With so many editing / post-processing software packages on the market today, photographers might find it rather difficult to go through them all and compare key features in order to pick something that would ultimately work for their needs. Many of us go through that stage, especially when starting out. What is the best software for photo editing? What features does it have? Is it easy to learn and how much does it cost? These are just some of the questions photographers seek answers for. While John Bosley and I have been working hard on producing our PL Level 1: Post-Processing Basics course, we have decided to share one of the charts that we will be including in the course with our readers, which compares the most popular non-destructive editing tools on the market. It took us a while to compile all this data, since there are so many different features and considerations one must go through to make a meaningful comparison. The chart has not been fully finalized yet, since we are currently looking for your feedback and ideas, so that we can hopefully make the chart complete and comprehensive enough for those who are interested in such a comparison.
We picked the following six software packages that offer non-destructive editing based on their popularity among photographers: Adobe Lightroom 6 / CC 2015, Capture One Pro 9, ACDSee Pro 9, On1 Photo 10, DxO Optics Pro 10 and Photo Ninja 1.3.3c. We recognize that there are many more out there, but we cannot include them all, since such research would take a lot more time and the chart would get massive, making it hard to read. If you disagree with our choices and would like to see other non-destructive software included, please let us know in the comments section below (note that we will be posting a separate article for complex / destructive editing tools such as Adobe Photoshop, Elements, Affinity Photo, PaintShop Pro and GIMP). To come up with all the data below, we had to install every software package on a single machine and run them all for some time, going through and testing out the features. It was a pretty exhausting task to say the least! Below is the software comparison table:
| Feature | Lightroom 6 / CC | Capture One Pro 9 | ACDSee Pro 9 | On1 Photo 10 | DxO Optics Pro 10 | Photo Ninja 1.3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1Requires RAW file conversion first 2Subjective opinion based on personal experience of the author 3Based on export of 25 RAW / DNG images to full-resolution JPEG format in 100% Quality | ||||||
| Operating Systems | Windows / Mac | Windows / Mac | Windows / Mac | Windows / Mac | Windows / Mac | Windows / Mac |
| Database Catalog | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Import Tool | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| File Management | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Color Management | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| RAW File Support | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Fuji X-Trans RAW Support | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
| Tethered Shooting | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| GUI Customization | No | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes |
| 4K / Retina Screen Support | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Dual Monitor Support | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| GPU Acceleration | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Lens Corrections | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Basic RAW File Editing (Crop, Exposure, WB, etc) | Yes | Yes | Yes | No1 | Yes | Yes |
| Templates / Presets | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Selective Sharpening | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No |
| Selective Noise Reduction | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Advanced Color Adjustments | No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Distortion, CA and Vignetting Corrections | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Perspective Correction | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes |
| Merge to HDR | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| Merge to Panorama | Yes | No | No | No | No | No |
| Photoshop / Lightroom Integration | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Third Party Plugins | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Brushes / Masking | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Layers | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Spot / Dust Removal | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No |
| Haze Removal | No / Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No |
| Stability2 | 2/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 | 3/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 |
| Speed / Performance – RAW Export3 | 64 sec | 74 sec | 57 sec | 179 sec | 173 sec | 307 sec |
| Speed / Performance – DNG Export3 | 38 sec | 53 sec | 46 sec | 74 sec | 169 sec | 262 sec |
| Learning Curve | Medium | Difficult | Medium | Easy | Easy | Easy |
| Update Frequency | 5/5 | 5/5 | 2/5 | 4/5 | 5/5 | 2/5 |
| Training Availability | 5/5 | 3/5 | 1/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 |
| Retail Price (MSRP) | $150 | $299 | $100 | $110 | $199 | $129 |
| Cloud Subscription Price | $10/mo (+PS) | $15/mo | $79/yr (+extras) | $150/yr (+extras) | N/A | N/A |
Please note that we did not list every possible feature and slider offered by each individual software package, as it would make the above chart unreadable. Instead, we decided to focus on the key / most important features and include additional data for consideration, such as Stability, Performance, Learning Curve and Update Frequency. Some of this data such as Stability and Learning Curve is rather subjective – it is based on my experience running the software, which might differ from other people’s experiences. So if you disagree, please let us know in the comments section below!
