Thread 4430277

So, Adobe just increased the monthly subscription price of Photoshop by a third.

That's really pissing on my chips this week.

>>4430277 (OP)
My 50% discounted version of capture one perpetual got z5ii support just before the cutoff for the ai retouch tool i dont even want near me, so when i buy one to replace my d810 in 3 years i wont have to upgrade C1

My chips are cheesed

I'm pretty happy with dxo photolab, but I'm a newb and a poorfag so my opinion is invalid.

>>4430296
dxo isn't terrible.

>>4430297
dxo's aislop looks terrible

>>4430277 (OP)
The answer is obvious. Use Darktable.

>>4430299
>My Mercedes just got more expensive to run
>The answer is obvious. Drive a golf cart.

>>4430299
I have never seen a darktable user present good colors and well reduced noise plus tasteful sharpening even as they claim that they alone are smart enough to use that linux shitware

>>4430317
>linux shitware
>huffs adobe's farts for 5% off sub

>>4430331
i paid $150 for capture one forever thanks

The LR + PS + other stuff bundle is still available at $10/mo if paying annually, my old plan is still going at $10 too

>>4430341
Same, until I bought a new camera and had to upgrade, and then did the same thing again 2 years later

>>4430348
>Upgrading
I can't understand planning around this. With the state of cameras why would anyone need to upgrade to something that hasn't been released yet?

Are they going to come out with 45mp FF global shutter with 16 stop DR tomorrow? A while ago it was waiting for DSLRs to be genuinely better than film, and then waiting for DSLRs to be replaced with a magical leica body with an SLR viewfinder (and then complain about it), but now? Where can this shit go anymore? Just more extremely stupid video wank so people can film in 8k 240fps longgop for their youtube? 200mp cameras?

I'm not alone here either, there's a general sentiment that cameras have been at a plateau for a long time and have reached the practical limit to how far this paradigm can be taken before returns diminish extremely sharply. All anyone can expect anymore is straggler brands to fix their shit (historically this hasn't ever happened).

>>4430277 (OP)
>paying for software
LMAO AT YOUR LIFE

Nothing will ever convince me that having to subscribe for shit is a fair deal.
>inb4 you can buy perpetual licence faggot
Yeah cool, of the version that exists then and there for a huge markup, with security updates and patches for either a limited time or not at all.
C1 is like $400 or some shit for the own-it version. Unless you're making money off using it (you're not) or are wealthy (you're not), you're a rube playing into these companies' hands. It's the same kind of nonsense that 3DMark pulls.

I'm also not pretending that freeware and community-maintained software is perfect either.

>>4430349
It's fun to change up cameras sometimes, new stuff comes out all the time
I would be just fine using a 10 year old DSLR for the rest of my life, but that's not as fun

>>4430355
You sound poor

>>4430355
>being this jewish
who cares lol get a job or realize a few hundred dollars once in a few years is not going to ruin your life. being overly frugal like this is how forgetful retards mask not being able to manage their money. they just don’t spend it, ever.

>>4430360
>SAAR

>>4430362
What's it like having tourettes

>>4430364
What's it like being lumped in with jeets because your post is indistinguishable?

>>4430368
Not beating the allegations tourettes anon

>>4430277 (OP)

They have to pay for the ai being trained on all the adobe users photos somehow… thanks for footing the bill…

>>4430360
>>4430361
>Yes dear, company dear, I WILL blindly consoom and throw money at you whenever you tell me I need to
>Netflix price went up 300%? Yes sir, I won't ask why sir. Do you have a boot I can lick sir?
>It's okay business-chan, I didn't feel like owning my jeans anyway, of COURSE I will rent them at a low regularly installed fee forever until the new version comes out
>What's that? You're using my data to train your AI that will make you even MORE money? I'm so happy your profits will increase at no benefit to me

And you sound like blind shills.

>>4430375
>NOOO THINGS CANT GET MORE EXPENSIVE OVER TIME
Get a job. Everything gets more expensive over time. That's the international bankers fault.
>DONT SPENT MONEY! YOU'RE SUBMITTING TO THE COMPANY! OMG LE DADDY COMPANY THANK YOU 4 POOPING ON MY FACE -U
You have a self defeating and somewhat pathetic mindset. Things cost money to make. If you want things, you need to spend money. If you want money, you need to do or sell something. Welcome to adulthood sugartits.

