[BigMackCam]

I think it is always worth identifying whether the requirement is primarily editing, or primarily managing images, or both.

If my main requirement were editing images, in fairly small numbers per week, without particular long-term administration needs for them, I probably wouldn't see the point in Lightroom. (Perhaps not Photoshop either). There are plenty of good perpetual-licence editors around, and both Lightroom and Photoshop have steep learning curves.

Good analysis, Barry. That is exactly the problem. If I just want to clean up a few photos and be done CO is fine. But the long term cataloging function of LR is often a life saver and very useful if you like to go back and rework or reuse older photos or just see what you used specific cameras or lenses for in the past.

Despite being a happy "Adobe leaver", I'd completely agree, here.

Under Linux Mint 18.3, I'm using digiKam 5, Darktable 2.4.4 and GIMP 2.8. Darktable and GIMP are more-than-capable replacements for Lightroom and Photoshop in terms of RAW development and image editing - weaker in some respects, stronger in others, but mostly just as good once you become familiar with the user interfaces and different modules & tools. DigiKam 5 is perfectly decent for DAM... quite well-featured, in fact, and has some really neat capabilities - but it feels like an amateur tool. Lightroom is far more polished and streamlined in this respect...

[Mikesul]

I have considered setting up a Linux machine. Even picked the computer. But so far I have been just to lazy to get at it.

[BigMackCam]

I have considered setting up a Linux machine. Even picked the computer. But so far I have been just to lazy to get at it.

I was the same, Mike. In fact, I even installed an instance of it as dual-boot on my then-Windows-10 laptop, and started trialling Linux-based photo and image processing apps, plus general productivity tools. But I kept drifting back to Windows whenever I ran up against problems where familiarity with Adobe (and other software products) would make life easier.

It took quite a leap of faith to finally rid myself of Windows and go to a Linux-only setup, but I'm very happy I did. I won't pretend it has been entirely trouble-free, nor that I'm I 100% satisfied with every aspect of the OS or available apps. But I'm generally very happy with everything, and I can work around the annoyances.

It's very liberating to be free from Microsoft and Adobe, although I believe both make superb software, and it's subjective as to which is better. For me, Linux Mint is great, so is LibreOffice for productivity, and digiKam / Darktable / GIMP for photography are great once you get the hang of them. They're all very powerful... just a little different

[Mikesul]

I have enjoyed reading about your adventures with the new software, BigMackCam. But right now it is a bit like my enjoyment of stories about rock climbing in Yosemite. Really glad to hear about others doing it but I am not up to it at my age.

---------- Post added 07-02-18 at 01:51 PM ----------

By the way, are you a MacDonald's franchisee or do you drive a big semi?

[newmikey]

Did you leave Adobe for something else? Where did you go? Just wondering if people did really jump ship and what their experiences were like.

I never used an Adobe product to begin with seeing I've been a die-hard Linux user for almost 15 years. I'd readily admit that I probably don't know what I've missed out on either. I have had minor irritations over the years but I've never found something I couldn't do with the tools at hand. Now, with Gimp 2.10.2 and Darktable 2.4.4 that seems to be more true than ever before and in some areas using these tools on Linux actually feels more polished and smooth than on Windows (in a pinch I sometimes edit on my work laptop which has the Windows versions of the same software installed).

Besides having access to far more options than the Adobe offerings, the other tools available such as bash scripting, GMIC (whether under Gimp or from the CLI) make editing a pleasure. My only concession to paid software is NeatImage (native Linux version) which I have been using for as long as they came out with a linux version. The update policy is decent and the cost limited.

[BigMackCam]

I have enjoyed reading about your adventures with the new software, BigMackCam. But right now it is a bit like my enjoyment of stories about rock climbing in Yosemite. Really glad to hear about others doing it but I am not up to it at my age.

I understand completely

Having said that, I was talking to a chap the other day on amateur radio, an elderly gentleman by all accounts, who ended up giving me advice on a problem I was having with the "WINE" Linux application

It's not problem- or stress-free transition from Windows 10, for sure, but not anything like as difficult as you'd think. Linux Mint 18.3, at least, is a commercial-quality OS with highly-automated installation. Installing apps is very easy, from a controlled source not entirely unlike Windows' apps store. And the user interface (using the default "Cinnamon" dekstop) is like a very polished version of Windows XP... very easy and intuitive to use.

