Apple Photos v. Lightroom CC v. Other?

[Robdmb]

Looking for advise on what Apple users are using for the photos - specifically their raw files. I've been using Apple Photos but have been debating moving my RAW files to a different program. Any thoughts on Lightroom CC (specifically the CC as I like the cloud sync) versus Apple Photos?

Thanks.

 

[mollyc]

I have been using LR Classic since LR1. I love it. I have never used any of the Apple photo programs because I started LR on a Windows machine then moved to an iMac a few months later.

I personally have no interest in the cloud based version but I do know the editing functions aren’t as robust at present.

 

[Release]

You're going to get a bunch of people moaning about the Adobe subscription here but I have it and love it. The new CC version of Lightroom isn't quite as powerful as the "Classic" version but it's much faster and the cloud synch works great.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I never got on with the CC Lightroom way of doing things, it seems clunky and too many clicks to do anything. I was using Aperture since the early days of iPhoto it wasn't that great for RAW.

However, nowadays there is no reason why no just use Photos for RAW. It is absolutely fine.

 

[Alwis]

I used Aperture until last year. I tried Photos but it lacks a lot of features, still has some bugs, I don't like it at all.

After some research and trying out some alternatives (including Lightroom) I switched to Capture One and I like it a lot. The RAW development is very good, unfortunately the DAM part lacks some features, compared to Aperture, it hast no build in support for syncing the images with iOS devices and it is a bit slower than Aperture..

 

[robgendreau]

Might wanna consider this: https://tidbits.com/2017/12/15/why-lightroom-cc-is-a-big-step-up-from-apples-photos/

And this: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/tested-10-photoshop-alternatives/

The latter focuses on Photoshop, but still. And consider your camera; Apple still doesn't have support for my latest camera, and they are slower than Adobe or others to bring new support to the system.

For organization, Photos can't compare to Lr Classic, the folder-based solution. CC has some more flexibility than Apple's Photos/iCloud Photo Library. And with Classic you can sync smart previews to CC with no storage limits.

 

[v3rlon]

I ask myself this question at least once a quarter. I shoot only in RAW except for long timelapses.

Lightroom - besides hating the subscription, I really didn't like the interface

CaptureOne - I tried the demo, but will admit I didn't put a lot into it due to time constraints. It is expensive to buy, but a lot of people love it. It is more similar to Aperture than most if not all. Tethered shooting is strong (so is LR). It didn't offer a good cloud sync option when I tried it, but I haven't looked lately.

On1 Photo Raw - I have the 2017 edition. 2018 is supposed to be much faster, and speed was my biggest complaint here. It took too long to switch from photo to another, or from browse to develop. I am currently considering giving 2018 a go. They have some nice cloud sync tools now available, also.

DXO - I forget what they call their DAM. I loaded it up, but just wasn't wowed by the Demo. Try it yourself, but it felt - more like an engineering tool than an artist tool, and I do a lot of work as an engineer (not in this field).

Apple Photos - light on features, but faster than anything on this list. Browsing and culling is just lightning fast (2014 MBPRo, 2009 Mac Pro, daughter's 2008 MBPro, it is just fast). The addition of extensions was nice recently, but it misses out on some options that the $1 plugin had (Portrait Pro, for example). This is my current solution (with extensions).

Aftershot - I tried the Aftershot 2 demo developed out of the former Bibble software. It wasn't terrible, but it didn't seem any better than Apple Photos while costing more.

Darktable - Think of this as Open source Lightroom. On the plus side, it is open source. It costs nothing unless you choose to donate, and runs on PC/Mac/Linux without a fuss. On the downside, like many open source solutions, the UI is unintuitive at best, and hostile at worst. I also had some serious trouble around "export to web" functionality. Its been a couple of years, but I remember being grateful I hadn't erased the card from the camera. That is not the sort of bug I am quick to forgive.

There are some other open source choices out there, but I didn't get around to them.

On the Horizon.
Luminar - I love the Luminar photo processor. Supposedly they are going to introduce a DAM "soon." There are hints that it will be here by end of Summer, and some indications that it could drop even earlier. As an additional win, there will be support for Loupdeck. No clear statement on other hardware controllers. This is the one I am hoping to be my next choice. I like their "develop" module (with LAYERS!), but need a way to organize photos.

