GodSpeaks: Capture One Pro is far superior to lightroom. Plus you are not forced to 'catalog' everything.
I'm not saying that LR is complicated. Nor C1p is. As to managing my photos, I've tried lot of tools i including extensis, photostation, cumulus, iViewMedia, and finally LR. All I can say is: almost each of them is ok, and most important is ability to easily migrate to different environment. Closed database is imo worst option of all. All my job with organizing database in LR is locked in LR, and useless, since I'm no longer interested in this program.
Ed, of course You are fully entitled to have your own opinion. We all are. For me LR was horrible comparing to rawshooter.C1p is more complicated, but it does not force to access images only with use of the database. Two working modes resulted in more complicated workflow. But once You adopt it, its simple and straightforward (at least for me), and allows a ton of more options of workflow organizing - no mater if You buy it od not.
Ed, to all your statements I have siple answer: No, it is not.It took me some time to adopt lr, when I was moving from cnx. When after 1-2 years I decided to move to c1p- it took no more time, than for lr.
ILikeToBokehBokeh: My initial reactions to the Creative Cloud monthly subscription was negative, but after having used it for both my work environment and a second account for my own personal use, I find it a bargain to have everything included within the subscription based program.
One could argue that:
1. I don't need the bleeding edge, latest version.2. I just need a single program since I ONLY need Lightroom3. I don't want to keep paying.4. I'd rather just download an 'educational' copy of the software.
But even if they did a 5-10 dollar a month subscription for JUST Lightroom, I think that'd still be a deal to have the latest version. Programs are updated every few months, and usually bring in new features. I'm never worried about not having the latest software, and it's really a steal for 30-50 a month depending on what you qualify for.
So hopefully they still include it in the main Master subscription package.
i was using lr 3 and 4 for over year, seriousely adopting it to my workflow. But every time I wanted fine iq I was using cnx2. I disliked output from lr, even after xrite passport profiling and other actions.btw, imo wrong reputation of Nikon color rendering is caused by acr/lr output.as to ps: I stopped with cs, and i would like to know, what is really essential in cc for other users. i see that nothing really is.eot.have nice day.
afterburn, the same can be said (about convoluted workflow) when one is migrating in opposite direction.
Sanna, there are styles for c1p. Both free and commercial. Just FYI. To discuss lr/c1p/others one should give them a serious trial. I've been using lr3 and lr4 for over a year. Nothing was to be done to get fine colors for me (Nikon user). Even tried x-rite passport, with xr and adb software. It was vert difficult to get this look that I got from cnx2. I disliked cnx2 for lack of serious batch mode.Then i tried c1p. it is different tool than lr. habbits from lr doesnt work, but after some time You will find that it has many strong points - both in iq and workflow.
Thank You.I receive Your answers as "there were no important for me features introduced in cc since Cs", which doesn't surprise me. The only "advantage" of Cc for most people is that it is "only" $10/month.Btw, nothing was done free in upgrades. Only upgrade was not charged at the time of release.And finally: I did not launched lr4 nor upgraded it since I started to use different program, which works for me better.
You are right, I've spent a lot of money on my equipment, including 4x5" back in 90's. But I did not noticed any need for extra payment for any features - important or not. This camera was manufactured once, and is "as is" without any "service fee". It was up to me to include new features (rollfilm holder, lens, Polaroid holder). I don't understand, why I have to be forced to pay for items I don't want/need - and this includes hardware as well as software.Going back to my question: what essential feature (excluding ACR update) CC delivered You since CS? 3D printing? Rounded corners? fake T/s that can be done by a free plugins? Looking forward for Your answer.
If You did not noticed, LR within cc got no more no less upgrades than perpetual version.And to answer my curiosity - what REALLY essential updates (except ACR for new cams) gave You CC over CS?
j900: I guess Adobe knows what the photographic community as a whole thinks of their subscription business model...
Caerolle, all good software manufacturers provide constant upgrades.
Vince, look at this and similar pictureshttp://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/uploads/2014/9/19/saupload_1411080912324.pngStock value is not everything...
iAPX: I am awaiting for better performances for LR6 on OS X (actually using LR5 on OS X 10.10 Yosemite).- using more than 4GB of RAM (checked on a 16GB and 24GB configurations that I use everyday)- using hyper-threading, still it seems limited to number of PHYSICAL cores, thus not taking account the work Intel did to make hyperthreading really efficient (4-core w/hyperthreading vs 4/-core w/o)- using multi-threading and overlapped IO to speed-up Exports (actually you have to launch many parallel Exports to try to feed the fast CPU you pay for!)- using the GPUs for RAW decoding and processing, even if it's an opt-in option (openCL developer here!)- working correctly on retina display, not hiding the "loading" label while it's displaying a non-retina image, and awaiting seconds to have the true retina display to be done. (iMac Retina)
LightRoom seems to be based mainly on old Photoshop CS4 or CS5 base-code that is mono-threaded, except for some filters.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but lack of efficient HT implementation is a matter of missing of the proper scheduling algorithms-so it is rather fault of an OS vendor, not the CPU manufacturer.
IAPX, just curious - what cameras You use are not compatible? Hassy or something else? On my own, I mix different cameras from different manufactures, but none of them is exotic enough to be not supported by the co1.
"A" starts to remind the "Big Big Company Of America" from Monty Python's "Meaning of life".
Marcin 3M: Here where I live Sony lenses are more expensive than its Nikon or Canon competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sony's lenses IQ usually falls behind N/C, while some kind of lenses are simply unavailable (t/s is only third party lens).But I have to agree, that Sony' offer is more and more tempting, especially for newcomers.
Is there any proofs about " more processed" raws in n/c/? On the other hand, who cares, if it works?As to the Zeiss lenses: I've looked at comparisons between N and CZ, and have found that price is much much higher, while IQ-wise there were no real advantage.As to Minolta lenses: Pro lenses for this system are rare, and I'm not sure if there were t/s lenses in the lineup. As to back compatibility: I still can use some mf lenses from old good silver times on my nikon
Here where I live Sony lenses are more expensive than its Nikon or Canon competitors. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Sony's lenses IQ usually falls behind N/C, while some kind of lenses are simply unavailable (t/s is only third party lens).But I have to agree, that Sony' offer is more and more tempting, especially for newcomers.
Dorkington: I've had both the photographer bundle and the full bundle since they launched this initiative, and frankly I've been very pleased. It's a fairly cheap price (especially the photographer bundle) for applications that I use to pay my bills. The updates are often times incredibly helpful, especially some of the stuff for Illustrator and InDesign.
I have to wonder if some of those complaining would be pleased with Elements. I don't say this as an insult... Elements has a pretty comprehensive set of features these days, and it's cheap to boot.
Calicamera, the key words here are "some people".Also, not a word about why one wants to be a pro, but rather about some "pro disguise" - which is not exactly the same stuff as "to be the amateur".
MPA1: Time for Nikon to enter a partnership with Adobe, give them the secret sauce from NEF files and be done with producing second rate software like this.
Why Adobe? Adobe is evolving their own concepts. There are many fine raw developing tools. Sony picked c1p, Nikon went with Ichigawa (so did Fuji and Pentax - somehow proofing that business has nationality).Nikon should rather build their own software, or together with Ichigawa add new features.No need to focus on single vendor.
Raw converter without local adjustments? It is solution from the days that gone...
misha marinsky4: Ferrania house label films were generally lower quality. They made the Walgreens house brand, IIRC.
I have been reading the comments with amusement. To paraphrase Zone Zero, 'A film camera is like a mortgage, with payments for life.'
With a digital camera, it costs zero to press the shutter release. With a film camera, it costs even if it's a dud. I can't delete the shot for another. I still have to pay for development and a contact sheet. A memory card is quite literally an unlimited supply of 35mm film.
Like the look of film? There's DXO Film Pack, for starters. There's Kentmere, an inexpensive Ilford line. There's Freestyle, which sells inexpensive silver halide products.
With the Pentax MF, bodies have dropped below $10K. It's still not cheap, but Moore's Law applies to them, too. Sometime in the future, MF will compete with 35mm FF. The Mamiya ZD used a Dalsa chip; it was only usable at ISO 100, and they're cheap on eBay.
No one can stop the relentless march of technology.
Samuel: "The money saved by going digital is why the photography industry experienced a massive boom over the last decade."Saved by who? Rather maoney spent on digital equipment, that evolved whole generation in 2 years.