I agree with some of the earlier comments about LR workflow to be overall “faster” than dt. I wanted to make it clear however that I have only directly compared dt and LR for a short period in 2018, when I was an advanced user of LR and a beginner with dt. Talking about client support – there was NONE coming from Adobe or Apple!Īpologies if this is long and perhaps not to the point. Most importantly, I am confident that I will never have to move to another system, and no corporation will decide on the fate of my photos. Here we are in 2021 and I am very happy with all the progress that dt has made and how it allows me to manage and edit my photos. I bought a second-hand thinkpad where I installed Linux and darktable and started to see how to process images and move my library preserving tags etc. Guess how happy I was at the idea of finding another solution to manage my incomparably larger library, carefully tagged and organized over the years.īut in 2018 I was also fed up with Apple’s ecosystem so I took that opportunity to test Linux and darktable (I was following dt’s progress since version 1.x but never used because it wasn’t very nice – at least on Mac OS). Many many RAWs have been added to my LR library until Adobe decided to change its business model, and slowly killed the standalone (“classic”) LR. Back then I told myself: this is so much work, let me decide what is the best future-proof solution well Adobe looks like a robust company, I’ll trust them with my money. Anyway, years have passed, it seems to be the standard way to do things and I’ve adapted to this.Īfter Apple killed Aperture, I moved to LR, and that was painful: how to manage the transition, decide on the final version of the photos to be moved as jpg, learn the new tools etc. LR introduced the module structure (Library and Develop) which is also present in darktable (lightable & darkroom) and that adds friction to the user experience in my view. I have been using this kind of application (I believe they’re called DAM? Digital Assets Management) since Apple’s Aperture: anybody remembers it? It was great I can’t comment on the quality of the processing algorithms but I particulary liked the seamless transition between the organization/library management tools and processing tools. I have told my experience before here on the forum, but here I go again. Of course each Foss software has its own limitations too, so you pick your poison, but those limitations are decreasing with every new release, which is not something I see happening in acr. Of course, if you spend enough time, you can learn how to do things fast as well. So acr is good for those who want pretty good results fast without having to think too much, while Foss is better for those who don’t mind thinking and are willing to spend time. I would much rather learn a lot to gain all the functionality (Foss), then learn a little and be stuck within limitations (acr). Some gripe about the learning curve, but I wouldn’t be here if I wasn’t interested in that. They avoided some of the pitfalls of ACR. They were much more transparent about what was going on. I learnt as much as possible what all those different options meant (still ongoing…) And discovered other FOSS software along the way, along with these forums. It lead me quickly to rawtherapee, which was free and had seemingly every option under the sun. But what were those sliders doing? And how did I know when to use something or not? And why did raws from different cameras appear to have different sliders available? And why did I keep running into limitations when raw was supposed to give you maximum flexibility? I turned to search engines, and thus began my raw education. It was very good at getting decent results in just a few sliders. Have never used lightroom, but started out with ACR which is similar.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |