Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing
Thread started 14 Dec 2017 (Thursday) 09:16
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Lightroom vs PhotoscapeX

 
MCAsan
Goldmember
MCAsan's Avatar
3,659 posts
Joined Jun 2010
Atlanta
Dec 17, 2017 07:52 as a reply to post 18519200 |  #16

But Alternatives need to be sorted based on fulfilling requirements. I know of no other product that is a 100% functional replacement for Lr or Ps. There are products that may overlap 80% and do things that either Lr or PS do not do.

Step one....what are the functional requirements needed in the alternative.. For example, a DAM with full import capabilities and browser. That requirement alone kills off Affinity Photo, Photo RAW, DxO Photolab, Picktorial, and many others.




LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
Sideshot
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Sideshot's Avatar
79 posts
Joined Nov 2017
Dec 17, 2017 08:18 |  #17

MCAsan wrote in post #18519946 (external link)
But Alternatives need to be sorted based on fulfilling requirements. I know of no other product that is a 100% functional replacement for Lr or Ps. There are products that may overlap 80% and do things that either Lr or PS do not do.

Personally I can get by without DAM, I probably process 10-20 images a week the viewer on PhotoscapeX is enough. If I just did photos for 40hrs a week that would be a different story. Basically I just new something to adjust RAW pics before PS. levels, curves, light masking,

Photoshop I can not get by without. I COULD use Gimp but my workflow would not be the same or as productive. One thing Adobe software has for me is a ease of workflow, Gimp just dosn't have it for me.

MCAsan wrote in post #18519946 (external link)
Step one....what are the functional requirements needed in the alternative.. For example, a DAM with full import capabilities and browser. That requirement alone kills off Affinity Photo, Photo RAW, DxO Photolab, Picktorial, and many others.

For your professional photographer(40hrs a week-10zillion images) DAM probably is a huge requirement. The real professional photographer is probably a small fraction of the software market. Once you get into the casual user market functional requirements needed start to get much smaller and Adobe has some decent competition.

A couple of other factors in casual user market are
-Marketing, the software has to be easy to find and buy
-Ease of use the average person has to be able to use the main functions without taking a night class.




LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Joined Dec 2010
Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
Dec 18, 2017 06:23 |  #18

Sideshot wrote in post #18519953 (external link)
Personally I can get by without DAM, I probably process 10-20 images a week the viewer on PhotoscapeX is enough. If I just did photos for 40hrs a week that would be a different story. Basically I just new something to adjust RAW pics before PS. levels, curves, light masking,

Photoshop I can not get by without. I COULD use Gimp but my workflow would not be the same or as productive. One thing Adobe software has for me is a ease of workflow, Gimp just dosn't have it for me.

For your professional photographer(40hrs a week-10zillion images) DAM probably is a huge requirement. The real professional photographer is probably a small fraction of the software market. Once you get into the casual user market functional requirements needed start to get much smaller and Adobe has some decent competition.

A couple of other factors in casual user market are
-Marketing, the software has to be easy to find and buy
-Ease of use the average person has to be able to use the main functions without taking a night class.


I'm not a pro, but my Lr catalogue has over 50K images in total. I would never be able to manage all of those images just using a file manager, not even with Bridge, which is my favourite browser for images and the like.

The database functionallity allows me to find particular images very quickly, based on mixtures of subject, location, and time. Using things like Lr's Smart Collections, which can work just like directories on the file system, with the advantage of images being available in more than one collection at a time.

You can do similar using the file system without the database. Bridge has Smart Collections too now. The problem is performance, Lr can keep the Smart Collections up to date in real time, run the collections parameters as a search and it takes milliseconds using the database. Do the same in Bridge and it literally takes tens of hours. The computer has to open and read the data from every image, either from the associated .xmp file, or from the image file itself, depending on the file type. It has to do this for all 50K images every time. I suppose the one advantage is that it only needs to do that once even with multiple Smart Collections.

As well as all the basic images I also have quite a number of Virtual Copies. As well as using them for different treatments, such as a colour and black and white version, Lr also uses VCs for things like saving images that have been prepared for printing. The great thing about this is that you only need the one copy of the image file, all the copies are just saved as additional conversion instuctions, which is simple text.

Actually I don't know why Adobe don't add VCs to Bridge. All it would take would be a second .xmp file, with the copy name appended to the file name, so for example img1234.xmp and img1234 copy 1.xmp, along with img1234.CR2.

Actually I think that quite often it is not the professional photographer that needs complex DAM systems built on a database, but the keen amature. For many working photographers simply putting images in folders by client and date will be sufficient. Many will never need to access images again after delivery to the client, even if they are archived. It is the photographer who shoots a wide variety of different subjects, and needs easy and quick access to those images who really benefits from advanced DAM software.

