So is everyone using Lightroom or what? I already have Affinity 2 and would like something with a permanent license for library as well.
>>4462455I use darkroom. It's way better than any adobe BULLSHIT.
>>4462457You mean Darktable?
>>4462458Definitely not.
>>4462457Bases, digislug seething incoming. >>4462455>So is everyone using Lightroom or what?Ahoy matey
I'm a relative newcomer and I've been using pirated Lightroom Classic. I honestly find it bizarre this is regarded as professional software worth paying a subscription in perpetuity, mostly on account of bugs and limitations: - I had massive performance issues that accumulated after browsing my library when editing labels. Turns out that having the "Metadata" panel open caused some resource leak. - Resource management is straight from 1995 - it will use all 24GB of VRAM for GPU acceleration even if I run something like a small game, everything grinds to a halt when it starts swapping to system memory. No way of just setting a limit either. - A silly bug when rotating images from the library that leads to either thumbnails or actual image not rotating which hasn't been fixed. - It doesn't support having my library on a network drive - It doesn't event support auto-import from a network drive - No automation between DNG converter and Lightroom. - DNG converter does the same resource-gobbling, but will actually.At least once you get into developing the images it's nice to use. The processing tools are very distilled to what you're likely to use 99% of the time - I can see why Lightroom users get overwhelmed by Darktable.I'm slowly getting used to Darkable now as it's just nicer software to use. I did some negative scans and that went a lot better in Darktable, the masking options are far superior as well.
>>4462464>it will use all 24GB of VRAM for GPUNo, it doesn't. It uses almost no GPU, even with it enabled. It uses heaps of ram and cpu, thats its.
>>4462457If you're using FOSS on Linux you should try out RawTherapee.Most of the Linux community moved on from Darktable to Rawtherapee a few years ago. It's simply the better software - and easier to use
Thoughts on Luminar Neo?
>>4462485ai fueled shit, ask >>4455026
>>4462486OK, is it any good when ignoring the AI slop?
>>4462482It definitely does
>>4462488>lil bros system is this pickledalso>using task manager for gpu usage
>>4462487The whole fucking software is just AI shit.
>>4462455I use C1 perpetual license, upgrading every 2-3 yearsI've also had CC photo plan for like 8 years now, the sub model is cheaper than standalone licenses if you use PhotoshopJust grow up
>>4462489Okay, open a few raws in the "Develop" tab and show your GPU acceleration settings and usage.
>>4462489When you use firmware monitoring rather than the shitter windows one it shows as follows:>GPU peak 15% avg 0.3%I would check where you got your pirated lightroom from buddy your shit is DONE ahahaha
>>4462519>GPU peak 15% avg 0.3%memory usage, not compute, you dimwit.
>>4462522>being this retardedNo wonder you have a virus ahahaha
>>4462519>>4462525Literal Adobe shill btw. Imagine the smell in their office.
>>4462455Lightroom has the best features, so it's the best there is for now and pretty much every business uses Adobe stuff. Capture One's pricing model is retarded so I don't like it.
>>4462614C1 gives me way better colors and their auto buttons aren't retarded like LR.
>>4462617How is it for picture profiles and retaining settings? One thing I would love is having the custom in-camera settings I use be read from the RAW file, while Lightroom just uses the default profile that comes from the manufacturer and only my SOOC JPGs look how I want.
>>4462619No clue, but c1 seems to handle all of my pictures and scans way better than lightroom. I like editing pics more on c1 as well.
I'm probably the odd one out with this but I tried using gimp and (pirated) photoshop at the and time and thought gimp was easier to use and wouldn't have to worry about some hax0r using my computer to crash a train or some shit. I had been using canons own raw editor (DPP) for raws but recently decided to switch to loonix only once again and it's a fuckaround to get it to work. So anyway, what I was getting at was how bad exactly are RawRapey and Dorktable at handling Canon raws vs Canons own software which I thought was pretty good.
>>4462626Is it possible to do slight color shifts on the white balance? I change some settings in camera like slightly adjusting magenta and blues, and LR doesn't go that in-depth on WB.
>>4462632C1 does white balance a lot better somehow. Same sliders, but it just works better. Guess which is which.
>>4462633>Same slidersBummer
>>4462634White balance is a standard. Orange to blueGreen to magentaEvery program and camera is the same here. Other color casts are managed with levels/curves, or in C1, for hardware specific casts, LCCshttps://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002583678-The-LCC-tool
FastRawViewer > Photolab is what I use now. A very fast workflow, no need to import just keep it in folders. With some presets I can keep editing to a minimum, some small tweaks when needed, crop and done.
>>4462633After I saw the difference between this I bought c1.
>>4462633>>4462644What's the actual color of this dog though?
Look at this legendary dogtography lens I got for a weirdly little money. These were made between 1908-1930 I believe. Pretty good condition for 100 years old.>>4462646He is not glowing yellow/orange in real life. I've noticed with many pictures LR makes things too yellow, especially my dogs fur. It happens a lot when you try to boost contrast.
>>4462651Oops I thought this was the gear thread. Sorry. Please ignore the lens I posted.
>>4462633>>4462644This seems more like user error than one program being better than the other. I've never seen such a massive color shift in Lightroom. If I had to guess, you have the profile default set wrong in LR.
>>4462655I don't usually change that from the default setting unless I've made a specific profile with my color card. Either way I wouldn't be suprised if it was simply user error. I havent devoted much time to actually learning how to edit photos on the computer. It's not as important for me as making prints in the darkroom.
>>4462655I will say that moving sliders in C1 seems to work out better for me than moving sliders in LR. For white balance it feels like LR moves in much larger steps than C1 and somehow it influences the image differently. I have an easier time manually setting white balance in C1.I also really like the histogram slider thing in C1. Even if I was just doing something stupid in LR I enjoy editing more in C1, so its not too big of a deal.
>>4462655LR has god awful default profiles. Every camera color science meme ever is entirely based on lightroom being shit. You really need to buy a 32+ swatch target and make your own per illuminant for LR (just to put up with lag, $144-240/yr costs to keep up with gear upgrades you definitely won't buy, etc)Lightroom also has much worse default curves than C1.And much worse noise reduction and sharpening (sharp grain vs. the wet scan look) unless you use AI and enhanceAnd more false color/shit fine detail than C1A competent darktable setup (with a fine tuned demosaicing pipeline and everything) is just a little more work than getting lightroom to play nice and actually gets C1 tier results. C1 just does that instantly with fewer bugs, a better UI, and the demosaicing fine tuning (which is some per ISO, per camera hell) already done. And $200 for a one and done if you catch it on sale.Cameras have hit a hard plateau for everyone but super gear reliant action photographers and videofaggot gearcucks who think they still need 8k 120fps raw so what upgrades are there to keep up with? Especially if you shoot a modern camera that embeds lens profiles into the raws (phaseone's profiles are typically undercorrected anyways) so new lenses will always be supported
>>4462663So you dont think it was user error?I will also add that I was using a Leaf aptus 6 mfdb to take those pictures, so it would naturally jive better with C1 than LR, right? It has a bunch of these built in profiles you can use. It made me sad that dog portraits look best with the "product" profile lol
lightroom uniquely breaks ETTR by applying all the hue twists and shit before exposure correctionsliterally no other developer does thisc1, darktable, rapetherapy, incel.exe, all fine
>>4462674Waaaaat. Wow everything is making sense now.
>>4462663>using software prices as an argumenthar har har, avast landlubber)))
I use PS and LRC, both are the best for editing and I just buy once a year a yearly subscription. Doing one paid gig will pay more than that subscription and in my country I can detuct that subscription money from taxes. So no reason to even think about adobes scam prices.
>>4462702Extremely based. You only have two choices in this life - Live free as a pirate or slave away for the merchant.
>>4462702>taking pride in stealingishygddtyou will pay the last penny
>>4462657> don't usually change that from the default settingyeah that's the issue then. lightroom from installation just defaults to their own profile (adobe color), but you can change the setting to use the cameras own profiles to get the colors you actually saw in-camera.
>>4462725I just checked and the profile says embedded... if I move the white balance enough to get the yellow out of his fur it turns his face blue.
>>4462729>profile says embeddedLooking at the wrong spot I think. You should see something at the top that says Profile: Adobe Color and then click into Profile Browser, from there you'll see the option to use the profiles from your camera. I'm actually not even sure what you must be looking at, I don't see the word "embedded" anywhere on my Lightroom.
>>4462619I don't think that is really possible, your editor's sliders aren't going to do exactly the same as the camera ones so the results would be unpredictable.
>>4462733Top right. Is it because Im using lrc?
>>4462737That's really weird. I'm using LRC too and I don't have that at all, I've never even seen "embedded" come up before, not even when I've loaded a JPG. But if you click those 4 little squares next to it, that'll bring up the profile browser and you should be able to find your cameras profiles in there.
>>4462738Do you need to upload profiles? Mine only has this gay instagram filter type bullshit and the icc profiles I've made with my color card. Nothing camera specific unlike c1.
>>4462739That's really weird, they should be in there already. All my cameras are in there without me needing to do anything else. What camera are you using? Is it kind of niche?
>>4462739You don't see a folder called "Camera Matching"?
Any opinions on Adobe's adaptative color profile? I've just noticed its existence but it looks a bit memey
>>4462745I've been using it a little, just because it can make a fairly ready image and I can do additional tweaking. For the most part it just automatically fixes highlights and shadows.
>>4462740Yeah a leaf afi 6 lol. Idk if it shows up for my 5dm3 pics either tho. Ive never noticed anything other than it saying embedded or whatever profile I've made myself.
>>4462745Instantly makes any photo I take look like absolute shit.