Go use the free software. It's definitely free for a reason lol.

>>4430376
>trying to justify why he licks the companies' balls free of charge
"Adobe average net profit margin for 2024 was 25.1%, a 6.83% increase from 2023"
Ah yes, they're just making more money because they're so smart and innovative right, not at all because they're just jacking up prices for the hell of it.

>>4430379
>Stop spending money! Business are making money, you fool! Defund the bourgeosie!
So you're retarded, poor, have tourettes, and are a communist?

>>4430380
Uh, you obviously are missing the point which is that many companies take their customers for a ride to milk them out of everything for no good reason. Adobe is a big offender.
If you want to gurgle their nuts so hard at least get them to pay you for the advertising anon

Its just corporate greed and a terrible business strategy trying to increase profits short term so they can put on their resume how they helped the company grow x amount before jumping ship.
You see the same crap in other large corporations as well where fresh blood thinks they are extremely gifted individuals and nothing but a blessing for humanity and the world. Of course in reality what happens is that they have pushed it too far by coming into an already successful company trying to increase profits and now nobody wants to touch their products before they fade into obscurity and the void gets filled with actors who understand economics. Sometimes there is no room for growth and looking for it will only cause trouble, realize your position and stay in it.
Adobe was too expensive for me to begin with, I could afford it, but I feel like the price for what I get is just too high so I went looking for alternatives instead. Now more will feel the same and that is magnified with bad publicity.
It baffles me how some companies after seeing how their market strategy fails never say to themselves "Oops, we messed up, better re-think our pricing", but that would require some level of self-reflection and the ability to admit that they were wrong, but that doesn't look good on the resume so instead they blame the consumer and keep on truckin', perhaps even increasing the prices once more or reduce the service. These companies deserves to become irrelevant.

>>4430375
Product offers a software to let me work more efficiently and make even more money
>bad wahhh

>>4430379
They haven't jacked up my pricing in almost 10 years, and the $10/now is cheaper than Photoshop + Lightroom for $1000-1500 like it used to be

>>4430465
Photoshop came bundled with cheap cameras back in the day.

>>4430472
Photoshop Elements did, yes
Not the full Photoshop

>>4430475
No, lightroom.

>>4430353
this. been pirating photoshop since cs kek

>>4430477
both Photoshop Elements and Lightroom have been included with various camera models at times, I'm not aware of the full version ever being included (and I sold cameras for many years)

>>4430463
Even if this is a valid argument, (You) don't make money from it
I'd wager 3% of /p/ has ever made money using a camera

>>4430498
I do make most of my money from photo tho
It's the cost of a roll of film and is something I use nearly every day

>>4430498
>Even if this is a valid argument, (You) don't make money from it
I've seen you around, repeatedly saying this.

You act really desperate to hurt people. Why are you so angry? Just realized you're trans and really don't want to be?

Are you also the one who defends overpriced mirrorless scameras with shitty autofocus? You have the same small dick energy and keep getting dunked on by the same people (right wing chads with successful careers and better photos than you, ie: dog hair negatives, ambush, huskyfag, cinefag).

Gimp and darktable are literally better than the paid options lmao
>but I need generative fill and ai masks
Oh, its retarded

>>4430501
Oh forgive me then. That's completely fair.
Also, Nice.
>>4430503
>I've seen you around, repeatedly saying this.
This is the first time I've typed this in months. I don't visit /p/ often.
>You act really desperate to hurt people. Why are you so angry?
Not remotely true. If reality hurts you, that's an issue of your character not mine.
>Are you also the one who defends overpriced mirrorless scameras with shitty autofocus?
No.

>>4430505
What sort of things do you use Gimp for in a typical editing flow?

>>4430506
People don't write this many words when they HAVENT been caught. You have been caught.

>>4430505
>No AI masking is not a valid reason to like something! I am very skilled because I spend time drawing masks myself!
You mean you waste time drawing masks yourself because darktable developers are not intelligent and skilled enough to implement AI masking, and neither are you. In fact, no one intelligent and skilled enough to implement AI masking wants to waste their time going near darktable's source code. That must be for a reason.

I have never seen a darktable user post a good photo. Even that german olympus memer posts better photos than darktable users and that is saying something. Every darktable user photo I have seen, even on darktables website, has absolutely horrible colors.

I posit that darktable is not able to produce good colors with a reasonable amount of effort and time because adobe and capture one start the user out with professionally created profiles which required calibrated reference monitors, consistent reference illuminants, proprietary color swatches, and high end colorimeters to create. Things darktable devs and users do not have access to. This may be related to why lens and body support is so spotty - darktable development just doesn't attract anyone skilled and smart. All the skilled and smart people are already using lightroom and capture one.

Prove me wrong.

>>4430508
Wow, several paragraphs of reddit spacing. As per your own reasoning you got caught or something. Didnt read btw, ai hack

>>4430507
Adding the merry christmas wordart and snow flakes. What do you do in ps?

>>4430509
I got caught like you, but I got caught being based and having more money than you.

Can we see proof that darktable is better than software made by programmers whose time is worth money? Or are you still drawing your masks in by hand?

>>4430512
I can tell from your tone of voice you would totally admit being wrong if I posted a nice pic, because youre a standup guy like that. Just want to let you know I appreciate that

>>4430514
>Can we see proof
>no i wont post a photo you'll just call my pic shit!
Maybe you think this because your pic is shit, nophoto. Jussaiyan.

I accept your concession. Skilled and intelligent people just avoid darktable like the plague which is why it isn't competitive. They have better things to use their skill and intelligence for.

>>4430511
I only use Darktable. I'm pretty handy with Gimp too, but I'm not sure what sort of edits I would prefer to do there over Darktable.

>>4430522
This post doesn't really make sense. Are you experience an emotional meltdown after you admitted you won't post a photo because you already know everyone will laugh at it?

>>4430516
Sharpening, sizing and general print prep, but I agree, 95% is done in darktable

>>4430296
DXO Photolab is great, has really nice AI noise reduction that's fast and better than photoshop/nigapixel ai. Only thing that's iffy is the color profiles which are ok to shitty on a per-camera basis. Easy to make selective adjustments too.

>>4430526
You are talking to several people thinking its one anon, thats why you are having trouble following

>>4430538
>me? btfo? no, in the past hour, on this slow as fuck board, on this dying website, you've been aguing with 20 people
Lol cope

Here's the skinny:
Darktable user claimed his linux shitware was worth a damn
Darktable user was asked to post a photo proving it
Darktable user refused to because he already knew everyone would think his photo was shit

Or is it, you dont even own a camera?

>>4430483
https://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/photography-news/samsung-nx300-to-be-shipped-with-adobe-lightroom-4-3385

>>4430540
The first claim posted was that darktable colors are shit. This would be easy to prove with an image comparison but it was not posted. You are currently btfod until you post proof. Once your proof has been examined, ill post some darktable processed images that will shock and surprise you with their magnificence

>>4430364
>>4430380
You replied to 2 people.

>>4430553
>darktable is better than a program made by someone whose time is worth money!
>No it isn't. Post proof.
>NO YOU
Okay, so you don't have any proof then.

>>4430559
>Anonymous who butts in to everything: You need to real care about which Anonymous poster I am
Hmmm no, get a trip, fag.

>>4430562
Why should you be taken seriously if you can't even discern who you're talking to? Slightly concerning...

>>4430566
Why would anyone waste effort discerning between functionally identical retards that could just be one retard changing his "typing style", when you are all the same person in practicality?

>>4430551
Yes, that camera came with Lightroom, like I said

>Im schizofrenic enough to believe everyone I talk to is the same person, and they just alter their writing style to trick me
The kind of person you should take software advice from, for sure

>>4430568
You should seek professional help with the level of autism you are exhibiting.
Just to make it easy for you, I'm one of the handful of anons saying you're a fag. In a shocking twist, other people believe you're a fag as well.

>>4430655
I didn’t even read the thread just scrolling the front page and I think that guy’s a fag as well

Samefag

Darktable is good.

>>4430694
but it doesn't have AI slop

I've used darktable and I sorta like it but it definitely has a curve to it.

