Best Lightroom Alternative

[tizeye]

Watching this thread with interest. I continually go through the "Dump Adobe" exercise, and am happy to say that this year was able to dump full CC and just have the "Photographer Plan". Replaced Premier Pro, After Cut and other video related with FCPX and Davinci Resolve, and InDesign with Affinity Publisher and Quark Express. Don't really use Illustrator but there are some good alternatives. I've looked at other photo software and while I have a couple favorites - Affinity Photo, On One Photo Raw and Luminar in particular, never can justify going fully naked and dropping Photoshop and Lightroom. I do see them making progress, but not there yet as a complete package. One shortcoming is their misleading marketing on layers being mask adjusting the same base photo rather than layers of 2 or more different photos taking the good parts from each to make one good photo. Likewise is the lack of a DAM asset management system with the capability of Lightroom, so back to single photo management of Photoshop with the alternative programs.

My "Dump Adobe" exercise ultimately comes to the conclusion - Sure I can accomplish 95% of what I typicly do with one or two alternative programs, but I still need Photoshop for the remaining 5%...so why not just have Photoshop nd gain Lightroom in the bargain. The other issue is cost with the possible exception of Affinity, and $9.95/mo is cheap. Among the other programs, if they have a subscription option, it is usually well above $9.99/mo. (Capture One @ $24/mo!) and then my preferred method the outright purchase each of the companies scavenge their user base with annual upgrade "opportunities" virtually equivalent in cost to the Adobe subscription. We just went through that with the Black Friday "deals." True, you don't HAVE to upgrade every year, but usually enticed with the improvements by the 3rd year, and if you have three or more programs, staggering upgrades to one a year.

I have yet to find anything that has the management power of Lightroom. While I will typically take 200 photos with around 30 deliverables to clients loading individually in Photoshop is a nightmare. Typically use the Star system rather than color codes, but 1 = trash, 2=hold, 3= layering pairs ultimately 5 Star, 4=pano sequence, 5=process for deliverable. While I try to keep up and delete the 1 star by job, it is not a priority. Prior to typing this, brought the entire catalog up and sorted "equal 1 star". There were 3495 1 Star of 21789 files - all RAW files. "Remove" "Lightroom and Disk" gone. It doesn't get much simple than this, and when I clear the recycle bin have freed up a massive amount of space.

 

[mollyc]

I started using Adobe software in high school in the late 80s with Adobe Pagemaker and whatever other apps were on Macs at that time. I know there is a lot of vitriol around them, and their programs could certainly be more efficient, but having used Adobe products for over 30 years, I just feel at home with them and using LR and PS for my work at this stage just seems as easy as breathing. I held off on subscribing when they first switched to that model, but other than Affinity, as mentioned by tizeye, the subscription model is basically the only way you get software now, so that's a moot point.

I do like Affinity Publisher, however, especially since a layout program is not a regular need for me, just for special projects.

 

[cSalmon]

... but having used Adobe products for over 30 years,...

Yet you are completely ok with continually paying for "code" software that you basically paid for during those 30yrs: $200 x 20yrs = $4,000 I mean at what point do you consider the darkroom paid off? Let's be honest Photoshop needed to be killed off long ago and rewritten - Adobe has lawyers not sure they still write software it kind of seems they wanted the other software to come in and give them ideas. Lightroom was dead from the beginning because it was developed as primary a program for still photography yet there still isn't a great cataloging program for both Stills and Motion clips so where is all that subscription money going?

but other than Affinity, as mentioned by tizeye, the subscription model is basically the only way you get software now, so that's a moot point...

I don't understand what you are saying because it reads like you are implying subscription is a done deal. Darktable and Digikam are basically Open Source free, OnOne nor Capture One require a subscription and if you're not updating camera bodies yearly I don't know why people would even consider going the subscription route.

As you mention people (us general laymen) have just barely started down the digital road. Working with Archeologist trying to decipher what other Archeologist from different centuries documented puts in perspective how new we are to the digital medium. Access to digital files needs to be viewed in a timeframe that we haven't even experienced with the computer yet. Paying for software subscription is supporting a short sided view.

 

[mollyc]

Yet you are completely ok with continually paying for "code" software that you basically paid for during those 30yrs: $200 x 20yrs = $4,000 I mean at what point do you consider the darkroom paid off? Let's be honest Photoshop needed to be killed off long ago and rewritten - Adobe has lawyers not sure they still write software it kind of seems they wanted the other software to come in and give them ideas. Lightroom was dead from the beginning because it was developed as primary a program for still photography yet there still isn't a great cataloging program for both Stills and Motion clips so where is all that subscription money going?

