Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2013 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture
  
 
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


i use, and enjoy, lightroom/acr. it does 95% of what i need it to do. i am wondering two things:

- are any of the alternatives much faster?

- do any of the alternatives produce notably better results?

regarding the latter point, i know there are some special circumstances surrounding cameras like the new fuji's. ignore that... pretend we're just dealing with canikon and others whose raw files aren't problematic.

thx



Feb 13, 2013 at 03:21 PM
edge100
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


For Canon or Nikon files, I think LR is as good as it gets in terms of IQ. It can be a bit laggy at times, but I've found that doing two simple things really helps with the speed:

1. Max your RAM. I have 16GB in my 2011 Quad i7 MBP, and it flies.
2. Put your catalog on the fastest drive you have (mine is on a Sata-III SSD). The location of the image files doesn't make much difference.

I have both Aperture and LR on my Mac, and LR is far faster than Aperture. Also tried Capture One 7 for my X-Pro1, which is nice for that specific camera (and is allegedly the best for shooting tethered), but I wouldn't want to replace LR's DAM system with it.



Feb 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM
Bifurcator
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


goosemang wrote:
i use, and enjoy, lightroom/acr. it does 95% of what i need it to do. i am wondering two things:

- are any of the alternatives much faster?

- do any of the alternatives produce notably better results?

regarding the latter point, i know there are some special circumstances surrounding cameras like the new fuji's. ignore that... pretend we're just dealing with canikon and others whose raw files aren't problematic.

thx


Well I have and know fairly well all of the major (and many minor) image and photo editing packages - just to qualify the reply here and:

1) Almost every other package is faster than LR although ACR is about average.

2) Yes. For example Capture One produces notably better results.




Feb 13, 2013 at 03:46 PM
alvit
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


LR is a invaluable DAM, that's sometime is little cumbersome , let it be, may be LR 5 will be better


Feb 13, 2013 at 07:53 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


goosemang wrote:
i use, and enjoy, lightroom/acr. it does 95% of what i need it to do. i am wondering two things:

- are any of the alternatives much faster?

- do any of the alternatives produce notably better results?

regarding the latter point, i know there are some special circumstances surrounding cameras like the new fuji's. ignore that... pretend we're just dealing with canikon and others whose raw files aren't problematic.

thx


I just moved from Aperture to LR 4.3 after having used AP since version 1.5. Believe me, prepping, transferring, and setting up 20K+ images was an activity I hope not to do any time soon again. I left AP fundamentally because Apple would provide no guarantee that it was going to continue to support and improve it as a professional program.

I know that everyone says LR is faster but I've not found that to be categorically true. (My reference platform is a dual quad 2.4GHz MacPro with 32GB RAM.) Import of some file formats (notably Panasonic) are dramatically slower. Many functions are faster but then it does vary plus LR lacks some lovely tools Aperture had.

Sort of by accident I have 6 RAW converters: ACR, Apple's system level service, DPP (Canon), DXO 8, Noise Ninja (new and interesting), Photo Mechanic, and RPP. Ah, guess that's 7. Sheesh! I've never done any sort of systematic comparison between all of them, because frankly speed of conversion is a not key issue for me.

I have noticed that DXO - if they have the profile for your gear - seems quick. DPP is fairly slow. (I don't know anything about Nikon's offering.) I've never used Capture One so can't comment on it though some praise it. I've only played with RPP with some trans-x (or whatever the Fuji files are called) loaned by a friend.

The Noise Ninja has a very interesting take with its rendering and to be honest I've never much liked DPP. DXO does an excellent job of dealing with UWA and WA distortion plus correcting for other lens artifacts. I have noticed and others will probably scream at my assertion here, though I'm not alone in making it, that with tweaking all of the converters can produce essentially the same output. Makes sense really, so I guess you have to find the one closest to your sense of "right" and go with it.

As someone has already pointed out, AP and LR are DAMs while none of the others are. Well, DXO has a rudimentary system and PM can keep track of photos but not manipulate them. As a newspaper photog who also sells his own work, being able to find a file or a type of file is vitally important to me.

I understand that some folks have "religious" convictions that one or another RAW processor is the "one true rendering" but I really don't think that's true, at least based upon my experience.

None of this really gives you an answer other than to suggest that you can get similar results with most of them and you need to decide how important managing your images is.

Robert



Feb 14, 2013 at 08:25 PM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


edge100 wrote:
For Canon or Nikon files, I think LR is as good as it gets in terms of IQ. It can be a bit laggy at times, but I've found that doing two simple things really helps with the speed:

1. Max your RAM. I have 16GB in my 2011 Quad i7 MBP, and it flies.
2. Put your catalog on the fastest drive you have (mine is on a Sata-III SSD). The location of the image files doesn't make much difference.

I have both Aperture and LR on my Mac, and LR is far faster than Aperture. Also tried Capture One 7 for
...Show more

i've got 12 GB of ram and have done every optimization trick i could find online. fact of the matter is i have an i3 processor and it's just a dog. need a new computer, i think, which is a whole other can of worms.



Feb 14, 2013 at 08:26 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


this is really why i asked.... wasn't sure if different software could get me around the computer being slow.

i loathe to take a loss on a 27" imac just because it's too slow. wondering if i can maybe run LR on another machine and use the imac as a monitor, but i dunno.



Feb 14, 2013 at 08:29 PM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


here's what apple says:

"With Target Display mode, you can use your iMac (27-inch, Mid 2010) or iMac (27-inch, Late 2009) with Mac OS X as an external display. Connect any computer or other device with a Mini DisplayPort to your 27-inch iMac using a Mini DisplayPort to Mini DisplayPort cable or using a converter that converts other electrical, video, and audio protocols from another source device to Mini DisplayPort compliant signals. (Cables and converters available separately.)"

so what i'm wondering here is if i can HDMI out of my laptop, which is faster, and have that HDMI convert to mini displayport for the line in to the imac. does it sound like this would work to you guys?



Feb 14, 2013 at 08:31 PM
OntheRez
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


Goosemang,

You don't specify what laptop you are running, but in my experience they are rarely faster than desktops unless there is a dramatic difference in technology generations. Possibly if you have one of the newest with a SSD you could boot from it and run LR off the laptop while keeping your files on the iMac hard drive. In general laptops don't have the graphics capacity that desktops have but I don't know how important the GPU is to LR performance. Also, how much RAM does the laptop have?

Something you might consider is trading the iMac off and buying an older MacPro. There are a number of things that can be done with MacPros to enhance their performance that can't be done with any of Apple's closed models. I've done business with Powermax for many years (www.powermax.com) trading old for new or older for newer. Worth considering as it might be a cheaper solution.



Feb 14, 2013 at 11:04 PM
morganb4
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


PhotoNinja?


Feb 15, 2013 at 01:39 AM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · alternatives to LR/ACR that aren't aperture


OntheRez wrote:
Goosemang,

You don't specify what laptop you are running, but in my experience they are rarely faster than desktops unless there is a dramatic difference in technology generations. Possibly if you have one of the newest with a SSD you could boot from it and run LR off the laptop while keeping your files on the iMac hard drive. In general laptops don't have the graphics capacity that desktops have but I don't know how important the GPU is to LR performance. Also, how much RAM does the laptop have?

Something you might consider is trading the iMac off and buying an
...Show more

thanks for the idea. i'll see what they give me for a quote.



Feb 16, 2013 at 09:26 PM





FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password