Open Office or Libre Office or Free Office are free look a likes of Microsoft Office. I use Open Office for years. I think it can be used on the Mac and Linux.
I think the Mac is a much more closed system. Windows more open, more participants.
George
And thatās their problem. The UI layout is just as atrocious and difficult to use as MS products, with their dreadful ribbon toolbar, when compared with the Mac equivalents of Pages, Numbers and Keynote.
And the Mac apps can both import and export to various formats, including MS Office. What is more, macOS contains all the tools you need to create and even edit PDF files from any app that you can print.
Once again, while Windows users are having to search for free alternatives, Apple provides the tools as part of the OS.
@Joanna , you already know itās a pretty small minority of Windows PC users who are Microsoft fanboys. Many of them hate Windows, especially new versions and forced updates. You really canāt say the same about Mac users, though. Since this is a forum for photo editing software, there is not a lot of talk about what else motivates a PC user to shuffle hardware. And if you bought a budget PC off the shelf at Best Buy or have a ten year old rig, you either got what you paid for or itās time to update. Youāre not going to be playing Witcher IV on your Mac.
I am still using the same Windows 10 machine I purchased in 2016 which has an i7-6700 processor with 24GB RAM. Six months again my motherboard failed. I replaced it with an ASUS motherboard. I also wanted a better graphics card which required a new power supply since the old one was only 300 watts with no power socket. I now have an RTX 4060 running off a 750 watt power supply. I also replaced my 128GB slow SSD drive with a two terabyte WD Black SSD.
I did most of the work myself and the cost was around $800+. Very cost effective upgrade after 8 years of significant daily use. I wouldnāt call that shuffling hardware, and it was much less than upgrading to a Mac. If using a Mac is what you prefer more power to you, but I have absolutely no interest in Macs or iPhones.
Mark
With the Mac youāre bounded to what you have. Windows is much more modular.
About the UI on the Mac, I donāt know. But if it has the same possibilities as on the windows software, which I believe, then they must put it somewhere too. Itās what one gets used to.
George
As appealing as MACs may be, there is a problem with switching from PCs to MACs: I have 32 bit programs, like Picasa and other graphics programs, Iāve used for years without problem and they wonāt run on MACs.
In fact, using Parallels on the Mac, 32 bit Windows apps in virtual machines are no problemā¦
I developed WinXP apps for several years on my Mac
I honestly donāt understand why you seem to take this comment so personally.
I didnāt simply reply to the suggestion to buy Affinity with that line: that was the end of an argument.
I was instead hoping to youād elaborate on this:
[quote]
Thereās not much point in DxO tormenting themselves building a panorama module for PhotoLab as live RAW processing of merged files with 30,000+ horizontal pixels would bring even the most powerful GPU to its knees.
{/quote]
If creating a panorama means ālive RAW processing of merged files with 30k+ horizintal pixeslā, which āwhould bring even the most powerful GPU to its kneesā, then wouldnāt Affinity have the same issue? Yet Affinity was suggested as a good tool for the job. They must have done something different, I guess?
Lightroom isnāt a replacement for Photoshopp (and I agree with you in principle that it shouldnāt become one), yet it provies a (perhaps basic) photo stiching functionality.
The suggested Affinity package includes (or at least advertises) āFull RAW developmentā: the same argument you make would apply there.
Affinity has a raw processor module separate from a pixel editing module. I use Affinity for focus stacking, HDR merge and only occasionally for panoramas. These functions occur in the pixel editor (Photo Persona) not the raw processor (Develop Persona).
The reality is that stitching panoramas, or focus stacking or HDR merges requires pixels, which raw files do not yet have (only after the raw conversion has occurred). In my workflow, I process raw files in PhotoLab, export as 16 bit files, then open those files in Affinity utilizing the appropriate tool for merging, stacking or panoramas. The results are excellent.
Affinity offers a free trial, and it really is worth your time to give it a try for yourself.
I tried it recently but alas it crashes on the latest Mac OS (Sequoia) on M1.
User @Sandbo mentioned AutoPano Giga
Iāve only tried it briefly: does a great job of basic panorama creation, but it seems to have a lot more functionality beyond that.
For anybody comfortable enough with the command line to follow (very well documented) build instructions, this is also a great package (for basic usage, at least from a first test).
Here is the download of the Image Composite Editor (ICE). Easy to use. Image Composite Editor (ICE) - Gratis-Download von heise.de
I donāt need to download it. Iāve it. Thereāre more sites.
Latest version is 2.0.3.
George
ICE does not run on Macs.
Multishot merge is probably main reason why I still use LR. Possibly if I had separate DAM I could use workflow DXOPL>Affinity>DAM. As it is now I prefer to keep all processing within one application (though LR still cannot fix perspective correction white corners).
If you own Affinity, try it. The panorama functions works great, whereas you are unhappy with the one in Lightroom.
For DAM, you can solve most of your issues with a $15/20 application called FastRawViewer (culling) and then macOS file system for archiving. Keeping your originals out of a giant database will save you time and headache in the long run (when it fails as it always will).
If you insist on using Lightroom to manage your images, you should at least create a new master catalogue every year. That way when it fails, itās much easier to rebuild.
I wish DxO would remove the DAM features from PhotoLab or promote them to a full-grown module like ViewPoint. PhotoLab is a great RAW development tool, and thatās what I need from it. Yet, to my surprise, PhotoLab has also become a good retouching tool since limited retouching was added in PhotoLab 2. New off-the-path features can work.
I am not unhappy with LR panorama tools. They work fine and very smoothly. Most of my architectural photos are multi-.
Mac OS file management is really not good enough. There are no tools for keywording which is about all I need DAM to do.
There are some great dedicated DAM solutions out there, from PhotoMechanic to NeoFinder (Mac only) to PhotoSupreme to Mylio to iMatch (ironically Windows only) to DigiKam (FOSS). PhotoLab is not one of them.
Fortunately PhotoLab works very well with folders of images, so one is free to use whatever other tool one wants to:
Workflow is a whole lot clearer when these two functions are kept separate (filtering inbound images, cataloguing finished images).
The whole idea of Aperture and later Lightroom to keep every photo in a perpetual state of almost finished is a kind of digital madness. Itās the Holy Grail, in the quest of which legions of photographers will set out and die, their bony remains, with just the rags of their photo vests and camera straps blowing on the wind of their unfinished photo projects and disorganised archives.