What to get: PS, Affinity, GIMP, ON1, other?

[Joshua Dunn]

Do you have any facts or proof for your questionable statement?

The reason is that as you grow and expand as a photographer you never know the things you are usually trying to accomplish. You can't always predict what you will be doing as an artist a few years from now, or maybe even tomorrow. What if you wanted some perspective controls to tweak an image. You may have never done it before and may only do it once but for that image it may be important for you. Having a program like Photoshop means there is a far better chance that whatever you are trying to accomplish there is probably a tool set in Photoshop that will accomplish it. That doesn't mean there aren't other platforms that can accomplish the same task, just that Photoshop can do almost anything in terms of digital manipulation, even if there are individual programs that handle specific tasks better. Think of it as Photoshop can accomplish almost any task well, instead of one or two thing incredibly well and then not anything else.

For what it's worth it's not the only program I use, I find Helicon Focus is better for focus stacking and HDR Effects Pro better for the HDR that I do. Photoshop can assemble panoramas but not nearly at the level PT GUI can, and that's why I use it. But if I didn't have enough of a need for all those other programs and only thought I would use them occasionally then you could use Photoshop to do any of them. Just not to the level that those programs could accomplish those individual tasks.

When I am done editing in HDR Effects Pro, Helicon Focus and PT Gui I still go back to Photoshop because of all of the editing tools it has and I have been using it for decades so I am familiar with the platform. But there is no denying that Photoshop is the Swiss Army knife of photo editing. If you have it you are more capable in a digital darkroom environment.

Just my two cents. The bottom line is any photographer should use whatever works best for them. But I have known photographers that buy two or three programs before buying a Photoshop Cc subscription.

-Joshua

[rdenney]

There is just as much likelihood that Photoshop will not meet our needs in the future.

My beef with Adobe is only partly because of the rent-seeking model. It's not unreasonably priced, but monopolies are bad for pricing from the consumer's point of view. Having to verify the license online frequently is a serious problem for me--there are times when I go many days without internet access. Example: I may be spending some time during my trip to Alaska in July editing photos that come off my Pentax 645z, and there is no internet access where we will be staying for a week. This is not unusual. I see many comments from people that when the internet is not available, Photoshop (and Lightroom) turns itself off in stages.

My much deeper beef with Adobe is their inexorable push towards cloud-based software and image storage. Many people have use cases that take advantage of cloud-based work, and I get that. I do use Photoshop Express on my iPhone, and having access to cloud images (for the documentary photos I make using my iphone) is useful. But I do not want my serious images in cloud storage in all their high-resolution glory. Once those bits and bytes leave my house, they are no longer subject to my control. Before everyone piles on to say that they do support local storage, I ask you to look at the trend. It's slowly transitioning from being the norm to the exception, which in my view means that eventually they hope to no longer have to support local storage. That may be driven by their business model--if our images on on their servers, we become slaves to their products--or it may be their response to what they see as a changing market. They may truly believe, as many software people do, that the boundaries between local and network storage should be invisible, and are driven by their on altruistic principles. I don't know, and don't really care.

One of the things I do professionally is systems engineering, which is a needs-focused, requirements-driven process. Adobe is less and less fulfilling the requirements related to my use cases. My use cases haven't really changed, but Adobe has--see my first sentence above.

We should also remember that Photoshop was originally developed for editing bitmaps for process color printing applications, not for making photographic prints. Thus, it is a hybrid tool that has become rather inefficient--bloatware is one term that comes to mind. That's the least of my issues with it, to be honest.

So, my requirements are:

1. Licensing that does not require online verification (after first installation), or forced updates.
2. Local storage not just now but with apparent commitment to keep it that way in the future.
3. 16-bit editing, including everything that the software does (I'm surprised by how many editors still don't support 16-bit color depth for common tasks such as unsharp masking).
4. Good black-and-white conversion support, including support for grayscale, even though I usually do my black-and-white conversions using color.
5. Full support for wide-gamut color spaces, including Adobe 1998 and ProPhoto.
6. Fully color managed from raw conversion to printing--this is easy these days.
7. Locally stored software with liberal licensing to allow installation on several workstations (for a single user), so I can have it on my desktop and also on my laptop.
8. Efficient--I don't upgrade computers every two years.
9. Native support for PSD and PSB files.
10. Non-destructive raw conversion--I expect the raw file to remain unchanged as I convert it to a TIFF, PSD, or proprietary file format.
11. A quick "save for web" feature would be nice, but I can work around not having it. If provided, it should a.) remove EXIF data, b.) make a conversion to sRGB, and c.)
12. All the usual editing features that most of the better programs support: Adjustment layers, various masking tools, selection adjustments, layer transparency, etc. That seems to be the easy part.
13. Programmed actions, though I have to say I only use it to create web-viewable images (with my copyright mark).
14. A decent history--this is one area where Photoshop may still really lead the pack.
15. Gamut warnings based on preview color profiles and color spaces.
16. Preview (using Epson profiles).
17. Merging photos for panoramas (conversions to different projections would be a plus, but I'd be happy enough just with clean merges without changes in projection).

New ones for me:
18. Batch raw conversion based on an example.
19. Either a pre-populated lens database (with my lenses), and the ability to extend the lens database with my own corrections.
20. Correction for mustache distortion, not just barrel or pincushion. (I think DXOMark can do this, and they are probably the only ones).
21. Direct support for Pentax PEF, DNG; Canon CR2; and Nikon raw formats. (This lets Capture One out--they explicitly do not support Pentax PEF from the 645z, and current workarounds do not seem to me sustainable).

At the moment, I'm leaning towards On1 Photo Raw for raw conversion, and Photoline for any required additional editing.

A robust market is competitive, but if we never explore alternatives to the dominant tool, we'll never have a competitive market. The alternatives will get better when high-end users start using them and driving their revisions and updates.

Rick "summarizing current thinking" Denney

[Joshua Dunn]

Rick,

I understand why many people don't like Photoshop and Adobe. The important thing for any photographer is to find what toolset works for them. After that the photograph should speak for itself.

I don't use any of Adobe's cloud based storage. For some photographers (sports photographers, photojournalists etc.) it may have some advantages in terms of workflow but it's not for me. The only reason I mention it is I have not had a problem (yet) by not using any of their cloud services. I also have not had a problem using any of the Adobe Cc software offline, but to be honest I have never tried it for more than three days offline.

I agree that competition is good for the market. But with a few plug-ins the only program I can think of that will meet your list of requirements right now is Photoshop. I would be interested in hearing what program (or programs) you settle on and why if it's not Photoshop. Out of curiosity what items (aside from the licensing and cloud storage) can Photoshop not accomplish for you?

-Joshua

[Robert Brazile]

I doubt Rick, or many if any others, is claiming that Photoshop cannot accomplish something. I think we all agree that is one of the most capable applications for this purpose out there. I think Rick's concern about support for local storage is worth worrying about; Adobe has proven that they do what they think best for themselves without being too concerned about users being left behind. But the main issue from my perspective is that with the new model, once I move to CC, I have to essentially pay ransom to have the ability to open my own files from then on out whereas with the perpetual license model, it was up to make the decision as to whether new features justified investing in a new platform. There is some backward compatibility, to be sure, but I highly doubt that over time, CC-produced files will continue to be editable by CS6, the last perpetual licensed version (which I own). So there's a lock-in that I'm highly unwilling to accept.

The gap between CC and CS6 is not yet large enough to bother me. So I am holding my options open. But I am also continuing to work with the newer alternative applications in the hopes that one of them can add enough functionality and gain enough traction to provide a reasonable alternative...at which point I will certainly adopt it.

Robert

[Joshua Dunn]

Robert,

You bring up a good point, "...I highly doubt that over time, CC-produced files will continue to be editable by CS6"

Last year Adobe updated Lightroom Cc and if you wanted to open your older versions of Lightroom Catalogs you had to convert them to the new version. Converted Lightroom Catalogs were then no longer backwards compatible to older versions of Lightroom, to include older versions of Lightroom Cc. If you were running the 2017 version of Cc and updated to the 2018 and current version of Lightroom Cc I could see that you wouldn't have a problem. As long as you updated everything. But people using an older stand alone versions could not use their Lightroom catalogs (like Lightroom 6) in the new version of Lightroom Cc without converting them.

I'm sure there were some technical reasons to do this, I'm also sure Adobe did it to drive users to the current version of Lightroom Cc. I look at all the peripherals we use, from cameras and lenses, computers and monitors, digital sensors to printers as tools. Use the tools the best accomplish your vision. To me all that matters in the end is the final print. If CS6 works for you then stick with it. The only downside to CS6 is Adobe will no longer update it. So newer camera and lens profiles won't exist, many plug-ins won't be compatible etc. The worst case scenario if you did have to upgrade is keep both versions (which I do one one of my computers) and if Photoshop Cc won't work with Photoshop files from CS6, save the file from CS6 as a tiff and open it in Photoshop Cc. You won't have your layers but you will have the image. I really don't see Adobe getting to a point with Cc platforms where you have to store your images on the cloud. Time will tell if I'm wrong.

I understand that people have a legitimate compliant with Adobe and the way they approach these types of issues, especially with the whole implementation of the Creative Cloud architecture. But the reality is they are the biggest company driving the market and 99% of the users of Photoshop don't care about the issues we are discussing here and as such Adobe doesn't care either. As I said before, I use Photoshop for some things and not for others. But for less than the cost per month of what most people spend in Starbucks a day I think it's a good tool to have in your toolbox.

-Joshua

[rdenney]

Joshua, this is the topic for the most experienced users in every photography forum of which I’m a part. I’m not sure 99% of their users are as committed as you suggest.

I’m a Photoshop user, and have been for 20 years. I used Corel Photopaint before that, because I’ve been using Corel Draw for vector graphics for closer to 30 years. I wasn’t paying attention and missed the update to CS6, so I have been using CS5.5, Bridge, and ACR. Most of my requirements are based on things I have done using Photoshop.

But now I have a newer camera, and I have to use the supplied software to process the raw image into a TIFF so Photoshop can open it, or I have to store it as a DNG.

Also, my computer is old and will eventually need replacing. I’m probably five upgrades since I had media, and porting CS5.5 to a new computer simply may not work. And at some point, it won’t work. Thus, it is not a sustainable solution for me.

So, I’m considering my options. Is tgeee another solution that does everything I want? Maybe not. But there never will be if Adobe finds a way to lock their customers in.

Sustainability requires redundancy. I’m looking for a workable alternative to Photoshop even if I continue to use my old version.

Rick “running into a configuration management dead-end” Denney

[Tin Can]

Rick, #11 is so obvious need a double file save with data strip. Yes!

Thanks for poking the beast.

Now struggling with double email users. A guy with my name and same Gmail... a real person.

[rdenney]

Nobody mentioned PhotoLine. No subscription, similar workflows to PS, small footprint, OS X and WIN.
http://www.pl32.com
The domain name is misleading from long times ago, today it is a 64 bit app for 16/48 bit image editing.
I've tried Affinity, but they don't want to correct the buggy EXIF, so if you send large format images to a printer they come out in business card size...

So, I just downloaded Photoline.

First, they claim it will open PSD files with full layer preservation. Fine. But it won't open a PSD file larger than about 200MB. None of my 1G PSD files scanned from 6x7 in my Nikon or from 4x5 in my Epson scanner will open in Photoline.

They claim to support nearly every raw format, but it won't import or open my Pentax PEF files.

Their Browse program just plain doesn't work. I can't open folders in the directory tree. It's like it receives my first mouse click and then simply ignores all the rest.

I've sent a question to the hobbyist who develops this software (sorry, that was an opinion), and we'll see what response I get. But so far, Photoline fulfills very few of my requirements, and I marvel that they have any customers at all who do large format.

DXO Photo Lab is the only one that seems to do what they claim it will do, and I think it will be my raw processor. It hasn't failed me yet, and I've been able to do some good production stuff with it. But it's not and doesn't pretend to be a full editor.

Rick "who'd be happy to pay for something that actually works, with documentation actually written by someone who knows how to write" Denney

[toyotadesigner]

First, they claim it will open PSD files with full layer preservation. Fine. But it won't open a PSD file larger than about 200MB.

Well, the software is called Photoline and not Photoshop. Try a TIFF. PL can even save a TIFF with layers...

None of my 1G PSD files scanned from 6x7 in my Nikon or from 4x5 in my Epson scanner will open in Photoline.

A 6x9 TIFF color image scanned with a Nikon LS 9000 @ 4.000 ppi @ 16/48 bit color depth has a size of ~640 MB. So I guess your numbers for a 6x7 scan are kind of bloated. And please don't mention Epson. Real LF photographers talk about drum scanners or Imacon. Real tools, not toys.

For what it's worth: I am working on a 2008 24" iMac (8.1) with 6 GB RAM. I can open any TIFF file up to 2 GB and work on it, even with layers. Never tried a larger file size though. It's fast in every respect on this 'old' machine. I even can load 2 x 1 GB TIFFs for comparison side by side. Due to excellent coding PL opens and saves any file faster than any other software. It doesn't mess with EXIF data like Affinity Photo. The print manager is fantastic, etc.

They claim to support nearly every raw format, but it won't import or open my Pentax PEF files.

Contact the developers or ask in the support forum. And maybe you should use the RAW converter that came with your camera. If that doesn't deliver the results you expect, you might try a workshop in 'How to measure light for a perfect exposure'. X-Rite (Sekonic) offers these workshops.

Their Browse program just plain doesn't work. I can't open folders in the directory tree. It's like it receives my first mouse click and then simply ignores all the rest.

The browser needs some time to generate the thumbnails. If you don't have the time to wait for the thumbs from PSD files, try TIFF files. The thumbs generation is a one time process. Adobe Bridge needs more time for this task. BTW, I am using XnView MP as a browser, which works great. But I guess it is far too cheap for your requirements. Even worse, it is a French product and doesn't have a brand name you are used to.

I've sent a question to the hobbyist who develops this software (sorry, that was an opinion),

Ahhh, I see, any company that is smaller than Adobe is a hobbyist thingie? Both developers already coded image editors for Atari. They certainly do have more experience than any hype company in the US.
Oh, by the way, PL with the very small code comes with a footprint of 64.3 MB on your system, compared to almost 1 GB of Affinity Photo and even more for your beloved Photoshop.

and we'll see what response I get. But so far, Photoline fulfills very few of my requirements, and I marvel that they have any customers at all who do large format.

I am one of them. There are many of us, mostly in Europe. Already for decades.

DXO Photo Lab is the only one that seems to do what they claim it will do, and I think it will be my raw processor. It hasn't failed me yet, and I've been able to do some good production stuff with it. But it's not and doesn't pretend to be a full editor.

Your choice. But wait - DxO is bankrupt.

Rick "who'd be happy to pay for something that actually works, with documentation actually written by someone who knows how to write" Denney

Good for you if you know how to write. Can you write code? In addition don't forget the developers of Photoline are Germans. Not everybody is fluent in Gods own language.

A real LF photographer doesn't need too many gimmicks in a software. Just a few editing tools to retouch dust or slightly modify some curves. If you need more than that, you really should hone your photography skills. That said, I know from your reply that you are a bloody hobbyist in LF photography. Nothing serious at all.

[toyotadesigner]

@Ralph Barker:

I guess you will also delete my last reply for 'Reason: Rude'.

Because of lack of political correctness? Because not being 'mainstream' or soft washed? Because of an opinion that doesn't fit into your comfort zone?