after messing with PL for a couple days I was pretty much ready to bite the bullet and surrender to Adobe ransomware. PL seems OK but I am unfamiliar with many of the controls, and I am intimately familiar with Lr6. PL feels a lot less polished and kludgey in comparison.
But working on new images (all RAW) from the Fuji XS-20 (my old, well used Lr 6 cannot open the files) I am amazed at how different the colors are rendered in both editors.
Its astounding really. I am liking the starting colors (and sharpness?) out of PL much better. The colors in PL by default are rendered almost like the Velvia film sim. But its much more than that. There’s a lot of nuances and building a custom preset in Lr, from one image in an attempt to match the difference in Lr ,does not translate across different images.
So …what to do? I can get the images to match but thats only by doing an A/B comparison - which needs both programs and way too much time and effort, not to mention cost.
I am not noticing any real substantial advantage on the Xtrans demosaic - there are some differences for sure but you really need to pixel peep, and they dont seem to be very material one way or the other .
The last and final issue is file management… I am very comfortable with the DAM in Lr.
I guess I could get used to PL but not having a catalog with previews and just using windows explorer seems like a big change in workflow. My images are all arranged into folders with dates and brief descriptions, organized by Year and Month so I am guessing I can make the move. Only question is how do I search my 25 years’ worth of images for key words or subject with PL is that even possible? It doesn’t seem to be able to access subfolders???
Sorry this is so long but I am a little flummoxed by the pros and cons and wondering what or how you guys came to make your decision. Thanks for any light or feedback
EDit: The other weird thing I find about PL and DXO is them forcing Fuji users to buy plug ins to use FUJI’s very own Film Sims that fuji created and are part of the Fuji ecosystem. These profiles were part of Lr6 when you could buy it outright from Adobe and it should be part of PL without needing FilmPack to enable them (rant over)
Something to remember is that Fuji are the only ones that do their film simulations “correctly” and all others - including DxO - are doing their estimation of them.
The same way that Nikon is only ones that during development of the nefs correctly apply their Picture Control in the same way that they do in camera.
When running an Adobe or DxO software to process the raw files you give in to the respective company’s interpretation of the original assumed output.
It might not be wrong or worse and it can be better looking according to your own taste. But it will not be what the original manufacturer had in mind or aimed for.
I still use Nikons NX Studio for some photos because they produce or deliver an output that I like better then what DxO PhotoLab do.
But I have to accept that and I use PL for so many other features, ease of use and high quality of output in regards to a very minimal work input.
DAM wise I don’t use DxO at all but instead I use the dedicated DAM software PhotoSupreme. They interact very well together but we all have different wishes, needs and goals which not one single software application might be able to deliver.
Pick the best one for your need and don’t be afraid of mixing them.
that’s the last version i ever used, but it wasn’t yet into Adobe ransomware ecosystem. This also mean that it’s an old software (over 5yrs old) so you can’t really compare to newer software which all have evolved since. closest to Lr would be Darktable. Adapting to different software take some time and hard work, either you like or not is how much you put into the learning process.
DAM, well PL went the same route as all others, using users file system, so if you want something like Lr or C1 then you’ll need something else. On Mac “finder” is quite simple to use and creating your own DAM is kind of easy, coming from Lr you already have some idea/knowledge how it work and there’s some thread on this forum that can help you out.
I agree that there are so many small things in Photolab that make it unsuitable for an all in one solution, which I find a shame, as many of them are low-hanging fruits, like for example the option to display pictures in subfolders, I honestly do not understand why dxo is not putting more priority on those dozens of easy to implement improvements that make a big difference in user experience.
If your Lightroom version does not support your new camera, you could still keep using it for your library management and even for new developments, you would just develop the pictures as DNGs using Photolab. There is also a Photolab plugin for Lightroom. If you are fine with the default settings of the export, you might also try PureRaw, which is like a reduced version of Photolab that will only do the export, but is a bit cheaper (and I don’t know if you can select profiles from Filmpack in it, I guess not?). The disadvantage of this approach is that you will have an additional DNG file next to your raw file, which takes up quite some space.
