Free Open Source Photo Editing Software

[vwsjr]

Since this question comes up all the time, I figured I'd post my updated list of favorite software. I use Linux exclusively for my photo editing, but some of these listed below do have Windows versions. I have tried the Windows versions of most of these, but in every case, it's obvious the software was written for Linux and only ported to Windows as an afterthought. Often the Windows version is less stable, has fewer features, is much slower, etc. If I get a minute I'll add links to all these, but the download sites for all of them can be easily located with a quick search online. All these programs are free, with no advertising, pop-ups, etc.

1. Ufraw - This is the only application I use for RAW conversion, even though many of the others do an adequate job. It's the fastest, easiest to use, and gets by far the best results of any of the others. There are other things you can do with the software such as adjust contrast, reduce noise, resize, apply curves, adjust levels, adjust white balance, etc., but it's not a full featured editor. In my workflow I use this to adjust exposure or apply curves if necessary, apply the camera profile, and simply convert to png before editing in another program. EXIF is preserved in the conversion to png with this program. There is a Windows version but I don't know how well it compares to the Linux version. I'm guessing it works well only because this application is much simpler than many of the other programs listed here.

2. Digikam - This is my primary application for photo management and it pretty much has it all. It can do raw conversions very well, but it takes a lot more work and it seems to me the settings need too much tweaking with every photo, so I prefer Ufraw for the initial conversion. I could write a book on this software, but basically it's the best there is for editing and managing, there's just a ton you can do with it and it does everything well, and for the most part it's very intuitive and simple to use. For sharpening, use the refocus option, it's the best sharpening tool there is. Read the free manual and it will give you a good basic starting point for tweaking most settings. Windows version is significantly worse than the Linux version in every way, but it's usable.

4. Darktable - This is as good or better than Digikam for photo editing. Sometimes I throw this in between my Ufraw conversion and Digikam editing, for special needs. A good example is spot removal, a feature that works amazingly well and easy in Darktable. As good or better than any commercial application out there. No Windows version.

That's my cutoff for my go-to applications that I use on a regular basis. The others below are just some that I've used before, and may use occasionally for very specific functions. Others may find these work well for them, but I don't find any of these to be as good as the first three.

5. Photivo - This is the closest one to Digikam and Darktable in terms of features and quality. I haven't used it in a while and actually can't remember why I stopped using it, I'm guessing it just didn't do anything better than the others I was more familiar with. It's definitely worth a look. There is a Windows version too.

6. RawTherapee - This application is somewhat slow but it has tons of editing features. It reminds me of Photoshop only in the learning curve required, complexity, and sheer number of options and settings. Some may really like it but I just never got the hang of using this efficiently, and I didn't find it to do anything I couldn't do with the other applications I use. There is a Windows version that does work as well as the Linux version.

7. Gimp - In my opinion this application was never a photo editor, and it hasn't aged well. It's kind of like comparing Photoshop to the other Adobe applications like Elements or Lightroom. You can edit photos with it, and do some really cool things, but for most things it's more difficult to use than other applications dedicated to photo editing. Depending on your workflow it can have some serious flaw, for example it does not preserve exif in some file formats such as png. This is probably one of the most recommended open-source applications for photo-editing and I just don't understand why. There are many things this application can do that the other ones above can't, but they are mostly very advanced editing features that I believe the majority of people rarely use, while the most common editing functions are not implemented as well with this application. If you like spending hours editing photos in Photoshop, you might like this application. There is a Windows version that I believe has almost all the same features, but is noticeably slower than the Linux version.

Vern

 

[Jim Cockfield]

vwsjr wrote:

Since this question comes up all the time, I figured I'd post my updated list of favorite software. I use Linux exclusively for my photo editing, but some of these listed below do have Windows versions.

I use Linux >99% of the time (sometimes going for months at a time before booting into Windows for anything).

But, don't overlook commercial apps for Linux, as the time savings in one weekend's shoot alone can pay for a product with fast page loading, raw conversion, rating and filtering features, editing features, etc.

Personally, I use Corel Aftershot Pro. It's similar to Adobe Lightroom with more features. For example, with AfterShot Pro, you can browse folders full of raw (and/or jpeg) files without importing them into a catalog first like Adobe Lightroom requires, with nice features like layers and edit regions.

