>>4462455
I use darkroom. It's way better than any adobe BULLSHIT.

>>4462457
You mean Darktable?

>>4462458
Definitely not.

>>4462457
Bases, digislug seething incoming.
>>4462455
>So is everyone using Lightroom or what?
Ahoy matey

I'm a relative newcomer and I've been using pirated Lightroom Classic. I honestly find it bizarre this is regarded as professional software worth paying a subscription in perpetuity, mostly on account of bugs and limitations:
- I had massive performance issues that accumulated after browsing my library when editing labels. Turns out that having the "Metadata" panel open caused some resource leak.
- Resource management is straight from 1995 - it will use all 24GB of VRAM for GPU acceleration even if I run something like a small game, everything grinds to a halt when it starts swapping to system memory. No way of just setting a limit either.
- A silly bug when rotating images from the library that leads to either thumbnails or actual image not rotating which hasn't been fixed.
- It doesn't support having my library on a network drive
- It doesn't event support auto-import from a network drive
- No automation between DNG converter and Lightroom.
- DNG converter does the same resource-gobbling, but will actually.

At least once you get into developing the images it's nice to use. The processing tools are very distilled to what you're likely to use 99% of the time - I can see why Lightroom users get overwhelmed by Darktable.

I'm slowly getting used to Darkable now as it's just nicer software to use. I did some negative scans and that went a lot better in Darktable, the masking options are far superior as well.

>>4462464
>it will use all 24GB of VRAM for GPU
No, it doesn't. It uses almost no GPU, even with it enabled. It uses heaps of ram and cpu, thats its.

>>4462457
If you're using FOSS on Linux you should try out RawTherapee.

Most of the Linux community moved on from Darktable to Rawtherapee a few years ago. It's simply the better software - and easier to use

Thoughts on Luminar Neo?

>>4462485
ai fueled shit, ask >>4455026

>>4462486
OK, is it any good when ignoring the AI slop?

File: file.png (34.6 KB)

34.6 KB PNG

>>4462482
It definitely does

>>4462488
>lil bros system is this pickled
also
>using task manager for gpu usage

>>4462487
The whole fucking software is just AI shit.

>>4462455
I use C1 perpetual license, upgrading every 2-3 years
I've also had CC photo plan for like 8 years now, the sub model is cheaper than standalone licenses if you use Photoshop
Just grow up

>>4462489
Okay, open a few raws in the "Develop" tab and show your GPU acceleration settings and usage.

>>4462489
When you use firmware monitoring rather than the shitter windows one it shows as follows:
>GPU peak 15% avg 0.3%
I would check where you got your pirated lightroom from buddy your shit is DONE ahahaha

>>4462519
>GPU peak 15% avg 0.3%
memory usage, not compute, you dimwit.

>>4462522
>being this retarded
No wonder you have a virus ahahaha

>>4462519
>>4462525
Literal Adobe shill btw. Imagine the smell in their office.

>>4462455
Lightroom has the best features, so it's the best there is for now and pretty much every business uses Adobe stuff. Capture One's pricing model is retarded so I don't like it.

>>4462614
C1 gives me way better colors and their auto buttons aren't retarded like LR.

>>4462617
How is it for picture profiles and retaining settings? One thing I would love is having the custom in-camera settings I use be read from the RAW file, while Lightroom just uses the default profile that comes from the manufacturer and only my SOOC JPGs look how I want.

>>4462619
No clue, but c1 seems to handle all of my pictures and scans way better than lightroom. I like editing pics more on c1 as well.

I'm probably the odd one out with this but I tried using gimp and (pirated) photoshop at the and time and thought gimp was easier to use and wouldn't have to worry about some hax0r using my computer to crash a train or some shit. I had been using canons own raw editor (DPP) for raws but recently decided to switch to loonix only once again and it's a fuckaround to get it to work. So anyway, what I was getting at was how bad exactly are RawRapey and Dorktable at handling Canon raws vs Canons own software which I thought was pretty good.

>>4462626
Is it possible to do slight color shifts on the white balance? I change some settings in camera like slightly adjusting magenta and blues, and LR doesn't go that in-depth on WB.

File: 3088-2.jpg (3.9 MB)

3.9 MB JPG

>>4462632
C1 does white balance a lot better somehow. Same sliders, but it just works better. Guess which is which.

>>4462633
>Same sliders
Bummer

>>4462634
White balance is a standard.
Orange to blue
Green to magenta

Every program and camera is the same here.

Other color casts are managed with levels/curves, or in C1, for hardware specific casts, LCCs
https://support.captureone.com/hc/en-us/articles/360002583678-The-LCC-tool

FastRawViewer > Photolab is what I use now. A very fast workflow, no need to import just keep it in folders. With some presets I can keep editing to a minimum, some small tweaks when needed, crop and done.

File: 3088.jpg (3.3 MB)

3.3 MB JPG

>>4462633
After I saw the difference between this I bought c1.

>>4462633
>>4462644
What's the actual color of this dog though?

File: 20250825_191007.jpg (1.8 MB)

1.8 MB JPG

Look at this legendary dogtography lens I got for a weirdly little money. These were made between 1908-1930 I believe. Pretty good condition for 100 years old.

>>4462646
He is not glowing yellow/orange in real life. I've noticed with many pictures LR makes things too yellow, especially my dogs fur. It happens a lot when you try to boost contrast.

>>4462651
Oops I thought this was the gear thread. Sorry. Please ignore the lens I posted.

>>4462633
>>4462644
This seems more like user error than one program being better than the other. I've never seen such a massive color shift in Lightroom. If I had to guess, you have the profile default set wrong in LR.

>>4462655
I don't usually change that from the default setting unless I've made a specific profile with my color card. Either way I wouldn't be suprised if it was simply user error. I havent devoted much time to actually learning how to edit photos on the computer. It's not as important for me as making prints in the darkroom.

>>4462655
I will say that moving sliders in C1 seems to work out better for me than moving sliders in LR. For white balance it feels like LR moves in much larger steps than C1 and somehow it influences the image differently. I have an easier time manually setting white balance in C1.

I also really like the histogram slider thing in C1. Even if I was just doing something stupid in LR I enjoy editing more in C1, so its not too big of a deal.

