Adobe vs Luminar and DXO

[JayBird]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had been using Lightroom until recently when I dropped my subscription. Are either of the latest versions of Luminar or DXO products good alternatives to Adobe? I don't like the pricing scheme for Adobe. I prefer not to rent software. I would rather purchase software and pay for upgrades when it is worthwhile.

 

 

My reason for dropping Adobe was that during major cancer surgery they had to crack open my chest. In the process, they pinched the radial nerve in my arm rendering my right hand about useless. The nerve has healed enough to allow me to use my cameras again. So it it time to get some post processing software again.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Jeff S]

Similar discussions abound.  As with camera gear, tastes vary, and people tend to like the software (editing and/or cataloging) that they have invested some time to learn and gain comfort and control.  Each software has its share of supporters... and haters.

Here is one such thread...

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/304357-lightroom-v67-perpetual-where-to-go-from-here-don’t-want-subscription-adobe-cc/

Free trials are available for most all software.  I like LR, but I’ve watched some online tutorials and read reviews of various alternatives, and if I were motivated to switch, I’d pick one that seemed compatible with my approach and give it a whirl on a test basis.  

Jeff

Edited April 19, 2020 by Jeff S

[Guest]

1 hour ago, JayBird said:

I had been using Lightroom until recently when I dropped my subscription. Are either of the latest versions of Luminar or DXO products good alternatives to Adobe? I don't like the pricing scheme for Adobe. I prefer not to rent software. I would rather purchase software and pay for upgrades when it is worthwhile.

 

 

My reason for dropping Adobe was that during major cancer surgery they had to crack open my chest. In the process, they pinched the radial nerve in my arm rendering my right hand about useless. The nerve has healed enough to allow me to use my cameras again. So it it time to get some post processing software again.

Hello

First I do hope your recovery progresses well and you are soon getting plenty of pleasure from your hobby.

I share your sentiments regarding Adobe and would not rent software, not that I am a fan of Lightroom as I always preferred Aperture which is now caput.

I have been using Luminar4 and AuroraHDR and they are both good programmes .I am trying DXO Photolab3 with the NIK plugins plus DXO VP3 (viewpoint).So far I am impressed and I would reccomend a months trial.They have some special prices which expire in about a week so well worth a look. 

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

 

[AndreasG]

I switched early 2019 from LR5 to Luminar 3 and I am very satisfied with performance and tools for post processing, I do not miss LR at all. Meanwhile, a new version Luminar 4 is available with extended functions, so I suggest, get a free trial.

[JayBird]

16 minutes ago, BrianP said:

Hello

First I do hope your recovery progresses well and you are soon getting plenty of pleasure from your hobby.

I share your sentiments regarding Adobe and would not rent software, not that I am a fan of Lightroom as I always preferred Aperture which is now caput.

I have been using Luminar4 and AuroraHDR and they are both good programmes .I am trying DXO Photolab3 with the NIK plugins plus DXO VP3 (viewpoint).So far I am impressed and I would reccomend a months trial.They have some special prices which expire in about a week so well worth a look. 

Best wishes for a speedy recovery.

 

Thanks for the wishes. Both packages get good reviews I may try both trial versions to see which I like best.

[Bobitybob]

Take a look at Exposure X5 https://exposure.software/, it's very Lightroom like and even has a setting to use LR shortcuts.  It doesn't rely on catalogs (uses small sidecar files) for it's DAM so is more disk friendly.  It has a few foibles like all software but having just started to use it as part of my transition to a new Mac and Catalina, so far I'm happy with the results so far.

[rob_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Although this is a well rehearsed topic, it does not hurt to get updated feedback from forum members as the market changes and products are improved over time.  I tried quite a few alternatives -- downloading and working with trial versions and in a couple of cases actually buying the software and using it for a while. 

Amongst those I rate are: ON1, Luminar, C1 and RAW Power (if you are a Mac user and / or an Aperture fan).  I was less impressed with DxO and one or two others.  But that's me.  I had reached exhaustion before trying ON1 but encouraged by one of Jaap's comments I set out for one more go.  As a result I have settled on ON1 for the last six months and find it very good.  It is more 'traditional' than Luminar IMHO.  Certainly the equal of LR and in some ways better.  Of course, it will take time to build up the 10 years of experience with LR that made it so familiar, but ON1 is my recommendation these days and has a lot of similar features, even similar keyboard shortcuts.

PS I am not claiming that Jaap endorses ON1 -- that's for him to say.  Just that Jaap made an encouraging comment about it being the best of the rest a while ago, and that prompted me to make one more effort.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, rob_w said:

Although this is a well rehearsed topic, it does not hurt to get updated feedback from forum members as the market changes and products are improved over time.  I tried quite a few alternatives -- downloading and working with trial versions and in a couple of cases actually buying the software and using it for a while. 

