Wanted to say Thanks for letting me know about Photoscape, a fun program. For me it won't replace any current software I use but will add to it when I want to get creative. It is very easy to use and it offers so much: I am using the free version.
Am I the only person in the world not using LR & PS?
- Thread starter Mr F Stop.
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Wanted to say Thanks for letting me know about Photoscape, a fun program. For me it won't replace any current software I use but will add to it when I want to get creative. It is very easy to use and it offers so much: I am using the free version.
My advice would be to get a DESKTOP with a nice monitor. It makes a huge difference in the ease of software use, speed, and seeing your photo on a big screen really aides in certain editing tasks. Which software is a debate for the ages. I'm happy with Lightroom and Photoshop and have used them for a few years, now. The prospect of learning a whole new set of tools in a different software application doesn't appeal to me.
Coming late to this thread - I am using ACDSee and find it does everything I need, from catalog management to layered editing. I can resonate with your statement about EVERYONE on YT using Adobe products - when I want to learn, I need to translate how their methods work in my editor. I usually find that the features are there but require to understand the different user interfaces. I just have to abstract the "what" from the "how" - learning what the pros are doing, and translating it into how my software does it.
ShaneB
Member
Nope. I've used Capture One since Adobe decided it would only rent its software.
It provides non-destructive editing (which I consider a threshold issue in any consideration of software), keywording great colour editing, and a lot of control in general over my Nikon raw files.
On the very rare occasions that I need a pixel editor, I use Affinity Photo.
It provides non-destructive editing (which I consider a threshold issue in any consideration of software), keywording great colour editing, and a lot of control in general over my Nikon raw files.
On the very rare occasions that I need a pixel editor, I use Affinity Photo.
I have always used NX-D for RAW conversion and initial editing and Picture Window Pro for final editing. PWP is now free and I've never felt a need for anything else. Its incredibly efficient and doesn't use a lot of resources and does all that I need Only caveat is that it's PC only, no Mac. Sometimes if I want some creative effects I use the NIK collection or Topaz Studio, and Topaz DeNoise for noise reduction.
Like the original poster, I also find it irritating that most, if not all, editing "tutorials" assume that one has Lightroom or Photoshop and they never give more generalized information.
For cataloging I use Photo Supreme (formerly ID-Imager.)
Like the original poster, I also find it irritating that most, if not all, editing "tutorials" assume that one has Lightroom or Photoshop and they never give more generalized information.
For cataloging I use Photo Supreme (formerly ID-Imager.)
Mr F Stop.
Active member
Exactly! I was sent a link to this https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/photo-editing-tutorials.htm which has help a little.
John Sh
New member
If you think Affinity is unintuitive, try Photoshop. I've been using Affinity since it was in beta and have had no trouble since day one. My normal workflow is to start in LR6 standalone and then move to Affinity for the fiddly bits. I will sometimes take a jpg file into the Develop persona as some of the adjustments there are not available in the Photo persona. You can also use the Nik collection as a plugin.
John Sh
New member
You will also do well to watch Dave Straker at "Inaffinity for Affinity". Dave has a huge list of beginner through to very advanced videos and has a catalogue on his website here; https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=...bEZvZmJfX01UeGhKTl9vWEpEcTJIVlpoY3BNUVFTdWJtS
nVOS0tzbG11Zm1LQnp0UngyMzV0QVFuS1FqTkNHRC10UlI3TWFzNGJaOVA1eDJZZjZtODUzbw%3D%3D
or a beginner list here;
YouTube
www.youtube.com
Woody Meristem
Well-known member
That's a great photograph. Like you I just don't think the any improvement in images is worth shooting RAW and spending the time to learn the software and edit the photos. And like you I'm old and would rather spend the time I've got left on earth out in forest and field making photographs than sitting looking at a glowing screen. I've probably got 28,000 images on this laptop now and the vast majority have been edited on PhotoScape 3.7 -- only a bit of sharpening and exposure and contrast adjustment if they're needed. On the rare occasions I want to reduce noise either DPP4 or FastStone do the job.
Thanks John for your advice. I hear you about Photoshop! Also, thanks for the youtube links - much appreciated....
cheers,
Alex
cheers,
Alex
You will also do well to watch Dave Straker at "Inaffinity for Affinity". Dave has a huge list of beginner through to very advanced videos and has a catalogue on his website here; https://www.youtube.com/redirect?v=j-ijpoE7BdE&event=video_description&q=https://changingminds.org/disciplines/photography/affinity_photo/inaffinity_video_index.htm&redir_token=QUFFLUhqbmcteUpIZzdJdVZjb2VRUXZ5Y1ZBSXA3UWNGZ3xBQ3Jtc0ttUEhwU1BaVlFLWWVIZTFOZUhfLUdtVnNXbEZvZmJfX01UeGhKTl9vWEpEcTJIVlpoY3BNUVFTdWJtS
nVOS0tzbG11Zm1LQnp0UngyMzV0QVFuS1FqTkNHRC10UlI3TWFzNGJaOVA1eDJZZjZtODUzbw%3D%3D
or a beginner list here;
YouTube
There is also On1 Photo RAW for both Mac and PC. I know a lot of people who love it. It is not subscription, and there are a many tutorial videos. They also have an additional plus option that includes a forum, critiques, and many in depth tutorials on both the software and photographic techniques. I think they are offering a holiday discount at the moment like everyone else.