So if I didn't have Lr, I would still be using some database driven DAM application. What is nice about Lr is that it also has a leading RAW converter integrated into it, along with some very powerful output and export solutions. All in one common interface. Yes I could use separate applications to do the RAW conversion, and generate output, but then it becomes more complex, with different interfaces etc to learn.

Actually if you look at Lr as just a DAM tool, it still looks pretty good. In fact if that is how you want to use it, Lr Classic CC actually becomes a free program. You send the RAW file out to the converter of your choice, and bring the converted RGB file in. Then off to a pixel editor of your choice if necessary. Then you still have access to all the output, export, and publish options. All remain available without a monthly fee. You can still make basic edits using the Quick edit tools in the Libary module. The new Auto algorithms may mean that is all you need for a lot of images. So Lr now needs to be considered as a free DAM program too.

As to the learning needs, it will always take a while to master any new software. DAM software is no exception. Personally I don't see Lr's DAM tools as being any harder to work with than any other comparable system. I always thought I could manage using a file browser only, and then one day when trying to figure out which JPEG file matched the most up to date PSD, and that I had to do that for thousands of different images. I realised there had to be an easier way, because as the number of images grew this would just get worse.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sideshot
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Sideshot's Avatar
79 posts
Joined Nov 2017
Dec 18, 2017 12:02 |  #19

Thanks for all the feedback guys. I have been exploring the LR DAM/catalogs and such, it has been educational and a solid benchmark to keep in mind. It has made me realize that PhotoscapeX can keep up with the RAW editing and conversion but not the DAM and many things attached to it.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18520714 (external link)
You can do similar using the file system without the database. Bridge has Smart Collections too now. The problem is performance

I always thought Adobe Bridge was complete Garbage. Slow.. and slow.. too slow for me. Every time I tried to revisit it was a frustrating reminder of why I never used it.

BigAl007 wrote in post #18520714 (external link)
As to the learning needs, it will always take a while to master any new software. DAM software is no exception. Personally I don't see Lr's DAM tools as being any harder to work with than any other comparable system.

This is one advantage Adobe has IMO, their software is very user friendly and it is easy to make nice work flows.
I explore lots of different alternative software in different things and some of it is good, solid and does everything but it is so user unfriendly that it will never catch on.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Justin ­ Time
Member
Joined Dec 2017
Dec 20, 2017 07:15 |  #20

I have not tried Photoscape X (not even heard about it).
I am with the Creative Cloud, not only for LR + PS, but I also use a lot After Effects and Premiere Pro.
If there is an area where I don't even think remotely to move from is LR + PS for photo, timelapses and video management.
I believe it depends on your workflow: if you are a professional or a heavy user on daily basis, there is simply no competition at the moment, not even remotely.
And $10 per month is next to nothing, even less of what you spend in memory cards, let alone, models, hotels, travels, lenses...




LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Dec 20, 2017 08:11 |  #21

Justin Time wrote in post #18522395 (external link)
And $10 per month is next to nothing, even less of what you spend in memory cards...

Maybe that's how some people justify going on the subscription. But it is not true by a long shot in my case! Memory card $30 and lasts for 2 year at least. Two-year subscription $240.

Adobe's profits are up substantially. Those profits come from charging more for their software. Users are paying Adobe more now than before.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,327 posts
Joined Apr 2003
British Columbia
Dec 20, 2017 08:43 |  #22

Archibald wrote in post #18522411 (external link)
Maybe that's how some people justify going on the subscription. But it is not true by a long shot in my case! Memory card $30 and lasts for 2 year at least. Two-year subscription $240.

Adobe's profits are up substantially. Those profits come from charging more for their software. Users are paying Adobe more now than before.

Actually their profits are up because they have more customers using their products. Actually with the subscription of $10/month, I am paying less than when I used to upgrade both LR and PS with their regular upgrades with perpetual licenses.

One huge plus of the subscription is you don't have to lay out around $900 upfront to purchase the old perpetual software...you have full access to the software at only $10/month.

I believe you are totally wrong in saying people are paying more now than before.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Dec 20, 2017 09:52 |  #23

Hogloff wrote in post #18522422 (external link)
Actually their profits are up because they have more customers using their products. Actually with the subscription of $10/month, I am paying less than when I used to upgrade both LR and PS with their regular upgrades with perpetual licenses.

One huge plus of the subscription is you don't have to lay out around $900 upfront to purchase the old perpetual software...you have full access to the software at only $10/month.

I believe you are totally wrong in saying people are paying more now than before.

If you are using Photoshop, that is fine. What about the legions who don't use PS and just use LR?