Amongst those I rate are: ON1, Luminar, C1 and RAW Power (if you are a Mac user and / or an Aperture fan).  I was less impressed with DxO and one or two others.  But that's me.  I had reached exhaustion before trying ON1 but encouraged by one of Jaap's comments I set out for one more go.  As a result I have settled on ON1 for the last six months and find it very good.  It is more 'traditional' than Luminar IMHO.  Certainly the equal of LR and in some ways better.  Of course, it will take time to build up the 10 years of experience with LR that made it so familiar, but ON1 is my recommendation these days and has a lot of similar features, even similar keyboard shortcuts.

PS I am not claiming that Jaap endorses ON1 -- that's for him to say.  Just that Jaap made an encouraging comment about it being the best of the rest a while ago, and that prompted me to make one more effort.

Various ON1 reviews mention the need to immediately develop a careful backup strategy, recognizing the required sidecar file approach. I’m curious, too, about the effectiveness of file migration from LR.  Lack of a history panel was also a concern, but apparently was in development. Any feedback on these or other issues or frustrations you might have experienced?  

Jeff

Edited April 20, 2020 by Jeff S

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, rob_w said:

Although this is a well rehearsed topic, it does not hurt to get updated feedback from forum members as the market changes and products are improved over time.  I tried quite a few alternatives -- downloading and working with trial versions and in a couple of cases actually buying the software and using it for a while. 

Amongst those I rate are: ON1, Luminar, C1 and RAW Power (if you are a Mac user and / or an Aperture fan).  I was less impressed with DxO and one or two others.  But that's me.  I had reached exhaustion before trying ON1 but encouraged by one of Jaap's comments I set out for one more go.  As a result I have settled on ON1 for the last six months and find it very good.  It is more 'traditional' than Luminar IMHO.  Certainly the equal of LR and in some ways better.  Of course, it will take time to build up the 10 years of experience with LR that made it so familiar, but ON1 is my recommendation these days and has a lot of similar features, even similar keyboard shortcuts.

PS I am not claiming that Jaap endorses ON1 -- that's for him to say.  Just that Jaap made an encouraging comment about it being the best of the rest a while ago, and that prompted me to make one more effort.

I am not endorsing it as such - I am and remain a Photoshop person. But for me personally it is one of the best parallel editing programs, and probably the easiest to switch to from Lightroom. Another plus are the extensive tutorials offered on the website.

[zeitz]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

Various ON1 reviews mention the need to immediately develop a careful backup strategy, recognizing the required sidecar file approach. I’m curious, too, about the effectiveness of file migration from LR.  Lack of a history panel was also a concern, but apparently was in development. Any feedback on these or other issues or frustrations you might have experienced?  

Jeff

"the required sidecar file approach"  Are you saying that ON1 cannot store the post processing edits inside the .dng file?  Inside the .dng file or inside an accompanying .xmp sidecar file is a user selectable option in Lightroom.

[Jeff S]

33 minutes ago, zeitz said:

"the required sidecar file approach"  Are you saying that ON1 cannot store the post processing edits inside the .dng file?  Inside the .dng file or inside an accompanying .xmp sidecar file is a user selectable option in Lightroom.

Some reviews point out that ON1 relies on a database approach that has no built-in back up capability, relying on sidecar files, and warning against not realizing this early on to develop a backup strategy.  I don't know how reliable the review sources are, which is why I asked about real experience.  But this was mentioned in a few reviews as a key downside.  This isn't the best of those reviews, but I don't have time to sort through them all...

https://shotkit.com/on1-photo-raw-review/

Edit....another here...  https://photographylife.com/lightroom-vs-on1

Jeff

Edited April 20, 2020 by Jeff S

[marchyman]

Most editing apps have trial periods.   I suggest downloading the apps and give them a try.   I did that about a year ago and found at that time that some of the apps I otherwise liked did not support all of my cameras.   Seeing a big X or ? instead of an image makes for a very quick evaluation of suitability.

I currently have Capture One, Luminar 3 (got it for free), and Lightroom (subscription expires in May) on my machine.   I'm using Capture One and rarely pass an image to Affinity Photo when I need to do something beyond the capabilities of Capture One.  I did need to convert some scans from Grayscale to RGB in order to make them editable in Capture One. 

Edited April 20, 2020 by marchyman

[zeitz]

Most digital cameras use a proprietary raw format, such as .nef for Nikon, that does not allow post processing edits to be stored in the raw file.  So most users have no alternative but to use an .xmp sidecar.  (There actually is a solution, and that is to convert all of one's .nef files to .dng with Adobe's free converter.)  The .xmp file for Adobe products is stored in the same directory as the raw file and has the same name as the raw file, differing only in the file extension.  Depending on your backup scheme, the .xmp files could be backed up because they have the date of the edits.  The original raw file is not changed, retaining its original date, and likely would not be backed up in the same process.