By the way, are you a MacDonald's franchisee or do you drive a big semi?

Ha ha!

No, it's a bit of a play on words...

Firstly, I'm a fairly big bloke - as in, large-framed at any weight (not fat, though I've certainly been there at times of my life ). I've been described as a "big old unit" by friends (!). Secondly, I'm what's known locally here as a "mack'em" - born and raised in Sunderland, in the North East of England (see Wikipedia article HERE)... and lastly, the "Cam" bit is a reference to cameras. "Big Mack'em" --> "BigMackCam"... yes?

[Mikesul]

Thanks for the explanation. I have been wondering about it for a long time.

[boriscleto]

Skylum put out another blog post about Luminar's DAM...

Luminar, Skylum, DAM | Skylum Blog (ex-Macphun)

Skylum plans to offer the new DAM free to anyone who owns a current version of Luminar. Within a few weeks, the company will announce its final sale of the current version. There will be a well-known, well-publicized, time limit set for this sale and at the end of the sale, the retail price of the product will go up. Everyone who buys (or currently owns) the current version of Luminar before that date, will get the new DAM free of charge. After that date, the price will rise and will still be very affordable.

The new DAM is still under development, and the company wants to make sure it is rock solid before it comes out of BETA. We’re in the home stretch. As soon as possible, the shipping date will be announced. For now, make sure you own the current version of Luminar to put yourself in the queue to receive the new DAM free of charge.

[Mikesul]

This will be very interesting to watch. Although I have not been that impressed so far by the main software. But it is all new and will no doubt improve. I wonder if the DAM is stand alone or integrated with their existing software.

[Neuse River Sailor]

I never did much post processing until lately and never used the Adobe products (Linux user for 20+ years). But lately I have been experimenting with shooting RAW and what's working for me is Geeqie for examining RAW images, deleting or saving them, and then Raw Therapee for initial processing and exporting as jpg, then GIMP for final processing. I'd suggest that as a good way to ease into digital processing without spending a lot (actually, any) money, it's a good path.

[ffking]

I.m still using Lightroom 6.7 - the crunch might come if I buy newer lenses without profile support, and it will definitely start falling off the pace as time goes by, but I always kept the same version of ny programme for at least three years, and many longer - the improvements aren't that great year on year. My Photoshop elements is much older, but I don't use PS much

[jimr-pdx]

I won't soon join a subscription service, now satisfied with PhotoDirector x-1 (v.8 I believe).

[Rondec]

I'm still using stand alone Adobe Lightroom 6 (and PSE 11, I think). I am pretty uncomfortable with the subscription service. Not that it isn't valuable for a pro who is using a lot of the different pieces of software, but because for the hobbyist it adds an ongoing cost to using a piece of software. From Adobe's standpoint, I'm sure they are frustrated with folks like me who skip iterations of their software and jump from Lightroom 3 to Lightroom 5 because I didn't want to spend the money on 4 at that time. And the nice thing about Pentax cameras is since they shoot DNG files, you can open them with pretty old versions of Lightroom, even if there aren't camera profiles built in.

That is available to you if you drop your subscription to Lightroom.

This is what they are doing. Stop paying your CC subscription and a few options get turned off but the core program, the parts that do what you want keep working.
You could give them a 1 month payment and be done with it, and you would have the core program for as long as you want. Have you not checked into this at all?


You have obviously never worked as a professional photographer. I have. You are not correct in your assessment.

If you are taking up hobbies you can't afford, then that is something you need to be looking at, but as a hobbyist, all you need to do to justify a purchase is to decide you want it and can afford it. If you can't afford your hobby, take up one that isn't as expensive.

As a working pro, I had to account for every nickel I wanted to spend on equipment, and for the most part I had to work a second job not related to photography to ensure there was food on the table. That is the reality of the majority of pro photographers.
Pro photographers aren't out there buying every new piece of equipment to come along. Most are using several generations old gear, scouring the used market for deals, and praying that their car will start to get them to their next gig.

