Cost of ownership of post processing software

[TechnologistdotLive]

It's a question of several dimensions.

Upfront cost.

Ongoing upgrade cost.

But more ...

Learning curve and time to learn and successfully apply new features.

Ability to successfully edit, and how long it takes per picture over next few years.

Still more ...

Associated hardware costs, need to upgrade hardware.

Associated software such as the operating system and other supporting software, need to update and upgrade or purchase, such as add-ons and 3rd party.

Still more ...

The overal post processing path that may differ from platform to platform to get end result (printed, sold, published, etc.) depending on your situation.

Is the result competitive and sufficient for the need at hand, or is there a handicap of some sort by choosing a particular platform to get some advantage in another area.

Still more ...

But how to differentiate?

If a person chooses to shoot only JPG and do no post processing, then basically NONE of the above costs apply. That's one defining criteria of what costs apply in this consideration.

Time costs end up being considerably more important than upfront cost to buy post processing software. The associated time to learn, to maintain and upgrade, and to consistently successfully use the software on the hardware platform YOU DO HAVE, is the primary cost driver here. The time to go from start to fully finished.

Without saying more describing the path I had to walk to get to this point ... DxO proved out to be the lowest cost for me overall without a doubt. But offer ...

No new hardware, working on 8 year old machine. No hardware or software upgrades needed. My GPU is insufficient and never is used by any of the programs.

Added FastStone used for initial image review and for comparing output photos.

Have stopped using NX Studio, as DxO reduces my previous time per photo.

Got up to speed quickly as the UI is intuitive. Started getting success almost immediately.

All current needs are fulfilled except stitching together multiple photos. In my case, the photos I put out of DxO are better than the JPG sooc and better than NX Studio which is pretty good and about the only competitor to DxO that I came across for Nikon, but recently I added Sony to the mix and needed to handle those raw photos.

 

[John Zeman]

Recently I downloaded and installed the new and free Raw Therapee 5.9 release.
As I really hadn't used Raw Therapee much before it took me a little time to get up to speed with it but now I really like it.

PhotoLab 6 is still my primary raw processor but for raw photos that PhotoLab can't process (my new iPhone 14 Pro cell phone for example) I could get by with little or no problems just using the free Raw Therapee and the low cost Affinity Photo.

 

[Len Philpot]

Recently I downloaded and installed the new and free Raw Therapee 5.9 release.
As I really hadn't used Raw Therapee much before it took me a little time to get up to speed with it but now I really like it.

PhotoLab 6 is still my primary raw processor but for raw photos that PhotoLab can't process (my new iPhone 14 Pro cell phone for example) I could get by with little or no problems just using the free Raw Therapee and the low cost Affinity Photo.

This is basically the route I'm on now. I have RawTherapee, ART and darktable installed (as well as DPP, but that's neither here nor there). Years ago I used Capture 1 then got out of shooting for a while. When I restarted a few years ago I initially used RT then started learning darktable. Both have their relative strengths and weaknesses, as does everything (both are very powerful, though).

I'm kinda settling on ART now - It just seems to 'fit' how I like to work. I used GIMP for years as well as Paint Shop Pro, but am using Affinity Photo now and I think the ART / AP combo will work well for me. GIMP still doesn't support adjustment layers (on the roadmap) but if you can get past the "it's not Photoshop" speed bump* it is indeed very powerful.

I'm not a FOSS evangelist -- I have and will continue to use both proprietary / paid and FOSS software. It's a matter of best fit. But I think the current FOSS offerings definitely deserve attention. They're no more perfect than anything else, but they're definitely not lightweight also-rans.

* This is a factor for all Adobe alternatives: The world isn't LR nor PS, but there are obviously other possibilities if one is willing to learn.

 

[newmikey]

[No message]

 

[s_grins]

I think that you forgot to include the cost of wipers and oil change.

 

[Bob Atwell]

I think that you have identified most of the major cost factors when it come to postprocessing digital images. Today those costs are actually about as low as one could hope for. In the old days we had few open source image editors that could process most digital images let alone compete with the power of Adobe LR, PS, or Elements. Back then we paid $350 - $500 per year or two to stay current in our post processing software at the high end. Today, the subscription model has cust that down to about $100/year for Adobe products and there are many commercial competitors who have offerings in the $40-$80/year area. Moreover, there are some excellent freeware options as stated in the responses that handle most of the average users post processing requirements. Overall, I think that the total costs of processing our images has dropped a lot over the years and today even the free software options are quite capable. I am not sure that I buy into the PC costs as being solely related to our image post processing costs but I understand that today's more sophisticated photo editiors require more computational power and memory. Finally, I think the really important cost in all of this is your learning curve and knowledge of your post processing software. The time spent learning some software is significant and we should all recognize that a trained photoeditor can work wonders with most digital images. That certainly is not the case for someone who is just starting to edit images. I own a lot of post processing software. I think that each of my products has its strong points. for me it's not the cost of the software that is important but rather how well and how fast that software lets me complete the image processing so that I can get back to shooting more images.

Happy Holidays Everyone!!!

 

[Regor250]

I think that you have identified most of the major cost factors when it come to postprocessing digital images. Today those costs are actually about as low as one could hope for. In the old days we had few open source image editors that could process most digital images let alone compete with the power of Adobe LR, PS, or Elements. Back then we paid $350 - $500 per year or two to stay current in our post processing software at the high end. Today, the subscription model has cust that down to about $100/year for Adobe products

Lr only cost $163CDN and Lr/Ps $327 CDN per year if you include GST, it adds up quickly. Or your can get ACDSee 365 plan that can replace the later for $80CDN per year.

--
Roger

 

[Regor250]

It's a question of several dimensions.

Upfront cost.

Ongoing upgrade cost.

Learning curve and time to learn and successfully apply new features.

Ability to successfully edit, and how long it takes per picture over next few years.

Associated hardware costs, need to upgrade hardware.

Associated software such as the operating system and other supporting software, need to update and upgrade or purchase, such as add-ons and 3rd party.

9*

Have stopped using NX Studio, as DxO reduces my previous time per photo.

Got up to speed quickly as the UI is intuitive. Started getting success almost immediately.

DxO does some things well, but I doubt I could use it as my only tool in the box. It's expensive too compared to other options. It's all a matter of what works for you.

 

[Bob Atwell]

I think that you can find the Adobe Photo Plan on sale at B&H and others for about $100 once or twice a year. I think that programs like Affinity, ON1, and NEO are also in that same realm. I think that you can find post processing software for around $100 per year that will handle most users needs. The Adobe Photographers subscription is something that is quite powerful but requires a bit of learning but as Adobe adds AI to these packages they too are becoming easier to use. Post processing software is just like the rest of camera gear in that you need to find what works best for you and your purposes. My point is that it can be done for a very reasonable cost.