CCC Forum

As part of my continuing series of alternatives to Lightroom, here is a link of a summary of the main contenders published on PetaPixel.

https://petapixel.com/2019/05/21/altern ... m-in-2019/

Despite improvements to the main contenders, the situation has not changed. The best alternative for those seeking a perpetual licence remains Capture One, which is also the most expensive. For Sony and Fuji* owners, at least there is the option of a free version, albeit with limited functionality. Of the rest, Luminar looks to be the most promising. For the moment, it lacks a fully fledged cataloguing function, although that is in development.

I have used older iterations of DxO Photolab distributed free as an incentive to buy the latest version and quite like the application. Unfortunately, it has two major shortcomings. There is no means to catalogue images and DxO steadfastly refuses to support Fuji's X-Trans sensor. As I mainly shoot with a Fuji camera these days, it is a significant omission.

For my money, Lightroom continues to offer the best range of tools for my needs. I am able to process most images to completion without recourse to Photoshop. With the subscription model, I am also assured of having the latest functionality without having to wait for a major release, for which I would have to pay. Provided Adobe continues to offer a reasonably priced subscription model, I have no incentive to change.

* Capture One has long had the reputation of offering the best conversions from Fuji Raw files, although that advantage has been negated by the recent introduction of Lightroom's "Enhance Details" feature. Speaking to a Fuji rep recently, he seemed to think that Fuji and Phase One came to a commercial arrangement to offer the free Fuji only option.

With the subscription model, I am also assured of having the latest functionality without having to wait for a major release, for which I would have to pay.

A subscription model and incremental releases are distinct things; neither requires the other.

Also, I don't understand "for which I would have to pay" - you are paying continually instead. Whether the latest functionality is relevant to you or not.
For example, I've paid three times for Lightroom, from v1 to v3 to v6 - had I been paying £10 a month since v1, by now I would have paid Adobe a thousand pounds more. The latest Lightroom definitely does not contain £1k worth of extra features for me.

I switched to ACDSEE, like two of the software mentioned in the review you don't need to import your files. It has all of the LR functionality and if you need it layers etc. In terms of switching from LR, it was a painless process. The only thing I have missed is the active second monitor. While it supports a second monitor it's not as useful as the LR implementation. The main thing is you can choose one off payment or subscription.I agree with you Peter, why pay for things that you are not going to benefit from.
The rental model leaves you with nothing when you stop paying. Next they will be leasing the camera system software !o)

Franke07 wrote:I switched to ACDSEE, like two of the software mentioned in the review you don't need to import your files. It has all of the LR functionality and if you need it layers etc. In terms of switching from LR, it was a painless process. The only thing I have missed is the active second monitor. While it supports a second monitor it's not as useful as the LR implementation. The main thing is you can choose one off payment or subscription.I agree with you Peter, why pay for things that you are not going to benefit from.

Thanks for pointing out ACDSee, Frank. I have longed used its image viewing software which I have always found to be a bit clunky, so have avoided the company's other products. Maybe it is time to look again.

I have been doing the maths after seeing Peter's comment. If Lightroom and Photoshop had been only available to lease over the last 10 or 11 years, I would still be ahead. That assumes that I paid full price for both applications. Photoshop was around £600 and, if memory serves, Lightroom launched at £200 or so. Adobe later reduced the price to £100 with upgrades coming in at around £60. That assumes I took most of the updates, which tended to be the case.

The last Photoshop update to CS6 was a bit of a sore point, though. I was going to skip it until Adobe said it would only allow updates from the previous version, not the last three as previously. CS6 turned out to be the last iteration for which a perpetual licence was available. It is impossible to know Adobe's plans and intentions at the time it made the statement about future upgrades, but either way it mislead me into shelling out £180 I was not intending to spend.

Taking only Lightroom updates into account, then yes, Adobe is substantially ahead. But Lightroom has never been available on its own and there are benefits to having Photoshop on a compatible version. As part of my workflow when assessing shots, I frequently apply updates to Raw images using Lightroom, but open them in Photoshop. More often than not, I end up discarding the Photoshop copy. Having both applications on the same version of ACR means that I do not have a second file on the disk which I have to remember to delete. That is worth money to me.

I have spoken about Adobe's trustworthiness, but I believe that one reason why the company introduced the leasing model was to combat illegal use. As an expensive application, Photoshop was a widely pirated program. Users such as myself who always used legitimate copies are paying the price for others' dishonesty.

Franke07 wrote:The rental model leaves you with nothing when you stop paying. Next they will be leasing the camera system software !o)

That might not be as extreme as you think, Frank, if this move by Panasonic is anything to go by. Purchase the hardware, but pay extra to use it to its full potential. Incidentally, Sony takes a similar approach with its cameras and some features have to be unlocked through paid for updates. The camera industry is struggling at the moment and inevitably must be looking for alternate sources of revenue.

https://www.4kshooters.net/2019/04/01/p ... july-2019/

If anyone is interested, DxO Photolab 2 is on sale at the upgrade price of £69until 4 June. As I mentioned previously, it looks like a decent application even if it is useless for Fuji shooters. There is no catalogue function, which might be a benefit for some. For those who are worried about that kind of thing*, it has a class leading noise reduction feature.

https://shop.dxo.com/basket.php?pc=1

* Concerns about noise are overrated, IMO. Yes, it can look horrendous pixel peeping at 100%, but that is not how most images are viewed. Prints are produced at a higher DPI than a monitor screen which makes it less noticeable. Similarly, downsampling for DPI or the web also reduces the effect. It only really becomes an issue for severe crops which discard the majority of the image.

Mike Farley wrote:Concerns about noise are overrated ... It only really becomes an issue for severe crops which discard the majority of the image.

This was the case for my Mandarin Feathers image in the last DPI round.

The crop I wanted turned out to be 1382x807 so it didn't get downsampled, and I didn't want to push noise reduction and lose texture.

The judge noted the noise and almost marked it down, but then reconsidered and gave it full marks.

So even at 100% noise might not be a big deal.

Peter Boughton wrote:The crop I wanted turned out to be 1382x807 so it didn't get downsampled, and I didn't want to push noise reduction and lose texture.

The judge noted the noise and almost marked it down, but then reconsidered and gave it full marks.

Yes, that was indeed a surprising and dramatic turnaround. FWIW, I thought that the judge had been harsh in his initial assessment.

The noise was not apparent from where I was sitting towards the back of the hall and is only obvious at close inspection. I suspect that you are correct and in this instance it adds rather than detracts at a normal viewing distance. Judges can become obsessed with the technicalities and lose sight of what really matters. There are many great images which would fail foul of such pursuit for "perfection". Kudos to the judge for having the "cojones" to reconsider.

Mike Farley wrote:

Franke07 wrote:The rental model leaves you with nothing when you stop paying. Next they will be leasing the camera system software !o)

That might not be as extreme as you think, Frank, if this move by Panasonic is anything to go by. Purchase the hardware, but pay extra to use it to its full potential. Incidentally, Sony takes a similar approach with its cameras and some features have to be unlocked through paid for updates. The camera industry is struggling at the moment and inevitably must be looking for alternate sources of revenue.

Panasonic has just announced details of the paid video firmware update, which will cost in the region of $200. It will be interesting to see how the market responds.

See the last section of this article: https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2 ... eo-upgrade