alternative to Lightroom

<p>With the imminent demise of Capture NX2 support (see my earlier post) I've been looking for alternatives for home photo editing for the future.<br>

I use Photoshop CS6 at work and might be happy with that at home except it now seems to have become Photoshop CC and only available on Adobes monthly plan (and is also rather expensive for a home user)<br>

I've just been trying out Lightroom 5 and I really don't like the 'all-inclusive' way it works, in particular the need to maintain catalogues. I'd rather manage my own files. Some of the new retouch features are quite good though.<br>

I've tried some free software such as GIMP - but that doesn't handle NEFS.<br>

Where's a chap to go ?</p>

<p>Photoshop Elements? Aperture? cb :-)</p>

<p>Chris, I’m in the same boat, except that I’m using CS5. Two that seem to come closer to my requirements, which I plan to try under their free trial offer, is Photo Ninja, and Corel Paint Shop Pro. Others don’t support the DNG file format (of which I have about 10,000), and that is a sticking point for me. I don’t yet know if the two mentioned above support DNG completely, but I’ll know when I try. I don’t like the forced catalog structure either.</p>

<p>My combo is LR and PhotoLine. PhotoLine runs all my plugins and the only feature I noticed that I missed was multi-select. I got over it. No threat of going cloud! </p>

 

<p>I have used Photoshop Adobe Camera RAW to process all my NEF files. I have Nikon Capture NX2, Photoshop CS6, and now Lightroom 5. I did not use Lightroom because I did not like the Lightroom catalogs and did not need a database manager for my images. I decided to use Lightroom 5 since Adobe decided to make Photoshop a CC version and I am not interested in renting software. </p>

<p>I use Lightroom without maintaining the catalogs. When I want to edit images with Lightroom, I import them into Lightroom, complete the edits, output jpg files to the folder I want, and then remove them from the Lightroom catalog. If you use Lightroom this way, you need to set Lightroom to use XMP files. Lightroom will then save your edits in the XMP files in the same folder with the RAW files. If you need to make additional edits in the future you just import them again and they will open with the previous edits. I also use snapshots if I want several versions of the image, these are all saved in the XMP files. This makes the workflow very similar to what I had with Adobe Camera RAW in Photoshop. </p>

<p>Stanley-Elements does support the DNG format (inside of Camera RAW) but as I don't use this format, I don't know what you mean by completely). I only use Elements for its editing capabilities and not for cataloging-I use my own file structure for that. Somewhat similar to Robert's workflow except that I don't have to remove them from the Elements catalog as they were never in there in the first place. regards, cb :-)</p>

<p>Robert: That's great. XMP> Wish I knew that before. I use to just save the final and originals on DVD's. Now I can still do that but with the SMP I should be able to recall the edits. </p>

<p>So when you want to re-open the old saved folders with the originals photos and XMP files, what do you do?</p>

<p>The XMP files are saved in the same folder as the RAW files and they have the same name with extension of .xmp. You open them again by just clicking on Import, navigate to the folder with the RAW files, select the ones you want and click Import. When you select the Develop module the settings will be the same as what you had when you last edited them. </p>

<p>You set Lightroom to generate xmp files by: Edit > catalog settings > metadata > check automatically wirte changes to xmp. </p>

<p>If you rename files with Lightroom, xmp files will also be renamed the same as the RAW files. </p>

<p>I tried Photoshop CS6, but went back to Photoshop Extended CS5. Everything still seems to run fine--on my new 6-core machine, pretty much everything in CS5 is instantaneous - much faster than on my previous 4-core. You don't HAVE to upgrade to the cloud unless you want to or actually need to have the latest stuff, all the time.</p>

<p>As a Mac user, an alternative to Lightroom is Aperture, but Bridge and Photoshop together do all I need, being organized otherwise long before the computer even.</p>

 

<p>Aperture Library is the same as the Lightroom Catalog. I'm not sure why it is being recommended as an alternative if the OP doesn't want to use the Catalog. On the other hand, I don't know why someone would be bothered by the Catalog. It's just pointers into the file system. That's it. It doesn't change anything in file structure or anything else, but it expands it by allowing different views.</p>

<p>Chris, you might want to look at DxO Pro or Capture 1. Other free software is Picasa. Glad to hear you have native camera raws and have software choices!</p>

<p>Alan, in your Lightroom preferences, you want to check off the box "write changes to xmp". I'm not really into catalogs and another thing to maintain and back up, either. </p>

<p>Does anyone know: is Photoshop going <em>completely</em> to subscription basis?</p>

<p>Subscription to the cloud gives them more control over the product and vastly reduces piracy. I see no reason for them not to go there.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know: is Photoshop going <em>completely</em> to subscription basis?</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />At this point, the answer is yes for any new versions. Old versions that were purchased still run fine without the subscription.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know: is Photoshop going <em>completely</em> to subscription basis?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. CC6 subscription version already has features that the CS6 dvd version does not. I also understand that CS6 just got it's last raw update. The whole world is going "app based iTunes" style. </p>

<p>Photoshop has always been on a subscription basis, as has most software. You had no choice but to upgrade from time-to-time, as older versions no longer ran efficiently for serious photographers, which are the group these products are aimed at. For example: OS changes, CPU changes (Macs going from PowerPC to Intel), raw converters, use of graphic cards, etc., etc.</p>

<p>Instead of sporadic updates, now there's an even flow. This allows photographers to stay up to date all the time, instead of just every 2 - 5 years, and provides dependable revenue to Adobe.</p>

<p>While it's true that one could argue that with the continuous updating the price per year has gone up (although for me it went down), this is peanuts compared to the amount typically spent by photographers on lenses, cameras, printer ink, etc.</p>

<p>It really is silly for a photographer walking around with $10,000 - $20,000 worth of equipment to begrudge spending $120 per year for the best tools to post-process his or her images.</p>

<p>But I own everything I have, as in I don't 'rent' anything. Why must I have internet to edit and allow copies of my private data in the cloud.</p>

<p>There are alternatives and adobe must accept the loss of a certain user base keeping propitiatory information private.</p>

<p>i wonder what kind of a load an advertising firm would require to do daily work....</p>

<p>RawTherapee is an interesting alternative, especially for a freebie, with a fairly good workflow interface. But it's become very resource intensive, particularly when applying sharpening and clarifying effects. Try it with a fairly powerful computer before deciding whether to continue using it. Works well with my quad core desktop, but is sluggish on the low end laptop. RawTherapee's sharpening and detail adjustment tools are among the very, very few tasks that kick the high speed cooling fan on with my AMD 3GHz quad core. Usually that AMD CPU in my minitower loafs along without breaking a sweat in Lightroom and other editors.</p>

<p>RawTherapee offers lots of choices and control in demosaicing. Like me, you may find some raw conversion options well suited to one particular camera, while another camera may do better with another option. And the contrast by detail levels adjustment is critical to getting maximum detail while not going overboard into artifacts. It's definitely not a one size fits all, or one-click tool.</p>

<p>Even though I've been generally satisfied with Lightroom since trying LR 3.x and 4.x in 2012, I do occasionally try alternatives. And I keep returning to Lightroom. It really works pretty well overall. Highlight recovery in particular is really good - between the sliders for whites and highlights, and the curves, it's possible to finesse highlights to get subtle separation more quickly and easily than other editors I've tried. Great for photos with lots of sky and clouds.</p>

<p>Often when I encounter something frustrating, it's usually my own inexperience with LR and not understanding how to use it more efficiently. There are plenty of good video tutorials but I haven't watched enough of them yet.</p>

<p>I still keep Nikon's freebie ViewNX2 for the odd occasions when it renders NEFs slightly better than Lightroom. And occasionally I like the look of the in-camera JPEG, but want slightly better fidelity. So I'll open the NEF in ViewNX2, apply the same editing effect and convert to TIFF. That's useful when I prefer my old copy of Noise Ninja over Lightroom's noise reduction for high ISO photos, since NN works only with TIFFs and JPEGs, not raw files. Noise Ninja still handles noisy backgrounds better than Lightroom, which can be useful for certain types of photos. But it interrupts the smooth workflow of Lightroom so I don't use NN often.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you like the way Lightroom works then the catalog is no reason to ditch the program.<br>

Use the data structure that you want to use and just set up a Lightroom catalog to point to it. <br /><br />Once you get used to Lightroom you will find that keep your data structure exactly the same as you do now the catalog within Lightroom will give you added advantages.<br /><br />Download the free trial and see for yourself.<br>

<br />John</p>

<p>Jeff is correct, at least for the time being. Although I do have Photoshop CC as a subscription I also have kept CS6 on my Mac. As far as I know it will continue bas a stand alone piece of software but there will be no upgrades down the road. CC will continue to upgrade for the subscription price</p>

<p>Aas we know, all of this can change.</p>

<p>-Cheers</p>

<p>@Peter "But I own everything I have, as in I don't 'rent' anything". I'm sure you always read the terms of use :-) In lots of cases you buy a license to use the program. You don't own it, you may use it.<br>

In case of photoshop CC your data is only in the cloud when you want it to be. Normally it resides on your computer. Not that I like their business model but it's not all bad.<br>

If you don't want to use a catalog based program like LR there are lots of options: Paint Shop Pro and Photoshop Elements come to mind. The latter must be more or less familiar when you use CS6 at work. The Gimp does not support RAW files but UFraw and others can be used to convert the RAWs.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But I own everything I have, as in I don't 'rent' anything. Why must I have internet to edit and allow copies of my private data in the cloud.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You don't own most software. You have a license to use it. If you owned it, you could do whatever you want with it and you can't do that. There are specific restrictions related to your acceptance of the license.<br>

<br>

The only private data in cloud with CC is your membership info, and that's not really in the cloud. As Jos points out, all other data is stored where you want it to be.</p>

<p>@Charles Becker: Charles, by “completely” I was talking about opening, editing, saving with edits, and being able to go back to the original DNG, and re-edit and save. I guess I should have been more clear that I was talking about non-Adobe software. I knew that Adobe would do that with DNG, since it is an Adobe file format. Robert’s solution is interesting - I never considered that.</p>

Even back before the subscription I evaluated Lightroom and aperture 3 and for me (amateur who needed some photo

editing and cataloging, I picked Aperture. I just didn't want to take the chance that Lightroom would be included in the

subscription. Note that I am a LONG time photoshop user, upgrading every few years. God knows how much money I

have spent but I didn't like the subscription option. I've seen too many digital services disappear.

<p>Not sure why some are splitting hairs over whether we own or rent or cloud, or subscription, or not. The fact is some of us have dvd's of CS6 and LR5 and we can load them over and over and over again for years to come. This ability makes us feel different than otherwise spending $10/mnth for subscribing for access. </p>