But. if you import your files into a catalog, you get a lot more metadata related editing and search features. It's also *very* fast (nothing else even comes close from my perspective after trying many similar tools).

See more about what it can do in this "webinar". It's long (roughly an hour). But, I'd spend the time needed to watch it so you get a better idea of what it's capable of before buying it, as it can take some time to understand just how many features you have available in that type of product.

The trial version will work for 30 days without buying it; and if you decide to buy it, no reinstall is needed (you can simply plug in the license key you'll get and the trial version will then be a registered copy). It's a huge time saver for managing and editing your raw (and/or jpeg) files, and it's also cross platform, so it works with Windows, OS X and Linux (you'll see links to .rpm and .deb files for it). I use it with a distro based on Debian Stable right now.

It's speed is amazing (again, IMO, nothing else even comes close to it's speed when working with raw files, and it also works with jpeg files).

It's written in a manner than scales nicely if you have more CPU cores available (with almost double the speed each time you double your Cores). The newer versions also support GPU accelerated raw conversion via OpenCL. If you're a good shopper, you can usually find it for under $50 on sale (as in the current $49.99 price I see on their product page).

Basically, Corel purchased Bibble Labs a while back and rebranded Bibble Pro as AfterShot Pro, and have made enhancements to it since them (for example, the new GPU Accelerated features). But, Bibble Pro was selling for $199, and Corel priced AfterShot Pro at only $99.99 (but sale prices are even less). That's a super bargain IMO, as the time savings in one weekend's shoot would pay for the product (using it for rating and culling images, basic image enhancements, etc.). You can also use the same license key to install it in more than one Operating System (for example, if you have both Windows and Linux on your PC). That's a feature you got with Bibble Pro that Corel kept with AfterShot Pro.

--

JimC

---

 

[canuck dave]

vwsjr wrote:

Since this question comes up all the time, I figured I'd post my updated list of favorite software. I use Linux exclusively for my photo editing, but some of these listed below do have Windows versions.

I use Linux >99% of the time (sometimes going for months at a time before booting into Windows for anything).

But, don't overlook commercial apps for Linux, as the time savings in one weekend's shoot alone can pay for a product with fast page loading, raw conversion, rating and filtering features, editing features, etc.

Personally, I use Corel Aftershot Pro. It's similar to Adobe Lightroom with more features. For example, with AfterShot Pro, you can browse folders full of raw (and/or jpeg) files without importing them into a catalog first like Adobe Lightroom requires, with nice features like layers and edit regions.

But. if you import your files into a catalog, you get a lot more metadata related editing and search features. It's also *very* fast (nothing else even comes close from my perspective after trying many similar tools).

See more about what it can do in this "webinar". It's long (roughly an hour). But, I'd spend the time needed to watch it so you get a better idea of what it's capable of before buying it, as it can take some time to understand just how many features you have available in that type of product.

The trial version will work for 30 days without buying it; and if you decide to buy it, no reinstall is needed (you can simply plug in the license key you'll get and the trial version will then be a registered copy). It's a huge time saver for managing and editing your raw (and/or jpeg) files, and it's also cross platform, so it works with Windows, OS X and Linux (you'll see links to .rpm and .deb files for it). I use it with a distro based on Debian Stable right now.

It's speed is amazing (again, IMO, nothing else even comes close to it's speed when working with raw files, and it also works with jpeg files).

It's written in a manner than scales nicely if you have more CPU cores available (with almost double the speed each time you double your Cores). The newer versions also support GPU accelerated raw conversion via OpenCL. If you're a good shopper, you can usually find it for under $50 on sale (as in the current $49.99 price I see on their product page).

Basically, Corel purchased Bibble Labs a while back and rebranded Bibble Pro as AfterShot Pro, and have made enhancements to it since them (for example, the new GPU Accelerated features). But, Bibble Pro was selling for $199, and Corel priced AfterShot Pro at only $99.99 (but sale prices are even less). That's a super bargain IMO, as the time savings in one weekend's shoot would pay for the product (using it for rating and culling images, basic image enhancements, etc.). You can also use the same license key to install it in more than one Operating System (for example, if you have both Windows and Linux on your PC). That's a feature you got with Bibble Pro that Corel kept with AfterShot Pro.

--

JimC

---

I have tried some of the 'Free Open Source Photo Editing Software' the op mentioned but none really appealed to me.

Jim, your posting here is very tempting! I used Corel for years, before anything else. But when I got into RAW and with Corel PSP X2 and X3 I began having a lot of reliability and performance issues. As well, I don't like 'layers' at all, can't get my head around it, even though I have been doing photography for over 30 years. Heck, maybe that's why........the layers process is not really intuitive to me and my darkroom background.

Anyway, I started using Lightroom and that product has evolved very well, with its highlight recovery being about the best available. To beat the layers situation, I started using NIK a few years ago. For me, their 'control point' technology is very effective, and easy and intuitive.

Also, the price points of LR (and NIK) have come down drastically.

All said, I agree with you that Corel Aftershot is an extremely attractive package. Far too many folks think they have to spend the big bucks on Photoshop/CS to get good results. Just ain't so!

 

[BG454]

Anyone that limits themselves solely to Linux is unnecessarily restricting their choice of Photo Editing software.

 

[vwsjr]

Just for clarification, I'm an IT person who works at a university, and I get Windows and Adobe products for free (enterprise contracts). I still prefer the open-source alternatives for a wide variety of reasons, not simply because they are free. The idea that commercial software has some inherent speed advantage or other advantage is bunk.

The only advantages of I've seen in commercial software are in some of the more esoteric editing functions (that some photographers may find very necessary). Some of the applications geared specifically towards very high quality noise reduction are a good example, there just aren't as many options for Linux, let alone free ones (although Neat Image is pretty good).

Vern

 

[Jim Cockfield]

Jim, your posting here is very tempting! I used Corel for years, before anything else. But when I got into RAW and with Corel PSP X2 and X3 I began having a lot of reliability and performance issues. As well, I don't like 'layers' at all, can't get my head around it, even though I have been doing photography for over 30 years. Heck, maybe that's why........the layers process is not really intuitive to me and my darkroom background.

AfterShot Pro is not like other Corel Products. As mentioned in my last post, Corel just purchased Bibble Labs and rebranded Bibble Pro as AfterShot Pro. So, it's using a totally different "engine" for raw processing, image enhancements, etc. compared to what you may get with Corel's PaintShop Pro line of products.

After Corel purchased Bibble labs, they have come out with a couple of newer versions (for example, first adding GPU accelerated raw conversion, then more recently adding some of the newer camera models).

But, on the downside, they have been a bit slow in supporting brand new camera models, as they're relying on one of the developers that was working for Bibble Labs in Austin to handle it. If you don't see your camera on AfterShot Pro's Product page specifications tab, check the release notes for the latest update (as they have some newer camera models listed there).

Anyway, I started using Lightroom and that product has evolved very well, with its highlight recovery being about the best available. To beat the layers situation, I started using NIK a few years ago. For me, their 'control point' technology is very effective, and easy and intuitive.

Well.. the image enhancement support in a product like AfterShot Pro is not as extensive as you'd get with something like Photoshop. But, it's layers with edit regions can come in handy for doing things like brightening one part of an image while leaving another part as originally exposed. For example, if you exposed for the sky and find the lower portion is too dark, you can draw an "edit region" on one part of it an only apply changes to that part. It's also got some basic clone and heal tools built in.

But, it does everything I'd normally need to do with an image.

Also, the price points of LR (and NIK) have come down drastically.

All said, I agree with you that Corel Aftershot is an extremely attractive package. Far too many folks think they have to spend the big bucks on Photoshop/CS to get good results. Just ain't so!

Yea... products like Adobe Lightroom or Corel AfterShot Pro can be *huge* time savers thanks to their ability to rate images, etc. (and create views for only images rated x stars or higher) for finding your keepers; with lots of features for other metadata based searches. With AfterShot Pro, you can even create views using images from multiple catalogs based on metadata tags (versus being limited to a single catalog). It's got some pretty good features that can save you tons of time (especially given it's very fast speed in building views for you from raw files, taking great advantage of multiple CPU cores).

I really don't need anything with more features than those types of products for the way I work with images, as they're great for image management, as well as the types of basic corrections I'd want to apply (exposure, noise reduction, white balance, sharpening, tone curves, highlight or shadow recovery, etc.).

--
JimC
------

 

[Jim Cockfield]

Just for clarification, I'm an IT person who works at a university, and I get Windows and Adobe products for free (enterprise contracts). I still prefer the open-source alternatives for a wide variety of reasons, not simply because they are free. The idea that commercial software has some inherent speed advantage or other advantage is bunk.

Sure it is. But, you have to take each product on a case by case basis. I could care less if a product is open source or commercial if it does what I need to do.

Frankly, the *only* commercial product I install in Linux is Corel AfterShot Pro (and I kept Bibble Pro installed before Corel purchased Bibble Labs).

I'm a big open source fan.

Heck, I used to have long phone conversations with Dave Coffin (the developer of dcraw.c that products like UFRaw use for raw conversion), and even added a new camera model to it's code years ago, then let him know what I did so he could get it working, too. I also had conversations with Dave concerning licensing (as there was a problem with his licensing that prevented Debian from including it in repos at one point, and he agreed to dual license it so that it would also be under GPL).

I've even sent raw files from newer camera models to Dave so he could get them into dcraw.c before cameras were officially released (one of the "perks" I had because I work for a digital camera review site and the owner was willing to let me do that kind of thing some years back before we were acquired by another company).

So, I'm a huge fan of open source tools for image management, raw conversion, etc., especially where Dave Coffin's work on dcraw.c is concerned.

But, if you need to work with thousands of raw files (and I may have that many photos in one day's shoot to sort through from time to time), nothing I've found is anywhere close to the speed that you get with a product like AfterShot Pro for building previews of your files in Catalogs, rating, culling, enhancements, converting from raw, etc.

Eric Hyman (the original developer of Bibble Pro) did a super job with making sure the code was optimized for multiple CPU cores (each time you double the available cores, you virtually double the processing speed of it). He's a very sharp guy. Eric even solved the problem with nef files using a encrypted metadata for white balance before Dave did (if you remember that fiasco where Nikon started encrypting their "as shot" white balance info in nef files a while back).

AfterShot Pro also has lots of nice features thanks to agreements he made to include basic Noise Ninja noise reduction (in addition to the raw level noise reduction that Eric designed), and also includes features like "one click" Perfectly Clear (where you'd pay more for that Perfectly Clear plugin alone if using Photoshop than you'd pay for the entire AfterShot Pro package with that plugin included at current sale prices, as it's only $49.99 on sale right now).

Until you've ran into a situation where you need to sort through thousands of very large raw files in a day and determine your keepers, you probably can't appreciate just how much better AfterShot Pro can be, as it's *very* fast, and has lots of great features for helping you narrow down your keepers (side by side views using a magnifying glass to examine critical areas, with fast rebuild of views based on ratings and other metadata tags you want to use, etc.).

If a product like digiKam (which has some good image management features) was anywhere near as fast, I'd use it. But, it's not (it's a "very* slow in comparison, and the adjustment tools are not real time either, meaning you're going to spend a ton of time compared to something like AfterShot Pro, and they're just not as good as what you'll find in AfterShot Pro either). Those kinds of Open Source products are fine for most users though, and I suggest them to others on a regular basis. They're just too slow for my needs, and I also want non destructive editing, layers with edit regions, etc. for working on raw files prior to exporting them to another format.

So, I don't mind spending a bit of money for that one product (Corel AfterShot Pro), even though I'm perfectly happy to use Open Source applications for anything else I do (Thunderbird for e-mail, LibreOffice for docs and spreadsheets, Audicity for sound editing, VLC for media playback, etc. etc. etc.).

If you're fine with something like UFRaw for raw conversion, great (as I'm a big fan of dcraw.c -- which is the code it's using for raw conversion). But, it doesn't have the needed performance (or image management and editing features) that a product like AfterShot Pro gives you if you need to work with a lot of larger raw files on a tight schedule.

If it was Open Source, that would be even better. It's not.

I totally agree that there is nothing that makes a commercial product any better than an Open Source product (if you're only looking at that aspect) But, again, you have to take each product on a case by case basis.

--
JimC
------

 

[Jim Cockfield]

One more Open Source Image editing application you may want to try is LightZone.

I have not used it in a number of years (since it was a product from Lightcrafts).

The original developers got on my "bad side" after shutting down LightCrafts (commercial site) and left the user base "hanging".

But, apparently the code was released as Open Source not long ago with one of the original developers helping out, and is now an active project that's being updated.

So, it may be worth a look (and it's apparently available for Windows, OS X and Windows).

http://www.lightzoneproject.org/

From what I can tell from a quick glance, it's just calling the dcraw.c binary for the initial raw conversion (versus trying to integrate code from it into it's own compiled software), as I see notes on the main page about how to update it.

I haven't looked at the detail about that part (I barely glanced at the main page for it before making this post) but my guess is that you probably just need to download the latest dcraw.c source code and compile it real quick under Linux, or download a precompiled binary for Windows).

Since you're a UFRaw fan, that's the way it used to work, too (UFRAw just called the dcraw.c binary from it's own code, versus using dcraw.c code internally the way it's working now; and you'll find the same thing with a lot of other apps).

LightZone may work differently (you'd have to look at in in detail to see). That's speculation (since that's the way it used L:ightzone used to work when it was closed versus open source).

LightZone used to have loads of fans for the way it worked internally for edits (very unique abilities compared to most other products). It may still have loads of fans (as I haven't kept up with it in years).

So, you may want to give it a test drive to see how it fits with your needs for enhancing images.

--
JimC
------

 

[Jim Cockfield]

Forgive the typos (more than one spot, too --- as I didn't get much sleep last night).

I meant it's available for Windows, OS X and Linux.

LightZone used to have a huge fan base, as it's approach to image enhancements was very unique.

Again, I haven't kept up with it in years.

But, now that it's code was released as open source from what I understand, and it's being actively worked on again, it's probably worth a look.

--
JimC
------

 

[ABA DABA]

Anyone that limits themselves solely to Linux is unnecessarily restricting their choice of Photo Editing software.

Fortunetley everyone is entitled to their own opinion. but yours suck's.

 

[malch]

But, now that it's code was released as open source from what I understand, and it's being actively worked on again, it's probably worth a look.

I took a very quick peek a couple of months ago. It didn't exactly blow my socks off but others I know who have been following it more closely are very excited about the progress and trajectory. I don't think it's a big factor yet but it has the potential to get there.

 

[willvan]

I have tried some of the 'Free Open Source Photo Editing Software' the op mentioned but none really appealed to me.

Jim, your posting here is very tempting! I used Corel for years, before anything else. But when I got into RAW and with Corel PSP X2 and X3 I began having a lot of reliability and performance issues. As well, I don't like 'layers' at all, can't get my head around it, even though I have been doing photography for over 30 years. Heck, maybe that's why........the layers process is not really intuitive to me and my darkroom background.

Anyway, I started using Lightroom and that product has evolved very well, with its highlight recovery being about the best available. To beat the layers situation, I started using NIK a few years ago. For me, their 'control point' technology is very effective, and easy and intuitive.

Also, the price points of LR (and NIK) have come down drastically.

All said, I agree with you that Corel Aftershot is an extremely attractive package. Far too many folks think they have to spend the big bucks on Photoshop/CS to get good results. Just ain't so!

I considered Corel Aftershot.

I am a bit ticked with Adobe, don't particularly like the catalogue set-up in Light Room and am on my fourth version of PS Elements and would have to upgrade again to get ACR support for my latest two Canon cameras. I use and like DPP, use Elements 10 for processing beyond RAW but need an organizer to compare and sort through a backlog of shots and new ones. Corel Aftershot was looking good..... organizing and comparing without using catalogue, a simplified layers (I also have mental block), good speed and tagging etc. I was all set to download the trial but now find Aftershot is two models behind in RAW support for a couple of popular Canon models i.e. no support for G15 (which I have) or G16 and the often talked about models S110 and S120 are not supported. Okay for my 40D and 60D. This does not speak well for Corel considering Canon is one of the major brands. Bummer.

Bill

 

[Jim Cockfield]

I considered Corel Aftershot.

I am a bit ticked with Adobe, don't particularly like the catalogue set-up in Light Room and am on my fourth version of PS Elements and would have to upgrade again to get ACR support for my latest two Canon cameras.

Yea... that's one of the problems I have with Adobe, too (you may need to upgrade to newer versions of their software if you want native support for raw files from newer cameras, as they tend to prevent the latest Camera Raw Plugin from working with older Photoshop or Elements versions).

