krötenblender
Well-known
Go for it!
I like Affinity and have been using it for negative Scan touch up and RAW conversions.
If it had a seamless catalog that would be great. (ala aperture or better)
Build one for affinity please!
I fully support this.
Currently, I'm designing a database-format based on SQLite3, same engine, that Lightroom uses and in the public domain, but much smaller.
Connecting to Affinity is definitely an option, but I haven't looked into its programming interface, yet. I like that it is available on Mac OS, since I don't use Windows privately. But there is no Linux version, and I like to have it run on Mac OS and Linux for me, and on Windows, too, for others. This means, that I have to go for a more or less loose integration with RAW converters and image manipulation programs later.
This, IMHO, will be the greatest advantage of LR for some time: very deep and smooth integration of the functions, most photographers want.
I will start small, and then see where it goes. I don't use most of LRs features, so my first goal is to make myself independent of LR by concentrating on the features I want/need (including those, that LR does not have...). Maybe it will be useful to others as well.
willie_901
Veteran
- Yes, one has to proactively initiate upgrades.
- Of course not. At some point, all software vendors declare products reach an end-of-life status. The older CC versions (before LR Classic CC) will still work if you do not upgrade to LR Classic CC. I think even the old LR CC app can be kept.
- As far as I know, it's impossible to keep your working LR Catalog in the Cloud. Even using the Cloud for LR Catalog backups is problematic as large Catalogs can be 1-10 GB.
LR Classic CC uses a different Catalog format than all previous LR versions (CC or not). When you upgrade to LR Classic CC, your old Catalog is not destroyed. It is used to create a new, separate LR Classic CC Catalog.
If you keep your old Catalog, you can use older LR versions. But you would have two un-synced Catalogs. This would be inconvenient, inefficient and confusing,
All versions of LR CC must use Adobe's cloud for only two things.
- To install updates (bug fixes, performance enhancements and new rendering and, or management features).
- Check in at least once every four months for a valid subscription. If you are on a long trip Adobe will extend this to six months.
All other Adobe Cloud services are entirely optional.
jkcampbell
Established
Not sure where you are getting your numbers but the Lightroom CC plan includes 1TB of storage not 20TB. The photography plan (Lightroom and Photoshop) just doubled from $9.99 to $19.99. This is today, at any time Adobe can up the pricing for the software or the cloud storage.
Maybe I'm wrong be I believe Lightroom CC requires you to keep your catalog in the cloud. So if you have more than 1TB of data you have to buy even more storage. Plus today you can only have one catalog with the CC version. This may work well for the amateur or casual user but I don't think businesses and professionals will want to pay Adobe to store huge image libraries and try to work with high volume-large files over the internet to say nothing about cloud services security.
Adobe's new mobile strategy helps them address a new market share of casual users but the concern seems to be that they are abandoning their professions base.
Dwig
Well-known
That is, except for the new "Lightroom CC". It is cloud only. This new interloper "steals" the old Lr naming style. Perhaps Adobe wants to sucker users into switching. This version stores the images in the cloud. It is also only v1.0 and is lacking many of the functions of the "Classic" Lr.
The newest release in the "old" Lr series is now named "Lightroom Classic CC", with the current version being "Lightroom Classic CC 2018". It only needs the "cloud" for the 2 reasons you list.
froyd
Veteran
You scared me for a moment there! It's hidden away in a dark, dusty corner of their site, but the old $9.99 Creative Cloud Photo plan appears to be still available. However, I think I might just have gotten a glimpse of the future!
fireblade
Vincenzo.
Yep...It's all relative. I don't mind paying the monthly fee, but i don't use their storage.
willie_901
Veteran
The OP had no interest in the new LR CC.
The new LR CC is primarily for smart-phone and tablet photography.
Until true 5 to 10 GB/sec internet speeds (or faster) are common, Lightroom Classic CC can not require Adobe Cloud access.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I have an old copy of PS and I hate it.
Tools (for example background erasing tools) work only on toy images. I always had to do the job manually pixel by pixel. Sometimes it took years of my spare time (I am an amateur)
I have Capture One and I hate it. There is no “file open”. I still have to figure out how to put a photo on screen except drag and drop. I asked them and they pulled my legs for my awkward English.
I asked Macfun whether Luminar supports psd files (yes it does, it is in the comparison) and whether it support 16 bit/channel. They did not bother to answer me.
The quest goes on
Tools (for example background erasing tools) work only on toy images. I always had to do the job manually pixel by pixel. Sometimes it took years of my spare time (I am an amateur)
I have Capture One and I hate it. There is no “file open”. I still have to figure out how to put a photo on screen except drag and drop. I asked them and they pulled my legs for my awkward English.
I asked Macfun whether Luminar supports psd files (yes it does, it is in the comparison) and whether it support 16 bit/channel. They did not bother to answer me.
The quest goes on
krötenblender
Well-known
This is annoying, I can relate. However, what you describe sounds more like you are searching for an image-manipulation-programm, maybe with RAW-converter included, but not so much for a DAM.
Best way to find, what you need may be, to first make sure, what you really want and need. Write a list, write "formal" requirements. Having a checklist saved me much time and money many times already. I already mentioned it above: Have you had a look into Affinity? Works with PSD, can read RAWs, has 16bit-support and ist blazingly fast on an up-to-date-computer. All checks for the points you mentioned. But in no way a competitor for LR, because it is something completely different.
Peter Jennings
Well-known
I just started using Capture One and really like it. Use the “import” tool to open images.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
Krotenblender
Thank you. You are absolutely right and I will definitely take a look at Affinity
Peter
Thank you. I was unable to make import work. So I use drag and drop. Then I ping pong between Capture an PS to make the editings I need
Thank you. You are absolutely right and I will definitely take a look at Affinity
Peter
Thank you. I was unable to make import work. So I use drag and drop. Then I ping pong between Capture an PS to make the editings I need
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
BTW
they finally answered:
"Sure, Luminar supports 16-bit color depth, and you can save in PSD format."
they finally answered:
"Sure, Luminar supports 16-bit color depth, and you can save in PSD format."
Kent
Finally at home...
Adobe made a mistake by re-using the name "Lightroom CC" and inventing "Classic", because that really seems to confuse users.
If you don't want to use the "new" LR CC (which primarily is aimed at seemless cooperation with mobile versions) then don't install it - or don't use it.
I use the (new...old...) "Classic" version and it works just as fine as the older ones. It is always possible to keep the older versions on your system.
And if someone still uses CS4 and points at the higher costs of the cloud, that is just comparing apples and oranges. You always get the latest version in the CC. So a fair comparison would be if someone has bought every version since.
It is just like driving a 2006 car and claiming that is much cheaper than leasing one and getting a new one every year. Of course, that is cheaper, but it's just not the same!
As to Luminar: I have been a Beta-User and I kinda liked it. The beta-version (WIN) crashed quite often. But I have pre-ordered the 2018 version and hope that runs more stable. (And yes, I do use Adobe CC primarily as well as other apps...)
If you don't want to use the "new" LR CC (which primarily is aimed at seemless cooperation with mobile versions) then don't install it - or don't use it.
I use the (new...old...) "Classic" version and it works just as fine as the older ones. It is always possible to keep the older versions on your system.
And if someone still uses CS4 and points at the higher costs of the cloud, that is just comparing apples and oranges. You always get the latest version in the CC. So a fair comparison would be if someone has bought every version since.
It is just like driving a 2006 car and claiming that is much cheaper than leasing one and getting a new one every year. Of course, that is cheaper, but it's just not the same!
As to Luminar: I have been a Beta-User and I kinda liked it. The beta-version (WIN) crashed quite often. But I have pre-ordered the 2018 version and hope that runs more stable. (And yes, I do use Adobe CC primarily as well as other apps...)
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I took a look at the affinity site and it looks quite interesting
It would be great if one of these photoediting softwares included the functionality that the new Nikon 850 sports and about which there is right now a thread by Col Sebastian Moran
Has anybody tried to invert and color correct a photograph of a film negative in Affinity?
It would be great if one of these photoediting softwares included the functionality that the new Nikon 850 sports and about which there is right now a thread by Col Sebastian Moran
Has anybody tried to invert and color correct a photograph of a film negative in Affinity?
robert blu
quiet photographer
As satisfied user of the subscription model (photography plan) from Adobe I admit I was very confused by the new version and new names because on the Adobe site there is not a clear explanation.
Anyway I'm not interested in the cloud storage or to use in my mobile devices I only use the "classic" keeping all my files in my various hard drives (main and multiple back up). I like the convenience of having both LR and PS updated even if of course I understand it's not always na necessary! And the cost being not much more of one roll of film a month is affordable!
robert
webOSUser
Well-known
Do any of the LR replacements import the LR catalog and sidecar files?
I don't want to reprocess the pictures that I have imported.
I don't want to reprocess the pictures that I have imported.
willie_901
Veteran
Good question.
As far as I know, XMP sidecar files only contain metadata, not rendering parameters.
I also understand a DNG export from LR can save all rendering parameters. I have no idea how non-Adobe products deal with rendering parameters in DNG files.
Capture One can import a LR Catalog. I have no idea if every LR rendering parameter can be applied or how well the converted rendering parameters duplicate the renderings you created in LR. The LR CC Classic Catalog format is different. But I assume Capture One will eventually support its import as well.
krötenblender
Well-known
There are several products, that can read and parse LR-catalogs to a certain degree. But other than simple transformations like crop/rotate, it is not possible for them to reproduce the LR edits you have done.
This would need them to reimplement exact the same algorithms that LR uses for everything, from the pure raw-file development to the exact equivalent implementation of all sliders and effect available in LR.
However, you can of course export your edited files from LR in their final state as TIF or some other lossless high quality format and import them into another program. No need to reprocess them then.
jarski
Veteran
Yes this is what I probably end up doing, when current Lightroom is simply not usable anymore. Not only edits, but lens and camera profiles etc.
Dwig
Well-known
There is no way for one non-destructive "editor" to properly apply the edits made in another such editor unless the two use EXACTLY the same processing engine.
Matching vintage Ps and Lr can do this as they use the same underlying ACR engine. Two products from different companies can't do this. For that matter, images processes in a newer Lr using the newest "process" can't be processed by the ACR in an earlier version of Ps. Lr will warn you when you "export to Ps" and offer to either "flatten" the image, retaining the Lr edits, or to pass the unprocessed file to Ps leaving you to completely reprocess the image there.