Adobe PS CC and the alternatives

[M.Chapman]

As a result of updating to High Sierra I came to realise that my days of soldiering on with PSE8 and LR6 are numbered. (PSE 8 and some components of LR6 are only 32 bit and so the next release of OSX won’t support them). I’ve therefore been experimenting with trial versions of just about every alternative. 

 

I’ve tried Apple Photos + DxO plugin, Darktable, GIMP, Pixelmator Pro, Luminar Jupiter, Affinity Photo, ACDSee, AfterShot Pro, DxO Photolab, Capture One 11 and Adobe PSE 2018, LR CC and PS CC.

 

After a great deal of deliberation I concluded (rather reluctantly as I don't like the subscription model) that PS CC is the new tool for me. It easily beats many of the relative newcomers (Affintiy, Pixelmator, Luminar, ACDSee) both in terms of usability and responsiveness (on 2012 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM) and in the quality of the final result. The detail I could recover from my RAW files in PS CC was matched by Capture One and DxO, but using many of the "budget offerings" I could only achieve decidedly "mushy" results. Automatic CA removal, noise reduction and shadow and highlight recovery were also key discriminators, where some of the budget offerings" were woefully inadequate.

 

But.... as I swap from the ACR used by LR6, to the new ACR used by LR7 and PS 19 CC I notice Adobe have made a couple of significant changes behind the scenes...

• The new default camera profile has been swapped from "Adobe Standard" to "Adobe Color". The new profile is more contrasty and can result in clipped shadows and highlights.
• The default level of sharpening during raw conversion has been increased from 25 to 40 for all cameras. 

Adobe claim these changes have been made to make the default results more pleasing, but they may not suit an Alamy workflow. NB. These changes won't affect those using their own develop presets, but will affect those who simply rely on the default settings - so watch out.

 

Now I need to focus on uploading, and hopefully selling, more images to pay for my my subscription. 

 

Mark

 

[Betty LaRue]

Welcome to the fold, Mark. I saved myself all that bother and just followed the thundering herd from the git-go.

Is there anything out there better? Maybe, who knows. I prefer my comfortable old shoe since new ones often pinch.

And...I’d rather spend my time being productive. 

I do thank you for erasing any lingering doubt, though. 

Betty

[Colblimp]

I'm an LR CC guy and find it does the job well, and I'm so used to it at this stage I don't know whether I could change. A friend told me about a programme he uses but I'm reticent to make the move.

 

Since Adobe has changed the automatic sharpening to 40, it's just one more setting to change, back to 25 as 40 is too much.  Why, Adobe, why...?!

[dlmphotog]

10 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

But.... as I swap from the ACR used by LR6, to the new ACR used by LR7 and PS 19 CC I notice Adobe have made a couple of significant changes behind the scenes...

• The new default camera profile has been swapped from "Adobe Standard" to "Adobe Color". The new profile is more contrasty and can result in clipped shadows and highlights.
• The default level of sharpening during raw conversion has been increased from 25 to 40 for all cameras. 

 

I use the Color Checker Passport Photo to create custom camera profiles of my camera sensor at various ISO settings and under different lighting conditions. I have been profiling my camera sensors for a long time using the Color Checker Passport target and software now with the change to ACR it is easier to apply these profiles as you no longer need to dig deep into the options.

 

ColorChecker Passport Photo

 

[MDM]

12 hours ago, M.Chapman said:

As a result of updating to High Sierra I came to realise that my days of soldiering on with PSE8 and LR6 are numbered. (PSE 8 and some components of LR6 are only 32 bit and so the next release of OSX won’t support them). I’ve therefore been experimenting with trial versions of just about every alternative. 

 

I’ve tried Apple Photos + DxO plugin, Darktable, GIMP, Pixelmator Pro, Luminar Jupiter, Affinity Photo, ACDSee, AfterShot Pro, DxO Photolab, Capture One 11 and Adobe PSE 2018, LR CC and PS CC.

 

After a great deal of deliberation I concluded (rather reluctantly as I don't like the subscription model) that PS CC is the new tool for me. It easily beats many of the relative newcomers (Affintiy, Pixelmator, Luminar, ACDSee) both in terms of usability and responsiveness (on 2012 MacBook Pro with 16GB RAM) and in the quality of the final result. The detail I could recover from my RAW files in PS CC was matched by Capture One and DxO, but using many of the "budget offerings" I could only achieve decidedly "mushy" results. Automatic CA removal, noise reduction and shadow and highlight recovery were also key discriminators, where some of the budget offerings" were woefully inadequate.

 

But.... as I swap from the ACR used by LR6, to the new ACR used by LR7 and PS 19 CC I notice Adobe have made a couple of significant changes behind the scenes...

• The new default camera profile has been swapped from "Adobe Standard" to "Adobe Color". The new profile is more contrasty and can result in clipped shadows and highlights.
• The default level of sharpening during raw conversion has been increased from 25 to 40 for all cameras. 

Adobe claim these changes have been made to make the default results more pleasing, but they may not suit an Alamy workflow. NB. These changes won't affect those using their own develop presets, but will affect those who simply rely on the default settings - so watch out.

 

Now I need to focus on uploading, and hopefully selling, more images to pay for my my subscription. 

 

Mark

 

 

BIG TIP: I've posted this here before and it would seem timely to do so again. There is no need to worry about Adobe default settings as it is very simple to change the default settings for LR and ACR. This is above and beyond any import or development presets and is well worth knowing about. It is surprising in fact how many users, even experienced ones, don't know how to change default settings.

 

In the Develop Module in Lightroom, select an image and then set the defaults you would like to use from now on. For example, select Adobe Standard as your Profile and change the Sharpening to what ever you like (back to the previous setting for example). You might also say want to change the default Noise Reduction. When you have things the way you want them, hold down the alt key and hit the Reset button at the bottom right of the Develop Module. You will be asked if you want to update the default settings to your current settings. Hit that button hard and don't worry. There is also an option to go back to Adobe Default Settings so no harm can possibly ensue. 

 

Now even better than that, there is an option to set defaults that are specific to a particular camera (identified by serial number) or to specific ISO settings. To do this, go into LR Preferences, select the Presets tab and you will see these options at the top of the dialog box. There is also an option there to reset all default Develop settings.

 

So no worries, no complaints about what Adobe is doing to its default settings. I'm guessing Adobe is making these changes to make things easier and to appeal to a wider non-professional market as seems to be the case at the moment. But if you are a serious photographer, you should be setting your own default prefs as a matter of course really if you want to control your software rather than have it control you . This tip can be a real time saver.

 

EDIT There is a similar process for ACR defaults but doing this in LR will change the ACR settings as well.

[M.Chapman]

40 minutes ago, MDM said:

BIG TIP: I've posted this here before and it would seem timely to do so again. There is no need to worry about Adobe default settings as it is very simple to change the default settings for LR and ACR. This is above and beyond any import or development presets and is well worth knowing about. It is surprising in fact how many users, even experienced ones, don't know how to change default settings.

 

In the Develop Module in Lightroom, select an image and then set the defaults you would like to use from now on. For example, select Adobe Standard as your Profile and change the Sharpening to what ever you like (back to the previous setting for example). You might also say want to change the default Noise Reduction. When you have things the way you want them, hold down the alt key and hit the Reset button at the bottom right of the Develop Module. You will be asked if you want to update the default settings to your current settings. Hit that button hard and don't worry. There is also an option to go back to Adobe Default Settings so no harm can possibly ensue. 

 

Now even better than that, there is an option to set defaults that are specific to a particular camera (identified by serial number) or to specific ISO settings. To do this, go into LR Preferences, select the Presets tab and you will see these options at the top of the dialog box. There is also an option there to reset all default Develop settings.

 

So no worries, no complaints about what Adobe is doing to its default settings. I'm guessing Adobe is making these changes to make things easier and to appeal to a wider non-professional market as seems to be the case at the moment. But if you are a serious photographer, you should be setting your own default prefs as a matter of course really if you want to control your software rather than have it control you . This tip can be a real time saver.

 

EDIT There is a similar process for ACR defaults but doing this in LR will change the ACR settings as well.

