1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Replacing Lightroom with X?

Discussion in 'Image Processing' started by pake, Mar 24, 2015.

  1. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    Hi guys,

    I've been using Lightroom on my Windows 7 for 3-4 years now. First I used LR3 and now LR4. I didn't switch to LR5 since I read it only gets slower and the LR4 is already way too slow for my taste.

    After processing 300 pictures last weekend and getting frustrated with the (lack of) speed of LR4 I started thinking about changing the software. I also happened to bump into a short comparison here (http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2...oshop-cc-and-7-photoshop-alternatives-tested/ ) which made me really want to think more about my options.

    So, I'm guessing there must be people here who have switched successfully from Lightroom to either DxO Optics Pro or Phase One Capture One Pro (or something else). I'd like to know if those programs are faster to use and do they really produce better pictures. At least they do claim that LR is poor with noise reduction (which I'm already forced to apply in Photoshop since LR does it poorly).

    Any comments on those other programs? What's different/missing/better with program X versus Lightroom? Obviously I could download trial versions of them all but I'd prefer NOT to waste my time in vain when I can get most of the needed info by asking first. If the program X seems worth trying then I'll try it out but I don't really have the time to start learning new programs without a good reason.
     
  2. Richella

    Richella The Wandering Scotsman

    267
    Aug 21, 2011
    Kuala Lumpur
    I saw a YouTube video recently that exspoused the speed of Photo Mechanic. It's a sorting, rating, tagging and publishing software that all sports photographers use. Apparently it's really fast. Don't think it allows and processing other than the basic exposure and cropping etc.

    Personally I'm waiting to see the new photos app for Apple Mac.
     
  3. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    suspect the issue may not be the software but the hardware - how much RAM do you have in your machine? - do you notice that other apps are slow?... has it got slower than it was in the past?

    K
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. sammykhalifa

    sammykhalifa Mu-43 Top Veteran

    762
    Jun 22, 2012
    Pittsburgh PA
    Neil
    I read that as well, but if LR5 is slower than 4 it's by some amount that I don't notice.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  5. gryphon1911

    gryphon1911 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 13, 2014
    Central Ohio, USA
    Andrew
    I actually find LR5 to be faster than LR4. I agree that it might be hardware, but it could also be catalog optimization. When I first went from 3 to 4 it was painful, but realized that I needed to redo the previews. I've over 45,000 images in my current catalog and it runs just fine. I need to replace my old USB 2.0 HDD with something newer and faster, solid state or USB 3.0 drive. Other than that, though....I don't see LR5 being slow.
     
  6. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Machine specs are a good place to start. For me LR5 was actually faster as well. Though I do seem to remember something at the initial release but as it's now 5.7 everything seems fine and smart previews are very handy.

    Here is a handy utility for generating complete system specs. Free registration and on the last tab there is a "validation" that generates / host a web link with complete system specs.

    http://www.cpuid.com/softwares/cpu-z.html

    For example here is my machine: http://valid.canardpc.com/705r0s

    Photo Mechanic works well and is fast. Mainly because i works off the imbedded JPeg and doesn't actually render the RAW image.
     
  7. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    Well somehow I forgot to post pc specs... :dash2:
    So, here's the most important stuff:
    Intel i5 3470
    32GB DDR3 @800MHz
    4x SSD drives (no mechanical HDs)
    ATI Radeon Pro 2600 (PCIE)


    The only thing there that might slow me down is the CPU since I've read that the display card shouldn't count much. IMO with these specs LR should run more smoothly.

    I use small catalogs. I tend to create an own catalog for each event. For general albums (like "dogs") I create a yearly album --> "Dogs 2014", "Dogs 2015" etc so it can't be the catalog size either.

    I don't use LR for rating, sorting or anything like that. Its only purpose is to adjust the basic image settings (exposure, white balance, etc) and after that I do the final tweakings (more accurate sharpening, noise reduction) in Photoshop.

    I do like/utilize the Lightrooms ability to apply the same settings to multiple pictures at once and the "copy/paste"-settings and "Previous"-button are also often used.
     
  8. budeny

    budeny Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 4, 2014
    Boulder, CO
    May be you should give LR5 a try.. It's not new that some intermediate builds of LR ran slower than others. 5.7 is quite good for me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    Forgot to mention that while I do make the more detailed noise reductions and sharpening in Photoshop I'd prefer to do them already in Lightroom (or equivalent) since you can apply the same settings to many pictures at once and save a lot of time. Obviously the ideal situation would be that I could get by with just one program but I doubt I will ever see that day...
     
  10. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    All of these offer 30 day demos (including LR5). Try a few and uninstall if you don't like it.
     