Leica owners are fortunate that our manufacturer has embraced the .dng digital negative format that is available as public domain from Adobe to all software houses.  There are other small digital camera manufacturers who also use .dng.  Maybe ON1 does not consider .dng users to be a big enough group to worry about it.  The one thing I don't like about saving changes in .dng is that the raw file date is updated; the raw file does not retain the original date in one's folders.

(Those who feel negatively about Adobe should remember where our .dng raw file format comes from.  If Adobe were to go out of business because of ON1, the .dng would be an orphan and eventually no software would read all our old .dng files.)

[rob_w]

20 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Various ON1 reviews mention the need to immediately develop a careful backup strategy, recognizing the required sidecar file approach. I’m curious, too, about the effectiveness of file migration from LR.  Lack of a history panel was also a concern, but apparently was in development. Any feedback on these or other issues or frustrations you might have experienced?  

Jeff

Thanks Jeff for alerting me to these potential issues.  I will read the reviews, test against my installation, current version, and report back.

I have not found a problem with history or backup so far.  In any case, the folders are included in routine Time Machine and Carbon Copy backups and the edits are stored in the DNG (no separate sidecar files).  But I only use Leica and therefore DNG.  I agree, a history panel would be an improvement. 

I have not set out to do the migration from Lightroom yet.  I am reassured by ON1 at least having a migration capability of some sort, but it wont be tried in earnest until I am completely settled that ON1 is my long term choice and can set aside the time to do it thoroughly and carefully.

For regular use over the last six months ON1 has done everything I need, in a familiar way and with equally good outcomes to LR.

[DaveNC]

I am totally satisfied with my current approach of contemporary powerful MacBook Pro, Luminar 4, Qimage One (for printing), and the Canon  PIXMA PRO-100 printer.  I get very good results with the least amount of time or effort.  Performance issues with previous versions of Luminar are gone, however I did upgrade to a powerful MacBook.  That made a huge difference.

Just watch Jim Nix on YouTube to learn everything you need to know to do everything in Luminar 4.

My MBP specs are:

Model Name: MacBook Pro

  Model Identifier: MacBookPro16,1

  Processor Name: 8-Core Intel Core i9

  Processor Speed: 2.3 GHz

  Number of Processors: 1

  Total Number of Cores: 8

  L2 Cache (per Core): 256 KB

  L3 Cache: 16 MB

  Hyper-Threading Technology: Enabled

  Memory: 32 GB

  Boot ROM Version: 1037.100.362.0.0 (iBridge: 17.16.14281.0.0,0)

  Activation Lock Status: Enabled

  Storrage: SSD 1TB

Edited April 21, 2020 by DaveNC

[jaapv]

On 4/20/2020 at 8:29 PM, zeitz said:

Most digital cameras use a proprietary raw format, such as .nef for Nikon, that does not allow post processing edits to be stored in the raw file.  So most users have no alternative but to use an .xmp sidecar.  (There actually is a solution, and that is to convert all of one's .nef files to .dng with Adobe's free converter.)  The .xmp file for Adobe products is stored in the same directory as the raw file and has the same name as the raw file, differing only in the file extension.  Depending on your backup scheme, the .xmp files could be backed up because they have the date of the edits.  The original raw file is not changed, retaining its original date, and likely would not be backed up in the same process.

Leica owners are fortunate that our manufacturer has embraced the .dng digital negative format that is available as public domain from Adobe to all software houses.  There are other small digital camera manufacturers who also use .dng.  Maybe ON1 does not consider .dng users to be a big enough group to worry about it.  The one thing I don't like about saving changes in .dng is that the raw file date is updated; the raw file does not retain the original date in one's folders.

(Those who feel negatively about Adobe should remember where our .dng raw file format comes from.  If Adobe were to go out of business because of ON1, the .dng would be an orphan and eventually no software would read all our old .dng files.)

Why should DNG be an orphan software when it is open source?

[rob_w]

In response to the article Jeff posted, I did get a chance to check ON1's history feature in the latest version.  It does exist but has the limitation that the history listing disappears once you move away from editing the photograph.  If you return after editing a different photograph, or at a later time, the history has disappeared.  This doesn't bother me as I hardly ever use history, but I can imagine it would be frustrating to people who do use it.  Perhaps it is only half implemented at this point and will be completed in the next release.  But if true that is such an odd thing to do!

[Jeff S]

As noted, history panel was supposedly in development, so they apparently recognized the issue.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear