Lightroom Alternative - Luminar, Capture 1 or...

[rramesh]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, marchyman said:

I'd change that to "you will no longer be able to use all features of the software".   I believe Adobe, for example, will still let you use Lightroom browse your library and even export images, but will not let you use the develop module to make edits.  Not sure what other vendors with subscription models do.

This is a generic description of typical licensing models. Each vendor may have their own variants.

[Advertisement]

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

[ianman]

Whereas with a perpetual license you can use all the features all the time until you can no longer run it due to lack of hardware support. The customer gets to decide if the "new" features are worth paying for and when to upgrade if required.

Unless someone intends to use some software package only for a short time, the subscription model makes no sense to me.

[Alberti]

On 6/3/2020 at 4:15 PM, Jeff S said:

Dan Wells has been writing a series of good articles at LuLa (paid site) regarding LR alternatives, predicting the discontinuation of LR Classic, possibly soon.  [..]

Jeff

Soon, would that be with the new Big Sur A-ple Macos version? This bothers me . . .

[zeitz]

In LR Classic 9.3, catalogs can already be synced to the Adobe Cloud if you desire.  I only noticed this in 9.3 when the icon changed from square corners to rounded corners.

If you don't use Bridge/Adobe Camera Raw/Photoshop, you may not have seen that the June release of ACR 12.3 changes the ACR interface to be more like the Lightroom Develop module.  Stacked selections going down are used instead of tabs across the top.  (ACR and Develop use the same software with a different interface.)  Those with access to ACR, such as through the subscription, may want to check out ACR 12.3.

I don't see why Libraries / Bridge and Develop / ACR can't have same identical interfaces.  Maps seems missing from Photoshop.  Book/Slide Show/Print/Web could also be an easy LR/Bridge merge, making Bridge Output more powerful.

[Keith (M)]

On 7/2/2020 at 4:06 AM, rramesh said:

I have been using ON1 Raw for close to 2 years now. Initially it was a bit buggy but version 2020 is very good.

Some advantages:

• Similar UI to Lightroom unlike other products like C1, Luminar etc.
• ON1 has a perpetual licensing moidel and is not a cloud subscription model. Good for those like me who don't trust the cloud storage concept.
• It has most of the Lightroom features plus some of the ones in Photoshop as well (available as filters that can be applied).
• All edits are non-destructive.
• There is no dedicated database like Lightroom in which all photos are imported to. Photos can be edited where they reside.
• It allows import of Lightroom settings but some subsequent tweaking may be needed.
• The latest 360 feature allows edit of photos on multiple devices. Does require subscription to the ON1 cloud for storage of only those photos which you need to edit. Good for 'on-the-fly' edit of iPhone photos and then allows further edit when in front of the computer.

On the whole, I like it.

 

 

I have had ON1-10 versions and recently upgraded to the latest version of ON1 2020 with a view to finally getting off the LR Classic subscription wagon.  One of the aspects holding me back is the print module/function. In LR I send prints to the LR plug-in 'Canon Print Studio Pro' for final output to my Canon Pro-100.  The 'Print' function in ON1 does not give as much control over the output selections.  Am still investigating.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Keith (M)

[zeitz]

Canon Print Studio and Layout are fantastic plug-ins in my experience, allowing you to get away from the lame printer drivers in Adobe and Apple software.  Canon Print Studio is the only way I convert to the paper profile under "Edit" in Photoshop and then select in Print Studio "no color correction".

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

I have had ON1-10 versions and recently upgraded to the latest version of ON1 2020 with a view to finally getting off the LR Classic subscription wagon.  One of the aspects holding me back is the print module/function. In LR I send prints to the LR plug-in 'Canon Print Studio Pro' for final output to my Canon Pro-100.  The 'Print' function in ON1 does not give as much control over the output selections.  Am still investigating.

If you’re serious about printing, you might consider ImagePrint (IP) Black in conjunction with one of the supported Canon or Epson pro level printers. I stopped using the LR print module years ago, instead using IP 10 (predecessor to IP Black), which overrides the print driver (I use an Epson P800), and optimizes all printer and color management settings once you choose one of IP’s superb custom profiles, which are included for virtually all papers and lighting conditions (including grayscale). The software also operates full time in soft proof mode, which can be a time and paper saver.  Not inexpensive, but the value for me has far exceeded the cost. I use IP as an external editor to LR Classic; don’t know how it would integrate with ON, but the folks at Colorbyte (IP) are extremely helpful.

