We Need An Adobe Lightroom True Competitor Locked

AyeYo wrote:

koweb wrote:

Dismayed wrote:

Batdude wrote:

Who has the balls to come out with a much better RAW converter that truly competes with Adobe Lightroom Classic? We need one.

The only reason why I use LR is because of (it's workflow, that's it!) but as a Fujifilm shooter the files it produces are really poor. When I was using the Fujifilm S5 Pro no problem, but then after several years after upgrading to newer cameras you can definitely see the problem. Color tones, film simulations, sharpness and detail is simply not there and you have to spend a LOT more time messing around with this nonsense. Fujifilm is Fujifilm, not Sony, although I get the feeling that Sony RAW files are easier to manage now over Fujifilm, with Lightroom that is.

That's the first problem. The second problem is that for importing/exporting Lightroom is SUPER SLOW.

One of the comments I liked from the thread "Do You Want 40MP?" is that someone said that more megapixels is only going to get worse. And that's true. But, the hardware is not the only problem, is the software that will be the bottleneck and will slow things up drastically as MP keep increasing.

Sure, if you don't shoot over 1000 photos it should be fine, but over that forget it.

I hope someone comes out with better faster software than Adobe Lightroom with the same or even better workflow and I would be delighted to make the change.

There are at least a dozen alternatives to Lightroom. C1P and DXO Photolab Pro are two that I've used myself. Try Google.

Well, to play devil's advocate here, it is not nearly as simple as you try to make it... and, you have completely ignored the OPs comment that he uses LR because of its powerful workflows that work to process 1000s of photos.

Can you provide the google search link to the dozens of options that have the power of LR workflows? Or, can you provide your workflows to intake, process and manage 1000s of images, when you use C1 or DXO?

No, because other programs can't do it, which is something that repeatedly gets ignored when alternatives are offered.

Of course they can.

Lightroom always offered a quick and dirty option, but quality was always lacking in comparison to products from (for instance) DXO. I could get a speedy - and generally acceptable result with LR, but if I had time to spend, I could generally get a superior result with DXO (pre PL).

I finally lost patience with LR 5, after having to reinstall for the upteenth time. The subscription thing just put the tin hat on it for me.

The accusation by non-Lightroom users is always that Lightroom users haven't tried other programs, but I think it's actually the opposite that's true. If I cared enough, I'd do a live screen capture of an edit session in Lightroom with a large number of photos that include the need for some HDR merges and sky replacements, and then see what other programs someone else could use to replicate it in the same amount of time. My money would be on it not happening.

Those are features that go beyond what I'm looking for from a raw converter. I prefer to use specialist software for stuff like stitching - and if LR stitching is as good as ACR raw conversion, I'll take a pass.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/matta001/