OT: Photo editing software I would OWN?

[makoti]

I have a very old version of Lightroom, which worked well for me, but I want to update. If I try to do LR, I have to move to a subscription based model. I'd rather not pay $120 a year for it and never actually own it.

What do you have that is similar (or better. I'll take better) that doesn't require you to rent it? I don't need to power of a full-on Photoshop program, but editing, creating layers, and doing HDR stacking would be musts.

EDIT to ask about freeware: Anyone use DARKTABLE or RAW THERAPEE?

[unterhausen]

Have you tried Gimp?

[RoosterCogset]

Subscribed. I'm still on my owned version of LR and Adobe photoshop. No subscription but they still work with my camera's files (which ain't too new but works well enough). But am curious what there is out there that doesn't require a subscription.

[.RJ]

I understand the concern about the software ownership... but... the new versions of Lightroom are really and truly amazing. Really its wonderful.

The new features they've rolled into the software make photo editing faster, easier and better and every few months there's a new thing - no waiting 1-3 years for a new version, you get the new stuff as soon as its ready and its pushed out. Things that would take an hour in photoshop are done in minutes in LR now.

100% just make the leap, its worth it if you're at all serious about photography.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by .RJ

I understand the concern about the software ownership... but... the new versions of Lightroom are really and truly amazing. Really its wonderful.

The new features they've rolled into the software make photo editing faster, easier and better and every few months there's a new thing - no waiting 1-3 years for a new version, you get the new stuff as soon as its ready and its pushed out. Things that would take an hour in photoshop are done in minutes in LR now.

100% just make the leap, its worth it if you're at all serious about photography.

I'm seeing this take in quite a few places I'm looking. Might come to that.

[gavingould]

been using LR since version 1.0, and while I may not like the subscription model… it does give me all the latest features, supports all the newest cameras, and runs on all the most updated operating systems, including mobile - I do the vast majority of my editing on an iPad Pro.

I think Capture One still does a non-subscription version? But it might be out of date in a year, not handle newer cameras, not work on future operating systems, etc.

[CSKeller]

I liked Lightroom when you could simply buy the program and have it on your computer. I hated that they moved to a subscription service and all of it 'in the cloud' and it seemed to require Internet to use.

I moved to ON1 and love it!! It works great, easy to use and is yours for use on 2 computers I think. Cost is reasonable to me and I can choose to upgrade if I want. My current version is a couple years old so I may get the updated version later this year.

https://www.on1.com/

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by CSKeller

I liked Lightroom when you could simply buy the program and have it on your computer. I hated that they moved to a subscription service and all of it 'in the cloud' and it seemed to require Internet to use.

You still "have it on your computer", you dont need an internet connection (other than cloud backups) and you can stop the subscription anytime, its not like the software is bricked if you stop paying for it, you just stop getting software updates. Good grief.

I am not sure where the aversion for the subscription model comes from - going on cost, its really not much different if you planned to upgrade with each new version and you get the new features much faster instead of waiting 12-18 months for the next release. And if you use any of the other apps its much cheaper than previously buying them individually.

Again, if you're serious, its the best tool available and the wealth of knowledge available on youtube makes it very easy to get the most out of it. Intersecting masks is really an amazing time saver.

[benb]

I rented LR for a long time I have a stupidly huge collection of photos.

I stopped in 2020. The program had become so bloated and slow and the Adobe tech support forums were full of people complaining they just spent $6k on a brand new super high end computer and LR was still super slow. Adobe was pretty much telling them they were cheap and needed a better computer than they just bought, which was outrageous.

You gotta really decide how bad you want this. If you have a Mac Apple Photos is the remnants of Aperture, and it has pretty excellent performance. You would then need to add on something extra for layers and some of the other stuff. There are lots of programs you can buy on the app store and actually own that can fill in the functionality. Using Apple Photos has library management issues if you have terabytes of photos like I do, but Lightroom basically has all those issues too, and you pay for it to have those issues. Basically with either program you really need to think about breaking your collection into time based libraries and selection based libraries, which takes a lot of time. Theoretically if I had no job I'd spend a few weeks breaking my photos down into year by year libraries. Then I'd go through and select all the best photos in each one and export them into a portfolio library. Once you went through that the ongoing work to maintain it is not bad.