Vendor lock in to keep you spending money on upgrades. ;-)

Of course, you can always use a newer version of Adobe's DNG converter with support for a newer camera, then open the DNG files created with an older Camera Raw plugin if you don't want to upgrade. That's just an extra step (but, not a big deal to some users of Adobe products).

I use and like DPP, use Elements 10 for processing beyond RAW but need an organizer to compare and sort through a backlog of shots and new ones. Corel Aftershot was looking good..... organizing and comparing without using catalogue, a simplified layers (I also have mental block), good speed and tagging etc. I was all set to download the trial but now find Aftershot is two models behind in RAW support for a couple of popular Canon models i.e. no support for G15 (which I have) or G16 and the often talked about models S110 and S120 are not supported. Okay for my 40D and 60D. This does not speak well for Corel considering Canon is one of the major brands. Bummer.

Nope... as mentioned in my second post to this thread, that is a downside since Corel acquired Bibble Pro and rebranded it as AfterShot Pro.

Corel really needs to work harder on supporting newer camera models.

Basically, they have been a bit slow about adding new camera models, and are using one of the original developers from Bibble labs to do that now after a lot of users complained about it.

So, they did add some cameras in a July 19, 2013 update. You'll see them in the in the release notes for the 1.2.07 updates here (just pick click on the release notes for the update under any of the Operating Systems to see the new models).

http://www.corel.com/corel/pages/index.jsp?pgid=800161&ppid=4300004

Those are in addition to the camera models you'll find in the tech specs tab here:

http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071#tab4

But, sorry, they have not added your latest G15 (or some of the lower end models like your S110 or S120).

Hopefully, we'll see another update supporting more camera models very soon (as that is something that Corel appears to be aware of, which is why they contracted with one of the original Bibble Labs developers to add the cameras they included in the July 19 update for it). It's definitely past time for another update. ;-)

BTW, you do realize you can use AfterShot Pro's features with jpeg files, too, right?

IOW, if you wanted to do a batch conversion from raw to jpeg using another product, you could still take advantage of AfterShot Pro's cataloging, metadata search features, and most image enhancement features with your jpeg images (and at it's current sale price of only $49.99, it's a bargain for that purpose IMO).

--
JimC
------

 

[ABA DABA]

Jim, Thanks for your help our computer is running just fine. And I will be looking into After shot as well.

--
ABA DABA

 

[malch]

I am a bit ticked with Adobe, don't particularly like the catalogue set-up in Light Room and am on my fourth version of PS Elements and would have to upgrade again to get ACR support for my latest two Canon cameras.

I'm kinda relieved to hear I'm not alone in my dislike of the LR catalog. I already know I'm not alone in my dislike of Adobe's "revenue enhancement" policies.

It seems to me that a business is headed for trouble when they succeed in ticking off a substantial proportion of their customers.

 

[Austinian]

I am a bit ticked with Adobe, don't particularly like the catalogue set-up in Light Room and am on my fourth version of PS Elements and would have to upgrade again to get ACR support for my latest two Canon cameras.

I'm kinda relieved to hear I'm not alone in my dislike of the LR catalog. I already know I'm not alone in my dislike of Adobe's "revenue enhancement" policies.

You're far from alone. There's a current thread in the Retouching forum on this called "Alternative to Lightroom that doesn't require DAM?".

 

[malch]

You're far from alone. There's a current thread in the Retouching forum on this called "Alternative to Lightroom that doesn't require DAM?".

Interesting thread. Thank you for the pointer.

 

[canuck dave]

I am a bit ticked with Adobe, don't particularly like the catalogue set-up in Light Room and am on my fourth version of PS Elements and would have to upgrade again to get ACR support for my latest two Canon cameras.

I'm kinda relieved to hear I'm not alone in my dislike of the LR catalog. I already know I'm not alone in my dislike of Adobe's "revenue enhancement" policies.

It seems to me that a business is headed for trouble when they succeed in ticking off a substantial proportion of their customers.

I've been using Lightroom since LR2, and use it extensively. I do not use their catalog, as such. Well, I do and I don't............

I use FastStone (PC only, but Free, and excellent!) as my go-to photo viewer (including some very capable editing tools!). So I do a shoot, upload into folders I designate. Open FS to view and cull, as needed. Then to process the RAWs I go from FS via "edit with external program' wherin I have LR (and NIK and so on). Yes, there is then the prompt to open in LR's catalog, but so what. I do my stuff in LR then Export as a TIF to the same folder. Then, from FastStone again I go to NIK, usually, to use its amazing control point editing tools. I find it faster to do it this way rather than going from LR to NIK or other plugins.

I do not want a hard drive full of endless LR edit-edit-edits. I use indicating letters (ie, TC for tonal contrast, in NIK) when I save-as. Been doing this for years, I can find my stuff and do re-prints easily.

I realize LR has amazing cataloging potential and use for some, such as for wedding work. But it is not a necessary part of using LR to its fullest for many others.

 

[Jim Cockfield]

But, now that it's code was released as open source from what I understand, and it's being actively worked on again, it's probably worth a look.

I took a very quick peek a couple of months ago. It didn't exactly blow my socks off but others I know who have been following it more closely are very excited about the progress and trajectory. I don't think it's a big factor yet but it has the potential to get there.

LightZone's main "claim to fame" was it's use of layers and edit regions (or what they liked to refer to as "zone" based editing).

It was ahead of it's time some years back as far as low cost raw converters and editing tools.

That way, you can do things like select a zone (region) you want to apply changes to (saturation, contrast, exposure, etc.) in a layer, then apply changes to that one section of an image only.

You can even find articles around about using it in conjunction with Lightroom for that kind of thing. For example, this one:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_a115/essay.html

But, Corel AfterShot Pro (formerly Bibble Pro) does that kind of thing, too. Basically, about the only corrections you can't make using layers and edit regions is lens correction (which has to be applied to the entire image versus a selected region within a new layer). Everything else available in AfterShot Pro (tone curves, noise reduction, color correction, exposure correction, shadow and highlight recovery, sharpening, etc. etc. etc.) can be applied to a selected region within an image using it's layers and edit region features.

So, given that Corel AfterShot Pro (what I use under both Linux and Windows) is *very* fast (especially with more CPU cores), and already handles making corrections like that (layers with edit regions), with a ton of tools compared to a product like LightZone, with all edits non destructive and super metadata related features if you use catalogs, I have no need for something like LightZone.

But, now that LightZone is Open Source and being worked on again, it may be worth keeping an eye on.

--
JimC
------

 

[tex]

But, now that it's code was released as open source from what I understand, and it's being actively worked on again, it's probably worth a look.

I took a very quick peek a couple of months ago. It didn't exactly blow my socks off but others I know who have been following it more closely are very excited about the progress and trajectory. I don't think it's a big factor yet but it has the potential to get there.

LightZone's main "claim to fame" was it's use of layers and edit regions (or what they liked to refer to as "zone" based editing).

It was ahead of it's time some years back as far as low cost raw converters and editing tools.

That way, you can do things like select a zone (region) you want to apply changes to (saturation, contrast, exposure, etc.) in a layer, then apply changes to that one section of an image only.

You can even find articles around about using it in conjunction with Lightroom for that kind of thing. For example, this one:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/workflow/wf_a115/essay.html

I've watched these comments for a day or two, and resisted jumping in. Now at this juncture I thought it might be appropriate to make several comments:

Just as an FYI, these Outback Photo articles, though quite good at the time, represent older versions of LightZone, typically. We ourselves have over 3 hours of Youtube tutorials on LZ that go into a great deal more depth, and there are at least another 3 hours worth done by other parties.

The other "claim to fame" was LightZone's use of a grey scale, coupled, zone based tool (as opposed to curves) to control contrast. Later a tool named the "Relight Tool" was added which amplified the contrast controls. These two tools remain a bit unique---although there now exist some other tools in programs like the "Relight Tool". These two things together, along with selective editing, still make LZ a strong candidate for those who are needing sophisticated, manual, B+W conversions---because after all, that is all about contrast control, and these tools and regions based editing do that extremely well.

Another interesting feature of LightZone's tools are its tool tabs, which allow almost all of its individual tools to do even finer selective editing than with or even coupled with the regions. Finally, and this is still unique as far as we know, the tools are deployed into what is called a "tool stack". Not only can they be individually turned on or off---thus allowing for a single editing session to provide both B&W and color output---, but tools may be deployed more than once, and finally the entire stack can be re-arranged, allowing for tools to take effect at different "moments" in the editing at will. This can lead to quite interesting differences in the final result.

Thus LZ retains some of its original "edge" over other programs in these ways 9and some others...), even though it has fallen behind in several areas (such as lens corrections, which we are hoping to solve this coming year).

But, Corel AfterShot Pro (formerly Bibble Pro) does that kind of thing, too.

This is true, now. Bibble 5, when it was first demo'd publicly---I saw it at a PDN Photo Expo show in NYC some years ago---was the first raw converter/editor to follow LZ's lead in this, and also with vector based regions. Bibble's disastrous rollout of Bibble 5 delayed that as a usable feature for at least a year, and now of course what was Bibble is now owned by Corel. I understand Bibble's entire design team eventually got the axe.

Basically, about the only corrections you can't make using layers and edit regions is lens correction (which has to be applied to the entire image versus a selected region within a new layer). Everything else available in AfterShot Pro (tone curves, noise reduction, color correction, exposure correction, shadow and highlight recovery, sharpening, etc. etc. etc.) can be applied to a selected region within an image using it's layers and edit region features.

So, given that Corel AfterShot Pro (what I use under both Linux and Windows) is *very* fast (especially with more CPU cores), and already handles making corrections like that (layers with edit regions), with a ton of tools compared to a product like LightZone, with all edits non destructive and super metadata related features if you use catalogs, I have no need for something like LightZone.

Indeed, no one who is satisfied with their current software has any need for anything else. The best software, imo, is the one you intimately know. Because really it is that understanding and adeptness that makes or breaks whatever it is you are doing, and that extends to camera equipment. This is true of pencils and paper(the type used by artists). Being comfortable with something to the point of it being like second nature means that your mind is freed up for the most important aspect of editing, total engagement with the image. There is a direct analogy here with athletic endeavors, or actor's and a text. Furthermore, you are more likely to go deeper into a software's capabilities the more comfortable you are with it and knowledgeable of its workings.

But, now that LightZone is Open Source and being worked on again, it may be worth keeping an eye on.

As above, only if for some reason you find your current choice of software somehow ill-fitting. That is why I got involved with LightZone in 2006: after using some other software which was really quite good, I found LightZone and it fit me like a glove, and it is why I and others have made the effort to keep the software alive. Too little is made of this sort of thing, imo.

Too much is made of the technical niceties of a software, especially when they mainly are helpful for a very small percentage of one's shooting. For instance, at this point LZ lags behind Lightroom in highlight recovery and noise reduction. But in 2013, I'm beginning to wonder how much this means to most people's shooting with contemporary cameras, given their now remarkable high iso performance (iso's that were considered outlandish or even undreamed of when I began photography---but even just a few years ago...) and extended DR (which exceeds any printing/paper...).

What was of paramount importance just several years ago doesn't seem so much that way now. This sounds like a cop out perhaps, as we decide how to further develop LZ, but it's of some significance to us as we decide where to throw our limited developing resources. For instance, I've been confronted with a number of examples of highlight recovery comparisons lately, and it is clear now that LZ lags behind LR. But in all those comparisons three other things have jumped out at me also: 1. The images were incorrectly exposed in the first place---a user error, in other words 2. The DR was extreme for some reason, and it may be that the camera had its own deficiencies in that regard 3. not one was a particularly significant image, or one where extra effort to recover said highlights really made a bit of difference in the long run (with one exception, but again there was both an exposure problem and probably a camera issue).

This is not to say improvements in these areas aren't important, just to put their importance in perspective. I am reminded of the sometimes vicious back and forth here at DPR about 5-6 years ago over high iso capabilities, as if that were the only thing that made a camera good or not.

Because The LightZone Project is a completely volunteer project, not only will we have to carefully calibrate our development itinerary to the realistically do-able, we will need to be cognizant of preserving and further enhancing what made LZ different in the first place, and much of that had to do with the different way it worked for people who were not satisfied with other options---many of them excellent. Raw Therapee, for instance, which is also open source and free. So, it's not just the price. And also due to the nature of our project and its extremely limited resources, we will undoubtedly be not as good in select areas as other software.

On the other hand, because we are an open source project, now approaching 30,000 members, we are not limited to an in-house design team. We hope in the coming years to be able to attract interested individuals and possibly institutions to this ongoing development "party".