I don't understand what you are saying because it reads like you are implying subscription is a done deal. Darktable and Digikam are basically Open Source free, OnOne nor Capture One require a subscription and if you're not updating camera bodies yearly I don't know why people would even consider going the subscription route.

As you mention people (us general laymen) have just barely started down the digital road. Working with Archeologist trying to decipher what other Archeologist from different centuries documented puts in perspective how new we are to the digital medium. Access to digital files needs to be viewed in a timeframe that we haven't even experienced with the computer yet. Paying for software subscription is supporting a short sided view.

Before Adobe moved to the subscription route, I paid $100 (maybe $120? I can't remember) yearly for Lightroom. LR is my main program, and I have personally found every upgrade to be substantially worthwhile for my workflow (and I started with LR 1). I paid $300 every three years to upgrade PS; if I waited longer than that I would have to rebuy at a non-renewal price for like $600, so I upgraded every three years to stay within the appropriate time window (and I was able to get my initial PS at a student rate). On an annualized basis, I was paying $150/year.

I currently pay $120/year. So I am getting more frequent upgrades for less money. Could I switch to programs and save a bit of money? Sure, but it would completely upend my workflow and cost me a lot of time and aggravation. And as I said, I'm going to upgrade LR every year regardless, because I find personal benefit in the updates. So at this point I'm basically getting PS for free. Given that I am a stills photographer only (with very minor exception where I just use iMovie because I am not a videographer and don't want to be), LR fits my needs and is not even close to "dead in the beginning." LR is designed to be a RAW editor, it isn't designed to be a video editor. Lots of us shoot stills only.

Also, in a traditional darkroom, there is still a "subscription" cost. You've got to restock chemicals, papers, light bulbs....nothing is ever an initial and single payment.

I've not tried to convince anyone here that they should stay with Adobe. I understand that people don't like them, and I also understand why. But for ME, and my workflow, they work well at a price I can afford ($10/month) and less than I would have paid under their old model.

Also, Capture One is a minimum of $200 for a single camera brand outright purchase. With no updates for functionality. And if you want to be able to use more than one brand and get updates, then it's $300 OR $24/month. Adobe seems like a bargain to me by that comparison. And I don't think it does video editing either?

 

[tizeye]

Also, Capture One is a minimum of $200 for a single camera brand outright purchase. With no updates for functionality. And if you want to be able to use more than one brand and get updates, then it's $300 OR $24/month. Adobe seems like a bargain to me by that comparison. And I don't think it does video editing either?

THIS
With the exception of Affinity, they all do the "annual upgrade" and scavage future profits off current customer rather than expanding the customer base. True, you don't have to upgrade every year, but eventually will. Back in the day, pre-Adobe subscription, Adobe did it with their partial packages and well as the full $2400 package...upgrade pricing (I think around $1700 for the full package) only good for 2 years so could skip one version. Capture One may have a similar restriction as I just signed into my account and upgrade pricing was the same current new purchase. I have Capture One 10 Sony...and the are up to 22 (or technically 20 as they jumped from 19 to 22 for year reference.) Also, it appears with the introduction of the Annual Plan, that they may have eliminated the upgrade pricing option on the one time perpetual license version. Would have to look at the fine print but "Upgrade" is notably absent in the marketed material where they list "benefits" of the three options...included with monthly and annual, but not shown was a benefit with perpetual license.

Capture One illustrates the issue and the price creep over 10+ years. I started with the Sony version for $35, then upgraded to 10 for $59. Next year upgrade was $79 and I said "Forget This" The current price for non-expiring license is $199, but if you commit to renewing every year it is 'only' $149, or you can do the monthly subscription $19/mo. Such a deal! Two problems 1) It wouldn't do some things I routinely did and needed Photoshop, and 2) Discovered the "For Sony" limitation...so still needed either the full Capture One ($299) or some other program like Photoshop. Why pay $199, $149 annual, or $19 monthly (or $299, $179 annual, or $24 monthly for full Capture One) when for $120/yr or $9.95/mo can get both Photoshop and Lightroom that covers it all. The limitation with the camera specific version is literally that. While you don't know what your future camera will be, if, as in my case moved to Sony from another brand (Nikon) your entire hard drive of Nikon files do not qualify if you want to re-work them as they won't load, even for something minor, like downsizing for web. Same would apply to the photos you take today with your iPhone...it is not Sony. Likewise scanned slides or negatives, or even a scanned print, to jpg file...NOPE..and they typically will need work removing dust or color correction with film deterioration! If going Capture One, better off to get the full version and not the 'special deal' camera brand version.

 

[tizeye]

I started using Adobe software in high school in the late 80s with Adobe Pagemaker and whatever other apps were on Macs at that time.

I do like Affinity Publisher, however, especially since a layout program is not a regular need for me, just for special projects.

Such a youngster (just kidding) - but I did graduate from HS a couple decades earlier.

I go back to when Photoshop was created (1988 - version 1 released 1990) which is the time you started using it. I used the competitor, Paint Shop v1, released 1991, and was one of the four "must have" shareware programs. After v4.7, it was able to make the jump to commercial with corporate ownership originally JASC, then Corel who owns it today and is marketed as Paint Shop Pro. I upgraded every second or so version - and even a couple years ago Corel still honored the upgrade eligibility. Historically, it was able to do 90-95% of what Photoshop would do and served my need. Switched to Photoshop/Lightroom when began working for clients, and figured I better know the industry standard.

Paintshop Pro was so powerful that it basically forced Adobe's hand to create Photoshop Elements to offer at that lower $99 price point, plus forced Adobe to include features they probably wouldn't have offered in the Elements if they didn't have to. Would be on my short list but the biggest problem - after all these years and criticisms in Corel forums - never developed for Mac. Absolutely refuse to use it running Windows in Parallel as Windows cant's see Apple drive structure and any files would be saved in a FAT partition on the hard drive. Plus, I think Corel cheapened the interface to be more consumerist. Ironically, Corel created the Lightroom alternative, AfterShot Pro, in both Mac and PC...but PAintshop Pro remains PC only.

Never used Pagemaker. When writing the book, looked at some Apple programs like Pages and some apps. I did have Adobe full CC at a killer price of $29.99/mo but wanted to dump Adobe before renewal forced $52.99/mo. Started with Quark Express, historically a competitor to Pagemaker, but when started inserting/anchoring photos the process was so archaic and anchors didn't hold that converted everything over to InDesign to finish the book. Affinity's long delayed and promised Publisher was finally released. It had one major flaw and major criticism on the forums - no E-book output. Still doesn't, but Affinity addressed it with instruction of how to export and assemble for e-book in a (free) 3rd party software.

 

[r.harris1]

Yet you are completely ok with continually paying for "code" software that you basically paid for during those 30yrs: $200 x 20yrs = $4,000 I mean at what point do you consider the darkroom paid off? Let's be honest Photoshop needed to be killed off long ago and rewritten - Adobe has lawyers not sure they still write software it kind of seems they wanted the other software to come in and give them ideas. Lightroom was dead from the beginning because it was developed as primary a program for still photography yet there still isn't a great cataloging program for both Stills and Motion clips so where is all that subscription money going?

I don't understand what you are saying because it reads like you are implying subscription is a done deal. Darktable and Digikam are basically Open Source free, OnOne nor Capture One require a subscription and if you're not updating camera bodies yearly I don't know why people would even consider going the subscription route.

As you mention people (us general laymen) have just barely started down the digital road. Working with Archeologist trying to decipher what other Archeologist from different centuries documented puts in perspective how new we are to the digital medium. Access to digital files needs to be viewed in a timeframe that we haven't even experienced with the computer yet. Paying for software subscription is supporting a short sided view.

I respectfully disagree . I don’t understand why you’d undervalue the work done by developers - software development takes a tremendous amount of time and effort, whether it‘s at a behemoth like Adobe or small companies like Capture One or whomever. Subscriptions are a way to keep them paid and improving the software. I pay for subscriptions to Adobe and Capture One because I value what they do - a lot. It’s as valuable to me as my camera kit, which itself is more of an outlay than what I’ll pay for software over my lifetime. Capture One in particular is actually software I enjoy using, so I pay for it willingly each year, every year. It’s cheaper than the coffee I drink each day. I do not consider what I use a valueless commodity. I get that people can be grumpy with subscriptions. I’m not one of them.

 

[bunnspecial]

I respectfully disagree . I don’t understand why you’d undervalue the work done by developers - software development takes a tremendous amount of time and effort, whether it‘s at a behemoth like Adobe or small companies like Capture One or whomever. Subscriptions are a way to keep them paid and improving the software. I pay for subscriptions to Adobe and Capture One because I value what they do - a lot. It’s as valuable to me as my camera kit, which itself is more of an outlay than what I’ll pay for software over my lifetime. Capture One in particular is actually software I enjoy using, so I pay for it willingly each year, every year. It’s cheaper than the coffee I drink each day. I do not consider what I use a valueless commodity. I get that people can be grumpy with subscriptions. I’m not one of them.

