I think I will dump Adobe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DanK

clear about the disadvantages as well as the advantages of choosing open-source alternatives.

---

This is a great idea, Dan.

I think that my comments would be too limited to be effective. In addition to agreeing or disagreeing, I'm sure that others could also contribute additional points from the perspective of users of either FOSS or Commercial Software. I think that a compilation of all such comments (cleansed of passionate diatribes, of course ;)), would serve as a great benefit to many people when faced with having to make a choice concerning fundamental photography-related software. Perhaps it would even end up being worthy of becoming a "sticky".

What do you say, Moderators, should we start a new thread with the subject of "Advantages and Disadvantages of Open Source Photography Software"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hevii Guy

What do you say, Moderators, should we start a new thread with the subject of "Advantages and Disadvantages of Open Source Photography Software"?

---

Any user can create a new thread.

The response to the thread will vary and chances are some of the responses will go off topic.

Like Dan, I have (and continue to use) a combination of commercial and free software, as do others on this site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hevii Guy

... I don't think that you, or anybody for that matter who is satisfied with the status quo, would be spending your/their time wisely by learning new software if the current software provides them with exactly what it is they require. However, it's becoming quite clear that there are many who are growing frustrated with the business models of certain corporations in this field. These are the people who would benefit from knowing that there are viable alternatives available to them. Their investment in the time taken to learn some of these FOSS programs would be time well spent.

---

One might qualify the above by saying "may be time well spent" rather than "would be".

No doubt FOSS provides value to millions of people. I'm a user though not for photography. It boils down to an individual cost/benefit analysis. For example, I use Open Office as my "business suite". For personal home use the cost of alternatives makes no sense from a cost/benefit standpoint. Plus, very importantly, the user interface/learning curve made the transition essentially effortless. Which is much different than any transition of photo editing software. Either between for profit publishers or FOSS.

Relative to the OP, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is the strength of the user community for support needs. I can't even recall the last time I used a customer support department for any sort of software. I'm typically able to resolve issues by referring to user forums. The gaming industry leads the industry in that regard. In many cases they don't even bother publishing manuals for games any more relying on the user community to do produce them.

The thread(s) (on FOSS) has been aired many times. I have contributed many times when I was a GIMP user.

However if you want to do it again, go ahead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

Any user can create a new thread.

---

I had thought that there would be more enthusiasm.

Since there doesn't appear to be the slightest whiff of support for what I believe would provide great value to the community, there really is no compelling reason for me to expend any further energy in this direction. Clearly it's time for another coffee! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hevii Guy

...Clearly it's time for another coffee! :rolleyes:

---

Aha! Common ground :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hevii Guy

I had thought that there would be more enthusiasm.

---

There isn't much enthusiasm because this subject crops up periodically and we've heard all of the arguments for and against many times before.

I've known a number of FOSS "evangelists" and their arguments have always largely been emotional, rather than looking at user needs outside of the "techie" set. The one thing that for-profit companies seem to do better is their market research to figure out what the end-user community really needs. The ones that don't do not stay in business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

I've known a number of FOSS "evangelists" and their arguments have always largely been emotional, rather than looking at user needs outside of the "techie" set.

---

I can assure you, Manfred, that I am on the other extreme of what one would call a "techie" :o I am, however, a cynic who is wary of the "benefits" which commercial entities bestow on us. Particularly grating is the camera OEM's practice of holding back features indefinitely so that they can milk their current market cash cows for as along as they possibly can (great business practice but when I'm on the other end, it's not so pleasant). If cameras were Open Source, we can be sure that we would have all been using effective full-frame mirrorless devices years ago! And then, of course, there's Big A's undeniable exploitation of the inertia of their considerable user base.
I'm not an evangelical missionary; I have no need to satisfy a "convert" quota. Nonetheless, I'm passionate about sharing what I've discovered with others who are as frustrated and who feel the same sense of being backed into a corner as I once was and did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Manfred M

The one thing that for-profit companies seem to do better is their market research to figure out what the end-user community really needs.

---

Who is better than the market itself to decide what it needs and wants? That's the beauty of FOSS: If something is required or desired, the community works together to make it happen! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hevii Guy

I can assure you, Manfred, that I am on the other extreme of what one would call a "techie" :o I am, however, a cynic who is wary of the "benefits" which commercial entities bestow on us. Particularly grating is the camera OEM's practice of holding back features indefinitely so that they can milk their current market cash cows for as along as they possibly can (great business practice but when I'm on the other end, it's not so pleasant). If cameras were Open Source, we can be sure that we would have all been using effective full-frame mirrorless devices years ago! And then, of course, there's Big A's undeniable exploitation of the inertia of their considerable user base.
I'm not an evangelical missionary; I have no need to satisfy a "convert" quota. Nonetheless, I'm passionate about sharing what I've discovered with others who are as frustrated and who feel the same sense of being backed into a corner as I once was and did.

---

Not only cynical, but I don't think you have had a lot of experience in product development and introduction.

Companies do market research to determine what specific market niches are looking for in products. With long histories in camera design, camera companies do have a fairly good idea of what the various market categories are looking for and the price that the people in that group are willing to pay. They do conduct market research, market intelligence (i.e. what are the competitors doing), etc. The design departments have a target price and production quantity for the cameras. They are always looking for a winner that will beat expectations. The competition is doing the same thing.

Designers work to a "statement of requirements", which includes features and performance specs. They will also have a tooling budget. R&D work will be going on in parallel so the designers know component development that is happening both in-house and with outside suppliers. The high end cameras will feature leading edge specs and the more consumer oriented cameras will employ mature technology.

So those miracle solutions you are looking for likely exist in R&D labs and may be in development for high end industrial and / or military products, but are not available as cost effective components for use in these types of products. There is going to have to be an overwhelming product edge for a commercial photographer to pay an order of magnitude more for a camera than with their existing gear.

The reason that full-frame mirrorless camera have not made a major dent in the market is that the technology is not robust enough yet. While we do see medium format cameras that use these types of displays, these cameras are designed for studio work and not for the fast response time that is required for sports and event photography. I expect that this technology is not all that far away, but it is not here yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hevii Guy

Who is better than the market itself to decide what it needs and wants? That's the beauty of FOSS: If something is required or desired, the community works together to make it happen! :)

---

Which community? FOSS is generally driven by the development community, which tends to mean programmers; not the photographers.

The large companies like Adobe do listen to their users and I know some people who have been on some of their focus groups; all are either commercial photographers or work in the commercial publishing environment, both online and in physical media. Again, in general, Adobe develops for the commercial market, so it will listen to the people that use their software for commercial purposes. The fact that advanced amateurs have similar requirements is just a happy coincidence.

There's not really any need to be a 'techie' to use open source software - there is plenty of help available, be it written user guides and How-to pages, video tutorials for almost anything you would want to do or forums where help is always forthcoming and usually very quick.

Some people are undoubtedly very happy with their preferred commercial programs but for anyone who's looking for an alternative, there's absolutely no reason why not to at least try some of the open source alternatives.

Darktable and Photivo are worth a look for anyone who's curious and of course GIMP which has some great plugins for things like image stacking.

Have been with PS/LR from the start and never a problem not easily fixed. Have a feeling there are many more of us..............

Do you still have CS6, Richard?

I find it does pretty much everything later versions do, with the exception of support for new cameras. There are other bells and whistles to be sure, but they're just that - bells and whistles.

I use DxO as my raw developer, so don't need Adobe's latest and greatest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by proseak

Do you still have CS6, Richard?

I find it does pretty much everything later versions do, with the exception of support for new cameras. There are other bells and whistles to be sure, but they're just that - bells and whistles.

I use DxO as my raw developer, so don't need Adobe's latest and greatest.

---

For what it's worth, I'm still using CS6 and LR6. The crunch will come when LR6 won't deal with the RAW files from some future camera I might acquire (nothing planned).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cantab

For what it's worth, I'm still using CS6 and LR6. The crunch will come when LR6 won't deal with the RAW files from some future camera I might acquire (nothing planned).

---

There's always DNG converter, so many D850 users had little else to work with when the camera first came out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

There's always DNG converter, so many D850 users had little else to work with when the camera first came out.

---

That seems unlikely as the DNG converter needs the same profile to be developed as ACR and Lightroom; so all three pieces of software are updated more or less at the same time.

I had this issue when the D800 first came out and I had to wait around 6 weeks before all three pieces of software were updated to include the new camera and was stuck using View NX2 or shooting JEPG.

My 2¢ on the topic
Been using Capture One and Autopano Gig now for a few months. Leaning towards buying Pixelmator but using GIMP in the meantime.
I rarely ever do any raster editing anyway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

There's always DNG converter, so many D850 users had little else to work with when the camera first came out.

---

Would that be the Adobe Raw-to-DNG converter, John, and would that mean that the D850's NEF file format is no different to previous models?

I'm a bit out of date with all that stuff - my last Nikon was a D50 ... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

Would that be the Adobe Raw-to-DNG converter, John, and would that mean that the D850's NEF file format is no different to previous models?

I'm a bit out of date with all that stuff - my last Nikon was a D50 ... ;)

---

Agreed. The D850 is a brand new camera with a brand new sensor, so there is no way that the NEF file would be the same as other cameras. See my comments in #35.