Review of Lightroom/Photoshop Alternatives: This is a very informative review: https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/tested-10-photoshop-alternatives/...

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

This is a very informative review:
https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/tested-10-photoshop-alternatives/

bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA

Interesting article and fun to speed read.

"None of the programs I tested ticked all the boxes in providing all the functions and image quality of the Adobe products."

"....as I’ve described, none of the programs tick all the boxes. Each has strengths, but also weaknesses, if not outright deficiencies. I don’t feel any can fully replace Adobe products for features and image quality."

Maybe there is good reason that Adobe profits continue to grow and their CC subscribers are estimated to be above 10,000,000! Adobe can still commit blunders!

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

jackpinoh wrote:

This is a very informative review:
https://petapixel.com/2017/12/15/tested-10-photoshop-alternatives/

This is a great articel. Enlightening. Thanks for sharing Jack.

Dan R Loc: Way Way Way Upstate NY

Good information, thanks for sharing.

jbmauser Loc: Roanoke, VA

Very good info, I have referred it to the membership of my Photo club. We are trying to pull all the novices to shoot RAW. Thanks for posting the link.

bfstuff

bsprague wrote:

br "None of the programs I tested ticked all... (show quote)

It's a lousy review article! It compares a suite of four Adobe programs to individual programs from other vendors. I recently bought Corel PSP, which came with their After Shot program. Together they do all I need. This article is only reviewing After Shot! Same with other programs reviewed. This is an unfair comparison! It is like reviewing vehicles by comparing a whole car to another manufacturer's engine alone. Totally USELESS!!!

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

It seems to me the point of the article was to find things that Adobe products did that the others didn't, or didn't do as well. There appears to have been no effort to find what the other products did that Adobe didn't do, or not as well. Having used GIMP and Photoshop in approximately equal measures, I find there are some things that are easier in one than the other, and vice versa.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

htbrown wrote:

It seems to me the point of the article was to find things that Adobe products did that the others didn't, or didn't do as well. There appears to have been no effort to find what the other products did that Adobe didn't do, or not as well. Having used GIMP and Photoshop in approximately equal measures, I find there are some things that are easier in one than the other, and vice versa.

Post-processing requirements are not the same for everyone. Anyone interested in post processing needs to decide what changes they want to be able to make to their photos in both the near term and in the long run. They should read all of the reviews they can find on-line. They should view how-to videos on YouTube for applications they are interested in. They should also download trial copies of post-processing applications they are interested in to try them out. It is useful to develop one's own test images and processing plan before doing so. I bought and tested seven different post-processing programs. I finally settled on Lr/Ps with DxO PhotoLab as a plugin. I'm not saying that is the answer for everyone. But if you don't do a systematic thorough job of assessing the options against your needs, you may end up with a product that you outgrow and are unable to transition out of because of incompatibilities between applications.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

htbrown wrote:

It seems to me the point of the article was to find things that Adobe products did that the others didn't, or didn't do as well. There appears to have been no effort to find what the other products did that Adobe didn't do, or not as well. Having used GIMP and Photoshop in approximately equal measures, I find there are some things that are easier in one than the other, and vice versa.

Actually, I thought the author did a pretty good job of establishing "his" requirements and assessing the alternative applications against those requirements, as well as pointing our specific capabilities that may be of interest to others with different requirements. Sounds like you found a combination that works for your requirements.

htbrown Loc: San Francisco Bay Area

It was not my intent to advocate for any one solution over another. I only wished to point out (what I perceived as) a lack of symmetry in how the products were evaluated. I agree that the best solution is the one that works best for you. You're not going to learn that from an article that has biases, conscious or otherwise.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

htbrown wrote:

It was not my intent to advocate for any one solution over another. I only wished to point out (what I perceived as) a lack of symmetry in how the products were evaluated. I agree that the best solution is the one that works best for you. You're not going to learn that from an article that has biases, conscious or otherwise.

You missed my point. The author was evaluating applications specifically for astrophotographers.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

bfstuff wrote:

It's a lousy review article! It compares a suite of four Adobe programs to individual programs from other vendors. I recently bought Corel PSP, which came with their After Shot program. Together they do all I need. This article is only reviewing After Shot! Same with other programs reviewed. This is an unfair comparison! It is like reviewing vehicles by comparing a whole car to another manufacturer's engine alone. Totally USELESS!!!

Totally useless in your opinion. The author stated his intent at the very beginning of the article. And that was to test for noise mostly and some ease of use. In my opinion it was a very good article and very informative because he did exactly what he said he was going to do. To do as you suggest would take a very long time and several people Ttherefore several opinions. JMO