 

Good idea to post that again - it's a key time saving tip. I've already created Adobe RAW defaults for each of my cameras as I remembered this could be done from the days when I used PSE 8 and it's ACR to directly open RAWs from the cameras I had at that time.  Then I moved onto LR and used presets. Now I've gone back to using modified ACR defaults and can avoid using LR altogether.  I note the same option to set defaults by camera serial no or ISO are available in ACR when accessed from PS.

 

Mark

[MDM]

14 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Good idea to post that again - it's a key time saving tip. I've already created Adobe RAW defaults for each of my cameras as I remembered this could be done from the days when I used PSE 8 and it's ACR to directly open RAWs from the cameras I had at that time.  Then I moved onto LR and used presets. Now I've gone back to using modified ACR defaults and can avoid using LR altogether.  I note the same option to set defaults by camera serial no or ISO are available in ACR when accessed from PS.

 

Mark

 

Great. Glad you found it useful. I wouldn't use ACR over Lightroom though. Although the results are the same for a raw conversion, I think the Lightroom environment is much easier to work with for so many things than the Adobe alternative which is Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, dlmphotog said:

 

I use the Color Checker Passport Photo to create custom camera profiles of my camera sensor at various ISO settings and under different lighting conditions. I have been profiling my camera sensors for a long time using the Color Checker Passport target and software now with the change to ACR it is easier to apply these profiles as you no longer need to dig deep into the options.

 

ColorChecker Passport Photo

 

 

I've been using custom profiles from Passport too and also like the way they are easier to use in the new ACR.

 

But.... after some experimentation, I came to the conclusion that, under daylight conditions, Adobe has done a better job of creating profiles than I can achieve with my Passport.

 

I took a photo of my Passport test target using my 3 cameras (Canon, Panasonic and Sony) under identical daylight conditions and produced a daylight Passport profile for each camera. I then compared the photos from each camera after applying the Adobe Standard profile or my Passport profiles. The most consistent colour rendering came from applying Adobe Standard profiles which resulted in images from each camera that look virtually identical. I did prefer the rendering from the Passport Profiles but their slight inconsistency concerned me. After some experimentation I applied +20 vibrance on top to the Adobe Standard profiles and boom I have a rendering I like and the consistency between cameras. So I'm going to stop using my Passport profiles under normal lighting conditions and simply rely on a grey card for white balance. If the lighting is more awkward I may get my passport device out.

 

Mark

 

 

[M.Chapman]

1 hour ago, MDM said:

 

Great. Glad you found it useful. I wouldn't use ACR over Lightroom though. Although the results are the same for a raw conversion, I think the Lightroom environment is much easier to work with for so many things than the Adobe alternative which is Bridge/ACR/Photoshop. 

 

I don't use Bridge either. Breezebrowser Pro and the OS file system (Finder or File Explorer) are currently still my tools of choice. I like that I can simply double click a file in Breeze Browser or Finder/File Explorer and it opens  in ACR (if it's a RAW) or directly PS if it's not (I've set up the file associations accordingly). It doesn't matter where the file is (on my NAS, on a CD on an SD card, in Time Machine). No need to import into LR. I can install PS on 2 computers and use whichever I need at the time. No catalogues to get out of step. Simples... (suits my brain anyway).

 

Mark

[Allan Bell]

 

Well I am still using LR 6.14 and PSE 14 and will stay with them as long as possible.

 

Just a note on the default sharpening setting in LR7. I find that with my Sony cameras I am using 40 to obtain sharp images with no QC problems to date and I have uploaded a few so I do not think there should be a problem there.

 

Allan

 

 

[MDM]

1 hour ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I don't use Bridge either. Breezebrowser Pro and the OS file system (Finder or File Explorer) are currently still my tools of choice. I like that I can simply double click a file in Breeze Browser or Finder/File Explorer and it opens  in ACR (if it's a RAW) or directly PS if it's not (I've set up the file associations accordingly). It doesn't matter where the file is (on my NAS, on a CD on an SD card, in Time Machine). No need to import into LR. I can install PS on 2 computers and use whichever I need at the time. No catalogues to get out of step. Simples... (suits my brain anyway).