Have you tried there latest Lr? V6 is old and lacking an awful lot of functionality when compared to the latest version. The current Lr has excellent masking and handles Fuji well. I do not buy into the statement that it is “ransom ware”, whatever that is supposed to mean. A lot of software is heading in the subscription direction now and I can understand why. Would not be at all surprised if DxO did not get to that point in the end.
Lr 6 cannot run on new apple silicon M series, so once you upgrade to a newer computer it seem that it come to an end, plus Adobe closed download of Lr 6 December 2023 so you cannot download it anymore.
Thanks but I am on Windows and have the install file for the program (one of the nice things about owning software vs leasing it) and can install it anytime. It does phone home and is limited to a couple active installs at any given time though
Hi, yup I am using the current version of Lr classic on a trial basis. Lr 6 will not let you view the new files from the XS-20- they show as black squares where there should be an image. I have not used the ai mask tools yet in Lr Classic but have read how great they are.
We disagree about the leasing though. Why is it OK to be forced to lease software and not have the option to own it?
I have been a happy Lr 6 user for 8? years now. All my RAW capable bodies (XT-2, XT-20, RX 100) were supported in the Lr6 version I chose to buy back in 2016. The fact that they add new features should be up to me to make a decision to buy them or not. In the 7 years that I have been satisfied with Lr6 they would have collected an addition 700+ dollars. I can afford it but it should be up to me or you, to make that decision. The irony here is that given an option, I probably would have upgraded from Lr6 at some point to stay current and gain some desired feature. With the subscription only model I was firmly commited not to sign on.
Would you be OK if your car manufacturer, or your refrigerator mfgr or the guys that sold you a garden hose, told you that you need to start paying a subscription every month to keep them running? Failure to pay would make them non-functional …
Why is it ok with software?
Windows and MAC both are always updating your OS. Should you have to pay them a mandatory monthly fee for that service?? Where does it end? Adobe (or any subscription vendor) could do absolutely nothing to their software for the next year and a half - and you would still be forced to pay them monthly to rent it.
Unfortunately using Lr6 isnt really viable as you cant see the images from the new unsupported cameras. And it seems that another new Fuji or maybe a Sony are in my future as my other old Fuji body is showing signs that the internal battery has failed and is loosing all its settings when the main battery is pulled (why I may keep clear now of Fuji). Since we crossed the 24MP threshold I have seen little reason to buy new cameras (unless they fail)
So another crazy hot day provides time to pixel peep . Thanks so much for all your thoughts and input.
Looking at more images this morning, I am more and more impressed by the PL processing of the Fuji RAW files. They do extract a better looking image. Sometimes dramatically better. I am not sure how (i tried) but there are parts of the image that are better focused when rendered by PL that I cannot seem to recreate in Lr via the clarity, dehaze or sharpening tools - Its amazing!
PL makes the whole image editing process much much easier and more pleasing. Combine that with the lack of a subscription and I now need to understand the ins and outs of running a separate DAM - and all the complications that brings to the table…
Question: In going to a DAM only program, I noticed that setting up preferences in Lr Classic, that there is a switch for it to write data into the XMP of images. Can you tell it to write all the selection and rating data into all the XMPs of 30,000 images or does it only work one image file at a time, as they are opened ?? I ask because Im assuming that doing so will get will allow that info to be imported into a new DAM program. Which is imperative if I am going to figure out how to manage 25 years of stored images in a different way
You should have added that PhotoLab is unsuitable for an all-in-one solution for you!
I’m not suggesting there are no usability issues, and some workarounds are occasionally required. However that is pretty much the case with all post-processing software.
I used Lightroom 6.14 regularly until late in 2017 when I discovered PhotoLab. I have owned, and have continually upgraded, the entire PhotoLab suite since PhotoLab 1 Elite, Viewpoint 3 and FilmPack 5 Elite. The PhotoLab suite is my all-in-one solution and whenever I’m tempted to try out other software I find myself going back to it every time. I have found nothing faster, better, or more satisfying to use.