At the end of they day I'd prefer a perpetual license, but then an outright purchase of CS could have also been a steep hill for a lot of people. I remember asking back when I was in graduate school, and unlike the almost comically cheap MS software(~$10 for Office or Windows), I was priced both CS 5.5 and CS6 for I think $389 or something like that with the edu discount. I think that was about 50% of retail. It's still cheaper than you can easily spend on a body or lens, but it's not a small amount of money either.

Of course my $80 perpetual license for LR6 is still good, and I got a lot of a mileage out of that.

For a while I was doing $12.99 a month for LR/PS, which was a good deal for me and I appreciate the regular updates and new features. In a way it's nice to get incremental upgrades rather than being slammed with a big learning curve on new stuff when a full version drops.

Not too long ago I needed Acrobat Pro and I think it ended up adding $4/month to just jump up to the full CC package.

To put all of that in perspective on other things-

My commute is 60 miles a day, 4 days a week and my car gets around 25mpg. Lately in the middle-of-nowhere town where I work I pay $3/gallon. That's between $25 and $30/week for gas. The coffee I drink is about $7 I think for a 12 oz bag and that lasts me 2 weeks or so.

When I shoot film, most slide films are $10-15 a roll now, and processing is $10.

When I was still doing a lot in my darkroom, chemistry didn't cost me a ton since I think the last time I bought Dektol it was like $7 for a pouch that makes 1 gallon. Typically I'd just use I think 4 oz. of Dektol in a tray and that was good for an entire session(esp. since paper is developed by inspection and you can compensate as it loses activity). I haven't bought any for a while, but still have a couple of D76 and Dektol in storage(dry it lasts a while). D76, which is my go to general purpose film developer, I'd go through a lot faster. 1 roll of 35mm film, 1 roll of 120 film, 4 sheets of 4x5, and 1 sheet of 8x10 are all roughly equal in film area, and the rule of thumb is that you need 8 oz. of D76 stock solution to develop one of those "equivalents". You CAN use less, but the time adjustments can get a bit unpredictable and it can get into some weirdness where things like the amount of exposure on the film can affect your time compensation(overexposed film and or film with lots of highlights actually needs more developer than less exposed film or lots of shadows). Often I'd use a 16 oz. and dilute 1:1 for lower contrast(a standard 16 oz. developing tank holds either 2x 35mm or 1x 120, so you can't do 1:1 if you want to develop 2 rolls of 35mm at a time in a 16oz tank, nor can you dilute 1:1 if you're developing 220).

In all of that, though-IIRC the last 100 sheet box of 8x10 Ilford Multigrade paper I bought was about $80. Even cutting it up into pieces, I can easily go through 6 sheets just getting a print "right"(dialing in exposure, contrast, and then any dodging and burning needed). That's just for one photo. If I'm printing larger, I'll generally figure all of that out on an 8x10, but then going larger requires recalculating exposure. It's usually straight forward-if you go from an 8x10 to 16x20, for example, assuming using the same paper printed to the same contrast, you multiply your exposure time by 4. It's not 100% straight-forward though since as you increase time you can start running into reciprocity failures. I don't like to compensate exposure on larger prints by using a larger aperture on the enlarger lens since larger print sizes make spherical abberation more apparent so a smaller aperture(but not so small as to start introducing diffraction) is better. Also, with larger paper you need to worry about flatness more, and a smaller aperture helps that. So, with all of that in mind, I will spot check exposure with a couple of 4x5s over the 16x20 area.

 

[r.harris1]

Yes, likewise for me, I needed Acrobat and it made more sense to do the full whack. At the end of the day, even though in the post above I was calculating out the cost (day, month, lifetime, whatever), it comes down to benefit and value. Cost is certainly important, we all have budgets, but it's far from the only driver for me. I have a spot in my household budget for software and for equipment. Each month, I add money to it. When it comes time to purchase or subscribe, the money is sitting there ready to go. We do that even for large purchases like cars. When we purchase a new car every 7-10 years, we pay cash - the cash we've saved every month specifically for the cars. Instead of a loan, we make "car payments" to our savings account. From software to cars, everything's got a line item in our budget .

Over in Capture One land, they offer both a subscription and what they call a "perpetual license". It's really a license for the specific version you buy. You can use that version for as long as you'd like, but after the next version comes out, they're not really going to update it anymore. Because I update every year, it is more cost effective to subscribe. It's cheaper in general. But this time of year is full of angst for people who have these perpetual licenses. Should they upgrade? Should they not? Are they getting the best deal? Should they wait until Black Friday? They get surprisingly angry at having to pay for software, they start judging the initial release's features, usually they don't feel there's "enough" in it to "justify" an upgrade, and it's generally not a fun time in the support forums where I try and help.