I've been shilled On1, anyone use it before? The idea of "Lightroom and some photoshop features blended into one program" seems appealing and it's only like 50 bucks ATM.

>>4430505
>shitty RAW interpretation
no thanks, Adobe delivers on my A7s night vision while darkrable can't deal with noise appropriately

>>4430757
Can you demonstrate an example?

>>4430694
No one has posted proof that it is, and lots of proof that it isnt, like that gh5 anon
>its a skill issue i swear to god! A SKILL ISSUE! READ THE MANUAL! GROK THIS LIB.C FILE THE MAIN ROUTINES LOOP WILL TELL YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SIGMOID GAMMA!
yeah its a programming skill issue
darktable isnt a finished product, you need to be a programmer to get it to really work and fix basic issues, like gimp basically demands you learn python
but photographers arent good programmers
and good programmers dont work for free

it is an actual miracle that capture one costs $400 regularly and <$200 on sale and photoshop can sell all their shit for less than 20 a month. the most basic copy of photoshop used to be $699, in 2012 dollars. $973 today!

>>4430694
>>4430744
darktable is trash bloat
I use ansel which is just the bloat free version
>>4430815
Can any of you actually just show an example of an edited raw you put through both adobe and darktable and show that darktable did significantly worse?

>>4430816
I tried once. Darktable opened with the wrong UI scaling and crashed. I then tried rawtherapee which lagged a lot and i lost patience with the NR being dogshit ootb.

>>4430816
Bloat is linux speak for good features

If there is a UI button it is bloat. Linux people would rather pipe stdout to a filesystem socket. Its the unix way.

>>4430815
Would you link proof that it isn't?

>>4430822
No more exif :(

Exif was good, you could watch the patterns and know what average people got out of normal use or if they were effortmaxxing by running a raw through 3 different programs and using a $1500 lens to cope with something.

>>4430817
>no I don't have any hard evidence
>here's my annecdotal proof that's just as good at backing up my claim
>>4430825
The admins neglect the bottom half of the boards in regards to engagement, and the one jannie here couldn't be fucked rewiting the sticky properly, which would have taken him maybe three minutes if he gave the slightest fuck.

EXIF is a pipedream at this point.

>>4430299
Darkroom is nice for processing purposes, takes a lot of time to learn how to do things that lightroom can do easily. that said, I'm a poorfag that also uses darktable.

>>4430816
no they can't because darktable requires knowledge with processing a photo instead of using a preset

>>4430816
We did have a Dark table thread a while back where anon dropped a RAW and everyone gave a go at processing in dark table

I think one has to be fairly beginner to find darktable difficult to use

>>4430965
>heh, u need a high iq to…
Why does every darktable user post straight trash with bad colors, bad sharpening, and worse noise reduction?

I have a high IQ and have profiled cameras with the correct equipment before. Which is what you have to do to use darktable. In addition to never breaking ISO 400. And never using a lens that needs post sharpening and sticking to nikon f1.2 S primes.

I am also smart enough to know that software is only free if your time is worthless (^:

>>4430994
>I have a high IQ
Reaching double digits doesn't make it high, pal.
>I am also smart enough to know that software is only free if your time is worthless
Ergo, everything you do and use that doesn't cost money is also a waste of time. Right. Yeah, you're mankind's greatest hope m8.
Ever heard of a hobby? People do them to have fun. A foreign concept, I know.

Lots of seethe but still no proof of amazing darktable results (it's a bad program)

>>4431005
What are you expecting? Whatever anybody posts will be shit on by (you). Meanwhile, we're still waiting on a single objective test of colors being reproduced poorly. That's objective. Just link the blog or vid where that test is made.
>>4430994
>software is only free if your time is worthless
That's only true if you don't value learning. It's the ultimate midwit line.

>>4431005
Post a raw for us to edit

>>4431057
>darktable users have no raws of their own to edit

>>4431014
>darktable users think wasting time learning to compensate for bad programming is valuable learning for real smart people
why not just quit photography and be a programmer since being a fanboy for an autist's hobby project is a valuable skill apparently

>>4430994
>bad sharpening, and worse noise reduction
if you need sharpening or noise reduction get a better camera or better lights bro
the only thing you should be editing in your RAWs is the color grading

>>4431065
>darktable users be like: competent processing? fake. just buy a hasselblad.
ah yes the unix way. keep it simple. who needs noise reduction, thats bloat, buy a camera with less noise.