Your experience is different. It is great that we have so many choices.
Wait for V8 to be released to be sure of this (probably around end september - october).
Their very new mandatory internet connection every about 30 days could announce a change and maybe a subscription model to come. We’ll see.
Hope you are wrong about this ! If your not, hold onto the PL7 install file as it seems to be the program itself (900mb) and you have a license to use it .
I still keep V6 because they’ve done some not-so-nice things with the release of V7 (like putting a much-requested photolab function in filmpack to force its sale).
Their policy with V8 will decide my choice.
You never own any software you just own a licence to use it. It will still become redundant and unsupported in time so in the end you have so called" lifetime" ownership of not a lot. Equally you are not “forced” to do anything, it is a free choice as to whether you join up or not. If you do join and at some time in the future decide to stop paying the subscription Lr still acts as a fully functional DAM.
There is also the undeniable fact that those who adopt the “I do not want to upgrade path” are starving the developer of income and funds are required for a) development and b) maintenance/support. Hence the reason subscription is now quite common. You make reference to cars - my car is leased, which sort of equates to a subscription, and I and many, many others have no issue with that arrangement. And the supplier does not upgrade the vehicle during the period of the lease. Yes, Apple and Microsoft do upgrade their OS for free but they care not that that upgrade might break your existing software - that becomes a problem, and therefore cost, for developers of the broken software.
So subscription is not ridiculous at all and certainly so far as Adobe is concerned there have been a constant stream of good functional enhancement to Lr and Ps - all for ÂŁ9.99 per month, and it has been at that price for years. I hasten to add this is not about whether or not one prefers Adobe to DxO. It is about a perfectly acceptable business model, even if not to your liking.
What does this mean ?
It means the code is not yours.
But the software is yours : you’ve got it. You’ve got the installer and can install it and use it FOREVER (don’t argu about equipment obsolescence, this is not the subject**).
And it continu to work forever even if you don’t pay more !
** oh, you did :
If you keep the same hardware (same camera, same station) it will last forever the same than when you BOUGHT it. Better than your car. Period.
You play with words (I don’t think your intelligence is faulty).
PS : I still have old worstations which run softwares which do not exist anymore and that I use sometime. I BOUGHT them. (code is not mine, but I don’t need it. Only the software. This is what I bought, what I OWN).
Well I guess if you are happy to stay in the dark ages with your kit then so be it. But whichever way you look at it that is not the sort of customer a business wants as of course you are not an ongoing customer at all (and that is the issue). And despite what you say the software still becomes unsupported; whether it continues to work or not is to an extent in the lap of the gods.
You own a license to use the software. You do not own the software - it is not yours to do as you please with. You can only do with it what the license permits.
And I am not playing with words. I am reciting facts. You may not like them or care to acknowledge them but that changes nothing. And of course it makes no difference to me. But to call something ransom-ware (which was the original claim) when clearly it is not is unreasonable to say the least.
If you knew me you wouldn’t say that. I work with very high-end softwares. I even tweak them and add code to them (they allow this, they are very open) when project needs it.
When I have done a work (a professional work) and payed a licence for doing it, I want to be able to open this finished job again without having to pay for this.
I agree to pay for doing a job. Not to open an archive for example !
I think the term ransom-ware, even if a little bit strong, doesn’t describe the situation all that badly.
But hopefully there always are ways to get around this situation. Too bad for those who exaggerate.
If you have the software installed on the same machine with the same operating system and don’t update the hardware or system software in any way, then I agree you technically should be able to use the software forever.
With regard to ownership I have to disagree. The software is not yours! You may have the software installed on your computer, but as a licensee you do not own it, and its use and the number of installations is governed by the EULA. You cannot legally sell it, share it, or modify it if the EULA expressly forbids it. Perpetually licensed software is available for use on your computer within the scope of the EULA and is more like a permanent loan.