Affinity - They made Affinity Photos, which is so easy to love you'd have to be paid by Adobe to hate it. Now, they miss deadlines on software, but they are working on a DAM somewhere. If it is as good as Designer and Photos, it will probably be tough competition when it comes out.

My vision for 2019 is hopefully Luminar releases a decent DAM, where I put all my photos and just Apple Photos Sync the ones I like the most. If they haven't at least shown me a ray of hope in the next 6 weeks, I will have to consider replacing Luminar with On1 in my vision.
Failing THAT, I may give Capture 1 Pro another shot.

 

[MCAsan]

Serif has been going to release an Affinity Photo "soon" for years. If they do bother, it will likely have to be a DAM, like Bridge,.....one for all the file types of all their apps.....not something specifically for photography.

 

[v3rlon]

Serif has been going to release an Affinity Photo "soon" for years. If they do bother, it will likely have to be a DAM, like Bridge,.....one for all the file types of all their apps.....not something specifically for photography.

Wow, you are really angry at Affinity. It seems like ever time someone mentions them, you come in with this. As every software group on this list has missed a target date by a substantial period, I have to wonder how Serif so wronged you to earn this ire.
Disgruntled ex employee?
Killed your dog in a past life?
Ate the last nacho at the photography mingle?

Anyway, as noted by “on the horizon” the software listed is not out today. It is entirely possible that it will never come out. If you need a solution today, do not count on these.

As far as it goes, I apply the same logic to Adobe and the future. I don’t know they’ll be around in 10 years, so I can’t count on their login servers working.

 

[MCAsan]

Who knows, we might see the Luminar DAM by the end of September.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-...scott-bourne?trk=portfolio_article-card_title

 

[robgendreau]

Who knows, we might see the Luminar DAM by the end of September.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/its-...scott-bourne?trk=portfolio_article-card_title

Not inspiring enough for me to continue to upgrade Luminar, but good luck to 'em. I dunno that trying to reinvent the wheel here is such a good idea, but the interface they show looks pretty much business as usual, which might be good, biz-speak hype language notwithstanding. I would have preferred they stick with improving what they already had, but I guess I'm not their market (and they don't support my camera anyway).

 

[maflynn]

No matter how you slice it, measure it, or quantify it. Adobe's lightroom classic CC is the most robust and feature rich. I hate subscriptions but there's nothing out there that comes close imo.

 

[mpfuchs]

I think it's time to get a Luminar Trial. See what all the fuss is about...

 

[kallisti]

No matter how you slice it, measure it, or quantify it. Adobe's lightroom classic CC is the most robust and feature rich. I hate subscriptions but there's nothing out there that comes close imo.

I totally agree. I would also add that Adobe isn't likely to go out of business in the near future, their software isn't likely to break with OS updates (or will have patches out soon if there is a problem), and is compatible with many/most third-party extensions (like the Nik suite). Lightroom Classic CC may not work for everyone's needs, but it's a very solid choice.

 

[MCAsan]

Scott's Linkedin post was released in blog at Skylum: https://skylum.com/blog/its-time-rethink-your-postprocessing-workflow

For me Skylum DAM has a tough climb to replace Adobe CC. We shall see. This could be an interesting fall.

 

[BJMRamage]

I think it's time to get a Luminar Trial. See what all the fuss is about...

I just downloaded the trial and used it as a Stand-alone App for a few TEST RAW files. It feels really weird NOT having a DAM and when I try to open several RAW files they open as independent "screens". And the I don't know how to SAVE/EXPORT the files properly. In order to see the files later, without a DAM, I need to export since SAVE won't be as helpful but then what settings. I just made a 128mb TIFF when the Aperture TIFF export was 20-40mb. i must have maxed out a setting i didn't need.

Then, after lunch I decided to try Luminar as an Extension on the Photos library test with just some iPhone shots I had in there thanks to the PhotoStream feature. I like the ability to make the edits and then I guess it just saves another JPG into Photos?

I wish the Luminar trial was 30-days, 14 days is short for me to test out features.

One thing I am NOT liking so far with Luminar is when I switch the WORKSPACE any changes I made/edits are removed and cleared out to start anew. I am still trying to figure out what workplace I like best.

 

[Apple fanboy]

No matter how you slice it, measure it, or quantify it. Adobe's lightroom classic CC is the most robust and feature rich. I hate subscriptions but there's nothing out there that comes close imo.

So true. I got two months free with a HD purchase, so I've upgraded from my standalone LR software.
But I have to admit PS was something I was missing out on.

 

[maflynn]

So true.

I tried for months, last year, and nothing could come close. Some did a good job at editing, there might be a nice browser, that helps with metadata but nothing puts it all together in a seamless product that is greater then the sum of its parts.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I tried for months, last year, and nothing could come close. Some did a good job at editing, there might be a nice browser, that helps with metadata but nothing puts it all together in a seamless product that is greater then the sum of its parts.

True. Everything is measured against it. And all seem to come up short in one way or another.
And as you say it's their seamless solution that's the appeal.

 

[MCAsan]

One thing I am NOT liking so far with Luminar is when I switch the WORKSPACE any changes I made/edits are removed and cleared out to start anew. I am still trying to figure out what workplace I like best.

[doublepost=1530450687][/doublepost]
Not surprising that Luminar is not saving settings like Workspaces. There is no database to even save Preferences. So the DAM should hopefully provide support for basics like Preferences. Of course it should save file locations and edits. It will interesting to see if it offers to save edits both inside the database and in external sidecars or only in their proprietary file format.

https://skylum.com/blog/its-time-rethink-your-postprocessing-workflow

 

[robgendreau]

Yeah, maybe if and when Luminar gets some DAM functionality then workspaces will, well, work. Even given that the blog post is PR I found it really sparse on specifics, one critical one being how do you save changes? A new proprietary file format like Luminar current has is meh. I don't recall a provision for flattening layers a la Ps, and it kinda shows Luminar's confusion over whether it wants to be Lr or wants to be Ps. Seems it's now going back to Lr. Maybe it will use sidecars for storing changes, as DxO's Photolab does (although I dunno if you can do that with layers...we'll see).

I found the interface kinda clumsy; I actually much preferred the simplicity of Tonality Pro, etc. Losing changes while switching workspaces is just something that shoulda been sorted in version one.

And I release all that "we need to start over" blather in the blog post is just tech marketing-speak, but still: it's not like PP isn't a very mature field and there's just a limited amount you can do before you start doing stuff just to be different. I hope they avoid that. They are not going to overtake Adobe (just Adobe's institutional installed base will probably always eclipse all of Skylum) but they could do some really nice nibbling. Although ironically they probably face most of their competition with those who are also trying to woo the subscription-averse, like OnOne, DxO, Piktorial, etc.

Meanwhile, probably the most efficient thing to do is stop paying Adobe, use Lr for free and do all the adjusting via Luminar's plug ins. Then you could still use much of Lr for publishing, exporting, etc. and of course organizing.

 

[BJMRamage]

Meanwhile, probably the most efficient thing to do is stop paying Adobe, use Lr for free and do all the adjusting via Luminar's plug ins. Then you could still use much of Lr for publishing, exporting, etc. and of course organizing.

when you say use LR for free...is this after you pay for Lightroom and just not use the Cloud/CC subscription?

 

[mpfuchs]

when you say use LR for free...is this after you pay for Lightroom and just not use the Cloud/CC subscription?

If you stop the monthly subscription, you'll still be able to use your database, but not the develop module.
Sounds like you can do a "open in Luminar" to do your processing and then go back to the LR library.

 

[robgendreau]

If you stop the monthly subscription, you'll still be able to use your database, but not the develop module.
Sounds like you can do a "open in Luminar" to do your processing and then go back to the LR library.

Yep. The Develop and Map modules won't work (but quick develop in the Library module will). And you can't synch with Lr CC, won't have Photoshop, etc etc. You won't get any of the updates re raw conversion, so it's kinda unclear what would happen if you exported a TIFF. But Luminar can transfer a RAW from Lr.

Or use Bridge; that's free.

 

[Ray2]

I'm so happy my search came to an end years ago. I feel for those of you that are in transition. And in the end you'll do what I did, Lightroom.

In spite of:
I shoot Fuji, Adobe fails miserably in the demosiacing.
Which causes me to use an external converter to create dng files I bring into Lightroom.
I detest the subscription model.
I detested Adobe far before their subscription model.
Compared to Aperture the DAM (while the best out there) is not up to par.
Compared to Aperture the Develop module is way overrated.
LR's color module is a joke. Sorta important for a photographer.

Some will find a home in some niche product. But the great majority of you could save a lot of time and frustration by simply biting the bullet and adopt Lightroom. The only thing you have to learn is it's absurd import module. After that it's common sense if you've used any editing app.