I have tried darktable as well. The biggest issue there is what are you doing with your photos? I have a really nice printer. Linux + a high end printer is kind of a waste of time. It would be one thing for me to join the community with darktable and help fix a bug here or there that effected me. I don't have the time for it, but I could do it. At one point I worked on an HP printer driver for linux too. But with the time I have now, if I want to use my fancy printer to print photos then linux is kind of a waste of time. Realistically any time you use linux to facilitate some kind of computer hobby you are not really spending your whole time on the hobby, you are going to become a linux hobbyist as well.

If you have a ton of photos you need to think about backup too. I have them on a NAS, but I don't have a cloud backup, I have never managed to find a way to do that which didn't cost an arm and a leg and wouldn't also require me to have a ton of time to do the whole thing. My library is vastly too big to upload to a cloud backup. Last time I looked I couldn't do the hard drive start either, but it's been a few years, maybe that is possible now if one of them can send a 4TB HDD to your house and you can mail it back.

Cloud backups are easy if you shoot with a smartphone. If you have hundreds of thousands of DSLR RAW files not so much. Again all goes back to needing a whole bunch of free time to review and delete and categorize.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by benb

I stopped in 2020. The program had become so bloated and slow and the Adobe tech support forums were full of people complaining they just spent $6k on a brand new super high end computer and LR was still super slow. Adobe was pretty much telling them they were cheap and needed a better computer than they just bought, which was outrageous.

I think this must be an extreme case. I bought a new M1 Macbook Pro for ~1/3 that cost in 2021 and it blows through edits using Topaz in 30 seconds. Yes, the new tools are powerful and they need some laptop horsepower to run them, but you could also get similar results with a new Macbook Air for ~1/4 that cost.

Originally Posted by makoti

Not having any subscription service programs (I have very few of any kind. I hate the monthly paper cuts), I thought that if I stop paying, it all goes away. Not the case? I'm sure you lose access to everything in the cloud. If you back it up locally, you still have full useability, just no updates?

This was new to me, but, A quick google search shows that you lose access to the developer module if you stop paying, although you still have access to view/export/print all your work. So that kind of stinks, but, at the same time if you're going to continue to edit your work its the cost of doing business.

And if you think you "own" your house, let us know what happens if you stop paying the property tax bill.....even if you're not on a "subscription plan" with your bank.

[mhespenheide]

Originally Posted by .RJ

This was new to me, but, A quick google search shows that you lose access to the developer module if you stop paying, although you still have access to view/export/print all your work.

Okay, that's kind of nice. I didn't know that.

[HenryA]

An older computer with an "owned" version around version 6 is the work around. You miss some of the modern features but they are not core to use of the program.

Adobe went subscription to smooth their revenue. When your model (driven by technology advances) was a major release every couple of years, in between the releases, revenue went soft. The subscription model fixed that so they have a nice predictable revenue stream that meshes well with stock price and development costs.

Around version 6 is where the gross development of features got to around 9/10ths of usefulness. Then development turned to how best to maximize profit and away from techonology innovation. There really wasn't much new to pack under the hood so they took advantage of their monopoly position and here we are.

[.RJ]

Originally Posted by HenryA

Then development turned to how best to maximize profit and away from techonology innovation. There really wasn't much new to pack under the hood so they took advantage of their monopoly position and here we are.

At the risk of starting to sound like an Adobe shill, I would encourage you to give the new versions a try - the new features really unlock a lot of new possibilities.

[Mr. Pink]

Another big reason that Adobe went subscription was to stop the "sharing", er, stealing of their software. It was no whoop for many users to use just one set of discs or even just drag it off of one computer to an external drive and plug into another, as long as you had the serial number. Combine that with the super low student price at the time, and it was almost Napster. I was convinced they allowed that on purpose, established market dominance, bought Macromedia, and, ouila, monopoly subscriptions.

[Mr. Pink]

I don't get the "bloated" criticism. How so?