Lightroom Freeware Alternatives?

As background I am proficient at the CD2 Creative Suite Programs, but no experience in Lightroom. Here's what I will be doing as a real estate photographer. Shooting a half-dozen shots at various flash and ambient light levels to be stacked. I have seen a video on how the files are brought into lightroom as individual shots, which are quite a clutter. Like magic, all the similar scenes are stacked up all at once and the clutter is reduced to the stacked files. At least that's what I think I'm seeing. I've downloaded several freeware programs trying to achieve the same thing, but either I'm ignorant, or these other programs fall way short. I have worked with a program called Hugin, and had pretty fair results, but it's one scene at the time. I'll be delivering upwards of 30 final shots to my agents. I can't sit at the computer stacking 1 at the time. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

If you’re shooting enough in a session to produce sets of 30 keepers and being paid for it, I’m going to suggest that you consider spending the $10/month on Lightroom. It’s not just for stacking - being able to do things like quickly correct perspective and make a dng hdr file that you can then use the same adjustments you already know on are very helpful.

Thank you for the advice. I'm not shooting enough for that yet. I haven't made my first dime.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Are you referring to the fact that Lightroom can stack photos in its grid and flimstrip views? If so, you could accomplish something similar with any software by placing the images you want together in a separate folder, so they are not mixed in with files from other shoots. I do use Lightroom, but I have every shoot in a separate folder anyway.

I use (as an amateurI bithe Lightroom and Photoshoop. Lifghtroom is great for tagging, electing and adjusting photos. I do 90% of my work with Lightroom. For the other other 10%, I open Photoshop from Lightroom and get the result back in Lightroom.

 

As far as know Lightroom doesn't ddo 'stacking' amdd it has no facilities for this. Photoshop (with its layers and masks) is more suitable for stacking. If I'm wrong about this, others will correct me. My experience is that Lightroom is an excellent tool to manage and adjust separate images (as far as I know., there is no good alternative). jotoshop is a much better tool to blend (and mask) multiple layers and is probably the best tool for 'stacking'

 

Mike

half-dozen shots at various flash and ambient light levels to be stacked.

 

This suggests merge to HDR in lightroom

 

however,

 

all the similar scenes are stacked up all at once and the clutter is reduced to the stacked files

 

lightroom doesn't remove the original shots.

 

I don't understand what the OP is referring to.

There is a “stack” feature where it groups photos and only shows one, so there’s less clutter in the browse window. You have to expand the stack if you want to view all. There is a feature to auto-stack photos taken within a window of time you specify. So e.g. if you’re out shooting landscapes and you know that all the burst shots are brackets for hdr, you can auto-stack all groups that are under a second apart and go through and hdr all the stacks.

If you go to Linux there are a number of "free" (if you don't count your own labor in installation) graphics editors, and such

https://www.ubuntupit.com/top-10-linux-photoshop-alternative-photo-management-software/

Yes, you can stack in LR, but as I think others have suggested, I am not sure it is all that useful, as most of us would keep each separate job in a separate folder anyway, which is a more robust solution in the end. Sometimes things that seem useful on study, turn out not to be so in real use.

The reason that free programs are free, for the most part, is that they are not as fully developed as the version that require payment. Adobe pays a large staff of programmers to design and build each of it's features. The price of Lightroom is minimal compared to the work that it can save you. If you intend to do this for money, spend the money to buy the software. It will, when you are getting paid, greatly reduce the hours that you need to put into each job and that will increase your hourly wage equivalent and make your business more profitable per hour invested. This is how businesses work.

 

If you are planning to be a professional, be a professional and buy professional tools. It will show in your work. The attitude of trying to "do it on the cheap" will also show in your work.

Well, free software like Lightroom is next to impossible to find. I would suggest to buy Capture One. No monthly subscription, you own the software and it will do all and then some that LR does. The cost is about $300. I went away for LR when they started this subscription crap and making my bought software obsolete.

1. You get what you pay for.

2. Adobe didn’t make the software obsolete you did by not upgrading.

3. No you do not own capture one. You purchased a license to use the product.

Well, free software like Lightroom is next to impossible to find.

You can try Darktable or RAW Therapee and see, that it`s possible )

You can try Darktable or RAW Therapee and see, that it`s possible )

 

I've tried those and they will work, but are not "like Lightroom".

I was the sponsor for a photo club in a public school. Few kids had the money for Lightroom and other software. So I learned, GIMP and RawTherapee, and Luminance, and the others. Yes, it takes a little more time, but you can get very good results with these.