 

Mark

 

One man's simple is another man's nightmare...Using Windows on a Mac is not simple to my simple mind and the OS file system is very limited in comparison to Lightroom. The Ligthtroom database is extremely good and the whole import process has been speeded up massively. For example, it is important to be able to see if an image is in focus by viewing at 100% and that is way faster than it used to be in the Develop module which is also fully colour managed. Syncing in LR is also way faster than opening images in ACR. In other words. with Lightroom everything is in one place and very neatly laid out. But each to his own I guess. 

[M.Chapman]

40 minutes ago, MDM said:

 

One man's simple is another man's nightmare...Using Windows on a Mac is not simple to my simple mind and the OS file system is very limited in comparison to Lightroom. The Ligthtroom database is extremely good and the whole import process has been speeded up massively. For example, it is important to be able to see if an image is in focus by viewing at 100% and that is way faster than it used to be in the Develop module which is also fully colour managed. Syncing in LR is also way faster than opening images in ACR. In other words. with Lightroom everything is in one place and very neatly laid out. But each to his own I guess. 

 

I think if you're good with LR, you're undoubtedly correct, as you can avoid some of the pitfalls (catalogues out of sync etc.) that happen to me and others. It's also not ideal running an app (BreezeBrowser) in Windows. At the moment I have no option but to run some apps in Windows in my other role as an Engineering consultant (as some software I have to run is Windows only) . So for me it's no real hassle to also run BreezeBrowser in Windows on a Mac - but that's due to my own circumstances. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else on Mac. I am aiming to stop running Windows altogether at some point and so my workflow may change accordingly.

 

I have noticed that PS CC runs faster than PSE on my Mac, so I may try LR 7 CC too, although will it may mess up my standalone LR? As part of my review of options I did revisit LR' 6s side by side image review comparison and like it, but the need to import and build 1:1 previews made it a slow process. BreezeBrowser is damn near instant. May be LR 7 is quicker?

 

Mark

[MDM]

28 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

I think if you're good with LR, you're undoubtedly correct, as you can avoid some of the pitfalls (catalogues out of sync etc.) that happen to me and others. It's also not ideal running an app (BreezeBrowser) in Windows. At the moment I have no option but to run some apps in Windows in my other role as an Engineering consultant (as some software I have to run is Windows only) . So for me it's no real hassle to also run BreezeBrowser in Windows on a Mac - but that's due to my own circumstances. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone else on Mac. I am aiming to stop running Windows altogether at some point and so my workflow may change accordingly.

 

I have noticed that PS CC runs faster than PSE on my Mac, so I may try LR 7 CC too, although will it may mess up my standalone LR? As part of my review of options I did revisit LR' 6s side by side image review comparison and like it, but the need to import and build 1:1 previews made it a slow process. BreezeBrowser is damn near instant. May be LR 7 is quicker?

 

Mark

 

Yes I understand. I went from Mac to Windows around 1997 or so and then back to Mac early 2009 when Macs went Intel. I installed a full version of Windows XP on a separate partition and used it while I transitioned. The only program I really missed was Access as I had a number of databases but it was too much of a hassle going between the two and I bought Filemaker Pro which was good enough for most of what I needed and very easy to learn. I stopped using Windows completely after a while. 

 

PSCC should run a lot faster than an old version of Elements as it is 64bit. Also it can take advantage of your RAM beyond 2GB which can be very significant. I noticed this going from PSCS4 to PSCS5, most especially when creating panoramas in Photoshop because fo the file sizes (I now use Lightroom for pano creation). I would definitely advocate using LRCC as it has had some major advances over the standalone version - speed and numerous features. The standalone version is now significantly inferior in fact and it is unlikely that you would even want to use it anyway once you try out the new one. If you ever did decide to stop the subscription, then you can reinstall the standalone if needs be. Preview building has moved on a long way in recent versions as well so much faster than it used to be. I can't remember at what point this happened anymore but do try it.

 

 

 

 

[Allan Bell]

3 hours ago, MDM said:

 

Yes I understand. I went from Mac to Windows around 1997 or so and then back to Mac early 2009 when Macs went Intel. I installed a full version of Windows XP on a separate partition and used it while I transitioned. The only program I really missed was Access as I had a number of databases but it was too much of a hassle going between the two and I bought Filemaker Pro which was good enough for most of what I needed and very easy to learn. I stopped using Windows completely after a while. 