  11. davidzvi

    davidzvi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 12, 2012
    Outside Boston MA
    David
    Specs should be fine, but why did you even bother with that GPU? A 7-8 year old GPU in a 2 year old system? I'd actually be curious to see it that's slowing it down.
     
  12. Speedliner

    Speedliner Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 2, 2015
    Southern NJ, USA
    Rob
    Where you store your photos matters. If on a network drive, or USB drive, the I/O can slow things down significantly.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  13. mcasan

    mcasan Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 26, 2014
    Atlanta
    LR has multiple modules such as the library and develop. DXO Optics has no serious library capability so it is not a direct comparison for all of LR...only maybe the LR develop module. If you like DXO Optics better for raw development, you can use it as plugin that basically replaces the LR develop module. Capture One Pro is more like LR and Aperture as it does libraries and raw development

    I suggest looking at LR 6 which should be released this week. It optimized for 64 bit OSs only. And it is supposed to use the GPU for faster rendering. I will likely end up with LR 6, DxO Optics, and Perfect Photo Suite.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. YantaYo

    YantaYo Mu-43 Regular

    92
    Apr 18, 2012
    Colorado
    Initially I went with Lightroom but have made the switch to Capture 1. It processes my RAW files a step ahead of Lightroom. In RAW processing C1 is comparable to DXO but DXO lacks a DAM. I'll likely continue to use DXO and Lightroom as well but more for specific pictures and taking advantage of LR 6 new features as well.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  15. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I used to use Capture One, had it from version 1 and I really liked it, but it was awfully slow with camera updates and you never knew when you'd get an update for a new camera model. Their focus really was just on Phase One backs and Canon/Nikon to a greater extent than anything else. I can't remember whether I changed when LR2 or LR3 came along, but I was really frustrated with Capture One by that stage (it's also around the time when Capture One took on the LR screen style).

    Since then, I've tried so many different RAW processors, but have remained with LR because, 'overall', it has worked better than anything else. I tried the trial version of DXO and I'd rather use Viewer 3, and I also tried the latest version of Capture One but again, all things considered, I just couldn't see enough benefit to change from LR. If LR goes to the cloud, then I'll drop it and start using Capture One.

    Silky Pix was a real possibility at one stage and I tried it out from the very outset. It had/has the best colour rendition of any RAW processor bar Olympus Viewer, as apparently the developers work very closely with the Japanese manufacturers; however, it's an acquired 'taste'.

    I just wanted to add that one of the major issues with so many alternative RAW converters/image processors is the user interface, or the failure of the user interface. For example, Picture Window Pro, which I first tried in 2009, was a product that many swore by, I just swore at it. I thought that I could get my head around the program, but it defeated me at every turn. It's a similar frustration that I got with Raw Therapee, the software just gets in your way when trying to work through a series of shots. Some love it, I'd rather eat Bhut Jolokia chillies raw and then rub my eyes.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. GBarrington

    GBarrington Mu-43 Veteran

    Consider ACDSee Pro 8 or Ultimate 8
    I left Lightroom behind in late 2012, and I've been very happy with ACDSee pro 7, and now Ultimate 8 (There is also a Pro 8). In particular, I like the Lighting equalizer control in the raw development Tab which allows you to divide the photo up into between 3 to 9 different exposure "zones" and, in effect, set the exposure separately for each.

    I also like the new Pixel targeting tool found in the "edit" tab of Pro and U8, that allows one to target and alter specific types of pixels. See this short tutorial here: http://tutorials.acdsee.com/2015/02/20/pixel-targeting-getting-the-natural-look/

    EDIT: An additional brief Pixel targeting description
    http://tutorials.acdsee.com/2014/10/10/introducing-pixel-targeting-adjusting-exposure/

    As always, ACDSee is still FAST!
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2015
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    Last time I checked (a year ago?) it had more raw power than current cheapish PASSIVE cards available. Unless proven otherwise I don't think changing the card will provide noticeable speed increase (at least justifying the price). Plus when I finally replace it, I want an ATI/AMD card with 4k @60Hz via HDMI (which none of them do atm if I've understood correctly).
     
  18. pake

    pake Mu-43 All-Pro

    Oct 14, 2010
    Finland
    Teemu
    3 SSDs are running on SATA3, one SATA2. Obviously the SATA2 one is a backup drive and not used in LR. External HDs are for backup only so the storing location isn't the bottleneck either.
     
  19. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Your SSDs aren't Samsung 830/840 by any chance?
     
  20. battleaxe

    battleaxe Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Are you sure about that 4k @60hz? Because, I am pretty sure that the intel 5500 gpu, which is in my mini-desktop(and many new laptops/tablets), supports 4k @ 60hz via hdmi. So, I would think a new AMD card would support such feature, no?