kimball
Brian Kimball
One thing that's useful to keep in mind when considering shooting raw is that you have to become the equivalent of your camera's JPG processing pipeline.
What do I mean by that? Well, if you shoot JPG your camera is doing quite a lot of image processing on the raw data to deliver a pleasing image. I visualize it as a pipeline of tasks, where one feeds into the other (even if in reality they're happening in unison or out of order):
Demosaic raw data -> white balance multiplication -> gamma & color space transform -> s-curve applied for contrast -> saturation boost -> noise reduction -> sharpening -> saving to JPG file
Those 8 steps would be the absolute bare minimum for a camera to apply in order to get an acceptable JPG from sensor data.
In contrast, when editing a raw file, you really only get the first three steps before you see the image. Thus, once your'e looking at a newly imported image in your favorite raw editor, it will often look very dull compared to the corresponding JPG precisely because the image processing pipeline isn't finished on the raw file-- the raw processing software assumes you have some kind of creative vision for the image and will be performing the rest of the tasks according to your own criteria. You must finish the image processing pipeline before the image is ready to be enjoyed by others. Thankfully most raw processors have many methods for speeding up this task of finishing an image from a raw file. You can spend 30 seconds applying a few presets and call it done, or you can spend hours massaging the data and performing a myriad of sophisticated & layered local adjustments. It's completely up to you.
To be clear, there's no judgment here of JPG vs. raw. Both are entirely valid formats to shoot in. Many people are intrigued by the potential of raw and find they enjoy the craft of image completion from raw data, likening it to spending quality time in a photographic darkroom in days long past. Many others would rather shoot the modern-day equivalent of polaroids or do the equivalent of offloading their rolls to a fast development lab to just get their prints processed in bulk so they can move on and keep shooting.
There's no right or wrong here, just very different styles, motivations, and interests. Both JPG and raw are valid formats to shoot in, as long as the photographer understands the trade-offs they're making and why they're making them.
Mr F Stop.
Active member
As soon as I can see a worthwhile difference in my Jpeg and Raw edits I will take the extra time to edit the raw file. But up to this point in time I am happy with the printed results of the Jpeg. I do think that saying the Jpeg is the equivalent of a Polaroid is wrong. You can't edit or change a polaroid can you? but todays jpegs can be edited a lot. Get a Jpeg right in camera and I think it's hard to better the result editing a raw file. If and when I get Lightroom then this may change but I will still edit both and compare and make my decision from there.
I agree, the key to shooting jpeg is getting it right in the camera. If you do need a lot of white balance adjustment or need to pull up the shadow detail or pull down the highlights then you're working at a disadvantage with the 8 bit jpeg vs the original 12 or 14 bit raw file. I converted from primarily shooting slide film to shooting digital almost 20 years ago with a Nikon D1H and exclusively shot jpegs for several years. I've printed and sold many of those images even with a crazy low resolution camera by today's standards and capturing those images as jpegs.
Here's a piece I wrote a long time ago for the Nikondigital.org website outlining jpeg vs raw and processing thoughts. My views haven't changed much over the years though my workflow and processing has evolved fairly dramatically as tools and my understanding have evolved: https://www.cardinalphoto.com/content/introduction-raw-files-and-raw-conversion-dave-ryan
Last edited:
I'm the same as a lot of folk here, I try and get it as correct as possible in camera (again a legacy from film days). I keep thinking I should go the 'whole hog' but I am still using Photoshop Elements, shoot in RAW and tinker about as little as possible. I'm only taking photos for my enjoyment, not to sell any, obviously I want to get them as good as I possibly can, and found that Elements still serves me well.
I find it interesting that folks do not like the subscription service for LR and PS
Seems like 9.99 a month is cheaper than what we used to pay for a Photoshop even over a couple of years per version
There are others
ON1 7.99 month or 99. own it
These seem fairly affordable to me compared for the hundreds of dollars for camera and lenses one is spending
And like everything else technical a new computer every few years makes life much better
Seems like 9.99 a month is cheaper than what we used to pay for a Photoshop even over a couple of years per version
There are others
ON1 7.99 month or 99. own it
These seem fairly affordable to me compared for the hundreds of dollars for camera and lenses one is spending
And like everything else technical a new computer every few years makes life much better
ccirelli
Well-known member
Honestly I feel Adobe's subscription model is super fair and it works out really well $-wise, compared to keeping software current with the old "ownership" model. Some of their apps are overpriced (Premiere Rush..?) but not their Photography bundles. For a while I was just using their Lightroom Plan with 1TB which is just $10 per month (no contract or obligation). That covered about 98% of my photo organization & editing needs. I decided to add PS again for focus stacking (thanks Steve! 
