Is there a freeware equivalent of Lightroom?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Peabody, Feb 24, 2011.

  1. Peabody

    Robert Coe Guest

    Damn! Now I know what my problem is.
    : I better get rid of my E350 and see if I can find something which might
    : meet your approval. A KIA perhaps?

    Not a bad thought. My 2003 Spectra has no rust and is still running on its
    original battery.

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Feb 27, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Peabody

    Hans Kruse Guest

    If you are a Mac user one alternative Aperture 3 is almost free (at
    least very cheap compared to Lightroom) when you buy it through the App
    Store.

    I have used Lightroom since the original beta and I recommend Lightroom highly.
     
    Hans Kruse, Feb 27, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Peabody

    ray Guest

    Shame, isn't it - when a person is so totally prejudiced that they insist
    on telling others what they really meant. English is a very precise
    language when used properly - I said exactly what I meant.
     
    ray, Feb 27, 2011
    #23
  4. Aperture is $80 from the new App Store. That is a very good deal.
     
    Robert Peirce, Feb 27, 2011
    #24
  5. Peabody

    Guest Guest

    i'm looking for the correcting mistakes room.
    and when i see something that's wrong, i call it out.
    no it doesn't. lightroom tracks images wherever they are, including
    leaving them on an sd card if you want.
    ok, but that's not the best way to be using lightroom.
    right, it maintains a *pointer*.

    you said the lightroom database is a 'database that duplicates files in
    your C: drive', which it does not. it merely tracks the photos (along
    with any edits), and if the images move, lightroom can easily find them
    again and update its pointers. there is no duplication whatsoever.

    the lightroom database and the photos don't even need to be on the same
    disk either. i have my lightroom databases on my internal drive, while
    the photos sit on a server. i can browse images when the server is not
    accessible, such as when i'm on a trip. the edits can also be written
    to sidecar files, which other apps can directly read.
    do you mean let lightroom do the copying? lightroom can do the copying
    from a card to a place of your choosing, whether it's on c: or whatever
    letter, or in the case of a mac, to a drive with a human readable name.
    it can be a local drive, a server, or even in the cloud. or, the user
    can copy from the card to the computer and then import to lightroom.
    either way, lightroom tracks the images wherever they are.
    i've been using photoshop since version 1, but i much prefer lightroom
    for all editing other than for photos which require extensive work
    (heavy retouching, cloning, compositing, panoramas, etc.). photoshop is
    overkill for things like adjusting exposure and colour balance.
    nothing wrong with that.
    photoshop is a very powerful image editor, but very bad at managing a
    photo library (and bridge is still fairly lame).

    lightoom is a fantastic library management app with most of the editing
    capabilities that people need. for the few occasions that a photo needs
    additional work, lightroom can link to photoshop (or another app),
    tracking all changes.
    iphoto is included with macs, which suffices for a lot of people. it's
    basically an 'aperture lite.'
     
    Guest, Feb 27, 2011
    #25
  6. Peabody

    tony cooper Guest

    If you want Contradiction, that's in another room.

    Unlike you, when I see something that contradicts what I know, I make
    an attempt to check it out.

    What I found was that it depends on how you move images from your SD
    card to your computer.

    In my case, when I insert my SD card in my card reader, I upload the
    images (RAW, NEF converted to DNG) to my C: drive and put them in a
    identifying folder. I then delete any images that I don't want to
    keep, edit any images in Photoshop that need editing, and then open
    Lightroom and import the images into Lightroom. I also burn a disk
    with both the RAW, unedited, files and the edit files.

    Using the above steps, what I said is completely accurate. What
    Lightroom does is retain a pointer to my C: drive files.

    What you are evidently doing is importing the files from your SD card
    directly to Lightroom. In this case, the images are not in the C:
    drive as I described.

    I know I could do the editing steps in Lightroom, but I was using
    Photoshop long before I purchased Lightroom. Because I'm so used to
    editing in Photoshop, I see no reason to change to editing in
    Lightroom. I don't do a volume of similar shots like a wedding
    photographer might, so the real advantages of Lightroom editing aren't
    that important to me.

    I use Lightroom primarily as a keyword-based library system. That's
    probably under-utilization of Lightroom, but this is the system that
    is most comfortable for me.

    In the case of someone starting out with a program, it would probably
    be better to start with Lightroom, use your system for importing from
    the SD card, and do the edits in Lightroom. This gives them the
    advantage of an editing program with a keyword-based library.

    Personally, I think Photoshop has more to offer as an editing program,
    but I'm biased because my years of working with Photoshop have made
    the steps almost instinctive.

