Alternative to Lightroom

[John_SD]

OK, I have decided to pass on the Lightroom CC/Classic CC/Whatever and the associated cloud products I'll never need or use, along with Adobe's lifelong monthly money-grab. I'm also not interested in the orphaned standalone version. 

This leaves me with DPP, which seems to suit my needs for now. But I have been reading about competing products which, at a small fraction of Adobe's money-grab, seem quite promising. Among them is Luminar 2018 (now $69). This seems to be grossly underpriced (at this time). Has anyone used previous versions of this software? 

I am running a Windows 10 machine, not an Apple. I would be interested in your experiences with the product.  

[shadowsports]

I use DPP.  I've read good things about Luminar and  Dxo Photo Lab, but haven't used either.  If you search for them here, You'll find some threads from people who have.  I am of the same belief as you and others here..  "I don't rent software". 

DxO allows activation on 2 or 3 machines depending on the version you buy.  It also supports lens correction for most lenses. RAW and JPEG file formats are supported. 

If you are a former LR users, Luminar is said to follow the same workflow pattern. Thats all I have, I'm sure others will chime in. 

[John_SD]

---

@shadowsports wrote:

I use DPP.  I've read good things about Luminar and  Dxo Photo Lab, but haven't used either.  If you search for them here, You'll find some threads from people who have.  I am of the same belief as you and others here..  "I don't rent software". 

DxO allows activation on 2 or 3 machines depending on the version you buy.  It also supports lens correction for most lenses. RAW and JPEG file formats are supported. 

If you are a former LR users, Luminar is said to follow the same workflow pattern. Thats all I have, I'm sure others will chime in. 

---

Well, I see that Holiday pricing ($69) is stil in effect for Luminar 2018. And there is a 14-day free trial period. So I think I'm going to download it and have a look. 

[JA_199]

I have the prior version of Luminar as well as the new Luminar 2018. Both versions are powerful and useful photo editing sotware.  However, I've found both have some limitations that keep me using Canon's DPP for basic edits. Most importantly to me, DPP renders color from Canon cameras more accurately than either version of Luminar, and DPP offers more flexibility and detail in making color adjustments. Typically, I'll use DPP for my basic adjustments to tone, color, lens correction, and noise reduction, then save as a TIFF to make final adjustments in Luminar.  The ability to make edits to selected areas of the image is the big advantage of Luminar, as well as the wide varity of one-click presets that allow you to very quickly add a bunch of effects to the image (many of the presets are a bit over the top for my taste, but there's a slider to adjust the intensity of each one to fit your taste). While I really like the new Luminar 2018, one thing I don't like abou it is its noise reduction tool is not nearly as good as the one in the old version of Luminar (or in DPP, for that matter).

[wq9nsc]

I tried DxO because of its reported excellent noise reduction algorithm but I didn't care for its user interface.  Probably it is fine if you aren't already very used to a couple of other packages. I didn't find the noise cleaning to be anything special but it likely varies by camera body and shooting conditions.

I use Adobe but I have never cared for the company's behavior even going back to their PDF fame days and the cloud model/rental software is a pain.  They will retain the professional market but it will be interesting to see if their revenue stream continues to match their perceived industry power position as they continue to irritate their user base.  It is tthe same model that a lot of industry leaders have chosen (i.e. Microsoft 365) but it will probably just hasten the rise of competition which is fine.

DPP will meet the needs of most users who aren't tied to a specific rapid workflow environment.  Although it has issues it has improved markedly over the years.  One really annoying glitch that showed up a few versions ago and remains still is when you select all and apply a recipe AND then select another image for editing the current DPP will always open the last RAW image in the directory instead of the one you selected.  After that first glitch it works fine but it is an annoyance that needs fixing.  DPP also needs a machine with a lot of processing power and memory, Adobe works better with a lot of horsepower also but it apparently is more usable on slower setups.

Rodger

[ebiggs1]

"They will retain the professional market but it will be interesting to see if their revenue stream continues ..."

Adobe is up about 14% this year alone and somewhere around 200% since they went subscription.  It is listed as a buy by Wall Street.  It appears like their "revenue stream continues" for the foreseeable future.

