think it is excellent and I can go quite weeks without ever using PS. Before I subscribed to CC, I had standalone LR5 and if I wanted to do any layers work I used GIMP which is free

Another alternative is PS Elements which has the same raw converter and the option on more specialised selection tools.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 11, 2017)

Hi Mike. 
I have my preferred raw converter, DxO, I have my own storage method, what I want is something to make selective adjustments on shots like the example shown earlier in the thread. I was just looking at brushable adjustments until a tutorial really brought home the advantage of layers by spelling it out with along with the examples. 
I have had GIMP in the past, but a lot of what I tried seemed counter intuitive! Can GIMP work non destructively on raws? I seem to recall the need for thingy's raw plugin which I also recall I couldn't get to work. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Mikehit said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > Hi YellowJersey.
> ...


----------



## LDS (Jan 11, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> LR started off primarily as a raw converter but with a powerful digital rights management (DRM) functionality bolted on.



You meant "DAM" - Digital Asset Management - not "DRM" which are techniques to enforce copyright by enforcing usage controls over media (i.e. trying to forbid copies). LR does nothing in this regard.

DAM features in LR are good for a single user usage - but are quite limited compared to DAM tools aimed at larger organizations. Till now Adobe doesn't look interested to add team features to LR.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 11, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Mike.
> I have my preferred raw converter, DxO, I have my own storage method, what I want is something to make selective adjustments on shots like the example shown earlier in the thread. I was just looking at brushable adjustments until a tutorial really brought home the advantage of layers by spelling it out with along with the examples.
> I have had GIMP in the past, but a lot of what I tried seemed counter intuitive! Can GIMP work non destructively on raws? I seem to recall the need for thingy's raw plugin which I also recall I couldn't get to work.
> 
> ...



GIMP cannot work on the raw image, and I am not aware of any layers-capable program that can, which is why the are first converted to things like .tiff or (in the case of PS, .psd) files and they effectively become the raw file. So I would not get too hung up about it. 
In LR any non-destructive pixel changes are stored as data in the .xmp sidecar file. If you want to do non-destructive changes in programs like PS, the non-destructive data is stored in the information of each layer (same idea, different way) but layers are ultimately more flexible and with layers you can actually move pixels around the image. The advantage of LR is that the .xmp sidecar files are far lower memory space than creating a new .tiff alongside the raw file. 

You can use GIMP as a plug-in for LR or you can keep ti standalone and export the LR raw from LR as a .tiff and open that file in GIMP - although I was impressed with the output from GIMP I also found it to be a tad counter-intuitive (I had used PSE before that) which is why I ultimately went back to PSE/PS. But for anyone who used layers only occasionally it is a very good alternative.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 11, 2017)

LDS said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > LR started off primarily as a raw converter but with a powerful digital rights management (DRM) functionality bolted on.
> ...



You are right. Thank you for correcting this.


----------



## SteveM (Jan 11, 2017)

I honestly can't see a high quality alternative to Lightroom. Using the 'Adjustment Brush' in Lightroom is using layers. For any cloning/ healing (above the very basic that Lightroom offers) you would need to open the image in Elements. 
Yes this is an 8 bit operation, but all of your tonal editing (it is this which causes banding) would be done in Lightroom. You shouldn't experience any detrimental effect to your image in this way. Elements wouldn't sell a single copy if people's images were routinely ruined through banding and they sell a lot of this software.
I had a play yesterday where I edited all the tonal changes in Lightroom, converted the image to 8 bit and did some cloning and healing....no problems at all. Many of us spent a lot of years editing entirely in 8 bit before 16 bit was introduced....again with no problems.


----------



## LDS (Jan 11, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> I have had GIMP in the past, but a lot of what I tried seemed counter intuitive! Can GIMP work non destructively on raws? I seem to recall the need for thingy's raw plugin which I also recall I couldn't get to work.



If you use GIMP, be aware 2.8 it's still a bit too tied to the sRGB colour space. It may not matter much if you output into that color space and/or doesn't edit much colors, but if you do and/or print on many pro photo printers it may become an issue, depending on the images.

Also AFAIK 2.8 doesn't support 16 bit image editing, which again may be an issue for your images or not - depending on how you convert RAWs for input.

AFAIK GIMP can use Darktable and UFRAW as RAW converters - but some of them don't work on Windows, and may need other pieces to work. 

Version 2.9 - which is not a "stable" one yet - improves color management and adds 16/32 bit file processing.

Adjustment layers I'm afraid are planned for a future version (see https://wiki.gimp.org/wiki/Roadmap), and GIMP development is not really fast... my take on GIMP is "if it does what you need, use it, but don't expect missing features to be added quickly".


----------



## SteveM (Jan 11, 2017)

Canon have just released a new version of dpp which supports older models, so no need to have 2 versions open at once....for me at least as the new version supports the original 5D as well.
I'll be downloading that tonight.
That should be worth another look at - principally because it is free.


----------



## Diko (Jan 12, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> ... is there any other software I should be looking at before going ahead with Lightroom?



Yes there is the new *On1 Photo RAW * and it's layer feature. However have in mind it's a new program just released. 

As general alternatives you will always have the faster *Capture One*, which is faster and with better IQ output, but harder to learn and with less of the *Adobe LR* catalog power.

I hope I helped ;-)


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 12, 2017)

I bought ON1 Photo RAW when it was offered just before Christmas but haven't had time to get seriously into it yet. They are making a great to do about what they will be adding and if they follow through it will be impressive. It seems more directed towards landscape though. They are also trying hard to draw folks into their subscription ON1 Plus community.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi Mike. 
Sorry, my mistake with the description, by work with, I meant open the raw and allow me to fiddle with the way it looks then save the changes to an associated file, sidecar or whatever other proprietary name programs like DxO call their file, I like not having to convert to xyz to work on them and storage is an expense that always raises the question "why do you need more storage already?" and there is no way I am not keeping the original cr2 files so duplication needs to be minimal. 

Cheers, Graham. 



Mikehit said:


> GIMP cannot work on the raw image, and I am not aware of any layers-capable program that can, which is why the are first converted to things like .tiff or (in the case of PS, .psd) files and they effectively become the raw file. So I would not get too hung up about it.
> In LR any non-destructive pixel changes are stored as data in the .xmp sidecar file. If you want to do non-destructive changes in programs like PS, the non-destructive data is stored in the information of each layer (same idea, different way) but layers are ultimately more flexible and with layers you can actually move pixels around the image. The advantage of LR is that the .xmp sidecar files are far lower memory space than creating a new .tiff alongside the raw file.
> 
> You can use GIMP as a plug-in for LR or you can keep ti standalone and export the LR raw from LR as a .tiff and open that file in GIMP - although I was impressed with the output from GIMP I also found it to be a tad counter-intuitive (I had used PSE before that) which is why I ultimately went back to PSE/PS. But for anyone who used layers only occasionally it is a very good alternative.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi Steve. 
Thank you for that explanation, most enlightening. 

Cheers, Graham. 



SteveM said:


> I honestly can't see a high quality alternative to Lightroom. Using the 'Adjustment Brush' in Lightroom is using layers. For any cloning/ healing (above the very basic that Lightroom offers) you would need to open the image in Elements.
> Yes this is an 8 bit operation, but all of your tonal editing (it is this which causes banding) would be done in Lightroom. You shouldn't experience any detrimental effect to your image in this way. Elements wouldn't sell a single copy if people's images were routinely ruined through banding and they sell a lot of this software.
> I had a play yesterday where I edited all the tonal changes in Lightroom, converted the image to 8 bit and did some cloning and healing....no problems at all. Many of us spent a lot of years editing entirely in 8 bit before 16 bit was introduced....again with no problems.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi LDS. 
Thanks for this info, and it was UFRaw which I couldn't get working, seemed like it worked in some limited way but not as a plugin or access route to GIMP. 

Cheers, Graham. 



LDS said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > I have had GIMP in the past, but a lot of what I tried seemed counter intuitive! Can GIMP work non destructively on raws? I seem to recall the need for thingy's raw plugin which I also recall I couldn't get to work.
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi Steve. 
Yes I just responded about this on the notification thread, but thanks for mentioning it here anyway. 

Cheers, Graham. 



SteveM said:


> Canon have just released a new version of dpp which supports older models, so no need to have 2 versions open at once....for me at least as the new version supports the original 5D as well.
> I'll be downloading that tonight.
> That should be worth another look at - principally because it is free.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi Diko. 
Thanks, I just had a look at it, seems competitively priced and a big thing about no subscription needed! 

Cheers, Graham. 



Diko said:


> Valvebounce said:
> 
> 
> > ... is there any other software I should be looking at before going ahead with Lightroom?
> ...