>>4462655
LR has god awful default profiles. Every camera color science meme ever is entirely based on lightroom being shit. You really need to buy a 32+ swatch target and make your own per illuminant for LR (just to put up with lag, $144-240/yr costs to keep up with gear upgrades you definitely won't buy, etc)
Lightroom also has much worse default curves than C1.
And much worse noise reduction and sharpening (sharp grain vs. the wet scan look) unless you use AI and enhance
And more false color/shit fine detail than C1

A competent darktable setup (with a fine tuned demosaicing pipeline and everything) is just a little more work than getting lightroom to play nice and actually gets C1 tier results. C1 just does that instantly with fewer bugs, a better UI, and the demosaicing fine tuning (which is some per ISO, per camera hell) already done. And $200 for a one and done if you catch it on sale.
Cameras have hit a hard plateau for everyone but super gear reliant action photographers and videofaggot gearcucks who think they still need 8k 120fps raw so what upgrades are there to keep up with? Especially if you shoot a modern camera that embeds lens profiles into the raws (phaseone's profiles are typically undercorrected anyways) so new lenses will always be supported

>>4462663
So you dont think it was user error?
I will also add that I was using a Leaf aptus 6 mfdb to take those pictures, so it would naturally jive better with C1 than LR, right? It has a bunch of these built in profiles you can use. It made me sad that dog portraits look best with the "product" profile lol

lightroom uniquely breaks ETTR by applying all the hue twists and shit before exposure corrections
literally no other developer does this
c1, darktable, rapetherapy, incel.exe, all fine

>>4462674
Waaaaat. Wow everything is making sense now.

File: 510f3532eb03e.jpg (36.1 KB)

36.1 KB JPG

>>4462663
>using software prices as an argument
har har har, avast landlubber)))

I use PS and LRC, both are the best for editing and I just buy once a year a yearly subscription.
Doing one paid gig will pay more than that subscription and in my country I can detuct that subscription money from taxes. So no reason to even think about adobes scam prices.

>>4462702
Extremely based. You only have two choices in this life - Live free as a pirate or slave away for the merchant.

>>4462702
>taking pride in stealing
ishygddt
you will pay the last penny

>>4462657
> don't usually change that from the default setting
yeah that's the issue then. lightroom from installation just defaults to their own profile (adobe color), but you can change the setting to use the cameras own profiles to get the colors you actually saw in-camera.

>>4462725
I just checked and the profile says embedded... if I move the white balance enough to get the yellow out of his fur it turns his face blue.

>>4462729
>profile says embedded
Looking at the wrong spot I think. You should see something at the top that says Profile: Adobe Color and then click into Profile Browser, from there you'll see the option to use the profiles from your camera.

I'm actually not even sure what you must be looking at, I don't see the word "embedded" anywhere on my Lightroom.

>>4462619
I don't think that is really possible, your editor's sliders aren't going to do exactly the same as the camera ones so the results would be unpredictable.

File: 20250826_004806.jpg (2.6 MB)

2.6 MB JPG

>>4462733
Top right. Is it because Im using lrc?

>>4462737
That's really weird. I'm using LRC too and I don't have that at all, I've never even seen "embedded" come up before, not even when I've loaded a JPG. But if you click those 4 little squares next to it, that'll bring up the profile browser and you should be able to find your cameras profiles in there.

>>4462738
Do you need to upload profiles? Mine only has this gay instagram filter type bullshit and the icc profiles I've made with my color card. Nothing camera specific unlike c1.

>>4462739
That's really weird, they should be in there already. All my cameras are in there without me needing to do anything else. What camera are you using? Is it kind of niche?

File: file.png (93.9 KB)

93.9 KB PNG

>>4462739
You don't see a folder called "Camera Matching"?

Any opinions on Adobe's adaptative color profile?
I've just noticed its existence but it looks a bit memey

>>4462745
I've been using it a little, just because it can make a fairly ready image and I can do additional tweaking. For the most part it just automatically fixes highlights and shadows.

>>4462740
Yeah a leaf afi 6 lol. Idk if it shows up for my 5dm3 pics either tho. Ive never noticed anything other than it saying embedded or whatever profile I've made myself.

>>4462745
Instantly makes any photo I take look like absolute shit.

>>4462747
Ah, then yeah, with something that niche you'd maybe have to look around for the profiles, I'm not too sure. I only ever use pretty regularly available cameras so I've never had to do anything extra beyond setting LR to use my cameras profiles.

>>4462746
So basically it already makes a highlights/shadows adjustment without giving you any control over it. I don't see the point when we already have these sliders available

>>4462749
Huh okay. C1 has the camera profiles, so its nbd. Thanks for your help.

>>4462750
Well in a circumstance where you really want to bring down or bring up certain areas, you can use adaptive to go beyond the 100 limit of the sliders.

>>4462751
All good, to each their own really. I've considered C1 myself sometimes but their pricing model seems kinda weird and I think I'd have to buy it again if I got a different camera model. I also do work as a photographer and fuck around with various cameras, so having to keep buying C1 stuff over and over when I use a new camera would be a nightmare.

>>4462752
I already achieve it through masking, but I guess it's another alternative indeed

>>4462631
I use RawTheRapist and have never had any problem
consider reading the wiki if you haven't it's really extensive

File: IMG_5593.jpg (253.5 KB)

253.5 KB JPG

>>4462455
i use dark table
>Guys which slider program is easier to use

>>4462767
>RawTheRapist
i love this board and the silly comradery like this makes the insufferables tolerable

>>4462753
Standalone is like $300 (or $200 on sale), and then you essentially get the next year's worth of small updates, which can include new camera compability. You get a discount if upgrading within the next 1-2 years, but no standalone loyalty discounts beyond that anymore.
If you use their subscription, you get a discount for standalone for each year subscribed, long enough and you end the sub with a free standalone.

>>4462718
> muh copying is stealing
Behold, the merchant programming of the boomer brain

>>4462753
Subscribe then. it's only $2 more a month. Buying to own is for the guy who still uses a 5dIII in the studio and puts out better work than people who upgrade their sony yearly, hence adobe abandoned that guy - he's not really in their target market. He's an unprofitable individual.

Some companies would release cameras on a subscription (high failure rate) if they could find the right fanbase to get away with it.

>>4462455
I use capture one. They still have a lifetime license. It works well enough.

>>4463028
You have to pay again the next year if you want any new features or if a new camera comes out though kek

>>4463053
What new kekking features does a lad like you really need? More ai garbage? Moving sliders around is enough for me, really.

>>4463053
>consoom!
Post sony

>>4463053
If you upgrade every other year or so it works out to be less than subscription, which is what I've basically done (except the early upgrades were much cheaper), and you do get most of the following years version updates and camera support
Upgraded 3 times for camera compatibility, and once for features, but that's over 8ish years

File: JqK6dWa.gif (473.5 KB)

473.5 KB GIF

>buying software
i shiggy diggy

>>4462455
Yeah using Lightroom until someone figures out a way to port 15 years of local edits over to capture one. Fuck no I din’t give Adobe any $, the last time I paid that’s shit company was in college when we were forced to. Never again. I just keep buying every new application that comes out from independent devs to support them, but keep using Haxnodes Lightroom app bc I’m not throwing away a million hours of work. Yes the situation is fucked, just like every other situation on earth, bc some shit company gets their hands on a good thing, gets greedy, and has a bright idea how they could make even more money by wrecking it, doing a shittier job and buttfucking everyone sideways. Fuck Adobe and fuck Lightroom.