"They will retain the professional market but ..."

There is no 'but', PS and LR have no competition in the professional world. I love PS and LR, I don't like Adobe at all. 

[ebiggs1]

I don't like Adobe's rental of software. It is a joke and I have been pretty vocal about it ever since they announced it.   I already owned LR and CS6 so it really doesn't effect me. I am happy with where I'm at.  However, there is the truth and there are facts which disgruntled folks fail to recognize.

LR and PS are the standards of the industry.  That is why all the others claim they are "just as good" as LR and PS.  If it were a horse race they would be the "also ran's".  All pro shops I have ever been in use LR and PS.  All professional photogra[phy business use LR and PS.  All the schools and universities use LR and PS.

Adobe had a sale on the photography package for Christmas.  LR and PS for $7.50 per month ($90 per year).  After the year is up it goes to the regular price of $9.95 ($120 per year).  If you consider what that would have cost in the olden days of a perpetual licence, it is a steal.  No doubt.  Plus each yearly upgrade was $120 bucks which are now free.

OK, now don't get your whitie tighties all bunched up as I am just as big of a critic of Adobe as any of you.  What I don't like and what keeps me from going for what seems to be a very good deal is, there is no end.  If there was a plan to purchase at whatever level upgrade I am at, I'd be all over it.  There is not.  You stop, you are done. I don't rent houses. I don't rent cars and I don't rent software.  Good idea to have backups in a readable friendly format.  Although the LR viewer module is still active even after you stop renting it.

[RobertTheFat]

---

ebiggs1 wrote:

I don't like Adobe's rental of software. It is a joke and I have been pretty vocal about it ever since they announced it.   I already owned LR and CS6 so it really doesn't effect me. I am happy with where I'm at.  However, there is the truth and there are facts which disgruntled folks fail to recognize.

LR and PS are the standards of the industry.  That is why all the others claim they are "just as good" as LR and PS.  If it were a horse race they would be the "also ran's".  All pro shops I have ever been in use LR and PS.  All professional photogra[phy business use LR and PS.  All the schools and universities use LR and PS.

Adobe had a sale on the photography package for Christmas.  LR and PS for $7.50 per month ($90 per year).  After the year is up it goes to the regular price of $9.95 ($120 per year).  If you consider what that would have cost in the olden days of a perpetual licence, it is a steal.  No doubt.  Plus each yearly upgrade was $120 bucks which are now free.

OK, now don't get your whitie tighties all bunched up as I am just as big of a critic of Adobe as any of you.  What I don't like and what keeps me from going for what seems to be a very good deal is, there is no end.  If there was a plan to purchase at whatever level upgrade I am at, I'd be all over it.  There is not.  You stop, you are done. I don't rent houses. I don't rent cars and I don't rent software.  Good idea to have backups in a readable friendly format.  Although the LR viewer module is still active even after you stop renting it.

---

That's a well reasoned justification for anyone thinking of using LR and PS. However, I would dispute one point. The "standard of the industry" isn't LR or PS; it's JPEG. In my experience, newspapers, magazines, print shops, book publishers, et al, don't care what editor(s) you used, as long as the result is a high-resolution JPEG. Obviously if you work for a company (a newspaper, perhaps) where someone else does your editing or where the edits themselves are considered part of the permanent record, things could be different. But for most of the people in this forum, any capable editor will do.

[ebiggs1]

"The "standard of the industry" isn't LR or PS; it's JPEG."

The standard that the industry wants may be a jpg but how it got to a jpg is by LR or PS.  

"But for most of the people in this forum, any capable editor will do."

And that is the bread and butter of the "almost as good as LR and PS" softwares.  If you are going to be a pro, you need to act like a pro.  If you are an amateur and intend to remain that way, "any capable editor will do."

If you apply for a job at Hallmark or the KC Star they will not ask if you are proficient in DPP or Darktable or GimpShop or etc.

"All pro shops (100%) I have ever been in use LR and PS." 

[Peter]

Darktable is open source and the Windows version was released a couple of months ago. I use it for daily work.

The biggest problem is the lack of youtube tutorials.