    Incidently, for someone starting out, Elements also offers an editing
    program and a library (Elements Organizer) with tags similar to a
    keyword system. It suffices for the person who simply wants to take
    family and vacation snaps, and many amateur photographers never grow
    out of that area.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 27, 2011
    #26
  7. Peabody

    tony cooper Guest

    "Different system" is not "wrong".
    Why anyone would do this is beyond me. It doesn't "track" the images;
    it follows your instructions to where the images are.
    Ah, one of those arrogant assholes who feel that what they do is the
    best way for everyone to do things. I'm not concerned with the best
    way to use Lightroom. I'm concerned with the best way to manage my
    images from editing to later retreival. The "best way" is the way
    that I'm most comfortable with, and only the "best way" for me. I
    recognize that other people do things differently in what might be the
    "best way" for them.
    No, Lightroom doesn't track or find images that have been re-named
    using the system I use and described. The thumbnail displays a
    question mark and allows me to "browse" for the image.

    "Track" implies some automatic feature that does not require user
    guidance.
    As I said, Lightroom imports the files from my C: drive (or wherever I
    have them).
    But it doesn't track them.
    You keep using "track". I just imported a shot from my SD card
    directly to Lightroom, right-clicked and went to "Edit in CS4, edited
    it in Photoshop, and closed the file. The result was that I now have
    two versions of the image: the original NEF file unedited and a .psd
    file with the change. That's not "tracking"; that's just capturing a
    new file.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 27, 2011
    #27
  8. Peabody

    Guest Guest

    i was referring to your statement about duplicating photos in the
    database, which is wrong. it does not duplicate the photos. it adds a
    pointer, as you call it, to its database.
    i didn't say leaving them on an sd card was a good idea, but if you do
    that for some reason (including accidentally), lightroom will remember
    it. the point is that lightroom does not care where the photos are.
    they can be *anywhere*.
    you are making a lot more work for yourself, but if that's what you
    want, go for it.
    yes, i can see that.
    that's fine, but what you describe is more work, which most people
    would not consider to be better. people have computers to *do* work,
    not create more of it.
    at which point, it updates its database. if you move them, you only
    need to find one image and it will update the rest based on that.

    the real question is why would anyone change the original file name?
    the original file name is completely irrelevant. let lightroom manage
    the files, which is what it's designed to do and does a much better job
    than you can with a file browser (explorer or finder). everything is
    indexed via keywords or other attributes (date, exif data, etc.). you
    can export an image in a choice of formats with any name you want, to
    any location you want, including directly to online sites like flickr.
    the name of the raw file makes no difference.
    true, it's not automatic. it's not going to go searching your hard
    drive every time it can't find an image (that would be silly). it gives
    you an indication that it cannot find something, and if you moved or
    renamed it, it's a click or two to inform lightroom.
    that's after you copied them there. lightroom can do that for you, or
    you can do it yourself. depends how much work you want to do, i guess.
    you seem to like more work rather than less.
    it does.
    since lightroom and photoshop both use camera raw, it can usually avoid
    a separate .psd file, and lightroom will track the edits.

    what were you doing to the image that required photoshop, versus just
    adjusting the image in lightroom, the way it's designed to be used?
     
    Guest, Feb 27, 2011
    #28
  9. Peabody

    tony cooper Guest

    I've submitted 3 images to SI, two of which are intentional jokes.
    That's "intentional" as in "I knew what I was doing" as opposed to "I
    presented this as a good photograph" as you did when you posted your
    fuzzy, out-of-focus, shot of what you claimed was a rare moth. Your
    photo looked like a close-up of a "mud bug" hole in a dried up creek.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 27, 2011
    #29
  10. Peabody

    Guest Guest

    and *those* are tracked, just like the other ones would be.
    true, but some ways are a lot more work than others.
     
    Guest, Feb 27, 2011
    #30
  11. Peabody

    PeterN Guest

    I've heard that the difference between a BMW and a porcupine is that one
    of them has its pricks on the inside.
     
    PeterN, Feb 27, 2011
    #31
  12. Peabody

    PeterN Guest

    I have LR2 and don't really use it. All my needs are met using Bridge,
    ACR and PS CS5. That is not to say LR is bad or overpriced. Just that it
    does nothing for me.
     
    PeterN, Feb 27, 2011
    #32
  13. Peabody

    PeterN Guest

    "M" ???
     