It's really a "do you value it" question. For me it's not really "how much will I have spent over a lifetime". It's possibly an interesting number but not really important. Life's full of choices and everyone has a different value equation. If value is just equivalent to cost for a person, that drives one set of decisions, but if it's more than that (e.g. pleasure in using software, wanting to support developers, how it helps your photographic flow or other hobby), it's going to be a different set. Luckily, there's truly great software for almost all value equations and personal beliefs about subscriptions vs perpetual, etc.

As someone in software development myself, I definitely don't believe in giving away software unless it's hobby software I do on the side. Writing it is a tremendous amount of work.

 

[USAntigoon]

Yes, likewise for me, I needed Acrobat and it made more sense to do the full whack. At the end of the day, even though in the post above I was calculating out the cost (day, month, lifetime, whatever), it comes down to benefit and value. Cost is certainly important, we all have budgets, but it's far from the only driver for me. I have a spot in my household budget for software and for equipment. Each month, I add money to it. When it comes time to purchase or subscribe, the money is sitting there ready to go. We do that even for large purchases like cars. When we purchase a new car every 7-10 years, we pay cash - the cash we've saved every month specifically for the cars. Instead of a loan, we make "car payments" to our savings account. From software to cars, everything's got a line item in our budget .

Over in Capture One land, they offer both a subscription and what they call a "perpetual license". It's really a license for the specific version you buy. You can use that version for as long as you'd like, but after the next version comes out, they're not really going to update it anymore. Because I update every year, it is more cost effective to subscribe. It's cheaper in general. But this time of year is full of angst for people who have these perpetual licenses. Should they upgrade? Should they not? Are they getting the best deal? Should they wait until Black Friday? They get surprisingly angry at having to pay for software, they start judging the initial release's features, usually they don't feel there's "enough" in it to "justify" an upgrade, and it's generally not a fun time in the support forums where I try and help.

It's really a "do you value it" question. For me it's not really "how much will I have spent over a lifetime". It's possibly an interesting number but not really important. Life's full of choices and everyone has a different value equation. If value is just equivalent to cost for a person, that drives one set of decisions, but if it's more than that (e.g. pleasure in using software, wanting to support developers, how it helps your photographic flow or other hobby), it's going to be a different set. Luckily, there's truly great software for almost all value equations and personal beliefs about subscriptions vs perpetual, etc.

As someone in software development myself, I definitely don't believe in giving away software unless it's hobby software I do on the side. Writing it is a tremendous amount of work.

Very well stated….in our hobby we should be thankful to have such a wide offering of software….It’s like a well filled menu in a good restaurant…there is a choice for everyone’s liking..

As far as C1P is concerned, I also went for the yearly update subscription and hope with the new pano stitching and HDR merge, the need to maintain other pieces of dedicated software ($$) will diminish…(less ping-pong in post)

Indeed software development isn’t cheap and yes we all need to be patient and squelch our desire to have perfect software out of the box..that’s why we see regular updates…It’s our hobby and agreed it’s not that cheap but it’s secondary for me…

 

[tizeye]

On the subject of subscription, one of my pet peeves is a company giving new customers a better deal with "intro" rates while existing customers are 2nd class paying full price at renewal. Phone and cable companies are famous for this as they try to swipe away competitors customers, but similar applies to software subscriptions.

I found a work around with Adobe full CC offering (not Photography Plan). Two Adobe ID's based on different email addresses. One is active, the other is receiving their "please come back - special deal" marketing email. At time of renewal, cancels existing and flip over to the other ID. There was a time when could not simply cancel but had to speak to a live representative whose job was to "save" the account and were empowered to offer even better deals than the marketing emails. I don't think I ever paid the full retail monthly charge.

 

[mollyc]

On the subject of subscription, one of my pet peeves is a company giving new customers a better deal with "intro" rates while existing customers are 2nd class paying full price at renewal. Phone and cable companies are famous for this as they try to swipe away competitors customers, but similar applies to software subscriptions.

I found a work around with Adobe full CC offering (not Photography Plan). Two Adobe ID's based on different email addresses. One is active, the other is receiving their "please come back - special deal" marketing email. At time of renewal, cancels existing and flip over to the other ID. There was a time when could not simply cancel but had to speak to a live representative whose job was to "save" the account and were empowered to offer even better deals than the marketing emails. I don't think I ever paid the full retail monthly charge.

