retro76: People don't want another monthly bill, it's just something else to drain the bank account every month, even if it is only $10. Adobe would be one better to simply lower their existing prices, I think you would see huge profits with a larger user base simply by selling PS for $99 which is where the price needs to be. Subscription models are for the most part a failure (sans products like Netflix, but video content is a different model). people want ownership and when times are tough or something needs to go that monthly bill will be the first thing out the door. I switched from Adobe to other products and to be honest, I am not missing a thing - if they want me back they simply need to sell products outright at lower prices with an affordable upgrade path.
"most of Adobes customers are pros" ROTFLMAO
Adobe can never make you get paid. Adobe only reduces your profit over and over. Needlessly. No customer thinks you're a "pro" because you use Adobe software. Noobs use Abobe. If you can't set yourself apart then that is not professional. You'll always be competing with "uncle bob's" kids. Accept they are already working smarter and using better. At no charge. I'm not sure how anyone can call themselves "professional" and not know that.
"Here's your sign!" ROTFLMAO
What's this "Photoshop" you speak of?
If you can't get the job done with shared software then you are no professional. Nor even a enthusiast. I'm sure glad I use Gimp (ufraw for 16BIT Raw + Gimp 2.8 + Gimp plug-ins and scripts + an over abundance of free on-line tutorials, including videos.)
If you haven't got it up, even along side anything else THEN WHY!? Why would you not have the tools? Why would you not want to learn photography? Photography runs far deeper than most people think it does. What can't you do with Gimp? This is not 1990. Explore.
Archiver: I'm still on LR 4, and I've been waiting to see if LR 6 is still a standalone buy-once program, and this announcement does not bode well for that possibility. In more cynical turns of mind, I wonder if Adobe is doing this to scare people into buying LR 5 right now, before it potentially becomes subscription only.
Go Gimp and be legal. LOL. Live and live right.
Neodp: ufraw (When Raw 16 F'n bits, set per cam first) + Gimp + Numerous Gimp plug-ins and tutorials are $0.00 per month. But regular upgrades are $0.00. The only problem is it can't get any less. Windows, Mac and Linux.
No Ads, or tiers. Use it along with anything else. No one says you can't. Don't get a beta test version unless you want to report bugs. Use self control. The stable versions are more stable than other software.
Indeed. If you give up just a little freedom for so called "time saving professionalism" [LOL], then you'll find you have neither. Nor any real market competition. No choices.
Sound familiar? Here's another. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Live. Don't die nor support it. Because The Light never ends and is greater.
ufraw (When Raw 16 F'n bits, set per cam first) + Gimp + Numerous Gimp plug-ins and tutorials are $0.00 per month. But regular upgrades are $0.00. The only problem is it can't get any less. Windows, Mac and Linux.
Peiasdf: I think the future is 1" compact cameras and FF for enthusiast / pros. Bridge cameras such as m4/3 and APSC will die out.
@Peiasdf: You know I agree with you. Sooner or later folks figure out "ULTRA MEGA ZOOM X-FACTOR" can only do it's reach (well) in the brightest non-cloudy days, on its overly tiny (CHEAP to manufacture) sensor, at base ISO (if you like color/light sensitivity, lower noise and DR). I know... the "tiny" makes the whole thing pack smaller, and that's truly better(to a point). But not smaller sensors.
We need to see really clean ISO 6400 before thinking smaller area sensors.
Therefore as per area sensor IQ continues to improve (where they lied and said it couldn't) "larger" senors would be the educated buyers choice.
Uh oh! How many educated buyers do we have?
It's like bad film you can't exchange.
Neodp: Hey it was very astute of the author to recognize the "new FZ50". I'm still waiting. LOL.
To bad this isn't competitive. Accept compared to 8 year old cameras. It rules there.
Yeah I know we wanted this 8 years ago. That's my point. So no. Not impressed. I've seen the output. Not the way I would go, not today. But have fun with that.
Silly me, not being impressed with the "new".
Hey it was very astute of the author to recognize the "new FZ50". I'm still waiting. LOL.
HowaboutRAW: UFRaw extracts raws from this Panasonic reasonably well.
There are more raws over at Imaging Resource.
Reason is as reason does.
Problems with your OS are yours. I already said ufraw and Gimp works freely on them all. If mal-ware hinders you (core OS, insecure programs, bad hardware, etc...) then that's all your choice. That's beyond the cope of this discussion. Choose wisely. ...Anyone here wanting help, then email me above.
As far as versions then that's something ever program has. You have to use (your own) self-restraint and not run beta(testing) buggy stuff, on anything. Unless you want to report bugs. It's your job to install the newest STABLE version, of anything. If that's what you want. You'll certainly can not do any better with paid software; that much we know.
I already suggested using better PNG's, instead of huge and cumbersome tiffs. I already included; that PNG's can be use to start after ufraw and try any other editor. I have. But you can do TIF's (or all others) also, as I'm taking about freedom and you are not.
There is also no real advantage to brand name (Canon, Nikon) or any other editors. ufraw+ Gimp + plugins is not limited.
You obliviously are not experienced with these suggestions and have some other axe to grind. Best wishes with that.
You don't use the simple NR in ufraw, at all. Do wavlet-denoise in Gimp, added or not. What part of not messing with all the nice and numerous *options* in ufraw don't you get? Set all defaults(click save once to make them stick), and set your color profile per cam(and it's possible to make them; but most are already available). Just like the ufraw web site explains and gives you cam profile downloads. Select it and set its two accompanying slider values. That's it. People. Come on. It once per cam, forever. But the point is you want another look as DEFAULT you can do that too. Then, you can even have local-contrast pre-sets too. Can you click save? Can you select things in a drop down box? These are pro (advance amateur) tools. You probably don't want to edit, if you don't want to edit. ;)
We've seen (slow) improvements in sensor's per area IQ (to say nothing and not yet include processing). So what's keeping that goodness (per area) from showing itself in smaller sensors FIRST? Absolutely nothing.
There no reason (say 4/3) sensors can't be better than an APS-C sensor due to competitive improvements, sold there FIRST. See? Even when the same per-area IQ goodness could make a bigger sensor better. We should have seen this by now. Why haven't we? Why is sensor competition hindered. That's the real question. It may be that our part is voting with our wallet. Know before you buy, not after. Educate buyers.
Not if the IQ is kept purposely at bay, like this 1". It's not just a bigger sensor *can* have advantages, and usually do. It's they make sure these smaller sensors do not surpass them(still being sold)! Yeah I know smaller has limits. I also know they stop just short every-time. That's no limit. That's a plan. At some point we should have seen a crossover and they can't do both. They can't make better (unfetter progression or competition) and also hide it in smaller sensors at the same time. It's pure logic. Why must better only start in the bigger? It doesn't have to be this way. The fact that it's physically easier with bigger sensors (of course) does not dictate what's for sale (cost and quality) at the same time! There lives the lie. Busted.
Lack of competition will not stop until you do. Educate.
Correction: The auto transition from ufraw to Gimp does *NOT* use JPEG. It uses a non-loss format you don't even have to think about. Just install the ufraw to Gimp transition-er. Done.
Of course you can always save a .png file for any tedious work in progress. Thing is it never gets tedious. But if you do hours of stuff to a photo(or try other apps), you save it as a highly compressed and no-loss PNG work file. Then when you're finished then you can optionally toss it. It doesn't matter! No catalog heck. Ever. It's wonderful. Be free. You know, these suggestions make it super-easy to start with your backed-up unchanging Raw file and be finished instantly, or almost instantly developing Raw(SOME). Do you get that part? The "pro" is in you. Not what you spend.
This is so obvious; that any "pro" not also using Gimp is no pro.
But you do have know why(some photography). Explain to be how ignorance is bliss with respect to photography? It's a very deep subject. It's Light, after-all. Where does that end? It doesn't.
There are so many one-click, push a button and "do all" things in Gimp and its plug-ins that save great amounts or time. But you can also do it other ways, where needed. It's both. Do whichever.
You're wrong. Do NR in Gimp. My ufraw was setup for Nikon, and produced outstanding JPEG's from this cameras Raw sample. I already said, you have to set up ufraw per camera once. I haven't even set it differently yet. You have set no camera. The idea that one has nothing to learn can't work with respect to photography. That will only enslave.
Also, you don't edit JPEG's generally. The point was set them while taking and be done. My point is you can actually do that by only shooting Raw.
I know, it's trippy; but no less true. It's way better.
Gimp is NOT "freeware", It's freedom. What's called "freeware" (technically) has bad limits.
Gimp's "wavelet denoise" is second to none for NR. Fast, easy and fine-control capable. You should compare.
Also, the auto transition from ufraw to Gimp does use JPEG. JPEG is an output format (Gimp auto picks the best output JPEG compression levels) and output is to your required goals.
You can do the best CA, Distortion and noise reduction when smoothly (install that transition-er) into the Gimp. Along with the kitchen sink. Like anything from acne clean-ups to recreating half the picture that's not even there!
Gimp is the most comprehensive and what you do is use ufraw before it, only when necessary.
This may require your understanding about wasting your ongoing cash on closed software, such as from Abobe. On any OS platform. Don't be guilty of promoting bad decisions just because you are "invested". That will cost you dearly.
Why not try everything you can. No one says you can't do both. Why would you not use the free Gimp that does many things others do not? Why not add to what you can do, especially at no cost to you? As far as your time; why not invest your time in the most comprehensive and capable photo editor, once you include the numerous available plug-ins and tutorials. All it's choices are not a bad thing as you don't use them all. Just what you wish
Ufraw develops Raw. JPEG's can always be extracted from your backed-up Raw files.
So shoot Raw only; even if you mostly use JPEG. Then you have a choice and no need for catalog-heck.
IMO you don't have to save a "work in progress file"(catalog backup hassles); when you can have ufraw practically finish (develop) in seconds, after just a one time per-camera set-up; to your exacting wishes. Including make the Pany JPEG look like Nikon's pallet (for example) by default.
Of course: Then you would do one or two fast 16-bit tweaks(more light/color latitude at the given sensors limits) or you shouldn't (on a good JPEG producing cam) be developing the Raw in the first place.
You could more instantly(and in groups) pull the JPEG right-out of the Raw file. Simply use the free dcraw app with right-click, setup once. All JPEG settings are retained. they're instantly pulled, less time required. Different cameras do different JPEG qualities.Then being Raw, use a fast Gimp plug-in *if* any CA.
Neodp: Can't do good ISO 3200 in JPEG?
Can't do good video?
Is this a joke? Don't let this suggest to anyone that mirror-less can't be better. It's just not yet.
I'm boycotting both mirror-less and DSLR's, until makers combine the best of both worlds.! Enough is enough.
Time for Nikon and Canon to give it up.
That's very kind and mature of you to say.
Yes what's really ridiculous is the state of the market.
Vote wisely and with much restraint, please. That will determine the better state-of-the-art offerings and their value. Two things we are sorely missing.