>>4463218
>In 15 years of shooting I've never gotten better at editing

Do you lose quality when you batch convert raw files to .dng?

>>4462455
adobe at work
affinity at home
foss experiments from time to time

>>4463248
>affinity at home
Nothing in the form of a library manager?

>>4463249
my projects are all in dedicated folders and drives already so i can do local backups. it's already organized.

>>4463249
didn't mention before, i have thousands of files

>>4463206
you forgot to turn your trip on canon

>>4463249
The best library manager is a sensible folder structure

Anyone ever tried Photomator?

>>4463250
doesn’t everyone do this? I can’t even imagine an alternative. All of my files in one folder?

>>4463329
imagine if you did time lapses or animation where there just thousands in one folder lol

File: hatedhimforhe.jpg (130.6 KB)

130.6 KB JPG

>>4463267

>>4463302
I've heard it's getting really good but I haven't bought it to try yet.

>>4463377
I haven't read it explicitly but as it's a one time purchase in the app store, I suspect updates are free.

ITT:
>MY SLIDER PROGRAM IS BETTER
>NO MINE IS BETTER
>WELL MINE HAS PEE IN IT

>>4463452
isn't adjusting sliders and settings the very basis of photography? Wether that be in camera or in a program

File: IMG_5485.jpg (157.1 KB)

157.1 KB JPG

>>4463483
....i need to go rethink my life

>>4463483
No. Your intent to produce an image is. The camera, lights and editor/darkroom are the tools used to materialize that image into a viewable form.

Why would anyone use Lightroom when Photoshop is right there.

>>4463502
Photoshop for single images
Lightroom for working with multiple images + Photoshop integration

>>4463502
why would anyone use photoshop when lightroom is right there

>>4463361
organised chaos CHADS rise up

>>4463383
Yeah it has a few tiers, so you can buy lifetime license or you can buy yearly or monthly. I think I'll look at some more reviews for it since I've at least heard it runs better than anything from Adobe.

is anyone able to get the download links here? https://lucidgen.com/en/how-to-download-adobe-on-mac/

>>4463483
> He doesn't shoot jpegs in auto mode

What alternatives to Lightroom exist that are either free (or very cheap) or easy to pirate?
I'm looking for something that offers the same tools, especially AI mask selection, RAW development etc, and runs well on simple laptop hardware with no dedicated GPU (Ryzen 7 8845HS).
Does something like this even exist?

>>4464554
Lightroom is already cheap

>>4464554
Lightroom is already easy to pirate

>>4464561
>>4464562
Sure but I'm curious about alternatives nevertheless.

File: IMG_0187.jpg (201.5 KB)

201.5 KB JPG

>>4462455
I use Darktable, but I'm really just an amateur...

File: dxo.jpg (80.7 KB)

80.7 KB JPG

DxO PhotoLab 9 dropped yesterday. Adobe well and truly BTFO by DxO and Capture One.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/9595323730/dxo-s-photolab-9-promises-actually-useful-ai-features
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=255qbzYqsAE

>>4465110
Does it still have awful color science? When I was trying out Photolab, it would always gravitate towards the same acid colors - like the edited image in this forum post https://forum.dxo.com/t/highlight-shadow-recovery/16326

>>4465110
TL;DR and how good are pirate versions of DxO or capture one, if they exist?
Been free loading on corporate Adobe CC the past years lol

File: 1747253372337982.png (320.1 KB)

320.1 KB PNG

Capture 1 gives me way better performance, LR has been degrading like crazy in the last few years. After 10 years of using it, i made the switch. Now editing photos is finally not torture. It's too bad, because overall I've been used to LR so much that switching is like switching OS at this point. And I hate switching OS. And I like the ergonomics of LR better, though in C1 I can do everything I could in LR, so at least it's a very good equivalent.
Only issue is the C1 startup time is very slow for some reason, but it's smooth sailing once it's opened.
Also, C1 users, do you go with sessions or catalogs? So far I've been using sessions, but now that I'm used to C1 and committed to keep using it, I intend to use the feature letting me import my LR catalog in it. As such, I assume this import feature means I'll keep using a catalog.
Is it a good idea or not?

Capture One is 3x more expensive than Adobe. Are they fucking retarded?

>>4465245
Adobe
>$12/mo for LR
>$20/mo for LR + PS
>both include Adobe Portfolio and LR mobile
>$15/mo or LR + PS if grandfathered in
C1
>$17/mo for C1 desktop
>$23/mo for C1 desktop + mobile
>$330 (around $200 on sale) for standalone, cheaper than Adobe at 15 to 28 months (or faster on sale)
>standalone pricing discounted for each year of subscription, up to 100% off
Not sure what market you're in where C1 is 3x more expensive?

>>4465161
Sessions for sure. Switching away from larger catalogs of multiple things to only using individual sessions was the best organizational change I've done. If you think C1 is slow to load now, just wait until you're having it load a full catalog. In any individual session, you can still browse files from other sessions anyways.
The stock UI sucks, but it's much more customizable. I don't use the browser window at all, just G to switch between full grid view and whatever I have selected. Make use of speed edit keys, like holding Q + mouse wheel / click + drag / arrow keys will adjust exposure. I have my tools sectioned off and ordered to my workflow.

>>4465260
sometimes i hate about media apps in general is when you install it and it's like "where do you keep your files?" and i say "here" and then it's like "shit, bruh" and locks up because there's too many. they should at least count and give you a warning if import will take all night. this happens in almost every FOSS app

>>4465260
50 BRL "monthly" for LR, 150 BRL monthly for C1 Pro.
Adobe apparently has price localization, C1 doesn't. One perpetual C1 license with no updates costs 37 months of "monthly" LR with updates.

>>4465311
Sucks to live in third world

>>4465314
Nah, I can just pay for Adobe or pirate it all.

>>4465319
You could also pirate C1

>>4465134
PL color rendering has improved since those posts in 2020/21 but the default "Natural" preset is oversaturated to appease phonefags and the highlight recovery is a bit shit.
One problem with the DxO forum is it's full of a bunch of turboautist boomers who think turning up clarity to 100 makes every shot look incredible.

>>4465161
Putting price aside, all 3 are gimped in different ways imo. Like how the fuck does C1 not have any edit history? The second you close it, all changes are committed to every file and the official response is "click reset on the tool" lmao

>>4465402
RAW editors in 2025:

>LR Classic
Reasonable feature set with the most "AI" tools. Excellent NR. Resource-hungry mess that will fuck your machine with Creative Cloud telemetry bloat (Core Service, Update Service, UI Helper chromium shit, "Content Manager", Core Sync, ...)