I have done this once, but since I use the $10/month plan it isn't worth the aggravation of switching IDs yearly. On the full boat, though, I imagine that is a lot of savings!

 

[bunnspecial]

On the subject of subscription, one of my pet peeves is a company giving new customers a better deal with "intro" rates while existing customers are 2nd class paying full price at renewal. Phone and cable companies are famous for this as they try to swipe away competitors customers, but similar applies to software subscriptions.

I found a work around with Adobe full CC offering (not Photography Plan). Two Adobe ID's based on different email addresses. One is active, the other is receiving their "please come back - special deal" marketing email. At time of renewal, cancels existing and flip over to the other ID. There was a time when could not simply cancel but had to speak to a live representative whose job was to "save" the account and were empowered to offer even better deals than the marketing emails. I don't think I ever paid the full retail monthly charge.

I can remember playing the "deal" game with my cable company. Of course they'd offer a package, but the rate offered was only good for a year.

For quite a while, I'd get them into say $90/month for cable+internet, but that would shoot up to $140 or so a year later. I'd call and say I'd want to get rid of cable or somehow or another drop one service.

Usually what it would amount to is I'd say "My goal here is to get my bill under $xx a month(usually $90 or 100) and if you have a package that lets me do it and keep a similar service to what I have now, I'll do it." I'd always have a few "wants" in the back of my mind, whether it was specific channels or a DVR or faster internet or whatever. I can remember one time, after they'd shifted most University of Kentucky Sports over to the SEC network, I had that as a want(especially since in-region a lot of the sports channels are $$$$), and at the end of the call I managed to get the full ESPN package including SEC plus their next tier of internet for $85-I was pretty happy that day.

The last time I called, I'd decided to ditch cable completely with my bill at over $150 combined. When I said that, they just said "Okay, it will end on such-and-such date, drop your cable box off at one of our stores within 30 days of that" and that was the end of the call. They asked why I wanted to drop and I just said I could get everything I wanted with an antenna and streaming, and they said okay, your bill will be $80 a month.

 

[r.harris1]

On the subject of subscription, one of my pet peeves is a company giving new customers a better deal with "intro" rates while existing customers are 2nd class paying full price at renewal. Phone and cable companies are famous for this as they try to swipe away competitors customers, but similar applies to software subscriptions.

I found a work around with Adobe full CC offering (not Photography Plan). Two Adobe ID's based on different email addresses. One is active, the other is receiving their "please come back - special deal" marketing email. At time of renewal, cancels existing and flip over to the other ID. There was a time when could not simply cancel but had to speak to a live representative whose job was to "save" the account and were empowered to offer even better deals than the marketing emails. I don't think I ever paid the full retail monthly charge.

Yep, it’s definitely possible to not pay “full retail” with full Adobe CS - I’m not sure I’ve ever paid the 50-something/month they are now charging. You can buy the full year during sales at B&H for example that comes in at a 39.99/month rate. Sometimes you can threaten to quit and get better rates. Use the two email trick. Always options.

 

[tizeye]

I can remember playing the "deal" game with my cable company. Of course they'd offer a package, but the rate offered was only good for a year.

For quite a while, I'd get them into say $90/month for cable+internet, but that would shoot up to $140 or so a year later. I'd call and say I'd want to get rid of cable or somehow or another drop one service.

With cable, mine is even easier and simpler still with the "self install" option. My neighborhood was one of the few that was dually wired so I have the choice between Spectrum and Xfinity. Better yet, both boxes serving 4 houses are in my back yard. All I have to do if they won't give me a good deal and requires switching, is "self install" the other company by unscrewing the wire in the one box and screw it into the other box. Not stealing, as I do set up an account activating service for the address at the other company then drop the first one. My only requirement is internet only as I use an OTA antenna. Invariably, a couple weeks later will get a call from the old company wanting me to come back (I don't) offering a better deal than when I called their 800# a few weeks prior as front line staff/supervisors are not fully empowered to offer the best deal.

One time I did make the mistake of accepting the "Triple Pac" that was cheaper than internet only. It didn't last as the supplied modem/router supporting the phone interfered with my primary router for the home network and VPN connection. Any solutions I would suggest were "No" so dropped them early.

On phone companies...you really don't want to know my epic maneuvering to get 2 free iPhone 12 and several hundred cash playing the phone company games.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

At the end of they day I'd prefer a perpetual license, but then an outright purchase of CS could have also been a steep hill for a lot of people. I remember asking back when I was in graduate school, and unlike the almost comically cheap MS software(~$10 for Office or Windows), I was priced both CS 5.5 and CS6 for I think $389 or something like that with the edu discount. I think that was about 50% of retail. It's still cheaper than you can easily spend on a body or lens, but it's not a small amount of money either.