 

PSCC should run a lot faster than an old version of Elements as it is 64bit. Also it can take advantage of your RAM beyond 2GB which can be very significant. I noticed this going from PSCS4 to PSCS5, most especially when creating panoramas in Photoshop because fo the file sizes (I now use Lightroom for pano creation). I would definitely advocate using LRCC as it has had some major advances over the standalone version - speed and numerous features. The standalone version is now significantly inferior in fact and it is unlikely that you would even want to use it anyway once you try out the new one. If you ever did decide to stop the subscription, then you can reinstall the standalone if needs be. Preview building has moved on a long way in recent versions as well so much faster than it used to be. I can't remember at what point this happened anymore but do try it.

 

 

 

 

 

At the time I was also on Windows XP.  I still think XP was the best of what has followed in Windows since.

 

It was late 2013 when I came over to iMac and I am here to stay. Never going back to Windows.

 

Allan

 

 

[M.Chapman]

2 hours ago, Allan Bell said:

 

At the time I was also on Windows XP.  I still think XP was the best of what has followed in Windows since.

 

It was late 2013 when I came over to iMac and I am here to stay. Never going back to Windows.

 

Allan

 

 

 

Before I swapped to Apple my favourite Windows version was 7 and I still run it in a VM on my Mac. It was Windows 10 that finally persuaded me to switch to Apple and I've no intention of going back to MS either.

 

Mark

[John Mitchell]

55 minutes ago, M.Chapman said:

 

Before I swapped to Apple my favourite Windows version was 7 and I still run it in a VM on my Mac. It was Windows 10 that finally persuaded me to switch to Apple and I've no intention of going back to MS either.

 

Mark

 

I too liked XP,  but Windows 7 quickly won me over. I've had -- and am having -- no problems at all with it. I tremble at the thought of having to upgrade to Windows 10 (or 11) at some point. However, the Mac world is too expensive for me.

[Betty LaRue]

XP was the best, you’re right. 

 Glad I migrated to Mac before Microsoft’s later iterations highjacked users’ computers at the most inopportune times.

[Vincent Lowe]

I have 5 computers running Windows 10  (2x desktop, 1x laptop, 1x tablet, 1x Beelink Mini) - no problems whatsoever on any of them, far fewer than in the days of XP.  When it wants to do an update it will give a warning then you can choose to accept, delay, or specify a time.  I've never had work interrupted.  On my main PC I'm still using Lotus Smartsuite, discontinued for years, but still works fine (I created a photo sales database years ago using Lotus Approach).   I still have one old computer running XP but only because I still have one device (an old Garmin Etrex GPS) which needs an RS232 serial port (remember them?).

[John Mitchell]

5 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

I have 5 computers running Windows 10  (2x desktop, 1x laptop, 1x tablet, 1x Beelink Mini) - no problems whatsoever on any of them, far fewer than in the days of XP.  When it wants to do an update it will give a warning then you can choose to accept, delay, or specify a time.  I've never had work interrupted.  On my main PC I'm still using Lotus Smartsuite, discontinued for years, but still works fine (I created a photo sales database years ago using Lotus Approach).   I still have one old computer running XP but only because I still have one device (an old Garmin Etrex GPS) which needs an RS232 serial port (remember them?).

 

That's encouraging to hear about Windows 10. I found that Windows 7 was an an improvement over XP (as much as I liked XP at the time). Windows 8 sounded like a bit of a disaster, though.  Who knows what Windows 11 will bring.

[M.Chapman]

10 hours ago, Vincent Lowe said:

I have 5 computers running Windows 10  (2x desktop, 1x laptop, 1x tablet, 1x Beelink Mini) - no problems whatsoever on any of them, far fewer than in the days of XP.  When it wants to do an update it will give a warning then you can choose to accept, delay, or specify a time.  I've never had work interrupted.  On my main PC I'm still using Lotus Smartsuite, discontinued for years, but still works fine (I created a photo sales database years ago using Lotus Approach).   I still have one old computer running XP but only because I still have one device (an old Garmin Etrex GPS) which needs an RS232 serial port (remember them?).

 

Which version of Windows 10 are you running? It used to be that only the Ultimate/Pro Version allowed you to delay updates. The Home version offered no such options. Maybe things have changed?