>DxO
Best for optical and distortion corrections. Modules for every lens and body calibrated with real hardware. Equally excellent NR. Colors can be weird/optimized for Ken Rockwells. Lacks simple options like constrain crop and the highlight recovery sucks.

>C1
Color rendering seems better than LR and DxO. The fastest of the bunch. Perspective correction (keystone) is useless beyond simple adjustments. Undo history is completely missing and developers are lazy when it comes to adding lens and camera support.

>>4465447
Capture one is made for photographers, by photographers
>why would you want that? get it right in camera
They won't even add AI NR because they just use better cameras instead of coping hard with m43

>>4465447
>phaseone staff on not supporting the zuiko 12-45 f4: "this is software for professionals, sir."

>>4465402
I saw that post from 2020 and immediately recognized the acid colors that I was getting myself in 2025.

I definitely use edit history in PS, but I have never once ever missed having it in C1
If I like how something looks, I save the adjustments as a preset
If I want to thinker a bit, I just press F8 to make a copy and tinker away
Forget it's even a thing until I open up Darktable for a DT thread

How often are you all actually using edit history i a raw processor?

>>4462619
>picture profiles
>retaining settings
What does this mean?
>my custom in-camera settings
They aren't baked in the RAW file, you'll have to take a few pictures, match the look, save it as a preset and then apply it to the RAWs you import.
>>4462632
You can do slight color shifts by changing the white balance on any raw converter, it works the same way every time.
You can also do by-color editing in both Lr and C1.
>>4462665
It's a fact that default settings result in different looks in each RAW converter.
That said, one picture's significantly brighter, so the user has done something, and such a big difference likely came from tweaking stuff (very) differently between the two.

File: MoonRiverLc21.jpg (425.1 KB)

425.1 KB JPG

>>4462455
I use C1, been using it since v10.
I was previously using Lr and decided to try out other options, then stayed with C1 for the massively more flexible color editor and mask workflow.
At some point an acquaintance was doing tethered work using Lr and, out of curiosity, I took some time to compare Lr's and C1's tethering capabilities.
It wasn't even a competition, I really can't imagine what Lr was doing to be that slow but C1 was three to four times as fast to show a new picture after it was shot, plus it offered the option to control the camera settings in real time and had a live view window.
I believe Lr has improved over the years, and I liked C1 better when the HDR tool only had a "Highlights" and a "Shadows" sliders instead of the four White/Highlights/Shadows/Blacks it has now, which it has copied from Lr, but C1 has also improved in terms of performance, masking tools, face editing features, what have you.
If only the engineers at Panasonic hadn't made it impossible to tether the S1 with a raw converter, C1 would have everything I need (but I can still shot tethered thanks to C1's hot folders or however they're called, only I have to pass through Panasonic's own tethering software).
>>4465161
I have a catalog to which I add pictures taken a few at a time and that don't need much organization, like if I'm trying out something or taking two pictures of the moon.
Every other project/shoot/session/job gets its new, very own session.

>>4464554
>>4464571
A good basic system is RawTherapee, I used it for a few years before I just went with Lightroom.

Fuck Adobe. Fuck Adobe. Fuck Adobe.

That's the only thing I have to say.

>>4465110
>can't export to AVIF
Might as well throw your pictures straight in the bin.

What's the best value for money if I'm shit at editing and for now mostly want to inpaint turds and rubbish from my street photos (I live in France)? Affinity looks okay, inpaint tool looks pretty basic, but it works.

>>4462483
RawtheraPEE has shit masking and the low-res preview when editing is just awful, I don't care if most freetards use it.

>>4466028
>low-res preview when editing is just awful
I've seen much much worse.

>>4466024
Actually, I should be just doing this stuff in Gimp. Haha, saved myself 75 Euro.

File: IMG_5962.jpg (630.7 KB)

630.7 KB JPG

>>4466024
I use the software bundled with the camera (NX Studio &cet. for Nikon, DPP &cet. for Canon) and Gimp.

(Roughly flattened impact melt fragment, about 55mm wide. Need to get the stuff for polishing.)

>>4466036
>I've seen much much worse.
Like what?

>>4466028
Decided to try our Rawthera/p/ee since I didn't like Darktable and DPP4 doesn't exist on Linux, but it's just fucking terrible. Cool the power is all there but I don't sneed 57 modules to comb through. I need levels, HSL, gamma, NR, sharpness, etc.
Darktable is kind of the same but I'm so unimpressed with the NR of either there's no incentive to use them for anything shot over ISO 1600.

Looks like the only sensible thing to use is 1st party software if you're going to be a freetard. Unfortunately for me that means getting a workaround in WINE going, so fuck my life.
>inb4 just use windows
I do, but I use linux-specific things all the time, and the niggers at Canon have a Mac version of DPP4 but can't be arsed shitting out a Linux version? Fuck off.

>>4466159
Just don't use the modules you don't need? Also there's a fork called ART that reduces the number of modules.

>>4465552
> rolling shutter

Oh another ewaste mirrorless enjoyer

>>4466178
I think my main point was poorly pivoted. I mean more like, the UI is a bloated unintuitive mess, with no consideration of workflow and seemingly no logic to how things are worded.
>read the manual
No. If I can spend 5 minutes in DPP, C1, Digikam, LR, or even OM Shitspace and get the hang of things no worries, there's no excuse.

>>4466195
I put some time into leaning darktable so I could finally kiss paid raw developers goodbye and now I get better results in a couple minutes than I ever did in LR and C1.
It's really easy and fast to use, you just have to learn a couple basics. If you can't be bothered to do that, I wonder how you ever got into "professional" photography and developing raw files.

As for confusing UI, I don't think that's really the case, it's quite similar to LR.
Maybe this will help:
https://www.darktable.org/2024/12/howto-in-5.0/

There's also videos about how to switch from LR to darktable, never needed to watch one of those tho.

>>4466195
Capture one is basically the only good editor

And yes, linux is not supported nor should it be. between the bloat of the kernel, systemd, and gnu/garbage (including gtk and gnome), it's harboring an untold number of purposefully added backdoors courtesy of at least 3 different countries intelligence agencies.

File: Yamaguchi_assassinates_Asanuma_1960.jpg (379.7 KB)

379.7 KB JPG

>>4462455
https://github.com/cybertimon/rapidraw

Just found this last night. This dude got sick of Adobe and made his own lightroom.
>Not the guy
>Not shilling a free product
>Tried it yesterday for the first time it's way less confusing than darktable
>Lacks a few features but the dev seems interested in feedback and improving

>>4466237
>commie AGPL license that infects everything it touches
hard pass

>>4466232
my only problem with DT is that the highlight recovery is significantly worse than the "white" slider on C1 for example

>>4466260
Shut the fuck up faggot.

