[Bryce K]

My understanding is AS Pro 2 is supposed to be a little faster than LR5 but wondering if there are any opinions as to learning curve/ease of use for more casual users?

[DeadJohn]

I think the learning curves are similar. It's been a long time since I compared Aftershot to Lightroom, but both products have kept the same general user interfaces as they added features.

I used to be a devoted Bibble user and migrated when it became Aftershot. A Bibble bug with magenta highlights continued into Aftershot, so with no fix in sight I jumped ship to Lightroom (I think the highlight bug has since been resolved). My memory is that AS and LR were roughly equivalent in terms of their user interfaces and features. AS was faster but occasionally crashed, LR was a little slower but never crashed. YMMV.

[jatrax]

One other thing to consider is the amount of training resources available online. Particularly important if you are just starting. I've never used AF pro so I've no opinion on the relative merits of the program, but I have found the enormous amount of instructional support for LR to be a real plus.

[Bryce K]

One other thing to consider is the amount of training resources available online. Particularly important if you are just starting. I've never used AF pro so I've no opinion on the relative merits of the program, but I have found the enormous amount of instructional support for LR to be a real plus.

Thank you both for the replies. Good point on the support. Will do a little research on that point before making a purchase.

[Manituwa]

ASP is much better with its auto exposure. Lightroom too often over exposes and you have no control over it. On the other hand, there are times when ASP can't match Lightroom output, and file handling is better in Lightroom. ASP doesn't have nearly as many lens profiles, and custom profiles don't always work. ASP is faster - at lot! And I really like being able to click on the slider and have it move 10 each time. If I could only have one, it would have to be Lightroom. But ASP is so cheap, you can skip two trips to McDonalds and own it.

[T Evergreen]

Aftershot Pro has quite a few features, especially if you take a look at all of the plug-ins that are available -- AfterShot Pro Plug-ins. But, I found that Lightroom has much, much better highlight recovery and corrections for CA/fringing. Don't forget that you can get a 30 day free trial with both to see which meets your needs. Also note that there is an Aftershot Pro 2 version and an Aftershot 2 version, with the former having a much better feature set.

[DeadJohn]

@Bryce K, assuming you don't already own LR, version 6 is rumored to be out later this month. The rumors seem credible, come from multiple sources, and have included videos showing new features (HDR and panoramas). If this thread convinces you to go with LR consider waiting and order LR6 if you don't mind being an early adopter.

[jatrax]

Whichever way you go, remember that the time invested in learning a software package of this complexity far, far exceeds the cost. I've been using LR almost daily for 3 years now and still learn new tricks. There is no way I would want to change software now after the time invested in learning it.

So take advantage of the 30 day free trials and choose wisely

[emalvick]

Whichever way you go, remember that the time invested in learning a software package of this complexity far, far exceeds the cost. I've been using LR almost daily for 3 years now and still learn new tricks. There is no way I would want to change software now after the time invested in learning it.

So take advantage of the 30 day free trials and choose wisely

While I agree, I've found that once you learn one software quite well, the change to other software isn't that difficult. I used Silkypix Pro daily for a couple of years, but switched to LR without any issues. Of course it still takes some investment, it was worth it.

I also find that in general, no one RAW conversion software is suitable for everything. While I feel like I can do almost everything with LR and the user base and information available are wonderful, I've recently added DxO to the number 2 spot of RAW conversion software. I'm finding that it is better than LR in many respects. I only feel it lacks for the ability of applying local adjustments (gradients, brushes, etc) and perhaps slightly in editing multiple edits at once. However, it's basic adjustments are nearly spot on with little intervention from me, which saves me time in my workflow that most typically goes one image at a time.

I think it's a bit short-sighted to blindly stand by any one software or brand without making considerations for the fact that something better could come along. But, I also love to learn new software.

[jatrax]

But, I also love to learn new software.

I used to be that way when I was younger. Now I just want to get the work done as quickly as possible. I've heard good things about Dxo but honestly for what I do improving the image another 5 or 10% just is not going to matter. If I have a really special image it will go into PS for final editing. But that is very rare, 1 in 5,000 shots maybe.

A good point on using different conversion software, but LR to me is my workflow, which is far more than just the RAW conversion. Everything starts and ends there, even if the image goes out to PS or to NIK for something. So I might try another RAW processor at some point but I would still work from within LR. Cataloging, keywording and title / caption are just as and arguably more important than the RAW conversion.

[emalvick]

I used to be that way when I was younger. Now I just want to get the work done as quickly as possible. I've heard good things about Dxo but honestly for what I do improving the image another 5 or 10% just is not going to matter. If I have a really special image it will go into PS for final editing. But that is very rare, 1 in 5,000 shots maybe.

A good point on using different conversion software, but LR to me is my workflow, which is far more than just the RAW conversion. Everything starts and ends there, even if the image goes out to PS or to NIK for something. So I might try another RAW processor at some point but I would still work from within LR. Cataloging, keywording and title / caption are just as and arguably more important than the RAW conversion.

And the one thing I like on DxO is that it knows that about LR. It builds in a plugin. DxO has actually sped up my workflow when it comes to RAW conversion. I rarely have to make any adjustments. But it doesn't catalog at all (a good thing in my opinion). LR on the otherhand always requires me to make adjustments as few of its auto settings are right for me. While I am good with LR and can still process many images quickly, with DxO I basically need almost no intervention on my part except to perhaps decide whether I want to use its PRIME noise reduction. Caveat is that, the software is a bit slower than LR.

My ulterior motive is that I actually catalog using a completely different software because I never started with LR, and LR is too limiting for my catalog needs to switch to it. I still jump from LR for processing because it can interface with my catalog software, but my own opinion is that LR does a lot of things, but it has limits to all of them.

Back to AFtershot... I wanted to try it, but never had a chance because it never could play with DNG files that came from Adobe software. Unfortunately, many of my older images were converted to DNG. I am a bit picky and don't like the idea of buying RAW processing software that can't play with all my files. Afterall, the biggest benefit I've found as the software improves via upgrades is in their handling of my old K10d files. Generally, my K3 files require very little work, so I evaluate most software on how it handles those K10d files.