Photo Mechanic would be a good supplement to say C1 or even for Aperture users who are starting to transition (it might be easier to use PM for some metadata work than exporting from Aperture. In combo with some chops at using Spotlight, and some other utilities you can do tons of stuff. I use Alfred with some exiftools-like workflows and HoudahGeo for georeferencing, even though I also use Lr. It's just easier sometimes when you're working with both images and text and other file formats.
And for culling, check out FastRawViewer. Way better than using Lr or Aperture for that function. And inexpensive.
But for those who use non-Lr/Ps adjusting in other applications, why not just use Lr for free? Once you're out of subscription everything but Maps, Develop and Lr Mobile works. If used for organization, just write stuff to metadata and you can use those image files with anything, even if Lr disappears.
I use HoudahGeo as I gradually transition my images away from Aperture; whenever I make time, I go over an old project, check and update the metadata such as Keywords, then write the project's files to the originals; I move the processed project folders into a new folder to denote they have been processed, then when I've done a few, I quit Aperture, then load up HoudahGeo, which can read Aperture's database (hence Aperture must be shut down first) and write all the Aperture geotagging to the originals, because for some reason Aperture doesn't when writing metadata to it, unless you export images. Lastly I make sure I have a full-res processed exported jpeg of my selects saved with my library with [Ap] tagged on the end, so I can always refer to it; if needed later, I can reprocess in C1, Lightroom or whateverfor It's a hassle, but it has to be done if the map data is to be retained. I know most metadata will carry across if you import the entire library as is to either Lightroom or Capture One, but I don't know if C1 imports GPS data. Having been burnt by Aperture, I would rather all the metadata be in the originals, so I'm not dependent on anybody's database-driven RAW DAM.
My workflow with new projects now involve ingesting with Photo Mechanic, which I have come to like more as I get to know it more, though it has it's own shortcomings. I particularly like knowing it uses Exiftool in the background, which I trust absolutely from having used it on and off for a long time; it is a reliable workhorse toolset. I then know the originals have all my metadata. Photomechanic also makes it easy to Geotag my images, all before going near a RAW converter. By the time I fire up Capture One, everything is tagged with descriptions, keywords, Copyright info, geotagged, etc. and a few preliminary colour tags and ratings. So it doesn't matter to me too much that Capture One is lacking in that department, as long as I can search and select on tags and keywords etc.
I had not heard of FastRawViewer; I went and had a look, and decided to get it to try out; I'm not sure yet how it will fit in my workflow with Photo Mechanic, but what got me interested is how you can analyze the RAW image much better; with regular inspection of images, I may get to know my camera better, where it's limits lie. When using the camera histogram, I am all too aware that it is generated from a jpeg for speed, and so is not necessarily the most accurate, as the website for FastRawViewer and RawDigger also shows. I usually aim to expose to the right (ETTR), it will be interesting to see how close I actually get to that based off the camera histogram, or if showing some blown highlights in-camera means you are actually still in gamut. Their site seems to suggest the jpeg shows blown highlights when you cna actually push it further. On my old 60D, I used Magic Lantern and sometimes used its ETTR function in conjunction with bracketing.
Chancha said:
The biggest draw of Lightroom for me is the longevity. Adobe has been around since the dawn of PC software, there had been times that they pulled things that didn't benefit anyone but themselves, but for the most part they do value keeping their technology being relevant for a long time. I can dig out a .psd made in the 90's and it will open in Photoshop CC without even showing a warning dialogue box.
If only Microsoft made Office that way... dig out your old Office documents from 10 years ago, and you are in trouble. Government departments charged with maintaining documents for 70 years are having to either print them out or keep old computers with old operating systems running old copies of Office on them, just to comply with the law. That is why I got interested in OpenOffice years ago; my needs in that department are meagher, so I won't miss the power features. We desperately need standards for Office documents like ODF, just as it would be nice to have some agreed-upon standard for image and adjustments in XML; the adjustments may well not carry across, as they are different converters, but the file should be readable by any RAW converter and all metadata carry across. If another program needs to write to the XML file, like Photo Mechanic, it should have the safety of knowing a standard to write to, so it can be amended safely. Any tags a program doesn't know, can safely be ignored, but not excluded from being rewritten.
