so you are thinking of leaving lightroom? (Page 4): That's why I said if you have to use it then use it. I was the same when using LR. That's why I switched. I've dropped that 10% down...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

DirtFarmer wrote:

Getting the photo right is always good but there are times when it's not possible.

That's why I said if you have to use it then use it.

DirtFarmer wrote:

Using Photoshop does increase disk usage since the files are large but memory is cheap these days. My Photoshop usage covers probably less then 10% of my images. Most work is done directly in LR.

I was the same when using LR. That's why I switched. I've dropped that 10% down to probably 1% or less.

DirtFarmer wrote:

As far as destructive editing, using LR -> PS -> LR can be nondestructive.

And it can also be destructive. If you've encountered a situation that pushes you out of LR to PS odds are what you need from PS will be destructive.

DirtFarmer wrote:

Going back to LR from PS gets saved as a separate entry in your catalog if you save as psd or tif. And you can mark PS edited images by specifying the file name in the external editing preference (I usually use the original file name with CC21 appended). PS by itself can be destructive or nondestructive depending on how you use it.

No, depending on what you do. There are functions in PS that can only be accomplished destructively. NOTE: By destructive I mean workflow destructive. I'm not referring to the concern about overwriting an original. I'm using destructive in this context to mean destructive of your work. If the software for example forces you to do your work over in order to make a change in previous editing work that you don't want to change.

DirtFarmer wrote:

And as long as you are starting with a raw file, that is not changed so you can always start over.

That's my point -- I don't want to start over. That's what I mean by destructive. If I revisit an edited image say three months after my initial edit and decide I'd like to make an additional tweak I don't want to be forced to start over. In a raw workflow Photoshop can do exactly that to you and there's no way around that except don't use PS.

DirtFarmer wrote:

Using PS can be a problem but solutions exist to minimize that.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Ysarex wrote:

...By destructive I mean workflow destructive. I'm not referring to the concern about overwriting an original. I'm using destructive in this context to mean destructive of your work. If the software for example forces you to do your work over in order to make a change in previous editing work that you don't want to change...

Thanks for the clarification.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

CHG_CANON wrote:

The grass is always greener when you organize with Lightroom.

The grass is always greener when you organize.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

frankraney wrote:

I have seen a few posts from people wanting to lea... (show quote)

Easy, I never got into Lightroom. I'm happy with full Photoshop for PP but do need to find a better image organization than chronological.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

lamiaceae wrote:

Easy, I never got into Lightroom. I'm happy with full Photoshop for PP but do need to find a better image organization than chronological.

I use a two-level organization. LR with keywords is MY organization. But since my family hasn't a clue about how to use LR, descriptive file and folder names is my secondary organization system. File names contain date and time. Folder names contain a brief description of the subject e.g. "Suzie's Birthday Party" and a year.

File names are all changed on import and stored in folders with appropriate names. It can be done in LR, but I use Downloader Pro, which allows me to set up a template for the file names and folder names. I then just enter a subject text and select the photos to download and they get renamed and stored on my disk. Import to LR is the next step for me.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=1595

thegrover Loc: Yorba Linda, CA

10 dollars a month. What did a 36 exposure roll of film cost? How much was processing it? Adjusted for inflation it would be more than 10 dollars. Spend a little time at YouTube University and you will be a LR master.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

amadjuster wrote:

Why wouldn't you try to learn it. They compliment each other and work well together. If you hate Adobe, you must buy tools at Harbor Freight.

I've bought numerous tools at Harbor Freight and they're all still working fine. I wish I could say that about my Black and Decker variable speed drill, which I bought at the B&D factory store.

Peteso Loc: Blacks Hills

I recently switched to ON1 and think it’s far better than Lightroom, with the possible exception of speed.

Bill_de Loc: US

Bayou wrote:

This forum has such a blind spot to ACDSee. The U... (show quote)

Will ACDSee keep up when new cameras come out?

--

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

thegrover wrote:

10 dollars a month. What did a 36 exposure roll of film cost? How much was processing it? Adjusted for inflation it would be more than 10 dollars. Spend a little time at YouTube University and you will be a LR master.

First time I have heard digital film processing to film this way. Very good!

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Bill_de wrote:

Will ACDSee keep up when new cameras come out?

--

They're not the fastest out with new camera support but they're reliable. They will do the same thing Adobe used to do if you buy without a subscription: once the new version is released (upgrade cost) they cut off new camera support for the old version. So buy a new camera and you're forced to upgrade the software.

It is decent software at an attractive price. File organization functions are quite good but the raw file editor is fair not excellent.

bwana Loc: Bergen, Alberta, Canada

frankraney wrote:

I have seen a few posts from people wanting to lea... (show quote)

One must also remember the $10/mth includes Photoshop and a few other packages as well as some cloud storage.

I too have tried numerous Lightroom lookalikes and have ultimately returned to Lightroom. It is mature, relatively stable, always up-to-date and does an excellent job! And at $10/mth it is a bargain.

bwa

Bill_de Loc: US

Ysarex wrote:

They're not the fastest out with new camera support but they're reliable. They will do the same thing Adobe used to do if you buy without a subscription: once the new version is released (upgrade cost) they cut off new camera support for the old version. So buy a new camera and you're forced to upgrade the software.

It is decent software at an attractive price. File organization functions are quite good but the raw file editor is fair not excellent.

Thanks. I remember when this was one of the most popular options available.

---

jimmol

I'll put in my vote for ACDSee. I've used it for many years, starting before Lightroom even existed. Along the way I tried Lightroom for a month and found it inferior. ACDSee does a good job of managing files without any need to import photos before working on them. Its Light Equalizer is excellent, unlike anything I've seen in any other editor.
In short, ACDSee has everything that I've seen anyone use in Lightroom and (in the Ultimate version) most of Photoshop too. Give it a try.

Chan Garrett

JIM H wrote:

I have been using Corel Paint Shop. Pay up front for the download, then you will keep getting offers to buy updates. I looked at Lightroom but do not use it enough to justify paying $20 a month

Why would you be paying $20.00 per month instead of the photo package which also includes Photoshop for $10.00 per month?