>>4462747Ah, then yeah, with something that niche you'd maybe have to look around for the profiles, I'm not too sure. I only ever use pretty regularly available cameras so I've never had to do anything extra beyond setting LR to use my cameras profiles.
>>4462746So basically it already makes a highlights/shadows adjustment without giving you any control over it. I don't see the point when we already have these sliders available
>>4462749Huh okay. C1 has the camera profiles, so its nbd. Thanks for your help.
>>4462750Well in a circumstance where you really want to bring down or bring up certain areas, you can use adaptive to go beyond the 100 limit of the sliders.
>>4462751All good, to each their own really. I've considered C1 myself sometimes but their pricing model seems kinda weird and I think I'd have to buy it again if I got a different camera model. I also do work as a photographer and fuck around with various cameras, so having to keep buying C1 stuff over and over when I use a new camera would be a nightmare.
>>4462752I already achieve it through masking, but I guess it's another alternative indeed
>>4462631I use RawTheRapist and have never had any problemconsider reading the wiki if you haven't it's really extensive
>>4462455i use dark table>Guys which slider program is easier to use
>>4462767>RawTheRapisti love this board and the silly comradery like this makes the insufferables tolerable
>>4462753Standalone is like $300 (or $200 on sale), and then you essentially get the next year's worth of small updates, which can include new camera compability. You get a discount if upgrading within the next 1-2 years, but no standalone loyalty discounts beyond that anymore.If you use their subscription, you get a discount for standalone for each year subscribed, long enough and you end the sub with a free standalone.
>>4462718> muh copying is stealingBehold, the merchant programming of the boomer brain
>>4462753Subscribe then. it's only $2 more a month. Buying to own is for the guy who still uses a 5dIII in the studio and puts out better work than people who upgrade their sony yearly, hence adobe abandoned that guy - he's not really in their target market. He's an unprofitable individual.Some companies would release cameras on a subscription (high failure rate) if they could find the right fanbase to get away with it.
>>4462455I use capture one. They still have a lifetime license. It works well enough.
>>4463028You have to pay again the next year if you want any new features or if a new camera comes out though kek
>>4463053What new kekking features does a lad like you really need? More ai garbage? Moving sliders around is enough for me, really.
>>4463053>consoom!Post sony
>>4463053If you upgrade every other year or so it works out to be less than subscription, which is what I've basically done (except the early upgrades were much cheaper), and you do get most of the following years version updates and camera supportUpgraded 3 times for camera compatibility, and once for features, but that's over 8ish years
>buying softwarei shiggy diggy
>>4462455Yeah using Lightroom until someone figures out a way to port 15 years of local edits over to capture one. Fuck no I din’t give Adobe any $, the last time I paid that’s shit company was in college when we were forced to. Never again. I just keep buying every new application that comes out from independent devs to support them, but keep using Haxnodes Lightroom app bc I’m not throwing away a million hours of work. Yes the situation is fucked, just like every other situation on earth, bc some shit company gets their hands on a good thing, gets greedy, and has a bright idea how they could make even more money by wrecking it, doing a shittier job and buttfucking everyone sideways. Fuck Adobe and fuck Lightroom.
>>4463218>In 15 years of shooting I've never gotten better at editing
Do you lose quality when you batch convert raw files to .dng?
>>4462455adobe at workaffinity at homefoss experiments from time to time
>>4463248>affinity at homeNothing in the form of a library manager?
>>4463249my projects are all in dedicated folders and drives already so i can do local backups. it's already organized.
>>4463249didn't mention before, i have thousands of files
>>4463206you forgot to turn your trip on canon
>>4463249The best library manager is a sensible folder structure
Anyone ever tried Photomator?
>>4463250doesn’t everyone do this? I can’t even imagine an alternative. All of my files in one folder?
>>4463329imagine if you did time lapses or animation where there just thousands in one folder lol
>>4463267
>>4463302I've heard it's getting really good but I haven't bought it to try yet.
>>4463377I haven't read it explicitly but as it's a one time purchase in the app store, I suspect updates are free.
ITT:>MY SLIDER PROGRAM IS BETTER>NO MINE IS BETTER>WELL MINE HAS PEE IN IT
>>4463452isn't adjusting sliders and settings the very basis of photography? Wether that be in camera or in a program
>>4463483....i need to go rethink my life
>>4463483No. Your intent to produce an image is. The camera, lights and editor/darkroom are the tools used to materialize that image into a viewable form.
Why would anyone use Lightroom when Photoshop is right there.
>>4463502Photoshop for single imagesLightroom for working with multiple images + Photoshop integration
>>4463502why would anyone use photoshop when lightroom is right there
>>4463361organised chaos CHADS rise up
>>4463383Yeah it has a few tiers, so you can buy lifetime license or you can buy yearly or monthly. I think I'll look at some more reviews for it since I've at least heard it runs better than anything from Adobe.
is anyone able to get the download links here? https://lucidgen.com/en/how-to-download-adobe-on-mac/
>>4463483> He doesn't shoot jpegs in auto mode
What alternatives to Lightroom exist that are either free (or very cheap) or easy to pirate? I'm looking for something that offers the same tools, especially AI mask selection, RAW development etc, and runs well on simple laptop hardware with no dedicated GPU (Ryzen 7 8845HS). Does something like this even exist?