>>4431070
You might as well just generate your photos with AI since that's what you're making, AI slop

>>4431071
>good noise reduction, aka simple math (still too complex for anyone dumb enough to settle for contributing to free software apparently)
>AI!!!!! THIS MIGHT AS WELL BE AI!!!!
Darktable users: not as smart as they claim to be

>>4430988
found some of it
top left was OP's sooc JPG that he wanted to match
bottom left was the raw at darktable defaults
right side is 3 attempts from different anons to match the top left

I use GIMP because I like the name, it reminds me of better times

>>4431089
or idk bot left and top right are same
i just know top left is what op wanted and 3 on right were attempts

>>4431089
weird, if he wanted the sooc then why didn't he just go into history and click "Original"?

>>4431090
when you wore a GIMP SUIT?

>>4431089
If I remember correctly, anons weren't trying to match the jpeg and were trying to make it look good instead
>crop
>defaults
suuuure

>>4431093
yeah, those were the days

>>4431094
Later on in the thread maybe, but OP started it asking for help to match
There was this thread but don't think it was darktable related, just different edits

>>4431094
This is default, lol
>>4431092
He wanted the look of the sooc JPG, but as RAW, for a starting point to edit further
How to go from a default RAW to how the camera processed JPG looked

>>4431102
ah, gotcha. for that kind of work you'd want to know the pipeline that your camera uses, no? since there are some things that, when done in different orders will yield different results? at least that's what I grasped from a video I watched on the pixel pipeline. (I'm brand spanking new to processing and editing and also poor so I'm forced to use open source software until money isn't an issue anymore)

>>4431109
I was bottom right of >>4431089 and it was my first time ever using Darktable, but got fairly close for 5-10min with it, a grand total of adjusting 5 of the "modules" and ignoring everything else
Just try a variety of the tools and find out what works for you, there will always be a half dozen different ways to do something
An RGB curve tool alone can do 100% of grading if you really wanted to

>>4431111
I watched a video where someone that does Darktable landscapes used only RGB equalizer to fully process a photo in about 15 minutes, another where someone just used that and tone equalizer. I usually just turn on denoise, lens correction, haze removal, and occasionally sharpen, then I put the global chroma to an acceptable level and I'm done. usually only a few minutes per photo

>>4431113
forcing myself to learn it in more detail so I can make photos from this environment look better. super low matte lighting and a big open space with lots of fast moving dogs. one speedlight, pulling nearly all the weight. thank fuck I have a fast lens now instead of a variable aperture that sits at 5.6 for most of the range.

>>4431113
blurry and dull. post raw.
>15 minutes to edit a single raw
oh my dog how do people live like this

>>4431115
the raw is a fucking mess. tried to capture things outside of my 300mm reach with no tc. I was just snapping off and not paying attention to how small the subject was in my viewfinder.
to be fair to the guy, he was only using 1 module to do everything just because he felt like seeing how much that module could do. even said that there were way faster ways to do most of the stuff, like just clicking on a module to activate it lol

>>4431115
to be more specific, that crop is nearly 200% zoomed in.

>>4431113
Curves, levels, white balance, and color equalizer / calibration / HSL is all you really need, just color and tone
Sharpening / nr / grain is just to taste
>>4431115
You do it once, save your settings as a preset and then you're good to go for anything from the same scene or anything else you might want to be similar in the future
People spend more time than that just deciding which sooc options to use so they don't have to edit later

>>4431115
>I don't take any images that are worth devoting at least 15 minutes of time for

>>4431119
cool, I'll try those next time I mess with some photos

OK seriously what the FUCK is wrong with the latest versions of Lightroom. Performance has been utterly terrible since last year or the one before, and it manages the incredible feat to be even worse.
No, it's not my fucking PC. Yes, I tried every "tip" and "advice" in the book. None fucking work. I can fucking prompt HD videos and edit them on the fly, and Lightroom shits itself after editing a few dozens of RAW and become slow as fuck.
I'm seriously looking at moving to Capture 1, even though I've been using LR for 10 years and honestly like the ergonomics and functionalities. But it's at a point where it makes the process completely unfun.
Please tell me Capture One doesn't shit itself over time. Or is there any other alternative that's close to LR?