>>4466157
OM Workspace. Almost unusable.

>>4466195
From where I'm standing, RT has borderline unusable file browser - that's true. The fact that they refuse to implement a normal image preview, like it exists in every other editing program is just beyond me. ART actually tries to fix that. Otherwise, I think the editor is good.

>>4466263
there are several ways to do highlight recovery, I never had an issue getting highlight detail back
use either tone equalizer or color balance rgb and use the brilliance grading
you can use masks to only affect the sky or the upper luninance ranges, if needed
you could also just make a 2nd exposure module, then make a mask for the highlight areas

>>4466190
The right stick looks like that because it's moving upwards from a frontal perspective at 1/60", but the picture was taken with the mechanical shutter.

>>4466270
>commie wants to shut people up
news at 11

>>4466195
>>4466279
Well, ok, also the crop tool in RT is kinda bad.

Can we finally effortlessly stitch panoramas in Darktable or Rawtherapee? As in, having it work as good as in LR or C1 in a single click, with multiple type of panos.

I just take pictures I don't use any of these

If your JPGs look bad, you're a bad photographer.

>>4466715
>Good photographers fiddle with camera settings to keep their jpegs looking good!
Boasting about worthless skills is for people who have no worthwhile ones.

Can't imagine wasting my time fiddling with white balance, "active d lighting", picture controls etc when I can just auto iso exp. comp -1, take photos, and set all that shit 10x faster on a computer later. Jpeg is a straight downgrade from the workflow of negative film intended for consumers who did not know or care what was going on, people seen as literal cattle by the manufacturers.

Also, older cameras perform better in raw because manufacturers never updated the firmware to render better jpegs. "Dont pixel peep! (view anything larger than 1920x1080)" is a cope. If you have to tell me how to look at photos to defend a camera, you're using it wrong or it's a bad camera. Pick one.

>>4466715
jpg shooters are lazy camera operators

Anyone have any experience with ON1?

>>4466810
Not much but what do you need?

>>4466811
Was just curious if anyone here uses it and has their opinions about it. I'm a beginner with all this photography stuff and I've been messing around with RawTherapee when it comes to photo editing. Kind of wanted to try out other pieces of software (with more features etc) but I'm not really into Adobe's jewery with their subscription plans and all that. Stumbled upon ON1 the other day and it looks decent but at the same time I havent really heard about it otherwise. There are some reviews that say it's good but I'm not sure if it's just some random shill on the internet or not. Even the comments in most of those reviews looks like they were written by AI bots.

>>4466814
ON1 is pretty good, sometimes better than LrC, sometimes worse.
Definitely a good alternative if you're willing to pay for it.
If you're on wangblows, simply pirate LrC, fuck Adobe.

>>4466718
Camera operators are just lazy collage artists.
Collage artists are just lazy painters.
Painters are just lazy illustrators.
Illustrators are just lazy designers & architects.
Architects are just lazy engineers.
Engineers are just lazy mathematicians.
Physicists are just lazy physicists.
Physicists are just lazy philosophers.
Philosophers are just lazy fuckers oh my god are they useless.

Illustrators are just lazy

>>4466863
God dammit, how tf did it replace my 2nd mathematicians with another physicists? I hate all this shit, everything, all this is just digital…

>>4466815
>ON1 is pretty good
It has crazy high cpu usage

>>4466873
Works on my machine

Capture One chads, does the C1 perpetual license ever get discounted for something like Christmas sales?

>>4466815
>pirate LrC
Got a safe source by any chance? I've been burned before.

Do any of these have some form of auto culling?

>>4466902
Monkrus. Been using this for years, it's a Russian guy doing God's work for us.

>>4466902
CHINKS could be here, he thought. I've been burned before. There could be CHINKS anywhere. The cold glass of fixer felt good in his hand. I HATE CHINKS he thought. Girls on Film reverberated the entire bathroom making it pulsate even as the $1 instant coffee circulated through his government microfilm reels and washed away his (merited) fear of hackers after dark. "With caffenol, you can shoot anything you want" he said to himself, out loud.

I've been using lightroom for a few years 99% on tablets. First ipad pro then switched to Android. The iPad version was very frustrating. I like using cloud sync uploading via tablet. On iPad whenever you switch apps or the screen turns off or locks the cloud sync stops immediately. It'd take forever to sync with constant screen tapping. Apparently only Apple cloud is allowed to sync when the app is not in focus, no non-apple sync in the background. Dont know if it's changed then. But there's no alternative without cloud features, let alone with, so I'm stuck with it.

>>4466954
What's your use case / need for cloud syncing?
I've never bothered with it

>>4466898
Yes, often around black Friday
>>4466905
Not Automatic, but C1's culling features make it go super quick

>>4466978
Immediate import and backup post shoot in case the worst happens. Having my catalogue on any device anywhere (smart preview), so I can show, adjust, export, print if needed. Edit from anywhere and Any edits only need to sync Metadata and not the full images again. Online soft proofing, this let's people sign in and pick images, I can select those images and create a new album with them in Lightroom, super convenient. Shared cloud albums can also be downloaded via link for other people, but I stopped doing that since last I checked they don't export in sRGB, and IG posting screws up the colour after posting while getting the preview before posting correct. Maybe that's been fixed in either LR or IG since then.

My workflow has been tablet based for years now, and there still isn't even a single non cloud alternative, let alone an alternative that supports what I use above.

>>4466983
Gotcha, I just backup to SSD in the field as needed, and use my NAS + Pixieset for everything else you described
I think like 9 years of paying for CC at this point and never felt needed for me

>>4466950
Kek

>>4466983
You may have heard this before, but it bears repeating occasionally: Do not rely on "Cloud Sync" as a backup.
Firstly, you can't guarantee where the files actually are. If you lose your account one day due to whatever SaaSy bullshit is going on, you may find out you've been optimised to only have the last month of data on your device.
Secondly, you're at the absolute mercy of software bugs nuking your library everywhere simultaneously. As an example, iCloud one day decided that my dad didn't have any files any more. Not on his Mac, not on his iPhone and not on his iPad either. Saved only by an actual backup on his work PC.

Tried Luminar, it's dog shit.
AMA

Also tried DxO. Actually a good alternative to LrC but total clusterfuck with their products and pricing. Might as well pay Adobe since it's cheaper and integrated.