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
Thanks for this, have you tried it at all, any thoughts? 
I see, no subscription needed, but please join our subscription model. (You will be less troubled than when we force it on everyone?) ;D

Cheers, Graham. 



Jack Douglas said:


> I bought ON1 Photo RAW when it was offered just before Christmas but haven't had time to get seriously into it yet. They are making a great to do about what they will be adding and if they follow through it will be impressive. It seems more directed towards landscape though. They are also trying hard to draw folks into their subscription ON1 Plus community.
> 
> Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 13, 2017)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Jack.
> Thanks for this, have you tried it at all, any thoughts?
> I see, no subscription needed, but please join our subscription model. (You will be less troubled than when we force it on everyone?) ;D
> 
> ...



Graham, unfortunately I am probably behind you when it comes to PP expertise. I have found that DPP has served me very well for a basic conversion with adjustments but I don't have a sophisticated file system and I haven't been doing the type of mod that your thread is addressing. In essence, I'm still where you are in spite of that impulsive moment when I purchased ON1. I previously bought the latest Corel Paintshop Pro X8 but when you don't have time it's easy to purchase and then do little with it. Corel's software appears to allow everything a person would want to do and I think it suffers from a lack of "name" more than anything. I have a hunch it's better than PS Essentials but....

So, get this sorted out so you can advise me! 

Jack


----------



## LDS (Jan 13, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> I previously bought the latest Corel Paintshop Pro X8 but when you don't have time it's easy to purchase and then do little with it. Corel's software appears to allow everything a person would want to do and I think it suffers from a lack of "name" more than anything. I have a hunch it's better than PS Essentials but....



PaintShopPro had a "name" when it was still owned by Jasc. Back then, it was a leaner, cheaper alternative to PhotoShop for many users - but the most demanding ones (sure, it lacked many of the advanced features of Photoshop).

Unluckily when it was bought by Corel it became more a "you press a button, we do the rest" product aimed at the casual user, and quality decreased, disappointing many old time users.

I used it from version 5 until X3, which I removed when I found it was installing junk services scanning your disks (and which were active even after PSP was closed!), and the product quality/features weren't up to competition. Then I started to use Lightroom.

Hope those issues have been addressed in later releases - surely it has more features then Elements, but may require the same skills as Photoshop (unless you use the pre-built filter/effects) - there's a trial, and may be still worth a look.

But this graph explains what happened to it...

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-hLkTI-UeXeU/TxmdV_tD07I/AAAAAAAAAFA/E1C1-wuGr0k/s593/rippsp.png


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 13, 2017)

Thanks for that LDS. Well, maybe you'd like to take a look at the latest Paint Shop Pro and comment. I know that's asking a lot.  I get the feeling ON1 might be taking a similar approach - pre-built effects. 

Pressed for time, I tried to play with it and didn't find it all that intuitive and so it's on the back burner. It's more fun shooting than sitting in front of a computer. DPP, it's a little exposure and color correction and it's tweaked as long as the shot is decent to start with, so that's what I've been doing.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 14, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
Well I downloaded On1 Photo Raw having already been trying ACDSee, and having had a go at Lightroom, all I can say is it took me about 5 minutes to get bored with trying to do anything with it, it just did not seem to have the ease of use to get me hooked, no software is right for all users, this one didn't seem to be the right one for me. 
However ACDSee just made it impossible to say no with a special offer of $89 for the Ultimate Pack, cheaper than Ultimate on its own! As I seemed to be getting along with ultimate reasonably well and there is a 30 Day money back it seemed like a no brainer! :
Ask me in a while how this turns out. 

So thank you to all who have given ideas for me to pursue I really appreciate all of your help and time you took to respond. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 14, 2017)

Graham, I can relate to that. I'm hoping they follow through with half of their promises.

Jack


----------



## Jack Douglas (Jan 18, 2017)

Jack Douglas said:


> Graham, I can relate to that. I'm hoping they follow through with half of their promises.
> 
> Jack



Just responded to an email linking to an ON1 Photo RAW blog and watched a tutorial. it was pretty good so noticing that there were more videos I started scanning through what is offered, and it's impressive. I think it would be worth your while to look at a few because it appears to me that this software can do a lot. Here's the last one I viewed on masking.

https://www.on1.com/blog/using-the-different-masking-tools/

They really seem to be bent on producing a top product with great support.

Jack


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 18, 2017)

Hi Jack. 
Thank you for that link, I will watch it later and see how it goes. 

Cheers, Graham.


----------