) and I'm getting into astro as well, so I upgraded my plan. Photoshop to me is basically just a super-charged plug-in, used only for special tasks - most of my images never see it.
For me, a computer upgrade every few years and an Adobe photo plan is just an essential part of my workflow. It is a fraction of what we pay for photo gear. After being raised on film and spending too many years of my life in darkrooms, I'm happy to send Adobe a few dollars every month for their magical offerings.
) and I'm getting into astro as well, so I upgraded my plan. Photoshop to me is basically just a super-charged plug-in, used only for special tasks - most of my images never see it.For me, a computer upgrade every few years and an Adobe photo plan is just an essential part of my workflow. It is a fraction of what we pay for photo gear. After being raised on film and spending too many years of my life in darkrooms, I'm happy to send Adobe a few dollars every month for their magical offerings.
JP Onstwedder
Well-known member
Like many others I don't use Adobe products mostly because of the subscription model. It's not the total cost (Capture One is just as expensive); it's the way it ties you into a perpetual payment plan. As I understand it, if you stop paying you lose access to your edits so you'd have to start all over again if you ever wanted to refine your processing. that model just irritates me - it is typical of the arrogance of the IT businesses (although Sonos comes top of that list!). I am happy to pay for good software; developing it and keeping ti up date is a big undertaking and I want the tools and the improvements. But I want a perpetual license so I can choose when to switch to something else without the penalty that Adobe wants to impose on me.
From what I've read you don't lose your catalogs or metadata. You just lose access to the develop and map modules. You can continue to use the catalog functions, export, print, and do further edit in another program. If you rejoin you get all LR functions back.
ccirelli
Well-known member
Correct, your edits, metadata, etc. don't disappear and you can continue to use some features of LR / LR Classic. Here's Adobe's What happens when I cancel my Creative Cloud subscription? section (near the bottom of the page). I think their policy / approach is very fair, it's a solid model.
M
macwest
Guest
One-time payment to own your Capture One for Nikon 21 is 129.00 us. No subscription. I have used everything and every time capture 1 shows more detail and better colors. you can try it free for 30 days. Mac
I have owned both Affinity Photo and Luminar since they were first released but have been using Apple‘s Photo app on my iPad for 95% of my editing. It is a great little program and I find that it suits my needs very well. I just load the raw files into the iPad and away I go. Clean and simple.
Affinity photo + Topaz Denoise is an excellent and very affordable combo. Loads of free tutorials on the internet.
I also like Raw therapee (free) but it’s not as intuitive to learn and use.
I haven’t owned paid Adobe products in perhaps over 10 years.
I also like Raw therapee (free) but it’s not as intuitive to learn and use.
I haven’t owned paid Adobe products in perhaps over 10 years.
Niels.hr.Hansen
Well-known member
My preferred platform is Linux (Ubuntu 20.04 currently) so no Adobe product available. My primary tool is Darktable, and occasionally Gimp.
Darktable provides a strong archive function, so it's easy to create a structure and image tagging so finding images is easy. I found it easy and intuitive to get started using DT and to get more than reasonable results. As you improve you can add more and more features to your workflow. Before Christmas I saw a comparison between Lightroom and DT on fstoppers.com, think it was a little tainted by the authors long use of Lightroom. DT is not only available for Linux, it's also running on MacOS and Windows.
Darktable provides a strong archive function, so it's easy to create a structure and image tagging so finding images is easy. I found it easy and intuitive to get started using DT and to get more than reasonable results. As you improve you can add more and more features to your workflow. Before Christmas I saw a comparison between Lightroom and DT on fstoppers.com, think it was a little tainted by the authors long use of Lightroom. DT is not only available for Linux, it's also running on MacOS and Windows.
James C.
Active member
Alex:
I feel your pain. I, too, am struggling to learn how to Use Affinity Photo. I found a good set of tutorials on YouTube, but they're 2 years old and there have been some changes in the newer versions, so that makes learning also a little more difficult.
What I am slowly coming to realize that I should stick to what I learned back in the days of film, and make sure your composition is good when taking your shot, so that once you're in the darkroom, you don't have to do a lot of fiddling around (unless you're trying to do artistic/experimental work on the photo).
Mostly, I just use the "Photos" app on my Mac, and Topaz AI DeNoise or Sharpen.
Last edited: