Lightzone vs Lightroom?

[jcuknz]

It is good that there are all these competitors around as my first programme cost me over $300 still that was cheap compared to PS7 at $1200 a when money was worth money and latest version only $100 approx. But since I probably do not use 90% of what I have I don't see any point in getting others even if they are free. Paint Shop Pro meets my needs and part of the 90% are the one click solutions which I simply do not use.

[ajohnw]

I see that Manfred and 25 quid a month isn't too bad really for some one to spend on one of their serious hobbies. I'm surprised it isn't more actually.

The tutorials that interest me and I see most often are pp technique ones. I still maintain that providing some one can use a package making best use of the facilities effectively to improve results is a separate problem and takes some time to pick up. I still have a way to go. There is also the business of framing the actual shot. Personally I try to follow a painters view of that. Still working on it and with some subjects probably wont be a popular way of going about things. I'm likely to persist though. People do buy these things and stick them on the wall. Not that I have any interest in selling.

All in all there is a lot to learn. Up to a couple of years ago the only adjustments I used were curves and sharpening. Mostly on shots out of a compact as my kit wasn't really suitable for the sort of carrying around I need. Many new comers wont have even used curves and I do feel that some of the OS stuff mentioned would help them on their way. Lightroom probably will too but I have a feeling that it's a little dedicated to certain operations. I hope to download a trial and see if it runs under wine. Curiosity. All I have done is watch a few tutorials. Curiosity again. PS is an entirely different type of package.

John
-

[Alan G]

Well, I have done another half day with Lightzone. There is some written tuition and lots of videos, some from the new Lightzone team, some from when it was a charged for product and some good ones from an enthusiastic French guy. They are starting to make sense and what is being shown is very impressive. Its nice that you can make your own tools and batch enhance similar shots. I dont have any need for the 'organising' aspects that Lightroom apparently has because I hate the way that some photographic software tries hard to impose this on you. I would rather do that myself.
I realise that I am not in the same sort of spending league as some of you here so the fact that I can enjoy these software packages for a modest donation. It makes perfect sense to me, having spent just shy of £350 on a camera and accessories.
As a beginner I am enjoying the new experience of post processing pictures to enhance them. Its a skill that I only dimly realise existed.

Alan

[nimitzbenedicto]

I didn't mean to say that we poor Linux users are abandoned, just please note that there is a group of users that cannot use photoshop, thus has to use something else.. I agree, there's a lot more information available for photoshop c.s. than for any other program.

On the other hand, photoshop has a price, whether through the cloud or through 'traditional' pricing. If both are the same, fine, but that's a discussion that we've had here already (iirc, ). Is that price justified for every amateur? Not all of them spend several thousands of € on equipment, so do they need the top editing program? Of course, using something else can be more time consuming, or less easy to use. But that's a choice each has to make for himself. I'm not convinced that there are things you can do in photoshop and not with another program.

One thing to note here: if you use other programs, you might need several programs to get all the functionalities you want, that photoshop offers in one package. E.g. I use one program for raw development and basic editing, another for pixel level editing (with layers and masks), and a third for panorama stitching and such. Less convenient, but it works for me.

I don't think we open source/free software users should defend our choice.
Hey, if they don't want to use open source, no prob. Couldn't care less.

As I replied to Christina's question what we learned from photography, I'll say it again.
1. Enjoy and have fun
2. Keep an open mind.
3. Courtesy and Respect for others. Honesty.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, it's fun tinkering around with Lightzone, Dark Table, Photivo, GIMP ( oh, glad to say, GIMP has tons of supporters/tutorials, it has its own forum too.), Lightroom, Helicon Filter, etc.

Meanwhile, just have fun clicking away.......

[ajohnw]

I know there are several Linux users on here. Curious who has tried Fotoxx?

Daft name but a very capable package.

http://www.kornelix.com/fotoxx.html

All of the whole image type changes can also be applied with the mouse or to selections. it's very fast too. The only delay I notice if I blur a 16mp image. Might be a bit over a second. Sharpening has a slight delay which turns out to be useful. The degree can be changed and it always briefly reverts back to the original before applying the new setting.

Tone mapping is quick too. No noticeable delay on a 2.6ghz core 2 duo even as the contrast curve or amount slider is being used.

Copy paste on images works in much the same was as PS. It can be scaled and rotated.

I did ask him about camera ICC files once - he has strong opinions on what camera makers should do. I haven't had any problems but conversion with ufraw solves that if concerned.

I asked about saving selections. Looks like he has done it the other way round - add from another image.

Also mentioned selection line effects following inversion. Seems to have gone but blurred selection edges make that difficult/impossible without the settings being changed. His advice was to work on full sized images. I feel the problem was mine really and due to blurred edge settings.

Must add I don't mention the impossible or things that would need a complete rewrite - I have a couple of others for him now.

Some none Linux users might like to take a look at what it can do too. The list on the page isn't complete and these days the menu set up runs down the left.

Not that I am a fan.

John
-

[revi]

I don't think we open source/free software users should defend our choice.
Hey, if they don't want to use open source, no prob. Couldn't care less.
(...)

Very true

My comments were more inspired by a sentiment that some felt everyone should be willing to spend the money on photoshop, or that everything else is 2nd rate.
There are multiple reasons to switch to Linux (or one of the BSD flavours), and some even have nothing to do with cost...

And please, don't equate programs under Linux with free or open source: a lot of them are both, but there are also enough closed source and for-pay programs available (Bibble/Aftershot for instance).

[Manfred M]

People should use the tools that they are comfortable with and find affordable. That being said, Photoshop is the "gold standard" used in the photographic and graphics arts industries, so that alone means all other software will be benchmarked against it.

This is neither right nor wrong; it is a fact.

That being said, it is expensive, is a pain to learn and become competent in (nicely said it does take a long time) and is overkill for most people. On the other hand, if you are into "serious photography", it is something that comes up over and over again. Any photographic course I took at the local community college assumed that the users owned a copy (the education version is heavily discounted) and knew how to use it.

[jcuknz]

Further to Manfred ... it seemed obvious to me that if you intend or hope to join the photographic graphic industry and work with others in it then there is no alternative to knuckling down and getting to grips with PS .... that was my position when it was a simple PS v. PSP discussion and have no reason to change it. But from time to time various professionals have admitted to using PSP on forums. Now PS has gone cloud I think that is worth remembering .... though I can see a problem for those who have learnt PStalk getting to grips with PSPtalk whereas I liked the odd PS tool but overall thought it clunky and unfreindly when I had it in my computer for a year or two.

[nimitzbenedicto]

I guess we have no choice but to thank those who softly inserted into this thread their defense of PS. ( which was never challenged ....)

In the same vein, would it be too much to request posters to please come back into the topic of this thread which is "Lightzone vs Lightroom?".

Thank you for your kind consideration.

[Manfred M]

Victor - it's not a defence of Photoshop. It's the tool pros (and many serious amateurs) use.

The same can be said for Lightroom. Most of the commercial photographers I know use Lightroom, especially the ones that specialize in weddings and portraits. The reason is that they can't afford to take a chance that their software is not fully tested and will not break when they are doing a job. A small single developer solution simply can't run a suite of tests on various version of an operating system (including patches and updates that might break something). The cost of the quality assurance and testing is part of the price we pay for the software.

So an amateur can afford the risk of running software that is not totally stable, but someone who is making their living at photography cannot, so Lightroom is the way to go. In addtion, you have the same RAW converter as ACR, that is another benefit of Lightroom. Another advantage is the support; if something doesn't work, Adobe is an email or phone call away.

Having dealt with a number of commercial products that have been produced by small one or two person outfits, the lack of support and unexpected behavior has me sticking the the "brand name" supplier. I know it costs me more, but frankly I don't need the pain of dealing with major bugs. Of course there are no guarantees, but I'll take my chances.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Victor - it's not a defence of Photoshop. It's the tool pros (and many serious amateurs) use.

The same can be said for Lightroom. Most of the commercial photographers I know use Lightroom, especially the ones that specialize in weddings and portraits. The reason is that they can't afford to take a chance that their software is not fully tested and will not break when they are doing a job. A small single developer solution simply can't run a suite of tests on various version of an operating system (including patches and updates that might break something). The cost of the quality assurance and testing is part of the price we pay for the software.

So an amateur can afford the risk of running software that is not totally stable, but someone who is making their living at photography cannot, so Lightroom is the way to go. In addtion, you have the same RAW converter as ACR, that is another benefit of Lightroom. Another advantage is the support; if something doesn't work, Adobe is an email or phone call away.

Having dealt with a number of commercial products that have been produced by small one or two person outfits, the lack of support and unexpected behavior has me sticking the the "brand name" supplier. I know it costs me more, but frankly I don't need the pain of dealing with major bugs. Of course there are no guarantees, but I'll take my chances.

Nicely put.

Perhaps, so others can also chime in, I have started a thread wherein I challenge your statement PS is the "gold standard".

I hope in that thread, more thorough/in-depth discussions can be done.

The thread link -> Challenge: PS is not the "golden standard" in photo editing!

Thank you.

[Manfred M]

Nicely put.

Perhaps, so others can also chime in, I have started a thread wherein I challenge your statement PS is the "gold standard".

I hope in that thread, more thorough/in-depth discussions can be done.

The thread link -> Challenge: PS is not the "golden standard" in photo editing!

Thank you.

While I see that you started the thread and a number of us answered; I suspect that the undelying issue / misunderstanding may be a language issue again. "Gold Standard" is an idiom (i.e. an expression that does not necessarily translated easily to another language). It simply means that it sets the standard that all other PP software is compared against.

Back in the early days of PCs; the "gold standard" of word processors was Word Perfect and the "gold standard" for spreadsheets was Lotus 123. Few people remember those pieces of software these days where Microsoft Word and Excel rules the roost.

When it comes to PP software the bulk of the photographic industry (and a good many serious amateurs) turn to Photoshop. I can't think of any single piece of software that comes even close to what it can do; but that does not say there is software out there that may do specific things as well as or better than PS. But as a package, it does things better than anything else out there that I (and many others) have seen.

[Alan G]

I started the original thread and I asked for information on the differences between Lightzone and Lightroom. I only got a short answer to that question. I spend money fairly carefully. From what I can gather there isnt much difference except that Lightroom seems to be good at organising photographs and posting them onto Facebook and other social media. The more I use Lightzone te better it seems to get.

Alan

[Manfred M]

I started the original thread and I asked for information on the differences between Lightzone and Lightroom. I only got a short answer to that question. I spend money fairly carefully. From what I can gather there isnt much difference except that Lightroom seems to be good at organising photographs and posting them onto Facebook and other social media. The more I use Lightzone te better it seems to get.

Alan

Alan - the other inference is that Lightzone is such a small player that most people have never heard of it. You will get lots of comments regarding Lightroom, because it is so ubiquious.

I looked it up after this post and my initial thought was why bother with it. If I were going open source, there are better (for me) solutions out there. It has some of the same underlying downsides (again based on my workflow) as Lightroom; parametric editors can only go so far versus what pixel based editors do (the same complaint I have with Lightroom).

For me, a lack of layers support is a non-starter, on top of that I use clipping masks and layer masks all the time (which is the fatal flaw in GIMP, in my view).

If all you are doing is a bit of re-sizing, some minor colour adjustments, etc. just about any editor will do. If you need automation and some more sophisticated tools, the choices narrow fairly quickly.

I guess if you are getting started, free is not a bad thing. It lets you spend money on things that are more important to you. On the other hand, all of this software has a fairly lengthy learning curve, so if you figure you are going to be serious about it, a more long-term view might be to "bit the bullet" and head up the Lightroom path.

By the way; I am not a fan of any specific supplier; whether it be Apple, Microsoft or Adobe. I pick the tools that work for me, and thankfully I picked one that I have been using for over 10 years now and am now fairly compentent with.

[davidedric]

I think the point that Glenn made earlier in the thread could do with re-emphasising. It's not just the software, it's the ecosystem around it. Personally, I find that Lightroom is an immensely capable product that can do pretty everything that I want (otherwise I wouldn't use it!), but the huge variety of professional video and printed resources, and the forums that Glenn referenced, are what enable me to get the best out of it. If I had been finding my own way, I just wouldn't be where I am now.

It certainly can't do all that CS can do. I remember Manfred posting a stunning image a few months ago to illustrate the point - and it certainly did. Fortunately, it's not stuff that I want or need to

[Alan G]

I am quite familiar with layers. The Relight filters in Lightzone serve the same purpose I think, and you can define areas and apply filters to them. Its a different concept, I think it works. When I return from abroad next month I will try 30 day trials of Adobes products.

Thanks for the advice I thought that Lightzone was a more well known product. There seem to be a welter of alternatives out there! I like this site, the competitions are fun...

Alan

[Colin Southern]

I can't think of any single piece of software that comes even close to what it can do; but that does not say there is software out there that may do specific things as well as or better than PS. But as a package, it does things better than anything else out there that I (and many others) have seen.

+1

In terms of tools and functionality nothing else gets even remotely close.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Oh no?!

I thought they would be satisfied blasting away in that
"Challenge: PS is not the "Golden standard" in photo-editing" thread?!?



( Perhaps a new thread "Adobe uber open-source/freeware users" thread? )

[ajohnw]

I am quite familiar with layers. The Relight filters in Lightzone serve the same purpose I think, and you can define areas and apply filters to them. Its a different concept, I think it works. When I return from abroad next month I will try 30 day trials of Adobes products.

Thanks for the advice I thought that Lightzone was a more well known product. There seem to be a welter of alternatives out there! I like this site, the competitions are fun...

Alan

Yes and no Alan. throw in the GIMP and that aspect is solved. However I believe that Lightroom has this built in

http://how-to.wikia.com/wiki/How_to_...raphics_editor

I'm in the wilds of Wales at the moment but it might turn out that all of the other packages mentioned other than PS and Fotoxx don't have this built in. Comparing the GIMP and PS it could be that this can be done without using layers and masks as per Lightroom.

This technique is usually referred to as a GND filter - Graduated Neutral Density. The same thing can also be done with dodging and burning brushes. For brushes read mouse controlled circles with various options that can be moved about over the image to modify it.

John
-

[nimitzbenedicto]

For enthusiasts/hobbyists, Lightzone/GIMP is more than enough.

However, I noticed with pro/semi-pro photogs here (LA), they tend to use Lightroom more than PS.

When I asked them why, they replied, it's more a question of just enough good editing capabilities and with speed.

For instance, when they shoot live events/ fashion show/sports, because of the need for speed in transmitting to mags/tv/media editors, some even shoot in jpgs.

Those who shoot in RAW/NEF opt for Lightroom because it's faster for them.

True, PS is much better in editing, but for pros like them, beating the deadline is paramount.