Why...

For Nikon and Fuji X files: Lightroom (zombie 6.14...still haven't decided on the rental model).
Photo Ninja for Fuji X files ONLY when there is a Fuji/LR detail issue.
Iridient uses the same DCRaw converter as Photo Ninja, so the Fuji X detail is similarly rendered in PN...but Iridient has annoying features/lack of features that make Photo Ninja's interface a better fit for me.
I found that Iridient Transformer gave an interesting look if you jacked up the sharpening, but doing that didn't work for all shots.
I got my first digital cam right when Aperture and Lightroom came out. I would have naturally chosen Aperture, but you needed an Intel Mac to run Aperture, and my Mac wasn't Intel.
 
For me gimp and lightzone...in this way I'm a communist...freeware.

Nowadays I tend to just use the software that came with the camera...that's the capitalist in me...
I paid for it damnit
 
I started with old 'aharrr' versions of Photoshop in the late 90's and early 2000's, but never really shot raw until I got the Sigma DP1, which made raw shooting a necessity. When I bought the Ricoh GRD III, I found the raw files much nicer than the jpegs, which pretty much sucked, and Lightroom gave them a vibrance that I never saw in Photoshop. I bought Lightroom 3 and haven't looked back.

When Adobe announced the CC model, I looked for alternatives to Lightroom, but nothing has the same kind of ease of use, nor interface that I'm used to. I've looked at Photo Ninja, Raw Therapee, Capture One, nothing seems to do it for me like Lightroom. I'm still on LR 4.4 and haven't upgraded since then, as I use Adobe DNG Converter to turn new camera files into something I can edit. I'm so used to Lightroom and am able to do pretty much any processing I want with it.
 
Archiver said:
I started with old 'aharrr' versions of Photoshop in the late 90's and early 2000's, but never really shot raw until I got the Sigma DP1, which made raw shooting a necessity. When I bought the Ricoh GRD III, I found the raw files much nicer than the jpegs, which pretty much sucked, and Lightroom gave them a vibrance that I never saw in Photoshop. I bought Lightroom 3 and haven't looked back.

When Adobe announced the CC model, I looked for alternatives to Lightroom, but nothing has the same kind of ease of use, nor interface that I'm used to. I've looked at Photo Ninja, Raw Therapee, Capture One, nothing seems to do it for me like Lightroom. I'm still on LR 4.4 and haven't upgraded since then, as I use Adobe DNG Converter to turn new camera files into something I can edit. I'm so used to Lightroom and am able to do pretty much any processing I want with it.
Click to expand...

You should consider the CC subscription. Adobe has greatly improved image quality for their RAW conversions in LR since LR-4.4. Both color and tonality are much better in later versions of Lightroom, and the current version of Lightroom CC classic is the best.

I use other Adobe software besides Photoshop and Lightroom. I do web design and graphic design work, in addition to photography. I did not sign up for the full CC plan, just the $10 a month photography plan. The reason is that I have the CS 5.5 versions of Illustrator, Dreamweaver, and InDesign and they have not changed much in the subscription versions. Subscription to the full Creative Suite is about $50 a month, I think! Not worth the money for me, but the subscription version of Lightroom really is improved over older versions and is worth the money they charge for it.
 
Many years ago, I started with Elements. I used it but never liked it because it was too complex and had an unfriendly user interface.

I never purchased PhotoShop because it was more complex than Elements, was user unfriendly, and had a subscription service that I did not like.

I currently use Picasa and Corel PaintShop Pro.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom