I don’t use LR, I use darktable often and Rawtherapee once in a while.
Recently I bought Affinity Photo (they had get it for $25 corona discount till June 2020). I bought it only for one function - focus merging - which works great in Affinity and dt/rt don’t have that.
Then I tried Affinity’s panorama stitching - works great too. Then, in their very latest version, Affinity added X3F support - wow! (only if you use Sigma though).
I try to work more with Affinity now. My early pre-conclusion:
I get better results from dt with color images (most likely because I know dt better and Affinity’s layer system is rather alien to me, so far)
I get way better results with monochrome images from Affinity than from dt (I didn’t test rt for a while, it might be good too)
In the end it comes down to how well you can use it, unless functions are missing (focus merging i.e.). Affinity can also use Photoshop plugins if one needs those.
IMHO Affinity is very cheap (at now $50 but Black Friday is round the corner) and you can BUY it, rather than RENT it like many Adobe products.
Final words: Use whatever you feel most comfortable with, if you don’t mind the monthly ransom payments, then for havens sake use LR or whatever. It’s certainly very good software.
I agree Affinity is great. Their Raw Converter needs some work though I really don’t like how after you make a edit you can’t go back to make tweaks without starting over. The pixel side is amazing though. Hopefully dt/RT get full CR3 support eventually converting to dng is not ideal.
On another note I don’t see any software as a replacement/alternative for any other software. Each software has it’s own pros and cons it just really comes down to what you enjoy using. I have used ACR/Lightroom I do not like them they do things to the raw file I do not want them to do in the background and they do not give the option to turn it off without doing some weird stuff which even then is not the same as what you would get from dt/RT in a neutral profile state.
Capture One and DxO photolab would be my preferred commercial applications of choice for raw conversion. I am still in limbo between those and dt/RT. Not sure what I like to use more yet.
When you open a Raw file in Affinity it goes to the Develop module of the software which is their raw edit mode. When done you click develop at which point it sends the file to the pixel editing Photo persona basically as a 16bit raster file. At this point Raw edits can’t be changed without re opening the Raw and starting over. The only known workaround is to save your edits in the develop module as a preset so you can re apply then make the tweaks and develop again. You also can’t batch edit at all need to do each file one by one.
I switched 2019, after 6 years LR and 18 years PS, complete to RT and GIMP. Since then I’m lucky with my workflow and results. I like the color management, the very very precise tools and the overall handling of RT and GIMP. Another benefit for me is that they are running local and for free. No Cloud, Registration or Abo stuff is needed…
Also, the raw processing results of Rawtherapee are superior to Affinity photo, in terms of demosaicing, handling fringing and chromatic aberration, and resolution extracted, thanks to Rawtherapee’s great demosaicing algorithms, pre-demosaic chromatic aberration corrections, dual demosaic, and capture sharpening. At the bottom is a 1:1 comparison.
That being said, Affinity Photo performs better than Gimp, on Windows at least, and also has adjustment layers and non-destructive editing features. Also, through LUTs, I am able to emulate Rawtherapee’s Filmic Curves in Affinity as a nondestructive adjustment layer. Thus I have gravitated towards Rawtherapee for raw processing, and if I need to do more localized work, which has become less frequent due to Rawtherapee’s new locallab adjustments (still in dev but pretty stable at this point), I export to low contrast 16 bit tiff from Rawtherapee and finalize in Affinity Photo.
I do agree full on. Affinity is poor on the raw front big time if they focus on it though it could get better. I would honestly put RT in my list of top 4 raw converters for sure. RT, DxO, Capture One, and dt. Not in any specific order because each excels in different aspects of editing but non matches the other in those particular aspects. Capture One really wins on the color front imho. RT really excels at bringing out detail. DxO really excels at Optical correction and noise reduction, and dt excels in scene refered workflow because honestly I think it is the only editor that provides this workflow and it is great at manipulating every ounce of the dynamic range of the photo.
These are the reasons I have such a hard time finding what works for me
Personally, I have decided to stick with Rawtherapee through and through, as I prefer to retain a consistent look, and the raw engine is one of the key factors in ‘feel’ of the result.
When I switched to Linux, I first did my photos in Lightroom. Then I switched from Canon Eos40 to 70, and Lightroom not only refused to open them, it refused to say why (requires a download of something, but how would I know?). And there was another thing about LR, when I tried to install on some laptop with 32 bit W7, it refused to install altogether, again without any error message. And over the years, as a programmer, I had some bad experience with Adobe’s policies… So I looked around and found RT. And for what I do, it surpasses LR. It has only the features I need (plus some I never found use for), and none of the clutter that would look good to the sales department. Same philosophy as the rest of Linux, I love that.
I’ve never used ACR or Lightroom, so not sure if it’s a full replacement in my case, but RT is my main tool to downselect/edit/export RAW files. The same thing I used to use Darktable for, which is aimed at being a replacement for Lightroom, afaik.
Still trying to find a decent tool to edit metadata, sort and archive photos (and find them when looking for something specific …). I really wish that RT was able to do this too, but I’d rather they focus on doing one thing well than doing many things so-so.
I find it a shame to want to compare the “default” work of several dematricers.
Some software apply a lot of corrections as a base while others apply none or very few, leaving the choice to the photographer to apply his own corrections.
Moreover, some like Darktable seem not to use the best algorithm (Amaze) by default, but only on the choice of the operator.
Finally, it seems to me that we cannot apply the same work to all the images of all the boxes, for example the noise treatment!
Finally, I am not sure that there is an ideal universal result, if not its own taste.
Thanks for reading me.
Here’s my personal take on the matter (and no I haven’t yet read the conversation on here )
I use RawTherapee as a raw processor for my photography. If I couldn’t use RawTherapee I’d probably use CaptureOne since it has a larger pool of features than Lightroom and I tend to enjoy the look of the final images more. So no, RawTherapee isn’t a replacement for Lightroom. That being said RawTherapee isn’t really a replacement for CaptureOne for me either, since I don’t use RawTherapee for the sake of the “better price”. Of course I’d rather not invest in an expensive piece of software when I can have the features I want for free …and I’d definitely prefer this over pirating it (I am no saint, but I prefer the legal alternative when available for sure), but RawTherapee does give me results that are good enough that it does not leave me wanting. So once again, it is not a “replacement”. If RawTherapee would cease to exist I’d miss it and CaptureOne would then be the replacement for RawTherapee not the other way around.
People tend to see Open Source software as the replacement for the better proprietary ones, and I hope this slowly changes, because people need to understand that is not the case.
I think the root behind the problem of the replacement question is the concept of “Industry Standard” software. A lot of people use Adobe because it is the “Industry Standard” or they use Capture One because it is the “Industry Standard” in commercial tethered environments. Enthusiasts assume they are at a disadvantage if they don’t use the “Industry Standard”. They realize it is too expensive and look for a “Replacement”. The thing is if you throw out the words “Industry Standard” there is no “Replacement” instead you are just picking a tool that meets your personal requirements.
People shouldn’t buy this argument for photography. The standard graphic exchange format for photography is TIFF or JPEG, you’re rarely sending a raw file and side car or a PSD.
It’s common to work as an assistant as part of your development as a photographer. Not only will you learn, but if you get a chance to work for a famous photographer, you will be tainted (in a good way) by their name. This can in a very real way improve your opportunities. Particularly at the high end of art (as in real art that hangs in real art galleries) and fashion photography.
As in other lines of work being familiar with the “industry standard” is often critical to getting a job and getting a job is a stepping stone to doing your own work.
So the “industry standard” argument unfortunately hold for photography as well. At least if your aim it set high. If your aim is set even higher and you are confident enough to drive your own path you can do as you please.
None of the above should be seen as me condoning the state of affairs or suggesting that anyone use LR.
It seems to me, but I may be wrong, that there are more people with little skill using the adobe suites than there are professionals able to use them to their intended capacity.
This reminds me of the distant years when there were many more scientific calculators sold than people able to use them outside of the four operations.
This is a fact of society and there are also many people who buy 200 HP cars to drive at 130 km/h (or even 10 km/h) in traffic jams on the weekends.
)