>>4431137
every time you import any file into lightroom it hashes the entire file and uploads it to adobe because the NSA requires them to check each and every picture you process to see if it's CP
this is a real thing, it's why it's so slow because it has to use AI to analyze all of your files

>>4431137
LR performance was one of the reasons I switched to C1

>>4431154
Are you happy with C1's performance, or more specifically, is it still okay even after your library fattens up over time?

>>4431137
Literally using your gpu and cpu for someone elses ai masking. Thank god those well paid devs know ehat they are doing. Thats why all cloud infrastructure runs on open source software and google had to give k8s to the linux foundation to make it successful. Its 100% obvious the anon from earlier in the thread does not work even adjacent to real software engineering. Probably a wordpress gui warrior

>>4430355
>you're a rube playing into these companies
Sure, but it is not as stupid as buying a Leica in this day and age

>>4431274
Woah calm down, that's like, SSSR-tier faggotry. This thread is merely SR-tier.

>>4431161
Capture one is snappy and uses your own gpu for ai masking not someone elses

>>4431239
Adobe is notoriously incompetent. Always has been.

Random anon interjecting with my opinion.
Been trying out several raw editing software recently.
Think I'm going to get a license for Capture One.
Break even in just over a year vs Adobe CC subscription.
It's snappy, responsive, flexible, and doesn't cause me problems.
It feels like Darktable, but if they hired a UX team.

m0nkrus and blocking the .exe in your firewall

>>4430277 (OP)
Just steal it then. GenP (creative cloud patcher) or Monkrus (cracked standalone versions). You are given so many avenues to succeed and yet you use none.

>>4430349
Development can be horizontal and innovative again now. I would like to see more non-Leica M-mount cameras, more modular cameras like the Fp or GXR, more goofy minimalist cameras, more toy cameras with better sensors, more compacts, and so forth.

>>4430349
This sounds like someone that hasn't actually used that many different cameras

Just use Photoshop 5 or 6 on a powermac G5

>>4433146
this is the way

For Capture 1, is it better to use a catalog (like LR), or "sessions"?

>>4433395
No better or worse, do you want everything in one big grouping? Or do you just want different folders for different things?
Switching from a large catalog to individual sessions was one of the best things I did for improving organization and even workflow when working across different computers
If I ever went back to LR I would be making dozens of catalogs a year as different sessions

>>4433395
catalog = backups
sessions = work in progress

i just wish i could turn off the recent imports.

>>4433395
Problem with c1 catalogues is that they're slower than the ones in lightroom. There you can dump all your photos into it and it'll somehow work. C1 requires couple of catalogs to function. In

Btw, does anyone know how to make latest haxnode c1 release to work? It's saying registered in the info, for me, but I'm having all the tools grayed out.

>>4430277 (OP)
extremely based photo

>>4433472
You don't have to use catalogs at all in C1

>>4433472
organizing multiple catalogs is a small price to pay for escaping how laggy lightroom is all of the time

capture one also actually opens raws with pleasing colors by default

i always pirate adobe shit when but i cant figure out where to find non-malware ridden cracks for apple silicon so i just remote desktop into my pc whenever i want to do work on the couch or something. where do i go anons?

>>4433809
>where do i go anons?
to your job

Does C1 normally go on sale at specific points in the year or should I just be combing the website every couple weeks

>>4434490
I wanna say 2-3 times a year down to like $180-200, probably next right before a new version releases in the fall

>>4434490
Black friday

Or just subscribe for 2 years while you get your shit figured out and then go perpetual when you're certain that there's no way you'd upgrade for 5+ years (what are they gonna do, release a 200mp FF with 18 stops of DR and global shutter? i dont fucking care!)

>>4430317
I suspect because they refuse to impleme
nt Adobe's color profiles (which you can likely get for free for your camera), so all the colors in darktable are somewhat imaginary.