RapidRAW is the future. 18 yrs old guy created free LR competitor.
https://www.free-codecs.com/download/rapidraw.htm
https://github.com/CyberTimon/RapidRAW

File: IMGP3141.jpg (1.1 MB)

1.1 MB JPG

I use Lightroom v8.5.1 (actually pay for it and all to be fair it was $80 for the year) and my camera (Pentax K1ii) isn't fully supported by LR (no Camera Standard profile for example)

Sometimes Adobe Color or Adobe Portrait works to get the colors where I want them to, but has anyone tried the Color Fidelity profiles? Sometimes the Adobe profiles come out too green or blue and I'm better off using the jpeg if I'm not pixel peeping.

https://www.colorfidelity.com/

$25 is a little pricey but I kinda feel like its not doing the camera justice.

Why does no one ever mention ACDsee?

>>4467246
I made the same choice. Also, developments are going so fast it is likely I would want to upgrade dxo, so I'm still paying each year.

Capture One users, is there a defined release schedule?
I'd hate to buy a perpetual license for 16.6.x right now and then have 16.7.0 release a month later for which my license isn't entitled to

>>4467211
I keep the physical copies, the cloud sync is a backup in case something happens to the physical copies (theft, loss, baggage loss, etc), its a backup in another physical location other than where my cards are. Hence also considered setting up ftp server on my home pc with Hotspot while shooting to stream to. The cloud sync also downloads to my home pc.

I don't tend to remove them off the cards until I'm really done with them and just got a new 512GB cf express to make that easier and use the 64GB with dual card shooting as my import card

>>4467211
Also I did actually want to get tape backup too when i saw tape prices.. until I saw tape drive prices

>>4467972
>why does no one ever mention this decade old image viewer
???

cropping and gamma (iso) adjustments with imagemagick from raw -> png -> encoder of choice (jpegli/jpeg2000/jxl)

editing is haram

>>4466237
>>4467805
stop spamming you fag

>>4467805
Yes, this is clearly the work of a true processing master. He sure knows what he's doing!
https://www.instagram.com/timonkaech.photography/

>>4468048
If you buy a NAS box (myself, I have one of the cheapest single-drive Synology), it simplifies setting up file sharing.

File: 538961056_24559495640354496_9130629143996131451_n.jpg (93.8 KB)

93.8 KB JPG

I use LR Classic, IrfanView and PS 2015

>Paying for ((((((((subscriptions)))))))))

>>4462455
I quit Photoshop forever ago and haven't had any difficulty moving on from it. I use the Canon DPP and the other included raw tools. There is Affinity 2 if I need more than DPP.

>>4462455
xnviewnp for viewing, photoshop for editing.

Photoshop.

Never really saw the purpose of Lightroom. Don't give a crap about batch working photos.
The rest are just scrubs.

>>4463302
>Used the trial for 7 days
>Forgets
>Payment triggered
>Accidentally bought subscription for a year

I'm stuck using it for a year now. They use percentages instead of number format for the values of the adjustments, which is kinda annoying if i'm trying to copy values from lightroom.

>>4467831
You shouldn't pay for this kind of software if you're not able to perform a basic exposure correction

>>4462455
I'll pay for software the day one of these fuckers packages a damn ai into it that lets you train it with your own stills without needing to be a fucking python programmer. Like mf's if I have a scan of a 50yo photo or movie film where my grandmother is smiling and smootching my grandpa, but the image quality is low light, out of focus or just too low res, BUT I have a million super sharp perfectly lit closeups on glorious 35mm kodachrome from her that same year, then THE BEST POSSIBLE USE OF AI in the arts is if I can tell the ai to reference all those stills, and maybe even some sharper stills of the same beach, or the dock, or the boat, etc, and render the scene in better detail, with color & light options. For all the jerking off over how ai is the end all be all, I have yet to see anyone be able to do this except the deepfakers busy putting emma watsons floating head on some cartoonish pornstars body and buying some $15,000 shitbox computer to do it, which will be outdated in 3 weeks.

Photolab 9 is out and it has auto masking now, has anyone tried it?

>>4470755
> Look up DxO website
> They suggest to use it for fake bokeh
I dunno, DxO marketing is really hammering on the point that DxO does not make you a better photographer.

>>4470760
their, ON1's, Luminar's marketing assumes that you know that you're a bad photographer (I know I am one) and says "it's fine bro here's how to cope in post". The anti-Capture One.

>>4470760
Well its partially Nikons fault, they never made a proper adapter that'll get the Defocus Control lens working with the new Z bodies, and they also didn't make a new DC lens, so if you're really going to make a concerted effort for BOKAAA, you're left using an old 2010 D850 or halfassing it in 2025 software.

>>4470755
it's on torrent sites, gonna check it out

>>4462455
>So is everyone using Lightroom or what?
Why wouldn't I?
It's easy to:
>SET UP YOUR CATALOG ON AN EXTERNAL DRIVE
>SET UP A FOLDER STRUCTURE TO STORE IMAGES
>CREATE A COPYRIGHT METADATA PRESET
>IMPORT IMAGES
>EDIT IMAGES

>>4470793
also
>costs more than capture one over time unless you insist on upgrading gear constantly (skill issue)
>is slow
>has AIds and logs every photo you import for the AI gods (and probably others)
>has image quality issues with sony and fuji
>known for meh, flat looking color profiles
>less autistic color adjustment capabilities
>high ISO look from lightroom is kind of nasty and harsh/digital compared to the way other programs render noise reduction, without using AIds (looks phone-y up close, because it is)

Any other Leica shooters with input on what software to use? I'm trying to decide between renewing my Adobe contract or switching to Capture One.

>>4471058
I have an M4-2 and I use darktable, hope this helps.

>>4471064
Does it handle the Leica color science as well as C1? I had been using LR with my Sony A7III until I bought my Leica SL2 and there is quite a noticeable difference in how it renders the DNGs.

>>4471065
I was joking a bit with my post since it's a film camera but I can still answer this: darktable renders RAW files very flat, compared to both C1 and LR so there's more room to create the look you want. I like the results I can get for both my Alpha 7 III and X-T5. You really have to learn how to get there tho and many aren't ready for that.

>>4471066
>very flat, compared to both C1
as flat as a linear profile in C1?

>>4471093
Another anon. What he probably means, Darktable has no built in camera profiles and does not support Adobe dcp profiles. You have to dual your own look for your photos, because there's no reasonable default look.

>>4471095
but that, at least from the files I've opened in darktable, isn't as flat as C1 + linear profile
>there's more room to create the look you want.
is just a silly statement to make, even for LR honestly

>>4471058
just pirate C1

>>4471114
It's so cheap though and I can shoot tethered from my iPhone.

I just can't decide whether or not there's actually a benefit to using it over LR.

I wan't the objectively best tool to use with photos from my Leica.

>>4471246
there is no objectively best tool, the best tool is the one that works for you

>>4471319
When it comes to Leica, there is. AFAIK, only Capture One has proper rendering and integration for their color science.

Does anyone use GIMP? How is it?

>using Green Is My Pepper
lol lmao

>>4470754
Closest thing I can think of is CaptureOne's "Match Look" function
It's not exactly that, but it's kinda close.

>>4468718
Two different people you faggot. The worst part about /p/ is the "people". A bunch of delusional browns with shit photos larping as smug creative types. Consider sticking your head up your own ass and suffocate on shit stink.

>>4467972
It's what my Dad uses. He bought a lifetime licence years ago. I've honestly got no idea how good it is or how it compares to other products. He just uses it cause that's what he thought was good in the 90s and has stuck with it ever since.

>>4469060
Yeah, I feel like I shoot such a wide variety of scenes and subjects that I could never batch edit. I could see how someone doing event photography or similar might make use of it though.

>>4467975
No.
The last few years it's been around 2 point versions per year.

>>4471482
It's alright but not as good as MS Paint.

>>4471572
>that's what he thought was good in the 90s
my very hazy memory matches that
>>4471482
please go and stay go

File: DSC_0611_DxO.jpg (1.6 MB)

1.6 MB JPG

Anyone been using DxO lately? I took the 30-day trial and think it's pretty OK. Cancelled my lightroom subscription lately since I can't justify paying as much for LR+PS a year as a full license would cost. Other option would be Capture One, but I think DxO did a better job with the RAWs than it does. Too bad C1 trial was just 7 days so could not find time to compare them properly.
>>4465402
They literally have "ClearView Plus" which makes everything look like Ken Rockwell took the shot.
>>4465134
It's fine, at least for my NEF files. Looks pretty much the same as C1, nothing weird going on. Color editing is a bit off there though, and the images get saturated a bit much for my liking.

Then again, I could research how to pirate LRC and just get the PureRaw from DxO. That could be a pretty permanent solution. Picrel ken rockwell slider at max.

>>4471802
> nothing weird going on.
> the images get saturated a bit much for my liking.
It's either one or the other isn"t it?

I use NX Studio because it is the only fully featured converter that handles NEF files properly.

>>4471837
>handles NEF files properly
lolno, just the one that gives you a perfectly matched camera JPG

>>4471837
This. …well sort of. Nik’s native software runs slow as shitballs but it does perfectly remove all distortion bc the same aspie incels who engineered the cameras & lenses built their geometry into the softies too. So I use NX for ingest, to get a perfectly processed raw file, then save them shits as .tiff files for working & archive the raws off, bc tiff supports everything, all but depths & color modes, lossless data compression, layers, everything photochop saves in a psd. I’ll manipulate those in Lightroom for work & C1 for art projects, & if I need to view them outside the apps I can prepare them to be able to do that too. They all live organized on 2.5 TB of my workstation, with a full backup sync’d automatically to an exfat partition on my laptop (over wifi), so if I grab it & go, I know it’s always up to date. I use a cracked Lightroom on the windows side only bc I never let win10 connect to the internet, and fuck no I’m not letting Adobe shit & piss their crapware all over my Mac installation. No fucking way, the Mac side is perfectly clean and will stay that way, as the side that connects to the internet, though pretty locked down with littlesnitch etc.

>>4472002
Overcomplicated workflow

>>4471802
>Capture One, but I think DxO did a better job with the RAWs than it does
Must be while all the professionals use DxO instead of Capture One

>>4472006
>compootors sound complicated
Ok zoomer. jfc it could not be any more simple. And change introduces incompatibilities and loss of function that require more complex workarounds. This is about the most fast & effortless thing I doo on a computer, its almost entirely automated.

>>4472045
>extra unnecessary steps means I know how to use a computer
if you want to waste time and storage, more power to you

Luminar neo has a humble bundle. 21 bucks for a perpetual license with a year of updoots.

>>4473215
YOU TOO CAN JOIN HIS GROWING FAMILY WITH THIS COST EFFECTIVE PROGRAM

>>4473215
Picked it up. Honestly looks like it does too much to an image(replacing your clouds?) but I'm interested in seeing how the AI works with automatically detecting the area it should mask like eyes or the background.

>>4473215
I bought it and it's not great, kind of sluggish. Not as sluggish with any changes as Rawtherapee but I don't like some stuff, like how rotating works

I learned that some people just up and transfer their shit directly from camera to phone, edit it with an app and that's about it.
Is lightroom on android even any good? I'll be honest I'm getting kinda tired of the camera RAW to PC editor to phone process that I'm doing just to post them.
Another thing that bothers me is HDR. No not, HDR, HDR. I mean display HDR. All I find about properly uploading pictures to a place like instagram is that it is supported, but a bit of a mess to get it right. I keep seeing this Greg Benz guy advertising his photoshop plugin that makes the process easy but I'm not willing to pay for photoshop and certainly not 30 bucks for this shit.

>>4474059
>I'm getting kinda tired of the camera RAW to PC editor to phone process that I'm doing just to post them.
I set up a share folder on my NAS at home that I just drag stuff into, and on the phone it's as easy as copying it over via an android app like CX File Browser. Even easier if you set up automatic syncing like I have and it just makes a local copy on the phone the moment I put pictures in the folder.

>Another thing that bothers me is HDR
The inconsistencies across all the possible devices your photo is likely to be viewed on can not be avoided, if you are posting publicly to social media. That goes for HDR screens as well. If you optimise for HDR then SDR suffers. You may as well keep things standard and shoot for 100% sRGB coverage and that's that.
It's the same shit that happens when you edit photos on a HDR monitor; it's brighter than it really is, and the color accuracy is out the window.

Save yourself the headache and forget it. Without a controlled workflow and output devices, there's no point. Maybe if you were displaying things on HDR monitors in your home like those smart albums then it would be worth.

>>4474059
I have a pirated LR on my tablet but I rerely use it and frequently edit with Snapseed instead.

>>4474062
Yeah I think HDR display wise is just not worth it outside of videos and some games. For editing it's just giving me a headache.

>>4473215
I tried one of those (ON maybe?), and I don't think they are good unless you are really into sky replacement and such. At which point I think these programs should also let you replace people in the scene with scantly dressed anime girls. Maybe they already do.

Thoughts on editing on ultrawide?
>>4473215
>21 bucks
Still hardly worth it desu.

>>4474468
After having made the mistake of buying it indeed it's just not worth it. It's sluggish, UI looks too fucking fruity. I'm constantly looking for shit that isn't there. It's all AI this AI that. Oh well. Might stick to ART I guess since it works on linux

>>4474742
>ART
Say what now?

>>4474743
You know,
https://art.pixls.us/
ART.

>>4474744
>https://art.pixls.us/
neat

>>4474745
Yeah, my only issue is that for some reason I can't open files directly with ART, only folders (on Windows). It won't launch the program. Rawtherapee doesn't seem to have this bug.

>>4467972
I had never heard of this until I saw this post, so I downloaded the trial.
I have to say, I like it. It is very fast, which helps a lot with library management. The raw development so far has been good. I haven't tried their editing features past developing. Thanks for bringing this up!

>>4466298
whats trumpfags been doing with charlie kirk jokes?

Couple questions. How does culling feature in c1 work, because I thought it's to delete shit but it won't let me delete anything. How is that culling? Maybe I'm just retarded (probably).
Second question, is there anything similar or on par with affinity photo 2 that doesn't use a sub? These faggots seem to be going the subscription model route and I was gonna buy it on black friday for a discount but now it seems I can't.

>>4475707
Culling is just going through your images, you would cull and then delete after. You can use flags or star ratings for selections. I never bother deleting raws.

>>4475715
do you import everything you shoot or do you select what you import and nuke what doesn't make it into c1?

>>4467972
I think I recall using that about 25 years ago.

>>4475716
I always import everything directly to C1. I don't see any reason do delete, I just mark the good images and go from there.

>>4475771
wtf do you have infinite space or something? You even keep the missed shots or misfires or test shots of a shoe?

I use only command line tools.

>>4475888
Hard drive space is very cheap and I have plenty. 30 mins of video can take up the same space as +10k images.
Deleting just takes more effort than it's worth for me.

is pixelmator pro on par with affinity photo 2?

See, I first started out with rawtherapee, because people seemed to dislike darktable, but holy shit is rawtherapee sluggish in comparison. Darktable is a bit overwhelming for me and surely it's getting a bit difficult to get used to it, but I can move a slider and the preview won't be laggy.

>>4462455
Thoughts on Ansel, the fork of Darktable?

OK just been testing Luminar Neo a little, I think I would prefer to use Instagram filters to process my images.

I've got a capture one question. What is the difference between using the vignette slider vs the light falloff slider?

>>4476987
Ansel is not very active in development afaik, they're quite behind Darktable (main) git branch

Ansel was born out of a French maintainer's descent into madness that the rest of the Darktable team was going in a way he didn't agree with so I wouldn't use it unless you explicitly agree with the developer of Ansel on what Darktable should be and have read his manifesto
it also used to be a lot faster than Darktable was, not anymore but that was kinda cool at the time

>>4477276
Okay, just checked the Git, I was lying, they might not have feature parity with Darktable but development is in fact active.

>>4462455
I just teied the new NX Studio. It's actually surprisingly good.
It's just sad it doesn't have better masking tools.

well affinity is fucked with this """free""" bullshit. What the fuck is there to use that isn't photoshop or this shit for touching up photos?

>>4479490
Darktable

I just noticed Capture One renamed their product tiers and the Perpetual license is just called the Pro License now.
Has anything about what it entitles you changed or was it just a move to align the naming with their subscription tiers?

File: capture one linux.png (78.3 KB)

78.3 KB PNG

See maybe it's me, but I don't get it. 5 years ago maybe, sure. But these days I don't understand what is so difficult about just letting people use a compatibility layer and making a few tweaks to ensure the rough edges are gone. Is their program so truly special and unique that it would warrant making a new application from scratch?

>>4479590
The third is the real reason, they're sugarcoating liability basically. You can't guarantee it'll "just werk" in a system as customizable as Linux so their reputation is on the line.

>>4479590
this is in fact why I STOPPED using c1. It's probably marginally better as a RAW processor than DT, but I loathe using windows to the point that it was just not worth it to me anymore. I use Darktable now exclusively and find it just as capable but with a larger learning curve

>>4479602
I doubt they care, you already paid the license.

>>4479602
>just as capable but with a larger learning curve
Considering I haven't used RAW processors for long enough to have "learned" how to use them, would you recommend darktable over rawtherapee?
While I find it convoluted it's not like I'm getting shit expertly done with any software at the moment. I haven't even touched Lightroom.

>>4479603
the 6 month or whatever one, sure. I also don't care if they care, it's for my quality of life, not to own them or something.

>>4479604
I would, DT is better in every conceivable way over RT as far as I can tell, much better and more rich features, less laggy, can do much more, but again probably a little more complicated to properly learn

>>4479604
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMbDlOwmmQnkRmcb2_5WERg


watch this channel to learn, this guy is a true artist when it comes to photo editing and extremely capable at using and explaining darktable

>>4479607
thanks anon I will check this shit

>>4479607
that guy is a magician, I aspire to become as good as him one day

for most photographer i think that snapseed is enough

>>4479604
RawPee is pretty cool, easy to learn. But I switched to DT because
1.DT has masks, RawPee doesn't
2.RawPee is slow as fuck. DT has a dedicated culling mode that's fast and convenient.

>>4462457
>>4462457
Does it have cloud storage so that you can sync your images and access them both on phone and PC?
Also, Linux friendly?

>>4479821
Why would I talk like that? That's a bit strange to be a Zach.

File: kWJB2s1UOohOF8iSSHhTXISz6SQ.jpg (17.2 KB)

17.2 KB JPG

>>4462455
>be me
>trying out alternatives to RawTherapee
>download and install darktable
>run it
>it immediately crashes
>kill the process in task manager and uninstall it
>download lightroom classic
>log into my photo editing software
>mfw
>read the data collection notification
>notice I will also be installing Adobe CC and I have no choice otherwise
>yeet that shit off my computer instead of installing it
>look at capture one website
>download free trial
>log in again
>mfw
>get into the photo editor
>wheres_muh_fodos.jpg
>click around on the file browser tab until I find a sync option
>locate my pictures folder
>"import 24768 images?"
>click yes
>surf da web while I wait
>five minutes later my laptop fan is making jet engine sounds
>click back to capture one
>"generated 252 of 24768 image previews"
>open task manager
>kill it
>uninstall
I'm so sorry RawPee, I'll never leave you sweet baby, not as long as I live
and I woulda had to pay for CaptureOne in a week too

>>4481359
least retarded rawtheraPEE user

>>4462455
>>4462461
>>4462464
>>4464562
what's the current meta on pirating lightroom for windows?
do i have to use one of the versions from 10 years ago, or can i get one of the recent ones without downloading ransomware?

>>4480572
Your schizophernia is reaching unfathomable levels.

>>4462485
>Luminar
Neo is shit, I used it for like 10min on my tablet.
Luminar4 and Aurora on my Mac are bloody brilliant

>>4479607
this guy singlehandedly sold me on darktable

>>4466814
I've been using on1 for several years now. I like it. Nice workflow, great integration of catalog, basic ai exposure control, noise reduction, etc. I don't have to use separate programs. They make improvements every year in their filtering accuracy and detailed editing of portraits. It's not without its moles, but for me it's fine.

>>4479607
>>4493600
should i just start from episode 1 if i have nfi how to use this program?