Of course my $80 perpetual license for LR6 is still good, and I got a lot of a mileage out of that.

For a while I was doing $12.99 a month for LR/PS, which was a good deal for me and I appreciate the regular updates and new features. In a way it's nice to get incremental upgrades rather than being slammed with a big learning curve on new stuff when a full version drops.

Not too long ago I needed Acrobat Pro and I think it ended up adding $4/month to just jump up to the full CC package.

To put all of that in perspective on other things-

My commute is 60 miles a day, 4 days a week and my car gets around 25mpg. Lately in the middle-of-nowhere town where I work I pay $3/gallon. That's between $25 and $30/week for gas. The coffee I drink is about $7 I think for a 12 oz bag and that lasts me 2 weeks or so.

When I shoot film, most slide films are $10-15 a roll now, and processing is $10.

When I was still doing a lot in my darkroom, chemistry didn't cost me a ton since I think the last time I bought Dektol it was like $7 for a pouch that makes 1 gallon. Typically I'd just use I think 4 oz. of Dektol in a tray and that was good for an entire session(esp. since paper is developed by inspection and you can compensate as it loses activity). I haven't bought any for a while, but still have a couple of D76 and Dektol in storage(dry it lasts a while). D76, which is my go to general purpose film developer, I'd go through a lot faster. 1 roll of 35mm film, 1 roll of 120 film, 4 sheets of 4x5, and 1 sheet of 8x10 are all roughly equal in film area, and the rule of thumb is that you need 8 oz. of D76 stock solution to develop one of those "equivalents". You CAN use less, but the time adjustments can get a bit unpredictable and it can get into some weirdness where things like the amount of exposure on the film can affect your time compensation(overexposed film and or film with lots of highlights actually needs more developer than less exposed film or lots of shadows). Often I'd use a 16 oz. and dilute 1:1 for lower contrast(a standard 16 oz. developing tank holds either 2x 35mm or 1x 120, so you can't do 1:1 if you want to develop 2 rolls of 35mm at a time in a 16oz tank, nor can you dilute 1:1 if you're developing 220).

In all of that, though-IIRC the last 100 sheet box of 8x10 Ilford Multigrade paper I bought was about $80. Even cutting it up into pieces, I can easily go through 6 sheets just getting a print "right"(dialing in exposure, contrast, and then any dodging and burning needed). That's just for one photo. If I'm printing larger, I'll generally figure all of that out on an 8x10, but then going larger requires recalculating exposure. It's usually straight forward-if you go from an 8x10 to 16x20, for example, assuming using the same paper printed to the same contrast, you multiply your exposure time by 4. It's not 100% straight-forward though since as you increase time you can start running into reciprocity failures. I don't like to compensate exposure on larger prints by using a larger aperture on the enlarger lens since larger print sizes make spherical abberation more apparent so a smaller aperture(but not so small as to start introducing diffraction) is better. Also, with larger paper you need to worry about flatness more, and a smaller aperture helps that. So, with all of that in mind, I will spot check exposure with a couple of 4x5s over the 16x20 area.

I paid $199.00 for The Student/Teacher version of CS5, and then upgraded to CS6 for about the same price when it was offered by Adobe. CS5 and CS6 along the Nick Software Bundle was all I needed for several years, even after Adobe decided to abandon its CS users by not providing upgrades. Those who are proficient with CS's layers, should have no trouble learning Affinity Photo at least for photo editing. I do find DXO Photo Lab and the Nik apps a lot easier to use. The Nik Software Bundle is nothing but great. That said, for sizing and editing photos "web ready," nothing beats Graphic Converter, CS5, CS6, and PS Elements, and this is something that Photo Lab and Affinity Photo are lacking.

 

[cSalmon]

I respectfully disagree . I don’t understand why you’d undervalue the work done by developers - software development takes a tremendous amount of time and effort, whether it‘s at a behemoth like Adobe...

Because I value my time, my effort into my work and don't need to be held hostage by some Greedy behemoth - We are literally at a turning point in human history the evolution of the computer and digital file - who owns the work, an author who writes the book or some software company that won't allow access unless you pay them. Adobe was greedy about their implementation of the PDF, Adobe was greedy and screwed us with the DNG. I'm all for a company making money but at some point they also need to do the right thing or well then they are Google. And I 100% disagree with you that the subscription for both Lightroom is worth it, they needed to be rewritten Command M pulls up what!?!

I don't think Affinity or OnOne are alternatives to Adobe I believe they are superior in their workflow.