Jeff

Edited July 3, 2020 by Jeff S

[Franka373]

Can anyone comment on image print versus qimage for printing out of Lightroom?

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, Franka373 said:

Can anyone comment on image print versus qimage for printing out of Lightroom?

FWIW, unlike IP, Qimage is not technically a RIP, as it relies on the native print driver to send the image to the printer.  It controls the printer, but not at the print head. I haven’t used Qimage, but I don’t think it offers the benefits of IP that I only briefly summarized... custom profiles for all papers (custom profiling gear alone would cost double IP’s cost, let alone the labor required), full time soft proofing, etc.  But Qimage is a lot cheaper and many seem to like it.

But asking which produces better results is a bit like asking which camera (or darkroom gear) gives better results.  The most important variable is the person using the gear.  A good eye and good judgment remains paramount, darkroom or digital.

Jeff

[rramesh]

5 hours ago, Keith (M) said:

I have had ON1-10 versions and recently upgraded to the latest version of ON1 2020 with a view to finally getting off the LR Classic subscription wagon.  One of the aspects holding me back is the print module/function. In LR I send prints to the LR plug-in 'Canon Print Studio Pro' for final output to my Canon Pro-100.  The 'Print' function in ON1 does not give as much control over the output selections.  Am still investigating.

The print functions in ON1 was very limiting till about a year ago. For instance, no contact sheets etc. It's improved, but still less than Lightroom. It's rather unfortunate that most of the newer tools seem to assume that all users will 'share photos online' vs 'print and then share'. I am pleased with the development and support team at ON1 and I see a commitment to improve product with feedback.

 

Edited July 4, 2020 by rramesh

[Rokkor]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb ianman:

Whereas with a perpetual license you can use all the features all the time until you can no longer run it due to lack of hardware support. The customer gets to decide if the "new" features are worth paying for and when to upgrade if required.

Unless someone intends to use some software package only for a short time, the subscription model makes no sense to me.

I would say a subscription based approach makes sense if:

 

• you are a professional and need to be always up to date (which quite some pros don’t need)

• you like the ecosystem that comes with the subscription (cloud storage, workflow etc.)

• you like to always have the latest version and features and would always buy the latest version anyway 

From a software company’s perspective a subscription can generate more revenue. In marketing terms “only”  10 dollars per month seems more attractive to customers than 130$ for the package. If you would have always upgraded anyway the “only” might be even true.

[LocalHero1953]

17 hours ago, Alberti said:

Soon, would that be with the new Big Sur A-ple Macos version? This bothers me . . .

LR CC has quite a way to go before it can functionally replace LR Classic - it needs a print facility for a start. And it can only interface with PS - not Nik, Imageprint or anything else.

Edited July 4, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[Jeff S]

6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

LR CC has quite a way to go before it can functionally replace LR Classic - it needs a print facility for a start. And it can only interface with PS - not Nik, Imageprint or anything else.

Let’s hope Adobe shares those priorities, which seemingly are geared to mobile and sharing applications these days.

Jeff

[rramesh]

On 7/3/2020 at 9:43 PM, Alberti said:

Soon, would that be with the new Big Sur A-ple Macos version? This bothers me . . .

Lightroom Classic is I believe a 32-bit application. With MacOS Catalina onwards the direction for Apple is to move to 64-bit applications. Note that Apple has also announced their direction to move to their own ARM-powered processors started in phases from later this this year (no longer Intel). This will mean that all older applications will be history.

[zeitz]

Lightroom Classic is a 64-bit application, and has been for a number of years.  It runs fine on Catalina.  Apple will support Intel Macs for their lifetime, which is typically about 8 years.  The newest Intel Macs will likely be sold in 2021 because Apple won't likely upgrade all its Macs in 2020.  After that, I would assume one could continue to run Windows on Intel Macs.

Edited July 5, 2020 by zeitz
Typo

[dadu007]

I like LR's ease of use but I've never been completely happy with the final editing results.

I just recently purchased a Leica CL (my first digital Leica). I have a Sony RX100VII and have sometimes used SilkyPix for that (which I discovered during my short stint with a Ricoh GR), and sometimes just the Sony Imaging Edge Desktop software, which is decent for basic adjustments. SilkyPix produces excellent image results, but it is barely usable just because I can't understand the interface (!)

