what app do you use for RAW editing?

[v3rlon]

What you're saying is that your simple needs are filled by the worst photography app ever written. Lucky.

Or that I am so good with the camera that I don't need much help on the computer

Most people who praise LR talk about its ability as a DAM when compared to say C1 Pro which most objective reviews argue is better at adjustments and RAW processing. I don't need all that DAM power. Keywords and dates and smart albums work for me. To be fair, I only have 30K photos or so that I keep.

And if you think Photos is the worst photography app ever written, you're the lucky one. There are some real painful ones out there. But, we already know that you don't know anything about Photos, never really tried it, and are just repeating what you heard someone else complain about and even then it was made up. This is evidenced by you not knowing about right-click copy adjustments (which, incidentally is a method you use in Lightroom as well). If you'd done more that notice it wasn't Lightroom before dismissing it, you would know these things.

I TRIED Lightroom, C1 Pro, Aperture, DarkTable, and a few others whose names escape me. I went with Lightroom for several months based on the LR/Photoshop > C1Pro alone at the same $10 a month price tag. I discovered it was getting in the way of my workflow and life more than it was helping. It was easier to get a processed image from Photos (anywhere) to send to friends, family, or clients than it was to export from LR to <rest of my world>, for example.

 

[MarsViolet]

Or that I am so good with the camera that I don't need much help on the computer

Most people who praise LR talk about its ability as a DAM when compared to say C1 Pro which most objective reviews argue is better at adjustments and RAW processing. I don't need all that DAM power. Keywords and dates and smart albums work for me. To be fair, I only have 30K photos or so that I keep.

And if you think Photos is the worst photography app ever written, you're the lucky one. There are some real painful ones out there. But, we already know that you don't know anything about Photos, never really tried it, and are just repeating what you heard someone else complain about and even then it was made up. This is evidenced by you not knowing about right-click copy adjustments (which, incidentally is a method you use in Lightroom as well). If you'd done more that notice it wasn't Lightroom before dismissing it, you would know these things.

I TRIED Lightroom, C1 Pro, Aperture, DarkTable, and a few others whose names escape me. I went with Lightroom for several months based on the LR/Photoshop > C1Pro alone at the same $10 a month price tag. I discovered it was getting in the way of my workflow and life more than it was helping. It was easier to get a processed image from Photos (anywhere) to send to friends, family, or clients than it was to export from LR to <rest of my world>, for example.

What you're saying (again) is that your simple needs are filled by the worst photography app ever written.

 

[v3rlon]

What you're saying (again) is that your simple needs are filled by the worst photography app ever written.

So you not only don't try applications before flat out lying about them. You also don't read posts as well before "translating" them.

Look, you're defending a bad position. You have been CLEARLY SHOWN to have not even half-heartedly tried Photos before making up reasons to not like it. Its ok to be wrong. Its ok to admit you were wrong. Its not like you are running for president or something.

 

[MarsViolet]

So you not only don't try applications before flat out lying about them. You also don't read posts as well before "translating" them.

Look, you're defending a bad position. You have been CLEARLY SHOWN to have not even half-heartedly tried Photos before making up reasons to not like it. Its ok to be wrong. Its ok to admit you were wrong. Its not like you are running for president or something.

Am I to assume, then, that you consider this specimen of Apple junkware to be a commendable effort on the part of Apple?

 

[orph]

this is off topic,

 

[v3rlon]

Am I to assume, then, that you consider this specimen of Apple junkware to be a commendable effort on the part of Apple?

You can assume whatever you like. You are not qualified to call it 'junk ware' or pass judgment on it for better or worse because you never tried it. What is the basis for your hatred?

Furthermore, however much you like Lightroom (or whatever application you prefer), you observations are of little value because we know your testing methodology is critically flawed. It certainly appears you decided which one was best, got that, told yourself you were amazed, and dismissed others with no real effort at seeing if they were any good at all.

For cross device compatibility and blazing freaking speed, yes, Apple has released something commendable. If you need certain specific features of Lightroom, you will be less impressed. Before you decide you need that feature, measure how often you use it.

I will straight up give you the batch paste adjustments is a miss for Photos. I never said it was perfect. On the other hand, you should pony up that Apple's shared library is a real convenience. How long does it take you to get an image from your phone to Lightroom? Too late, mine is already in Photos. How about your edited image from Lightroom to your iPad? Too late, mine is already there (even if I bounced out to Affinity for more extensive work). That, to me, was more useful (most of the time).

 

[robgendreau]

Whatever. Everybody knows that the license agreement which says you are only buying a license is lawyer BS. In reality, once you pay for a perpetual license, it remains in your possession forever, which is effectively the same as owning so far as any non-douche bag lawyer is concerned. You never have to pay again, and the software never stops working.

I guess you aren't a professional photographer and don't give a rat's a** about copyright and other "lawyer BS" on your photos either.

It's common in the media biz to license work for specific uses. Even though I might have paid for something someone else created that doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. There are other restrictions, like on how many computers you use it on, whether you can sell it to someone else, etc etc. One can be a scofflaw and ignore other people's property rights, I guess, but it seems sorta ironic to take that position in a photography forum.

And BTW, it WILL stop working. "Perpetual" means only as long as a certain set of hardware and system software exists.

 

[v3rlon]

I guess you aren't a professional photographer and don't give a rat's a** about copyright and other "lawyer BS" on your photos either.

It's common in the media biz to license work for specific uses. Even though I might have paid for something someone else created that doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. There are other restrictions, like on how many computers you use it on, whether you can sell it to someone else, etc etc. One can be a scofflaw and ignore other people's property rights, I guess, but it seems sorta ironic to take that position in a photography forum.

And BTW, it WILL stop working. "Perpetual" means only as long as a certain set of hardware and system software exists.

Not really a fair comparison. If you sell someone a print, they can certainly sell that print or give it to their children in their will. No, they can't use it commercially in ways outside your agreement, but they do have fair use.

The 'Licensing' scheme for software exists because of a 1970s case where it was argued that since a computer had to copy a program into memory from disk in order to run, it would be violating conventional copyright like books or photos every time it ran.

For the record, others have tried this. Book publishers in the early 1900s had it tossed out by SCOTUS. Garth Brooks tried it against used CD sales in the 1990s. The software industry has just been more successful. Newtek licenses Lightwave ($995-$2495 in its history of sales) rather like a book and let's you sell or even loan (under specific circumstances) their software and quite successfully, so it certainly CAN be done. Adobe simply chooses not to.

 

[MarsViolet]

I guess you aren't a professional photographer and don't give a rat's a** about copyright and other "lawyer BS" on your photos either.

Straw man arguments.

It's common in the media biz to license work for specific uses. Even though I might have paid for something someone else created that doesn't mean I can do whatever I want with it. There are other restrictions, like on how many computers you use it on, whether you can sell it to someone else, etc etc. One can be a scofflaw and ignore other people's property rights, I guess, but it seems sorta ironic to take that position in a photography forum.

It makes no logical sense to conclude that, because I think software licensing is nonsense, and because I am determined to consider that which I have paid for as that which I own, I am a scofflaw who ignores other people's property rights and would steal photographs.

And BTW, it WILL stop working. "Perpetual" means only as long as a certain set of hardware and system software exists.

Ne soyez pas une douche.