wds0410 wrote:
But it isn't just $50 savings, its more than that over time. LR costs $120 per year ad infinitum versus $69 for Luminar one time and then your choice if you upgrade from there.
Depends on what you want doesn't it? I agree that LR/PS is probably a better all around solution but that PS does come with a steep, steep learning curve.
The "choice" is key, and misleading. Lifecycle cost is what you pay, over time, for ownership of a "permanent" license - and this costs varies from user to user. My cost is fixed at $120/yr, for both Lr and Ps - pretty much the best software out there for professionals and enthusiasts alike.
The Lr/Ps bundle - a raw editor AND a raster image editor - makes a big difference for many. Raw editors are not engineered for lots of local editing, while raster editors excel at it.
Photoshop is admittedly a complex application - however, there are dozens of things I do on a regular basis that just can't be done in a raw converter alone - Lr, C1, On1, Luminar, etc - just can't cut it.
Among the things I do are photo restoration and high-end retouching (for another photographer that works in the fashion industry) so my needs are a bit more advanced. However, trading a little "learning moment time" for struggling trying to make something happen in an application that isn't designed for what I need to do is an absolutely better use of my time.
Here is a simple little restoration I did a few years ago. It was scanned (not by me) and provided as a jpeg. None of this is possible in Luminar, On1 etc.
In my experience software with an easy learning curve provides a correspondingly mediocre result. I have used Photoshop since the mid-90s, and I also used Paint Shop Pro for a bit, when I couldn't justify the cost of upgrading my Photoshop. I still don't know everything there is to know about Photoshop, nor do I need everything that it does. But things like Luminosity Masking, restoration, accurate masks made by using channels, custom brushes to paint in hair, fur (on animal portraits), frequency separation for evening out skin color and editing facial flaws without affecting skin texture - the list goes on. These things are indispensable to me, and not easily duplicated in other software. I regard the output out of most raw converters to be excellent quality proofs - but true photo-finishing needs the pixel-level accuracy of a raster editor - something that Luminar and others lack.
For what I get for some restorations or retouch jobs, that $50 is nothing.
I do cabinetmaking for a real hobby - and while I can get most things done with a cheap Ryobi contractor saw, I much prefer the accuracy and speed of setup of my 12" Powermatic that I picked up when a woodworking shop went out of business. Set up with a Forrest sawblade, it cuts through rock maple like it was balsawood. There is something to be said for quality tools - physical or software.