Free software like Lighroom (Page 3): I don't find GIMP really has all that much of a steep learning curve when compared to other editing programs. Perhaps a very early version of GIMP...

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Bultaco wrote:

GIMP is free, pretty steep learning curve.

I don't find GIMP really has all that much of a steep learning curve when compared to other editing programs. Perhaps a very early version of GIMP did, but definitely not since the release of version 2.4, over ten years ago.

w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

Gene51 wrote:

There is no complete substitute for Lightroom, especially for the price you are looking to pay. Most cameras come with bundled software that costs nothing to use.

I just can't get my head around people who spend $100s to $1000s on camera gear and computers and don't want to pay for software . . . SMH . . .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

johngault007 wrote:

Because some use Linux and prefer software native to the OS. It's all about that beautiful thing called personal choice.

Cheers!

Not sure what personal choice has to do with this. His choice is to get free software. With the list of gear he has in his signature, I am pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with cost. And this is what I find perplexing.

Cheers!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

...and a very convoluted menu system.
--Bob

Bultaco wrote:

GIMP is free, pretty steep learning curve.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

johngault007 wrote:

i "Darktable is an open source photography w... (show quote)

And it does, in similar fashion to Lightroom, use a Sqlite database structure for file management. But it is not nearly as refined and powerful as Lightroom. For instance, deleting a folder or merely changing the name of a folder is clumsy, requiring multiple steps. Most of the other metadata recording and searching functions are more or less similar. Still, LR is the gold standard.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

DirtFarmer wrote:

Some people are just cheap frugal. They don't like recurring expenses, particularly when they don't use something consistently.
To quote a legislator from a couple decades ago: "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon you're talking about significant amounts of money".

I am cheap (frugal) - and place emphasis on value and life cycle costing. Blame it on my mother - she never wasted an opportunity to reinforce the notion that if you buy something that is cheap when there is a more expensive alternative that is better made and more functional, regrets will follow. When I made the decision to subscribe it was purely based on cost, after having spend $100s on Adobe software and alternatives in the past. I waited until the price settled down to $10/mo - it had been quite a bit higher initially - $30/mo for just Photoshop and it did not include Lightroom. It's been over 5 years - I've spent just $600 for both Lightroom and Photoshop. The last time I purchased a license for Photoshop it was an upgrade from CS4 to CS6 and it cost me $500, which I did before Adobe changed its upgrade policy to include upgrading from older versions. Lightroom was still $150. So of course, when LR became bundled in and the price dropped to $10/mo I jumped on it. To date, maintaining my software current - through the 6 major upgrades for Photoshop and the 4 upgrades for Lightroom would likely have cost me several times more than the subscription cost I have so far paid.

So, this cheap guy got a deal and a a half by selecting a software delivery and payment system that was significantly cheaper than the old model. And the software is always up to date. I wish all software was on subscription - I'd be saving a fortune.

Bill_de Loc: US

Gene51 wrote:

Not sure what personal choice has to do with this. His choice is to get free software. With the list of gear he has in his signature, I am pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with cost. And this is what I find perplexing.

Cheers!

You shouldn't be perplexed Gene. Some people buy Corvettes and never run them through their paces, but they are happy.

I spend more on gear and less on software than many here. Although I used to spend a lot on software, time and money, I no longer have a real interest in more than basic post processing.

It is personal choice. It's just that not everybody makes the same choices as you.

---

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Gene51 wrote:

There is no complete substitute for Lightroom, especially for the price you are looking to pay. Most cameras come with bundled software that costs nothing to use.

I just can't get my head around people who spend $100s to $1000s on camera gear and computers and don't want to pay for software . . . SMH . . .

Ha ha - have you not heard of SOOC?

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

There is nothing just like Lightroom - or any other processing software. Virtually and processing program can crop, adjust exposure, contrast, and sharpness. That's all that most peoplpe want, so almost any program will work just fine - once you learn how to use it.

