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?