The "pro" camera market is not driven by pro photographers, it is supported by well heeled amateurs who can afford and are willing to buy thousands of dollars worth of new equipment. Were it not for amateurs and hobbyists, the "pro" equipment market would not exist.

Of course professionals have a different perspective, but I don't think we want to disparage folks who enjoy photography but don't have an additional 120 dollars a year to put towards RAW development. A lot of folks shoot with older gear and update infrequently. Each expense is weighed versus their family's budget and they aren't ever going to buy the new DFA * primes or lenses like that. But they still offer a lot to our community and the actual cost of taking photos is pretty small if you don't go with Adobe's software.

Adobe wants guaranteed money coming in from users. Most pirates aren't going to buy software, but if they can squeeze a few more consistent dollars out of me, that's what they want to do. Their model is all about their bottom line, not about the benefit to the consumers -- although clearly it works well for professionals and wealthy amateurs.

[Barry Pearson]

I'm still using stand alone Adobe Lightroom 6 (and PSE 11, I think). I am pretty uncomfortable with the subscription service. Not that it isn't valuable for a pro who is using a lot of the different pieces of software, but because for the hobbyist it adds an ongoing cost to using a piece of software. From Adobe's standpoint, I'm sure they are frustrated with folks like me who skip iterations of their software and jump from Lightroom 3 to Lightroom 5 because I didn't want to spend the money on 4 at that time. And the nice thing about Pentax cameras is since they shoot DNG files, you can open them with pretty old versions of Lightroom, even if there aren't camera profiles built in.

Of course professionals have a different perspective, but I don't think we want to disparage folks who enjoy photography but don't have an additional 120 dollars a year to put towards RAW development. A lot of folks shoot with older gear and update infrequently. Each expense is weighed versus their family's budget and they aren't ever going to buy the new DFA * primes or lenses like that. But they still offer a lot to our community and the actual cost of taking photos is pretty small if you don't go with Adobe's software.

Adobe wants guaranteed money coming in from users. Most pirates aren't going to buy software, but if they can squeeze a few more consistent dollars out of me, that's what they want to do. Their model is all about their bottom line, not about the benefit to the consumers -- although clearly it works well for professionals and wealthy amateurs.

I'm a hobbyist photographer, and a not-rich pensioner. I subscribe to CC. Why?

I can squeeze image quality out of old photos taken using old cameras and old lenses that probably couldn't be obtained at the time. I can use image-improving features of Lightroom and Photoshop that once didn't exist in the products. For example by using "Shake Reduction" that (I believe) only exists in CC versions of Photoshop.

The trickle of new capability in Lightroom and Photoshop over time makes my cameras and lenses appear more expensive that they were. It may become possible to use cheaper (or older) equipment to achieve the same end-result.

I've just revisited some of my photos taken with a *istD in 2004, 2005, 2006. I used the latest Lightroom Process Version 4, including the latest versions of noise reduction and sharpening, etc, I think some people would be surprised at what can be obtained from cheaper and/or older equipment when the latest software is used. Here is the thread showing the results:
Some old photos taken with a *istD: Pentax SLR Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

I suspect a large number of the 12-million-plus subscribers to CC are neither professionals nor wealthy. Instead, like me, they have done a cost-benefit analysis which sees the subscription as a good deal.

(People might respond that they would buy updates to perpetual licence products to obtain those features. But that is now irrelevant: the recent very good Adobe financial results tell Adobe that they probably have it right! They are not about to switch back to perpetual licencing for their top-end products.So everyone needs to do their own cost-benefit analysis. Not based on what older software products could do, but on what the latest products could do for them. Perhaps they would be better off delaying buying new equipment in favour of subscribing to better software that makes that new equipment less urgent? Or that would simply save them time so that they could get out and take more photos?)

[Mikesul]

I think people who did not regualrly buy yearly upgrades on the old plan are probably fine staying with LR6 but those of us who usually upgraded are more likely to be comfortable with the subscription model.