Free -
https://www.darktable.org/
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59324818
https://www.lightstalking.com/how-to-edit-rawtherapee/
https://www.lightstalking.com/free-photography-software/
http://www.techradar.com/news/the-best-free-photo-editor
http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-best-photoshop-alternatives-that-are-totally-free-5974500
http://lightzoneproject.org/

Others -
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/best-lightroom-alternatives
http://digital-photography-school.com/a-beginners-guide-to-choosing-the-right-post-production-software/
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/photo-editing
https://www.reviews.com/photo-editing-software/
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-photo-editing-software,review-1972.html
http://www.redmondpie.com/best-adobe-photoshop-alternatives-for-windows-and-mac-list Affinity
http://www.shutterbug.com/content/affinity-photo-software-review-has-photoshop-met-its-match#d1c5lY5EQ03QoLjh.97
http://www.diyphotography.net/affinity-photo-can-give-adobe-run-money/
https://photographypro.com/photo-editing/

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

bleirer wrote:

I see you have a Canon 5d and a Nikon d850. I know Canon has the free Digital Photo Professional that works in a similar way to Lightroom, allowing you to rate and flag your images and adjust the image with sliders. I'm sure Nikon has something similar. For about $100 you can get Photoshop Elements which is pretty good. But you might rethink Lightroom/photoshop, at $10 per month it is pretty amazing.

Over two years that is $240. Eight years is $1000. It is not live now pay later - it's pay for ever and live later (if Adobe decides you can).

junglejim1949 Loc: Sacramento,CA

Jbravi wrote:

Can anyone please suggest me a free software like lightroom or similar cheap standalone software? Thank you all.

I have been using Photoscape X, which is a free software program, where you can edit RAW files. I did go ahead and upgrade to the Pro-version for a one time fee of $40. It has worked well so far. Easy to learn with a little practice.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Gene51 wrote:

Not sure what personal choice has to do with this. His choice is to get free software. With the list of gear he has in his signature, I am pretty sure it doesn't have anything to do with cost. And this is what I find perplexing.

Cheers!

"I just can't get my head around people who spend $100s to $1000s on camera gear and computers and don't want to pay for software . . . SMH"

You asked why people who spend a great deal of money on camera equipment don't want to pay for software. I was simply giving you one example of why I chose Open Source over paid software. The primary reason is my choice in operating systems. I have absolutely no issue spending money when I have to, but if there is an open source solution that fits my requirements I'm going to support that initiative before find other alternatives. According to my wife my hobbies have a tendency to get very expensive

So again, at least my reasons are not financial, because my level of experience still hasn't surpassed the software I chose, which happens to be pretty decent software. In fact, I am guessing that it will be many years before I need the "Golden Standard" and pretty user interface of Adobe products.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Delderby wrote:

Over two years that is $240. Eight years is $1000. It is not live now pay later - it's pay for ever and live later (if Adobe decides you can).

Your successive post do not take into account several things...

Initial cost of the software
Cost of every upgrade
Being stuck with an older version less capable until you have paid for the upgrade
You DO NOT own the software (same as subscription)
In eight year your total cost will be way above your measly $960,00

Results? You always will be behind when it comes to software.

As to your SOOC statement. That is a blatant fallacy as every outstanding photograph is the result of a controlled workflow that includes post processing. Also SOOC is different depending of your need and technical expertise. Use expose to the right (ETTR) by example or even worse for you, UniWB where everything is green when it is unprocessed. Then you have the invariant sensors used by many cameras now. To exploit this still new technology you must also use post processing.

For these reasons subscription are not only less expensive in the short and long term but this way of getting always updated software allows the instant use of the newest camera technology.

$10 is cheap considering all the advantages.

Now, please consider the price of your equipment and the cost per each shot. It will be in the pennies, rarely more if you are a burst shooter. But the price will rise dramatically when you print. And before you print, what do you need? Post processing. So, SOOC, once again - as promoted by you -, is just another way of telling folks you do not understand modern photography.

If SOOC means you take care to optimize the initial shot, you are correct but that is only the beginning of the process to create a photograph. If SOOC is an end all by itself then one turns into a snap shooter. The captures have a sentimental value, nothing more.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

Gene51 wrote:

And it does, in similar fashion to Lightroom, use a Sqlite database structure for file management. But it is not nearly as refined and powerful as Lightroom. For instance, deleting a folder or merely changing the name of a folder is clumsy, requiring multiple steps. Most of the other metadata recording and searching functions are more or less similar. Still, LR is the gold standard.

I can't really compare and contrast the usage, and honestly, don't really want to. People choose what they want, and doesn't change how I sleep at night. But , I think you got my quotes from two separate applications mixed up. I said Digikam uses MySql, which in my opinion, is a pretty strong asset manager. And I mentioned the only choice behind that was the "just in case" scalability factor.

billc987

digiKam is another open source package