With the new Leica I (once again) signed up for the offered trial period with Adobe and downloaded the latest version of Lightroom.  The closed Adobe universe is always so tempting because everything talks to each other, cloud syncing, mobile synching, etc. Convenient!

BUT, I also tried a demo of Capture One 20 with the .dng files from my Leica CL. I had used Capture One around 2014/15 but let it go by the wayside for awhile, even though the results were always stunning.  I can't remember why I left it behind, other than the ease of use of Lightroom and the $10 Adobe CC plan lured me away...

Long story short, I loaded up the same .dng file from my CL in both LR and Capture One 20 (just a simple daylight nature photo) and compared them side-by-side on my calibrated monitor(s). The results were very surprising and unquestionable!

In Capture One 20 , the default image was stunning. In LR, it looked flat and lifeless. Almost no tweaking was necessary for this image and others in Capture One...With LR it was VERY hard to get the same desired result!  I know what Phase One profiles the actual cameras in-house, they say so in their tutorials (Leica CL was profile was automatically loaded)...I always wonder if Adobe does that, too? Or do they just say, "Oh, it's a .dng file, let's handle them all the same!".

I cancelled my Adobe CC trial and bought the perpetual license version of Capture One 20. (It was an upgrade for me.)

I really hope to never go back to Adobe. For all its hype, convenience and ubiquity, I just am never satisfied with the results. It's Capture One 20 for me. BTW, CO20 is very easy to use now; it's become much more user friendly (compared to the old version 9 I was using...). If you watch their MANY, MANY excellent tutorials on YouTube, they actually say that some changes were made to mimic LR functionality; I'm sure to lure people away from Adobe! (You can import LR catalogues into CO.)

YMMV 🙂

P.S. For printing, I'm a long-time user of Qimage, which is absolutely fantastic and easy! (I print from TIFF files.)

 

Edited August 11, 2020 by dadu007

[Rokkor]

Hi YMMV,

congratulations finding your way back to CO20. I also think it is really great and easy to use. Not that I was unhappy with LR but I also feel the results are really great.

 

What exactly do you need Qimage for? Cannot you export from CO20?

Can you recommend any presets in capture one? They have some packs on offer but I read they are not worth it. I do not have a personal experience with presets. 

[dadu007]

Hi @Rokkor (nod to your Minolta heritage?)

I, too, don't have much, if any, experience with presets. Sorry, can't help you there!

I started using Qimage 10+ years ago because I never fully trusted (understood?) Adobe's Color Management workflow. It starts to get a little complicated (for me) with calibrated monitors, ICC printing profiles, and assigned color spaces. Qimage is very transparent in how it handles all that. So I usually export unsharpened .tiff files (from whatever photo editing software I'm using), with the sRGB colorspace assigned (yes, I know Adobe 1998, etc. are wider gamuts, but it's fine for my eyes...), and then it's very clear in Qimage which monitor and paper profiles are being used. I also REALLY like how Qimage handles sharpening and the adjustments you can make for that.

So, I have nothing against printing from Adobe/Phase One print software, but I know Qimage and trust its color accuracy. It's also mom-and-pop indy software, and I like supporting that. 🙂

BTW, I'll put in an additional plug here for IMatch photo database software. It is simply AWESOME (10+ years user there, too.) It's homegrown and supported by (German and Germany-based) Mario Westphal. HIGHLY recommended. https://www.photools.com/

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[zeitz]

Abode really does not appear to put much effort into its printer driver/software; it is one aspect of Photoshop that hasn't gotten an upgrade in years.  Remember that Photoshop was not designed for photographers, but for printing shops.  I would guess Adobe believes that users who are photographic printers are using some other software to handle the printing phase.  In my case I use Canon's Print Studio.

I have never found a preset that handles the specific needs of every image.  So every image I'm interested in gets processed individually.  I do make custom profiles for each camera.  

I recently downloaded Topaz Sharpener AI, being on a nice sale.  I have to say that I am impressed with its sharpening/stabilize/focus capability.  It works either as a standalone or as a plug-in, although there is a manual step after installation to get it to work as a plug-in.

[Jeff S]

Lightroom Classic for processing, using custom profiles for camera/lighting conditions (ColorChecker Passport), then printing via ImagePrint (using their custom paper profiles, automatically adjusted for display lighting conditions).  Happy camper.

Jeff