4 ms·

How it compares to Lightroom?

kk_cz 9y ago
Just like GIMP compares to Photoshop. All the tools are there, maybe there is even more of them. However something feels "off", things sometimes freeze for no apparent reason. The less you know Lightroom the greater the chance that you will like RT
- tolien 9y ago
  > things sometimes freeze for no apparent reason Fortunately for the alternatives that would describe Lightroom these days too, to the point that Adobe had to publicly acknowledge that performance isn’t good enough [1]. 1: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/07/on-lightroom-performance.html http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/07/on-lightroom...
  - dom0 9y ago
    The last LR version I used was LR3 and performance was really not a problem. That was 2010, mind you. On an even then outdated dual-core AMD system with the images and the catalogue on some old hard disk. So, am I correct to understand that Adobe managed to botch LR so badly that PCs with vastly superior processing and IO to what I used back then struggle on basic tasks? Woah.
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      Yeah, it's not terribly performant nowadays. I haven't gotten many crashes, but it feels pretty slow in general, even on a beefy machine.
    - kk_cz 9y ago
      One explanation can be that they managed to botch it the other can be that size of RAW images increased significantly in the meantime. I had no problem running relatively recent LR on i5 with 16gb ram. (I had problem with their pricing though, so I switched to another (non-OSS) SW that is performing similarly for ~1/3 of the price)
      - a012 9y ago
        Talking about their licensing practice, I was about to buy a license for LR but their website prohibited me because I'm from their no- support/blacklisted country, so I can't buy. thanks for piracy and FOSS as well.
furrydog 9y ago
The image quality and detail level, presumably from the RAW decoder, is pretty poor compared to Lightroom, CaptureOne etc. The last time I gave it a try was about a year ago though.
- std_throwaway 9y ago
  To me it seems that Lightroom makes it much easier for users to get a decent quality due to a much better polished user interface and sane presets. You should be able to obtain the same quality with both programs but it takes oh-so-much work to get gradients, color, detail, denoise into the right balance.

Just like GIMP compares to Photoshop. All the tools are there, maybe there is even more of them. However something feels "off", things sometimes freeze for no apparent reason. The less you know Lightroom the greater the chance that you will like RT

tolien 9y ago
> things sometimes freeze for no apparent reason Fortunately for the alternatives that would describe Lightroom these days too, to the point that Adobe had to publicly acknowledge that performance isn’t good enough [1]. 1: http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/07/on-lightroom-performance.html http://blogs.adobe.com/lightroomjournal/2017/07/on-lightroom...
- dom0 9y ago
  The last LR version I used was LR3 and performance was really not a problem. That was 2010, mind you. On an even then outdated dual-core AMD system with the images and the catalogue on some old hard disk. So, am I correct to understand that Adobe managed to botch LR so badly that PCs with vastly superior processing and IO to what I used back then struggle on basic tasks? Woah.
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    Yeah, it's not terribly performant nowadays. I haven't gotten many crashes, but it feels pretty slow in general, even on a beefy machine.
  - kk_cz 9y ago
    One explanation can be that they managed to botch it the other can be that size of RAW images increased significantly in the meantime. I had no problem running relatively recent LR on i5 with 16gb ram. (I had problem with their pricing though, so I switched to another (non-OSS) SW that is performing similarly for ~1/3 of the price)
    - a012 9y ago
      Talking about their licensing practice, I was about to buy a license for LR but their website prohibited me because I'm from their no- support/blacklisted country, so I can't buy. thanks for piracy and FOSS as well.

furrydog 9y ago

The image quality and detail level, presumably from the RAW decoder, is pretty poor compared to Lightroom, CaptureOne etc. The last time I gave it a try was about a year ago though.

std_throwaway 9y ago
To me it seems that Lightroom makes it much easier for users to get a decent quality due to a much better polished user interface and sane presets. You should be able to obtain the same quality with both programs but it takes oh-so-much work to get gradients, color, detail, denoise into the right balance.