1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Adobe Lightroom for photographers

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by wordie, Jan 11, 2006.

  1. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    oooofff... can't help you on the cloud/ syncing thing as I only use it locally (although I do sync my library and catalogs to an external HD with freefilesync for a backup)
    Concerning the Import from Photos. Is there not already an export function in Photos you could use first (instead of faffing around writing a script), then re-import to LR? or is that just all too manual?
     
  2. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet Administrator

    It's not so much the export as the import. I have hundreds, over a thousand different albums in Photos/Aperture, plus lots of tags that are important and that I can't abandon. I could export originals and finals from Photos fairly easily into album directories, and it sets OS X file tags for them too IIRC, but that's useless unless I can import them into Lightroom and retain the collections and tags. This wouldn't be possible manually. Photos and Aperture are scriptable but Lightroom isn't—well, not using Applescript at least, from all I can see you have to basically write a plugin if you want to interact with it. I suppose maybe I could write something that moved my stuff back from Photos to Aperture, and then use the Aperture import tool.

    There is also the issue that, while Lightroom is an advance over my current software, it's not so much of an advance that it's worth paying at least £8.50 a month for (this will go up, I'm sure) basically forever. I could cope with losing the cloud sync if necessary—I coped for years without it—but I don't feel that I'm getting value for the CC subscription, given that I'm not interested in Photoshop.

    I think I'm going to work on a filesystem-based solution.
     
  3. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    Fuck. A toughie!
    I guess it's a matter of weighing up your priorities/ requirements: (Cloud vs File-based + standalone system) vs (hi vs low post-processing performance).
    Do you really need the cloud version? for me it's way out of the question. I've had LR standalone for 3 years - I was lucky and got it for £50, but knowing now how useful it is, would have gladly paid the £100 - so, If i bought into the cloud i'd have paid nigh-on £300 by now :eek: Fuck That!

    Still, even if you settle for a File-based and standalone solution, you've still got a massive task transferring the metadata and file structures.
    There is no easy way really. Check this vid out, the lengths a pro-photographer goes to shifting files around when on location... (not saying there's a solution in there, but just trying to say nothing's one click :))
    Complete Workflow, Storage & BackUp for Photography + Video | Chase Jarvis Photography

     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2016
  4. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    So Adobe - who made record breaking profits this year - are now rejigging the deal to subscription-only with mandatory cloud storage requirement. Lightroom Classic looks to bet set out to pasture at some point.

    As one commentator observed, "I trust Adobe with all my pictures. It's not like they've ever been hacked or anything."

    New cloud-friendly Lightroom has 1TB of photo storage, same UI across desktop and mobile

    Adobe doesn't care what you think and quits the standalone version while launching the new Lightroom CC - 43 Rumors
     
    Mr Smin likes this.
  5. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  6. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  7. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

  8. Mr.Bishie

    Mr.Bishie In solidarity with the people of Catalonia

    ffs :mad:
     
    editor likes this.
  9. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    Adobe are just a bunch of cunts!
     
  10. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    I am using faststone viewer at the moment and it copes with Fuji RAF files from my S2 but I don't know if it will continue to work for further cameras. Elements also converts my RAF files but again I doubt it will work for a more modern camera.
     
  11. FridgeMagnet

    FridgeMagnet Administrator

    The complaints that this isn't necessary and nobody wants it have to be seen in context I think. In a few years' time the idea of not being able to access any of your photos from any device will be something for former brokers who write articles in the Guardian about giving up the rat race and living in a wood.

    Individual users hate software rental though, particularly if they're given no choice. It doesn't matter why, though there are often good reasons. If you introduce a standing charge for something everyone will hate it, particularly if part of your justification is features they never asked for. It doesn't matter that they might be future-proof if everybody hates them when they come out.

    Adobe is one of the most arrogant companies around, and that includes Apple and even Facebook. They really don't seem to think they have to pay any attention to users at all; it's not just taking decisions that might aggravate a sector. It's going to bite them in the arse because it's just photo editing/cataloguing and it's not hard and being industry standard doesn't save you. Other companies have learned this.
     
    editor likes this.
  12. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    The faststone people are bloody brilliant. The software is updated pretty regularly too.
     
  13. Tankus

    Tankus random farter

    Having been buttfucked by photobucket who are holding me to ransom ..Im a bit wary about cloud storage ...plus my elements gone pants as it no longer supports my new canons RAW....?

    There's probably a workaround ......but its like ......wheres the auto update ..man ...
     
  14. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Yes Tankus I fear my elements won't support more modern Nikon Raws either, being as is it something like V9.
     
  15. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    If you're interested in alternatives to Lightroom there are several free and some not too expensive alternatives:

    Free
    RawTherapee (Win, Mac, Linux)
    LightZone (Win, Mac, Linux)
    IrfanView (Win)
    DarkTable (Mac, Linux - Win in alpha)

    £50-£100
    AfterShot Pro (Win) currently on offer for £55 - reduced from £80
    PaintShop Pro Standard or Ultimate (Win) similar to Photoshop Elements, but a bit cheaper and a bit better
    DxO OpticsPro (Win, Mac)
    Affinity Photo (Win, Mac) Affinity are apparently working on something closer to Lightroom as well - Affinity Photo is closer to Photoshop.

    More Expensive
    ACDSee have a range of products from about $30-$170 (Win, but with a different Mac version)
    Capture One Pro (Win, Mac) $300 paid version - they have subscription version as well
     
    Mr Smin and weltweit like this.
  16. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    Hi RoyReed that looks like a nice comprehensive list, many thanks for that. I certainly am interested in options other than Adobe though Elements 9 does everything I need at the moment. I am considering upgrading my camera and I am sure Elements 9 will become an issue when I have more modern raw files.

    Photoshop CC alternatives < [code so I can find this message again :)]
     
  17. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    This is piquing my interest

    New Luminar 2018 Takes on Adobe Lightroom | PhotographyBLOG
     
  18. mauvais

    mauvais change has become unavoidable

    Thing is, it's easy to forget just how good Lightroom is.

    I can't say I've looked at them recently but over the years I've tried a lot of the items on that list above, and they were all terrible.

    I have no love for Adobe, their practices or their monopolistic position, but when it comes to Lightroom, it was better than anything that came before, better than any other Adobe products, and is actually objectively very good at what it does. It will take a lot of effort and skill to displace it.
     
    Mr.Bishie and RoyReed like this.
  19. RoyReed

    RoyReed Must fly!

    I pretty much agree with all of that, plus I've been using Lightroom for ten years and have a database of nearly 75,000 images edited and catalogued there. I really don't want to have to start again.
     
    mauvais and Mr.Bishie like this.
  20. Nivag

    Nivag Well-Known Member

    I'm still using Aperture as I only shot for fun rather than work these days but after testing a couple of new DSLR's last week I found out it doesn't work with the current RAW file format. So following this with interest.
    I tried that free DxO that Editor posted earlier, it's looks very simplistic on the surface and a bit busy interface on a 15" display, though needs more testing to see if it's any good.
     
  21. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    It is good, but it's not tied-to-a-rising-subscription-for-life good.
     
  22. mauvais

    mauvais change has become unavoidable

    No, but that's just because there's little value in the ongoing service element of it, not because the software itself is bad.
     

Share This Page