>>4464554Lightroom is already cheap
>>4464554Lightroom is already easy to pirate
>>4464561>>4464562Sure but I'm curious about alternatives nevertheless.
>>4462455I use Darktable, but I'm really just an amateur...
DxO PhotoLab 9 dropped yesterday. Adobe well and truly BTFO by DxO and Capture One.https://www.dpreview.com/news/9595323730/dxo-s-photolab-9-promises-actually-useful-ai-featureshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=255qbzYqsAE
>>4465110Does it still have awful color science? When I was trying out Photolab, it would always gravitate towards the same acid colors - like the edited image in this forum post https://forum.dxo.com/t/highlight-shadow-recovery/16326
>>4465110TL;DR and how good are pirate versions of DxO or capture one, if they exist?Been free loading on corporate Adobe CC the past years lol
Capture 1 gives me way better performance, LR has been degrading like crazy in the last few years. After 10 years of using it, i made the switch. Now editing photos is finally not torture. It's too bad, because overall I've been used to LR so much that switching is like switching OS at this point. And I hate switching OS. And I like the ergonomics of LR better, though in C1 I can do everything I could in LR, so at least it's a very good equivalent.Only issue is the C1 startup time is very slow for some reason, but it's smooth sailing once it's opened.Also, C1 users, do you go with sessions or catalogs? So far I've been using sessions, but now that I'm used to C1 and committed to keep using it, I intend to use the feature letting me import my LR catalog in it. As such, I assume this import feature means I'll keep using a catalog.Is it a good idea or not?
Capture One is 3x more expensive than Adobe. Are they fucking retarded?
>>4465245Adobe>$12/mo for LR>$20/mo for LR + PS>both include Adobe Portfolio and LR mobile>$15/mo or LR + PS if grandfathered inC1>$17/mo for C1 desktop>$23/mo for C1 desktop + mobile>$330 (around $200 on sale) for standalone, cheaper than Adobe at 15 to 28 months (or faster on sale)>standalone pricing discounted for each year of subscription, up to 100% offNot sure what market you're in where C1 is 3x more expensive?>>4465161Sessions for sure. Switching away from larger catalogs of multiple things to only using individual sessions was the best organizational change I've done. If you think C1 is slow to load now, just wait until you're having it load a full catalog. In any individual session, you can still browse files from other sessions anyways.The stock UI sucks, but it's much more customizable. I don't use the browser window at all, just G to switch between full grid view and whatever I have selected. Make use of speed edit keys, like holding Q + mouse wheel / click + drag / arrow keys will adjust exposure. I have my tools sectioned off and ordered to my workflow.
>>4465260sometimes i hate about media apps in general is when you install it and it's like "where do you keep your files?" and i say "here" and then it's like "shit, bruh" and locks up because there's too many. they should at least count and give you a warning if import will take all night. this happens in almost every FOSS app
>>446526050 BRL "monthly" for LR, 150 BRL monthly for C1 Pro.Adobe apparently has price localization, C1 doesn't. One perpetual C1 license with no updates costs 37 months of "monthly" LR with updates.
>>4465311Sucks to live in third world
>>4465314Nah, I can just pay for Adobe or pirate it all.
>>4465319You could also pirate C1
>>4465134PL color rendering has improved since those posts in 2020/21 but the default "Natural" preset is oversaturated to appease phonefags and the highlight recovery is a bit shit.One problem with the DxO forum is it's full of a bunch of turboautist boomers who think turning up clarity to 100 makes every shot look incredible.>>4465161Putting price aside, all 3 are gimped in different ways imo. Like how the fuck does C1 not have any edit history? The second you close it, all changes are committed to every file and the official response is "click reset on the tool" lmao
>>4465402RAW editors in 2025:>LR ClassicReasonable feature set with the most "AI" tools. Excellent NR. Resource-hungry mess that will fuck your machine with Creative Cloud telemetry bloat (Core Service, Update Service, UI Helper chromium shit, "Content Manager", Core Sync, ...)>DxOBest for optical and distortion corrections. Modules for every lens and body calibrated with real hardware. Equally excellent NR. Colors can be weird/optimized for Ken Rockwells. Lacks simple options like constrain crop and the highlight recovery sucks.>C1Color rendering seems better than LR and DxO. The fastest of the bunch. Perspective correction (keystone) is useless beyond simple adjustments. Undo history is completely missing and developers are lazy when it comes to adding lens and camera support.
>>4465447Capture one is made for photographers, by photographers>why would you want that? get it right in cameraThey won't even add AI NR because they just use better cameras instead of coping hard with m43
>>4465447>phaseone staff on not supporting the zuiko 12-45 f4: "this is software for professionals, sir."
>>4465402I saw that post from 2020 and immediately recognized the acid colors that I was getting myself in 2025.
I definitely use edit history in PS, but I have never once ever missed having it in C1If I like how something looks, I save the adjustments as a presetIf I want to thinker a bit, I just press F8 to make a copy and tinker awayForget it's even a thing until I open up Darktable for a DT threadHow often are you all actually using edit history i a raw processor?
>>4462619>picture profiles>retaining settingsWhat does this mean?>my custom in-camera settingsThey aren't baked in the RAW file, you'll have to take a few pictures, match the look, save it as a preset and then apply it to the RAWs you import.>>4462632You can do slight color shifts by changing the white balance on any raw converter, it works the same way every time.You can also do by-color editing in both Lr and C1.>>4462665It's a fact that default settings result in different looks in each RAW converter.That said, one picture's significantly brighter, so the user has done something, and such a big difference likely came from tweaking stuff (very) differently between the two.
>>4462455I use C1, been using it since v10.I was previously using Lr and decided to try out other options, then stayed with C1 for the massively more flexible color editor and mask workflow.At some point an acquaintance was doing tethered work using Lr and, out of curiosity, I took some time to compare Lr's and C1's tethering capabilities.It wasn't even a competition, I really can't imagine what Lr was doing to be that slow but C1 was three to four times as fast to show a new picture after it was shot, plus it offered the option to control the camera settings in real time and had a live view window.I believe Lr has improved over the years, and I liked C1 better when the HDR tool only had a "Highlights" and a "Shadows" sliders instead of the four White/Highlights/Shadows/Blacks it has now, which it has copied from Lr, but C1 has also improved in terms of performance, masking tools, face editing features, what have you.If only the engineers at Panasonic hadn't made it impossible to tether the S1 with a raw converter, C1 would have everything I need (but I can still shot tethered thanks to C1's hot folders or however they're called, only I have to pass through Panasonic's own tethering software).>>4465161I have a catalog to which I add pictures taken a few at a time and that don't need much organization, like if I'm trying out something or taking two pictures of the moon.Every other project/shoot/session/job gets its new, very own session.
>>4464554>>4464571A good basic system is RawTherapee, I used it for a few years before I just went with Lightroom.
Fuck Adobe. Fuck Adobe. Fuck Adobe.That's the only thing I have to say.
>>4465110>can't export to AVIFMight as well throw your pictures straight in the bin.
What's the best value for money if I'm shit at editing and for now mostly want to inpaint turds and rubbish from my street photos (I live in France)? Affinity looks okay, inpaint tool looks pretty basic, but it works.
>>4462483RawtheraPEE has shit masking and the low-res preview when editing is just awful, I don't care if most freetards use it.
>>4466028>low-res preview when editing is just awfulI've seen much much worse.
>>4466024Actually, I should be just doing this stuff in Gimp. Haha, saved myself 75 Euro.
>>4466024I use the software bundled with the camera (NX Studio &cet. for Nikon, DPP &cet. for Canon) and Gimp.(Roughly flattened impact melt fragment, about 55mm wide. Need to get the stuff for polishing.)
>>4466036>I've seen much much worse.Like what?
>>4466028Decided to try our Rawthera/p/ee since I didn't like Darktable and DPP4 doesn't exist on Linux, but it's just fucking terrible. Cool the power is all there but I don't sneed 57 modules to comb through. I need levels, HSL, gamma, NR, sharpness, etc. Darktable is kind of the same but I'm so unimpressed with the NR of either there's no incentive to use them for anything shot over ISO 1600.Looks like the only sensible thing to use is 1st party software if you're going to be a freetard. Unfortunately for me that means getting a workaround in WINE going, so fuck my life.>inb4 just use windowsI do, but I use linux-specific things all the time, and the niggers at Canon have a Mac version of DPP4 but can't be arsed shitting out a Linux version? Fuck off.
>>4466159Just don't use the modules you don't need? Also there's a fork called ART that reduces the number of modules.
>>4465552> rolling shutterOh another ewaste mirrorless enjoyer
>>4466178I think my main point was poorly pivoted. I mean more like, the UI is a bloated unintuitive mess, with no consideration of workflow and seemingly no logic to how things are worded.>read the manualNo. If I can spend 5 minutes in DPP, C1, Digikam, LR, or even OM Shitspace and get the hang of things no worries, there's no excuse.
>>4466195I put some time into leaning darktable so I could finally kiss paid raw developers goodbye and now I get better results in a couple minutes than I ever did in LR and C1.It's really easy and fast to use, you just have to learn a couple basics. If you can't be bothered to do that, I wonder how you ever got into "professional" photography and developing raw files.As for confusing UI, I don't think that's really the case, it's quite similar to LR.Maybe this will help:https://www.darktable.org/2024/12/howto-in-5.0/There's also videos about how to switch from LR to darktable, never needed to watch one of those tho.
>>4466195Capture one is basically the only good editorAnd yes, linux is not supported nor should it be. between the bloat of the kernel, systemd, and gnu/garbage (including gtk and gnome), it's harboring an untold number of purposefully added backdoors courtesy of at least 3 different countries intelligence agencies.
>>4462455https://github.com/cybertimon/rapidrawJust found this last night. This dude got sick of Adobe and made his own lightroom. >Not the guy >Not shilling a free product>Tried it yesterday for the first time it's way less confusing than darktable >Lacks a few features but the dev seems interested in feedback and improving
>>4466237>commie AGPL license that infects everything it toucheshard pass
>>4466232my only problem with DT is that the highlight recovery is significantly worse than the "white" slider on C1 for example
>>4466260Shut the fuck up faggot.
>>4466157OM Workspace. Almost unusable.
>>4466195From where I'm standing, RT has borderline unusable file browser - that's true. The fact that they refuse to implement a normal image preview, like it exists in every other editing program is just beyond me. ART actually tries to fix that. Otherwise, I think the editor is good.
>>4466263there are several ways to do highlight recovery, I never had an issue getting highlight detail backuse either tone equalizer or color balance rgb and use the brilliance gradingyou can use masks to only affect the sky or the upper luninance ranges, if neededyou could also just make a 2nd exposure module, then make a mask for the highlight areas
>>4466190The right stick looks like that because it's moving upwards from a frontal perspective at 1/60", but the picture was taken with the mechanical shutter.
>>4466270>commie wants to shut people upnews at 11
>>4466195>>4466279Well, ok, also the crop tool in RT is kinda bad.
Can we finally effortlessly stitch panoramas in Darktable or Rawtherapee? As in, having it work as good as in LR or C1 in a single click, with multiple type of panos.
I just take pictures I don't use any of these
If your JPGs look bad, you're a bad photographer.
>>4466715>Good photographers fiddle with camera settings to keep their jpegs looking good!Boasting about worthless skills is for people who have no worthwhile ones.Can't imagine wasting my time fiddling with white balance, "active d lighting", picture controls etc when I can just auto iso exp. comp -1, take photos, and set all that shit 10x faster on a computer later. Jpeg is a straight downgrade from the workflow of negative film intended for consumers who did not know or care what was going on, people seen as literal cattle by the manufacturers.Also, older cameras perform better in raw because manufacturers never updated the firmware to render better jpegs. "Dont pixel peep! (view anything larger than 1920x1080)" is a cope. If you have to tell me how to look at photos to defend a camera, you're using it wrong or it's a bad camera. Pick one.
>>4466715jpg shooters are lazy camera operators
Anyone have any experience with ON1?
>>4466810Not much but what do you need?
>>4466811Was just curious if anyone here uses it and has their opinions about it. I'm a beginner with all this photography stuff and I've been messing around with RawTherapee when it comes to photo editing. Kind of wanted to try out other pieces of software (with more features etc) but I'm not really into Adobe's jewery with their subscription plans and all that. Stumbled upon ON1 the other day and it looks decent but at the same time I havent really heard about it otherwise. There are some reviews that say it's good but I'm not sure if it's just some random shill on the internet or not. Even the comments in most of those reviews looks like they were written by AI bots.
>>4466814ON1 is pretty good, sometimes better than LrC, sometimes worse. Definitely a good alternative if you're willing to pay for it. If you're on wangblows, simply pirate LrC, fuck Adobe.
>>4466718Camera operators are just lazy collage artists.Collage artists are just lazy painters.Painters are just lazy illustrators.Illustrators are just lazy designers & architects.Architects are just lazy engineers.Engineers are just lazy mathematicians.Physicists are just lazy physicists.Physicists are just lazy philosophers.Philosophers are just lazy fuckers oh my god are they useless. Illustrators are just lazy
>>4466863God dammit, how tf did it replace my 2nd mathematicians with another physicists? I hate all this shit, everything, all this is just digital…
>>4466815>ON1 is pretty goodIt has crazy high cpu usage
>>4466873Works on my machine
Capture One chads, does the C1 perpetual license ever get discounted for something like Christmas sales?
>>4466815>pirate LrCGot a safe source by any chance? I've been burned before.
Do any of these have some form of auto culling?
>>4466902Monkrus. Been using this for years, it's a Russian guy doing God's work for us.
>>4466902CHINKS could be here, he thought. I've been burned before. There could be CHINKS anywhere. The cold glass of fixer felt good in his hand. I HATE CHINKS he thought. Girls on Film reverberated the entire bathroom making it pulsate even as the $1 instant coffee circulated through his government microfilm reels and washed away his (merited) fear of hackers after dark. "With caffenol, you can shoot anything you want" he said to himself, out loud.
I've been using lightroom for a few years 99% on tablets. First ipad pro then switched to Android. The iPad version was very frustrating. I like using cloud sync uploading via tablet. On iPad whenever you switch apps or the screen turns off or locks the cloud sync stops immediately. It'd take forever to sync with constant screen tapping. Apparently only Apple cloud is allowed to sync when the app is not in focus, no non-apple sync in the background. Dont know if it's changed then. But there's no alternative without cloud features, let alone with, so I'm stuck with it.
>>4466954What's your use case / need for cloud syncing?I've never bothered with it
>>4466898Yes, often around black Friday>>4466905Not Automatic, but C1's culling features make it go super quick
>>4466978Immediate import and backup post shoot in case the worst happens. Having my catalogue on any device anywhere (smart preview), so I can show, adjust, export, print if needed. Edit from anywhere and Any edits only need to sync Metadata and not the full images again. Online soft proofing, this let's people sign in and pick images, I can select those images and create a new album with them in Lightroom, super convenient. Shared cloud albums can also be downloaded via link for other people, but I stopped doing that since last I checked they don't export in sRGB, and IG posting screws up the colour after posting while getting the preview before posting correct. Maybe that's been fixed in either LR or IG since then.My workflow has been tablet based for years now, and there still isn't even a single non cloud alternative, let alone an alternative that supports what I use above.
>>4466983Gotcha, I just backup to SSD in the field as needed, and use my NAS + Pixieset for everything else you describedI think like 9 years of paying for CC at this point and never felt needed for me
>>4466950Kek
>>4466983You may have heard this before, but it bears repeating occasionally: Do not rely on "Cloud Sync" as a backup.Firstly, you can't guarantee where the files actually are. If you lose your account one day due to whatever SaaSy bullshit is going on, you may find out you've been optimised to only have the last month of data on your device.Secondly, you're at the absolute mercy of software bugs nuking your library everywhere simultaneously. As an example, iCloud one day decided that my dad didn't have any files any more. Not on his Mac, not on his iPhone and not on his iPad either. Saved only by an actual backup on his work PC.
Tried Luminar, it's dog shit.AMA
Also tried DxO. Actually a good alternative to LrC but total clusterfuck with their products and pricing. Might as well pay Adobe since it's cheaper and integrated.
RapidRAW is the future. 18 yrs old guy created free LR competitor.https://www.free-codecs.com/download/rapidraw.htmhttps://github.com/CyberTimon/RapidRAW
I use Lightroom v8.5.1 (actually pay for it and all to be fair it was $80 for the year) and my camera (Pentax K1ii) isn't fully supported by LR (no Camera Standard profile for example)Sometimes Adobe Color or Adobe Portrait works to get the colors where I want them to, but has anyone tried the Color Fidelity profiles? Sometimes the Adobe profiles come out too green or blue and I'm better off using the jpeg if I'm not pixel peeping. https://www.colorfidelity.com/$25 is a little pricey but I kinda feel like its not doing the camera justice.
Why does no one ever mention ACDsee?
>>4467246I made the same choice. Also, developments are going so fast it is likely I would want to upgrade dxo, so I'm still paying each year.
Capture One users, is there a defined release schedule?I'd hate to buy a perpetual license for 16.6.x right now and then have 16.7.0 release a month later for which my license isn't entitled to
>>4467211I keep the physical copies, the cloud sync is a backup in case something happens to the physical copies (theft, loss, baggage loss, etc), its a backup in another physical location other than where my cards are. Hence also considered setting up ftp server on my home pc with Hotspot while shooting to stream to. The cloud sync also downloads to my home pc.I don't tend to remove them off the cards until I'm really done with them and just got a new 512GB cf express to make that easier and use the 64GB with dual card shooting as my import card
>>4467211Also I did actually want to get tape backup too when i saw tape prices.. until I saw tape drive prices
>>4467972>why does no one ever mention this decade old image viewer???
cropping and gamma (iso) adjustments with imagemagick from raw -> png -> encoder of choice (jpegli/jpeg2000/jxl)editing is haram
>>4466237>>4467805stop spamming you fag
>>4467805Yes, this is clearly the work of a true processing master. He sure knows what he's doing!https://www.instagram.com/timonkaech.photography/
>>4468048If you buy a NAS box (myself, I have one of the cheapest single-drive Synology), it simplifies setting up file sharing.
I use LR Classic, IrfanView and PS 2015>Paying for ((((((((subscriptions)))))))))
>>4462455I quit Photoshop forever ago and haven't had any difficulty moving on from it. I use the Canon DPP and the other included raw tools. There is Affinity 2 if I need more than DPP.
>>4462455xnviewnp for viewing, photoshop for editing.
Photoshop. Never really saw the purpose of Lightroom. Don't give a crap about batch working photos.The rest are just scrubs.
>>4463302>Used the trial for 7 days>Forgets>Payment triggered>Accidentally bought subscription for a yearI'm stuck using it for a year now. They use percentages instead of number format for the values of the adjustments, which is kinda annoying if i'm trying to copy values from lightroom.