>>4430537
>color profiles which are ok to shitty
I don't quite like that DxO seems to over-saturate the colors, as if there's an additional dehaze built-in. Like, in this photo of a low-resolution cat (left - very close to sooc, right - trying to match it in DxO), I would prefer to keep the cat orange, but I don't want the grass become emerald green, which I cannot quite achieve with global sliders.

Denoise and dehaze are neat though.

>>4434490
I did the free trial, then like 5 days in they emailed me a 30% off discount code.

I bought the perpetual license after that. Good software.

>>4434614
How's the workflow? I've only ever used DPP4 and Digikam.
DPP does everything at once and I feel like it's no better than using the camera's jpeg engine.
Digikam does stuff in steps. It also has a neat mouseover to compare changes that I find excellent, but Digikam is honestly kind of shit for a bunch of other stuff.

Might just go grab the trial and see for myself. Everyone keeps going on about it being the creme-da-la-creme

>>4434637
If you're serious, get the trial and run it down before buying. Curious if they also send you the 30% discount code.

As for the workflow, I like it a lot. The UI is super flexible. Typical culling features, the stock tools and groups are pretty good but I tweaked mine a bit. It doesn't have some of the more advanced editing features of Lightroom, but if all you're doing is processing raws, which is what the program is for, it has everything you could need. I plan to get affinity for more advanced stuff but I haven't needed it just yet.

Biggest thing I appreciate is how snappy it is. I dunno it's hard to describe, it just gets the fuck out of the way and everything is where I would expect it to be. I keep saying it feels like Darktable if they hired a UX team.

>>4434637
Workflows a million times better than LR and basically entirely customizable
The default workspace organization sucks though

I've been using the "Migration" layout, as they call it. Which is basically a transposition of Lightroom's for people like me.
Though I might try another layout to see if I can use the space more effectively. Everything being customizable is great.

>>4430463
How much money did your photography make last year?

>>4435627
More than you did

>>4435628
I accept your concession, anon.

>>4435630
I do plenty of photo work and do post some of it here occasionally, sorry it's hard to believe that some us actually make money with photo
I bet I've use C1 longer than you've had a camera lol

>>4435631
I've had a camera since 1970, anon.
>sorry it's hard to believe that some us actually make money with photo
Post your redacted Scehdule C, anon.

>>4435634
How about I post photos from a dozen different weddings and you post from a dozen of your own photo jobs?

>>4435636
I haven't worked taking photos in four decades, anon. So post your Schedule C to show how much you make, or stop claiming you're too profitable to worry about leasing software.

>>4435638
Not sure why a schedule C would prove that, sorry to hear you don't take any photos, hopefully you can afford a new camera soon

>>4435639
Cameras aren't a problem; leasing software is.
What was the old maxim, "if you need something, rent it; if you need it more than four times, buy it"?
Can you still buy Photoshop?

>>4430376
Commie got BTFO right here

>>4430463
Dont waste your time trying to justify your productivity and purpose to these fucking commies. They won't admit you "should" have something until you're on the state's dole working exactly as much as decided by the state's productivity experts, and on the things the experts agree are the most important.

See how you're already getting nowhere? You can't justify yourself to a commie. It is their ideology not to accept any excuses for you having wealth when they don't.

>>4435640
Welcome to the 21st mate

>>4435640
Also, "leasing" Photoshop is cheaper for me than when I did buy it standalone lol

>>4435662
Still waiting on an Schedule C.

>>4435664
You post your schedule C first. You can see my 9 year Adobe subscription here >>4430348, happy to provide my C1 history too. Offered to share photos too, but odd you don't seem interested in those.

>>4435666
I don't make money with photography, anon. You claim to do so, without any evidence.

>>4430277 (OP)
My adobe subscription is about to run out. Im not getting anymore freelance work so im cancelling. Is it easy to pirate photoshop and illustrator these days?

>>4435687
nope
since everything is done on The Cloud(TM)

>>4435687
capture one perpetual isnt that expensive (black friday sales). consider it your last gear purchase. no more work = no more brand new gear. work in the future = switch to subscription when you need constant support for new shit a client might need you to use.

>>4435667
>You claim to do so, without any evidence.
You only asked for my Schedule C, not "evidence" I make money from photo. I offered alternative forms of evidence, but you didn't care about those.