The rationale that paying "only" $10/mo is cheaper than paying a big sum up-front is a trap that is exploited by many companies, the most egregious example being the phone companies.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Archibald
You must be quackers!
Archibald's Avatar
Joined May 2008
Calgary
Dec 22, 2017 22:37 |  #24

There is an interesting comparison (external link) of five raw editors by Digital Photo Mentor. Besides Lightroom, they looked at Luminar by Macphun (Skylum), Affinity Photo, ON1 Photo Raw, and Corel AfterShot Pro3. Luminar gets high marks but it lacks a DAM.


Pentax Spotmatic F with 28/3.5, 50/1.4, 50/1.8, 135/3.5; Canon digital gear
C&C always welcome.
Picture editing OK

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
Joined May 2008
Michigan
Dec 23, 2017 12:45 |  #25

Hogloff wrote in post #18522422 (external link)
Actually their profits are up because they have more customers using their products. Actually with the subscription of $10/month, I am paying less than when I used to upgrade both LR and PS with their regular upgrades with perpetual licenses.

One huge plus of the subscription is you don't have to lay out around $900 upfront to purchase the old perpetual software...you have full access to the software at only $10/month.

I believe you are totally wrong in saying people are paying more now than before.

It depends on which components of Adobe's products that you use. If you are just a Lightroom user, like me, then Adobe effectively quadrupled the cost for their software by going to a subscription model. An upgrade to the Lightroom perpetual license would cost me no more than $80 and would last me for 3 years or more -- especially if the latest upgrade did not offer anything I needed. Now Adobe wants me to pay $360 over that same three year period, regardless of whether they add any improvements to the application that benefit me.

If you are a Photoshop and Lightroom user, I can see where the subscription model makes financial sense. But Adobe is telling us Lightroom-only users that it no longer wants our business, as we do not spend enough money with them.

If you do not need a DAM, I would suggest checking out DxO Photo Lab. It's initial cost and upgrade fees are in line with what Adobe used to charge for perpetual Lightroom licensing.


Photo Galleryexternal link
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
Sideshot
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
Sideshot's Avatar
79 posts
Joined Nov 2017
Dec 27, 2017 10:56 |  #26

kirkt wrote in post #18518498 (external link)
That's the lemonade resulting from Adobe's decision to go subscription and, despite all of the hype, not fix their aging, existing applications.

This is a big part of my not being satisfied with Adobe. They are not properly dealing with bugs, maintaining or upgrading the current software. Just raising prices and harvesting more money is the current goal.

Archibald wrote in post #18524395 (external link)
There is an interesting comparison (external link) of five raw editors by Digital Photo Mentor. Besides Lightroom, they looked at Luminar by Macphun (Skylum), Affinity Photo, ON1 Photo Raw, and Corel AfterShot Pro3. Luminar gets high marks but it lacks a DAM.

Thanks for the list some of these look promising.

Scott M wrote in post #18524754 (external link)
If you are a Photoshop and Lightroom user, I can see where the subscription model makes financial sense. But Adobe is telling us Lightroom-only users that it no longer wants our business, as we do not spend enough money with them.

If you do not need a DAM, I would suggest checking out DxO Photo Lab. It's initial cost and upgrade fees are in line with what Adobe used to charge for perpetual Lightroom licensing.

I have PS CS6 which gives me everything I need besides RAW. So basically I just need a good program to process RAW.

I have access to Adobe Cloud but really PS has not upgraded that much from CS3-CS6 to make it worth my while to get dependent on a subscription. I do not like to pay a monthly fee just for RAW and pay for just the hassle of paying and boosting Adobe profits.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
Joined May 2008
Michigan
Post has been edited 27 days ago by Scott M.
Dec 27, 2017 13:05 |  #27

Sideshot wrote in post #18527214 (external link)
I have PS CS6 which gives me everything I need besides RAW. So basically I just need a good program to process RAW.

I have access to Adobe Cloud but really PS has not upgraded that much from CS3-CS6 to make it worth my while to get dependent on a subscription. I do not like to pay a monthly fee just for RAW and pay for just the hassle of paying and boosting Adobe profits.

Then DxO Photo Lab should meet your needs. I recently took advantage of their $149 sale price (same as what an initial Lightroom license used to cost), and everything I used in LR to process my RAW files is there in Photo Lab. The application does at least as good a job as LR, and in some ways is superior for RAW processing.

Upgrade costs from one version to the next have been $69, which is actually a little less expensive than Lightroom license upgrades were when Adobe did offer them. You can download a trial version and test it out for 31 days to see if it will meet your needs.


Photo Galleryexternal link
Gear List

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,675 views & 2 likes for this thread
Lightroom vs PhotoscapeX
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00442 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is wshooter
525 guests, 346 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017