>>4467831You shouldn't pay for this kind of software if you're not able to perform a basic exposure correction
>>4462455I'll pay for software the day one of these fuckers packages a damn ai into it that lets you train it with your own stills without needing to be a fucking python programmer. Like mf's if I have a scan of a 50yo photo or movie film where my grandmother is smiling and smootching my grandpa, but the image quality is low light, out of focus or just too low res, BUT I have a million super sharp perfectly lit closeups on glorious 35mm kodachrome from her that same year, then THE BEST POSSIBLE USE OF AI in the arts is if I can tell the ai to reference all those stills, and maybe even some sharper stills of the same beach, or the dock, or the boat, etc, and render the scene in better detail, with color & light options. For all the jerking off over how ai is the end all be all, I have yet to see anyone be able to do this except the deepfakers busy putting emma watsons floating head on some cartoonish pornstars body and buying some $15,000 shitbox computer to do it, which will be outdated in 3 weeks.
Photolab 9 is out and it has auto masking now, has anyone tried it?
>>4470755> Look up DxO website> They suggest to use it for fake bokehI dunno, DxO marketing is really hammering on the point that DxO does not make you a better photographer.
>>4470760their, ON1's, Luminar's marketing assumes that you know that you're a bad photographer (I know I am one) and says "it's fine bro here's how to cope in post". The anti-Capture One.
>>4470760Well its partially Nikons fault, they never made a proper adapter that'll get the Defocus Control lens working with the new Z bodies, and they also didn't make a new DC lens, so if you're really going to make a concerted effort for BOKAAA, you're left using an old 2010 D850 or halfassing it in 2025 software.
>>4470755it's on torrent sites, gonna check it out
>>4462455>So is everyone using Lightroom or what?Why wouldn't I?It's easy to:>SET UP YOUR CATALOG ON AN EXTERNAL DRIVE>SET UP A FOLDER STRUCTURE TO STORE IMAGES>CREATE A COPYRIGHT METADATA PRESET>IMPORT IMAGES>EDIT IMAGES
>>4470793also >costs more than capture one over time unless you insist on upgrading gear constantly (skill issue)>is slow>has AIds and logs every photo you import for the AI gods (and probably others)>has image quality issues with sony and fuji>known for meh, flat looking color profiles>less autistic color adjustment capabilities>high ISO look from lightroom is kind of nasty and harsh/digital compared to the way other programs render noise reduction, without using AIds (looks phone-y up close, because it is)
Any other Leica shooters with input on what software to use? I'm trying to decide between renewing my Adobe contract or switching to Capture One.
>>4471058I have an M4-2 and I use darktable, hope this helps.
>>4471064Does it handle the Leica color science as well as C1? I had been using LR with my Sony A7III until I bought my Leica SL2 and there is quite a noticeable difference in how it renders the DNGs.
>>4471065I was joking a bit with my post since it's a film camera but I can still answer this: darktable renders RAW files very flat, compared to both C1 and LR so there's more room to create the look you want. I like the results I can get for both my Alpha 7 III and X-T5. You really have to learn how to get there tho and many aren't ready for that.
>>4471066>very flat, compared to both C1as flat as a linear profile in C1?
>>4471093Another anon. What he probably means, Darktable has no built in camera profiles and does not support Adobe dcp profiles. You have to dual your own look for your photos, because there's no reasonable default look.
>>4471095but that, at least from the files I've opened in darktable, isn't as flat as C1 + linear profile>there's more room to create the look you want.is just a silly statement to make, even for LR honestly
>>4471058just pirate C1
>>4471114It's so cheap though and I can shoot tethered from my iPhone.I just can't decide whether or not there's actually a benefit to using it over LR.I wan't the objectively best tool to use with photos from my Leica.
>>4471246there is no objectively best tool, the best tool is the one that works for you
>>4471319When it comes to Leica, there is. AFAIK, only Capture One has proper rendering and integration for their color science.
Does anyone use GIMP? How is it?
>using Green Is My Pepperlol lmao
>>4470754Closest thing I can think of is CaptureOne's "Match Look" functionIt's not exactly that, but it's kinda close.
>>4468718Two different people you faggot. The worst part about /p/ is the "people". A bunch of delusional browns with shit photos larping as smug creative types. Consider sticking your head up your own ass and suffocate on shit stink.
>>4467972It's what my Dad uses. He bought a lifetime licence years ago. I've honestly got no idea how good it is or how it compares to other products. He just uses it cause that's what he thought was good in the 90s and has stuck with it ever since.
>>4469060Yeah, I feel like I shoot such a wide variety of scenes and subjects that I could never batch edit. I could see how someone doing event photography or similar might make use of it though.
>>4467975No.The last few years it's been around 2 point versions per year.
>>4471482It's alright but not as good as MS Paint.
