+- Opticallimits (https://forum.opticallimits.com)
+-- Forum: Forums (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Just Talk (https://forum.opticallimits.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=17)
+--- Thread: And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) (/showthread.php?tid=132)
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - stoppingdown - 10-20-2017
Finished the first tentative import. A number of problems:
- also web galleries have not been imported
- some collections have missing photos
- a few dngs (panos from Lightroom) have totally broken colours (it sounds as a decoding problem)
- lots of photos have a strong colour cast
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - Guest - 10-20-2017
Just wait till MS starts charging a monthy fee for windows
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - JJ_SO - 10-20-2017
One good thing of this thread is, I was looking once again in the "crippled and badly designed and it's just not Aperture"-Apple Photos app. From what I saw the first time after starting and quitting it quicker than i started it until today are some big steps... There are a couple of minor and major improvements. Apple obviously wanted an app for all and failed at first, but improved a lot.
Maybe it deserves a second and third look... with current 46 MP files ^_^
Edit: The current 46 MP files Photos handles well. Just not when I try to import their RAW version
But it connects to all editors like Pixelmator, Iridient or Affinity Photo to make corrections - of a duplicate of the original file <_< therefore nothing non-destructive. Not really a replacement for LR or Aperture, but for people who just want to bring their family members in touch with editing software, Photos (on High Sierra) has some pretty cool features. Have to try with elder RAWs like the old Canon G11 or Fuji X-E2...
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - mike - 10-20-2017
Quote:I already read one of the comparing reviews and the quality of the exported picture was worse than LR (which is also not the best on the market).
Corel themselves made a comparison with LR. Face recognition in LR yes, in Corel After shot pro No. No to panoramas as well. And if i look at Corel's "director", it's a very ugly reminiscence to Windows 3.11 - thanks a lot.
But people dissing?
Or people make a comparison to what they are used as workflow and see "with the new software I need 5 more clicks or one tab is left side, the other right side" for no better reason than to make it different than others? I mean, you can even measure distances made with the mouse. If I need 1 m to finish a picture or 10 m + 50 clicks more... a lot work for no better result does give me reasons for critical comments as I saw it can be done better.
Sure sometimes it's lack of knowledge. Aperture was not easy to learn, so if I have to look for an alternative, it's normal I prefer one which is as good or better. If it's worse at 80% of what I need, there's no point in forcing myself to spent more time for worse result
You got a little bit of an exaggeration going, having downloaded LR at the same time I installed the free Corel PSX9 and AS, I didn't find LR any easier than the AS. Or less clicks. Then I've been a long time Silkypix user. IMO, SP seems to be setup to give great result, fastest, with the least amount of fiddling on many photos at once. IOW, I found it best when wanting to print or share a hundred pictures. The flow is very conducive for this.
But I hear you. If I can't open the program and get through to an acceptable result in a reasonable amount of time from the first time you used it I move on. That was my thought on the OLY software. It was just real slow to me too. I literally would batch convert with the OLY with the as-shot settings to TIFF and then use SP. Not ideal.
With Corel some things you do have to do in one package or the other; AS or PSx9. They make it, and you'll love this, one button operation to go back and forth. I know one of them does panoramas and facial recognition; not functions I use regularly. I'm not saying it's perfect tool, it surprisingly had a lot of bases covered for the price; free for me, but still cheap otherwise.
I've read different reviews with slightly (the key word here) different results with the RAW converters. IMO, none of the pictures comparing C1, LR, and AS were deal breakers. But I'm not a pixel peeper. Some reviewers actually like the AS results over LR, almost all liked C1 best.
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - JJ_SO - 10-20-2017
My sentence with the 5 more clicks was meant in general for a small amount of RAW converters, as I wanted to find one for Fuji compressed RAW (this was tiring) A couple of RAW converters have user interfaces on both sides of the picture, DigiKam being the worst of it - left side the text is 90° rotated counter clockwise and has about 5 or 6 tabs to read, right side 90° clockwise another 6 tabs and on top of the menu bar 7-8 tabs (didn't count, was busy with running aways from this ergonomically nightmare. This and the fat bars between the windows of the different views not only look ugly, but are a pain to use.
There are infinite numbers of ways to make a bad interface and much less ways to get it right.
Simple example: Creating a new album in Aperture was one click on the icon for albums, then start to type, because the cursor is already in place. Capture One needs one more click to activate the line for the text. No big deal, but a bit annoying.
Then, when importing new pictures: In Aperture the window with new pictures opens up, in the lib I create a new project or album within a project and just type the name. Pictures will be imported to the new destination, done. This way feels simple and fairly quick.
Capture One first needs me to prepare a project or choose an existing one. Create an album (which is another circumstance). Then highlight the album, then start with the import. If I start the import too early, destination is not ready, not highlighted, not active and I really need more time, more clicks and more nerves to get this simple task done.
With every new converter I first tried to find out by scrolling through the menus, then read the manual, then checked for tutorials. For Capture One I even participated on a workshop which was a bit more expensive than the app is (but worth a lot of saved time). For Aperture I only needed a very very well made book with a tutorial. Every other software needed more effort and Affinity Photo currently offers an excellent series of tutorial videos.
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - Studor13 - 10-21-2017
Quote:Studor13, you beginn to stress my nerves by purposefully misunderstanding and repeating useless recommendations. LR is NOT just a RAW-converter - most of the software you posted is very well limited to only convert, but not manage files.
And believe me, you're not improving your reputation by repeating your 10$ shit over and over again - are you playing stubborn donkey or what?
My reputation here is that I can seriously send the shit coming my way back with interest.
As for being a stubborn donkey I will remind you of what Admin has said about personal attacks.
Then again, maybe you should first look into a mirror.
If you try to bully me again - with fluff, I will go thermal nuclear on you.
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - mst - 10-21-2017
Can we calm it down a little on both sides, please?
Thank you!
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - mst - 10-21-2017
Regarding Apple Photos: I was planning to have a look at it, too, especially since it received quite some upgrades with High Sierra.
Still, as JoJu said: when you're used to Aperture and invested the time to learn its features (and learned to use and love them), there currently is no real alternative providing the same level.
That's why I still use it... even though with each macOS uprade its becoming more and more urgent to look for an alternative (and also more and more of a pain, since my library obviously keeps growing...
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - JJ_SO - 10-21-2017
Quote:My reputation here is that I can seriously send the shit coming my way back with interest.
As for being a stubborn donkey I will remind you of what Admin has said about personal attacks.
Then again, maybe you should first look into a mirror.
If you try to bully me again - with fluff, I will go thermal nuclear on you.
It's a huge difference between asking you if you're playing donkey or try to tell you or others, you are one - which I'm sure you'd be aware of if you have read it carefully instead of trying to detect attacks. I'm not counting the posts you kept repeating how cheap and valuable Adobe's offer is, although the more you told it the more it had the effect to find more and more people telling opposite, critiquing Adobe for going this way - interestingly none (that means 0 people) agreed and said yes, I'm doing the same and it's alright. Btw. that was the same in Photography Life's blog post and that got double the number of reactions and much more people participating.
You can put yourself in any corner you find attractive or have a chat with admin, Studor13, I actually don't care what you decide for yourself. This thread is about alternatives to Adobe's Lightroom (and I also don't count the posts I or somebody else told you that). Alternatives are not the same as apps which only partly deliver what LR can do.
If you would look for a new car and I keep telling you take the train, you're better off with - and as alternative I gonna list some brands for rollerblades or Go-carts, I really can imagine your answers....
And we got there (no more Lightroom standalone) - Brightcolours - 10-21-2017
Adobe has always been quite an obnoxious company. From the early years, with PS and PostScript and Pagemaker, they were not scared of creating controversies. The only company that sucked more was Quark Inc.
They used to charge ridiculous amounts of money for PS, before the CS bundle series. They abused their monopoly position in many ways. They also used to buy up upcoming competitors, to kill of the products after the buy out. Examples: Golive CyberStudio was the 1st really good webpage design software from the small German company Golive, for the Mac. Abode bought them. They also bought MacroMedia, which had the (better) Illustrator competitor Freehand, Dreamweaver and flash. They killed off Freehand right away. And then dropped Adobe Golive.
When Adobe bought Macromedia, a team developing video software went to Apple to create Final Cut Pro. Adobe premiere sucked donkey balls back then, and Apple quickly became a market leader. Adobe then threatened to drop PS for the Mac, because it did not like the competition from Apple, who just came out with Aperture (Aperture predates Adobe Lightroom).
Because of Adobe's history, I have always steered away from their software, except Photoshop, because of its powerful layers features and the plugins available (among other things). I have never liked LR (nothing great about its output), and because it is from Adobe I have never tried to get used to it either, not wanting to get tied in to it and its forced update cycle.
And now we have their forced subscriptions. Their greed knows no bounds.