    PeterN, Feb 27, 2011
    #33
  14. Peabody

    Guest Guest

    it is not a duplicate. lightroom uses the original image (wherever it
    is) and renders what you see on the fly based on the edits you've made
    (it maintains a list of everything you've done). there is no second
    image. the original is never modified and everything is
    non-destructive.

    lightroom will create thumbnails for faster browsing and can optionally
    create larger size previews as well, but those aren't used for edits or
    exporting and a thumbnail can hardly be considered a duplicate.
    only because you don't want to learn something new.

    when i started using lightroom, it was a little confusing at first but
    after watching a couple of tutorial videos, i was stunned at how much
    easier things were. *much* easier. i rarely use photoshop now, except
    when i have to do something fancy.
    you can retrieve images by date in lightroom, or via keywords or exif
    data. the original name does not matter at all! that's one of the
    things that makes lightroom so flexible.

    you can sequence the images in any order you want in a lightroom
    collection and have multiple collections of the same images with
    different sequences. you can even mix images from different shoots in a
    collection, something you *can't* do when restricted to file name
    sorting in a folder (unless you want to combine them into one big
    folder).

    you can also have virtual copies of images (e.g., a b/w version, a
    portrait crop instead of landscape) alongside the originals and be able
    to work with all of them, with virtually no extra space needed (just an
    extra entry in a database).
    the date is in the exif data, which shows up in most (if not all) photo
    sharing sites. you can rename the files on export to whatever you want.
    there are even plugins to directly export to smugmug & photobucket (and
    others).

    <http://regex.info/blog/lightroom-goodies>
     
    Guest, Feb 27, 2011
    #34
  15. Peabody

    tony cooper Guest

    It does duplicate the way I use it. The original photo from upload is
    on my C: drive. What I see in Lightroom is a duplicate of that photo.
    If you prefer, you could say the Lightroom image is a mirror of my
    original with the pointer acting as a mirror.
    It's not like yard work or cutting down trees. My volume is not
    great, so that the extra work is probably an extra minute or so of
    keyboard commands for a day's shooting.

    It's actually less work for me because I'm working with a system that
    I feel comfortable with.
    Images come off my SD card in the Nikon format of DSC_xxxx. I prefer
    a file name like 2011-02-27-001. Sometimes I want them in a sequence
    different from the sequence in which I shot them.
    The only two places I export files to are my SmugMug site and to
    PhotoBucket. When I provide links to those images, I like the file to
    show the date shot. Many recipients of those links wouldn't be able
    to tell the date shot if the file name doesn't show that. I do send 3
    images a month to SI by email, and those files are named according to
    the theme.
    Many things, depending on the image. It can range from simple cloning
    to layer masks.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 28, 2011
    #35
  16. Peabody

    Guest Guest

    you send them the original raw images and not the results of your
    extensive photoshop retouching and layer masking?

    when you export the final version, give the image whatever name you
    want. the name of the original raw file is irrelevant since you won't
    ever send that.
    lightroom can name images in sequence when exporting based on the order
    in a collection (e.g., vacation-1, vacation-2, etc.). again, there is
    no need to rename the originals.
    nope, for that i defer to you.
    you said links to images on smugmug and photobucket and those show exif
    data.

    if you want to email a photo, export the final version and give it
    whatever name you want. you won't be emailing the original, so the name
    of the original file does not matter.
    the exif data is plainly visible on the photo sharing sites that i've
    seen (and i'd be surprised if there was one that didn't show it) but if
    you want it in the title (which isn't necessarily obvious on a photo
    sharing site), you can rename it when you export it.
     
    Guest, Feb 28, 2011
    #36
  17. Peabody

    tony cooper Guest

    It's not about retrieving images; it's about a useful title for an
    image. If I email images to someone, DSC_xxxx doesn't mean anything
    to the viewer. 2011-02-27-001 does. The same is true for a photo in
    my SmugMug gallery.
    It's not all about Lightroom. Sequence is used in how images are
    placed in a gallery.
    You also give lessons on sucking eggs? I know about EXIF data, you
    know about EXIF data, but does Aunt Mildred - who receives the email
    photo - know? It's the height of technical progress if she knows how
    to open an attachment.

    You talk about extra work, but you want people to dig out EXIF data
    when the pertinent info can be the title.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 28, 2011
    #37
  18. Peabody

    tony cooper Guest

    No, I did not. I didn't say anything about EXIF in that context. The
    SmugMug gallery has EXIF data easily available, but you can't get it
    from linked images unless you backtrack into the home page.
    PhotoBucket doesn't show EXIF data so you can't tell the date from
    this photo of one of my grandsons:

    http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/nic1.jpg

    To date it, I'd make the name of the file the date.
    I don't use Flickr or that type of site. I usually send a link to
    either a single image or two or do a slide show from PhotoBucket for
    relatives.

    SmugMug links don't show the image title, so I'd use PhotoBucket if I
    wanted to use the title for this photo of my other grandson:

    http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/photos/445736492_oDZFi-O.jpg

    I like my present system and have no intention of changing. I keep my
    ..dng files, so even though I may edit the image in Photoshop - just
    like Lightroom - I still have the original the way it was shot.
     
    tony cooper, Feb 28, 2011
    #38
  19. Peabody

    John Turco Guest


    It's what I do, with my e-mail image attachmenrs. In the file name,
    itself, I type the date the photo was taken, along with the model
    of camera that snapped the shot.
     
    John Turco, Mar 31, 2011
    #39
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.