Very well stated….in our hobby we should be thankful to have such a wide offering of software….It’s like a well filled menu in a good restaurant…there is a choice for everyone’s liking..

Ummmm. let's not forget if it was not for all of us purchasing Adobe and telling our companies to purchase Adobe back in the 90's they would not be here. And with those monies Adobe went out and bought up a lot of small software companies and killed off good digital features. Adobe didn't win the battle Apple with ColorSync did it for them.

Do I care who uses what software, yesterday no, today yes, it is clear that having so much work (hours, days, probably months) archived in PSDs was not a smart move on my part. Let me leave you with a bumper sticker: When the people lead then the leaders will follow.

The concept that we don't have a free and clear digital negative for the ages in 2021 is just mind blowing. Wouldn't give them a penny ever again. GREEDY

 

[r.harris1]

Because I value my time, my effort into my work and don't need to be held hostage by some Greedy behemoth - We are literally at a turning point in human history the evolution of the computer and digital file - who owns the work, an author who writes the book or some software company that won't allow access unless you pay them. Adobe was greedy about their implementation of the PDF, Adobe was greedy and screwed us with the DNG. I'm all for a company making money but at some point they also need to do the right thing or well then they are Google. And I 100% disagree with you that the subscription for both Lightroom is worth it, they needed to be rewritten Command M pulls up what!?!

I don't think Affinity or OnOne are alternatives to Adobe I believe they are superior in their workflow.


Ummmm. let's not forget if it was not for all of us purchasing Adobe and telling our companies to purchase Adobe back in the 90's they would not be here. And with those monies Adobe went out and bought up a lot of small software companies and killed off good digital features. Adobe didn't win the battle Apple with ColorSync did it for them.

Do I care who uses what software, yesterday no, today yes, it is clear that having so much work (hours, days, probably months) archived in PSDs was not a smart move on my part. Let me leave you with a bumper sticker: When the people lead then the leaders will follow.

The concept that we don't have a free and clear digital negative for the ages in 2021 is just mind blowing. Wouldn't give them a penny ever again. GREEDY

Interesting perspective indeed!

 

[r.harris1]

Duplicated so deleted.

 

[USAntigoon]

The concept that we don't have a free and clear digital negative for the ages in 2021 is just mind blowing. Wouldn't give them a penny ever again. GREEDY

I fully agree, I am still waiting for that…the current workflow to be used in C1P is insane…

 

[citysnaps]

I was a holdout for a while while looking at LR "alternatives," but I bit the bullet and subscribed to LR two years ago and haven't looked back.

Not having any way to efficiently import >100K LR nondestructive edited RAWs into another product was the main reason. Also... using LR from its beginnings, the muscle memory I've developed making edits in LR efficient and quick would be lost going to another editor.

All in all I'm very pleased with LR and its upgrades. It's an outstanding DAM/Editor.

 

[r.harris1]

I was a holdout for a while while looking at LR "alternatives," but I bit the bullet and subscribed to LR two years ago and haven't looked back.

Not having any way to efficiently import >100K LR nondestructive edited RAWs into another product was the main reason. Also... using LR from its beginnings, the muscle memory I've developed making edits in LR efficient and quick would be lost going to another editor.

All in all I'm very pleased with LR and its upgrades. It's an outstanding DAM/Editor.

You make two really good points that people don’t often think about and that’s muscle memory and quality of editors. I know you were speaking of LR - and it is a great DAM/editor - but there are really terrific ones out there. Find one, learn it (get that muscle memory) and use it. Like or love it if you can.

 

[citysnaps]

You make two really good points that people don’t often think about and that’s muscle memory and quality of editors. I know you were speaking of LR - and it is a great DAM/editor - but there are really terrific ones out there. Find one, learn it (get that muscle memory) and use it. Like or love it if you can.

Yeah...

I think I could eventually adapt to C1 or other editor. It might take a month or three to feel really proficient.

But...if I have >100K RAWs already edited in LR, how could I possibly import those into another program and retain my non-destructive edits? Don't think there's anything automated that would do that. And if I had to do that manually,....yikes! That was the real deal killer.

 

[r.harris1]

Yeah...

I think I could eventually adapt to C1 or other editor. It might take a month or three to feel really proficient.

But...if I have >100K RAWs already edited in LR, how could I possibly import those into another program and retain my non-destructive edits? Don't think there's anything automated that would do that. And if I had to do that manually,....yikes! That was the real deal killer.

Exactly! No way I’d want to move 100k edited images from one system to another, regardless of the “to->from” systems.

 

[right mind]

On1 Photo Raw 2022? Am I the only one?