 

Mark

[Martin P Wilson]

I haven't used PS or LR for well over a year even though have PS CC5.1 and LR6 on my desktop. I do all my raw conversion and post-processing in Capture 1 Pro after I have captioned, keyworded and rated/selected (sometimes leave to C1Pro or at least fine-tune selection there) in PhotoMechanic. C1Pro upgrades every couple of years or thereabouts and PM much less freqently (I think I have had one major upgrade, 4 to 5, in perhaps 10 years!).

 

For me C1Pro does everything I need although they can be a little slow to add new cameras but they seemed to have got better in last year or two. The only problem would be if I decided to go for one of the new low-cost MF systems like the Fuji GFX but that is unlikely. Phase One do not support other MF systems as they deem them competitors to their own very expensive system.

 

On my 3 computers I use a mix of Win10 Pro (main desktop) and Home, will move all to Pro as I replace them. I auto-upgrade since Win10 released and have had no significant issues (one video card driver incompatibility, just rolled it back).

[Martin P Wilson]

6 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's encouraging to hear about Windows 10. I found that Windows 7 was an an improvement over XP (as much as I liked XP at the time). Windows 8 sounded like a bit of a disaster, though.  Who knows what Windows 11 will bring.

 

I think the intention is that Win is IT! Microsoft will just incrementally upgrade until it is effectively a different product but still called WIndows 10. At least that was what they said when they launched WIn 10.

[losdemas]

Watch out! The 'April 2018' Win10 upgrade (vers 1709>1803) has caused me immense problems.  Couldn't access Windows at all after logging in - luckily I could get back to the lock screen (my only option).  I have rolled back to 1709 twice now - the second time after installing via a downloaded ISO file.  All this with telephone support from MS.  Now upgraded to level II support and awaiting a further day of fun on Sunday.

 

All this is on a new machine, btw - and don't get me started on Adobe.  Multiple hours of fun with them (transferring older versions of PS/Dreamweaver, etc.) - and still not sorted.  Currently unable to use the older programs.  Thank God LR still works....for now.

[John Mitchell]

8 hours ago, Martin P Wilson said:

 

I think the intention is that Win is IT! Microsoft will just incrementally upgrade until it is effectively a different product but still called WIndows 10. At least that was what they said when they launched WIn 10.

 

That's interesting. Guess we'll find out if it's true.

 

BTW, does C1Pro automatically upgrade, or do you have to buy new versions when they come out? I'm using DxO at the moment, which I'm quite happy with, but it sounds as if DxO is having business problems. My version of PM is ancient, but it's still doing the job.

 

P.S. Just checked the Capture One website, and it looks as if they have various purchase  and subscription options. Capture One 11 for Sony cameras (which I use) is only $79 US to purchase. Sounds like a good deal.

[Martin P Wilson]

3 hours ago, John Mitchell said:

 

That's interesting. Guess we'll find out if it's true.

 

BTW, does C1Pro automatically upgrade, or do you have to buy new versions when they come out? I'm using DxO at the moment, which I'm quite happy with, but it sounds as if DxO is having business problems. My version of PM is ancient, but it's still doing the job.

 

P.S. Just checked the Capture One website, and it looks as if they have various purchase  and subscription options. Capture One 11 for Sony cameras (which I use) is only $79 US to purchase. Sounds like a good deal.

 

You can subscribe to C1Pro but I don't. I started with a free version I picked up at the Focus photoshow, from the Canon stand, in about 2003/4, probably v1 or 2. I have upgraded (major version) every 2 years or so for around €100 (v10 to 11 at the end of last year). I did miss one major upgrade when they were not handling metadata very well, but the next upgrade was still much lower cost than a full new licence. All the intermediate releases are not charged for the life of the version, say every 3-6 months. I take them pretty much as soon as they come out, major releases I sometime leave until the first minor release comes out and the initial bugs are fixed; it depends whether there is something I particularly need, sometimes to support a new camera (although that often comes in minor releases)

 

You have to dopwnload the update and apply, no automatic upgrades so you are in control. Maintains settings between upgrades, at least minor ones and transfers most add-ons etc to the new major release.