Based on the above chart, it is pretty clear that Lightroom, Capture One Pro and ACDSee Pro tightly compete with each other, while the others still have a lot of catching up to do. I personally use Lightroom and ACDsee Pro 9 quite a bit, but after testing out Capture One Pro, I realized that it is one heck of a tool that is absolutely worth looking into in more detail. Some of the features that Capture One Pro has are light years ahead of Lightroom – advanced color adjustments for example, which allow making selective changes to particular colors in an image, are simply amazing compared to the Hue/Saturation/Luminance (HSL) adjustments in Lightroom, which affect colors globally. Capture One Pro’s masking tools also completely slaughter the slow and buggy masking capabilities of Lightroom. And let’s not even bring up Layers, which Lightroom has never had. While many Lightroom users have to use Photoshop for things they cannot do in Lightroom alone, I can see how one could solely rely on Capture One Pro for editing, especially for portrait photography. However, it is not perfect – unlike Lightroom, Capture One Pro is not designed to be a full-featured catalog with built-in file organization / advanced file management tools. Its interface is a bit busy and some things take harder and longer to achieve when compared to Lightroom, making it a bit difficult to use and get used to, at least from the perspective of a long-time Lightroom user. Lastly, its biggest deterrent is the steep price – at $299, it is the most expensive of the bunch.
It was surprising to see how well ACDSee Pro compared to both Lightroom and Capture One Pro in terms of features. However, its rather buggy interface and constant annoying notifications might not be something many of us would want to deal with. Also, when looking at straight RAW to JPEG conversions with camera profiles applied, images from ACDSee Pro looked a bit worse compared to those from Lightroom and Capture One Pro. Other than that, if one spends enough time in ACDSee Pro, one can get great results as well, especially considering how many built-in tools are available in the software.
DxO Optics Pro feels a bit out of place here, since it is designed to be more of a plugin for Lightroom and not its direct competitor. However, considering that the latest version has quite a few RAW editing tools, some of which work much better than the ones in Lightroom, I decided to include it in the list. It does not have a lot of the features that other software packages do, but its Lens Correction capabilities are far better than anything else out there and one could spend much less time compared to other software to make images look great. Tools such as PRIME noise reduction give superb results straight out of software, with little need to tweak the output. However, with DxO continuing to refuse to deal with Fuji X-Trans RAW files, it is not something I could fully rely on, since I use Fuji cameras quite a bit, including my Fuji X-T1.
One of the most interesting tests was the Speed / Performance benchmark. For this one, we selected a group of 25 DNG and 25 random RAW images from different cameras. We timed how long it would take for each software to extract full-size JPEG images in 100% quality from both batches of files. The tests had to be repeated 3 times to make sure that there were no other factors involved and the numbers were then averaged into a single number. As you can see, each tool varies in performance greatly and the clear winner here is Adobe Lightroom, which generally outperformed pretty much all other software, with the exception of ACDSee Pro 9, which did a bit better in extracting RAW images. For a professional who needs to extract thousands of images quickly, the winner is clear here. However, performance is not going to be the primary criterion for many photographers, so one must look at all of the above to decide what is more important for their needs.
We would love to hear your feedback regarding our chart and this article in the comments section below!
Great article but Capture One Pro is unbelievable ;)
Thank you Chris! Capture One Pro does look pretty incredible. Things like layers and dodging / burning are so much better than what Lightroom offers – you cannot even compare!
exactly. I have both subscriptions and I’m about to ditch adobe. I don’t think I need it. I shoot Fuji and Canon, since I got COP7 (now 11) I haven’t had the need to even one LR nor PS!!!
to even open I meant lol
Thank you, Nasim, for a very useful article. I want to contribute with my “journey” to the solution I’m very happy with today: After Apple decided to discontinue the development of Aperture I felt forced to find an alternative solutions before updates of OS X systems made my catalogs completely dead. I went for the most “obvious” replacement first; i.e. Adobe Lightroom. I converted all my catalogs to Lightroom and spent about a year editing my photos (I only shoot RAW). But slowly I started to feel more and more dissatisfied with the outcome. I felt I couldn’t reach the same “heights” in finished output that I felt I was getting in Aperture on a more regular basis. For me the quality of the final image is all that matters. I’m even ready to put up with a whole lot of strange behaviors and missing features in a software, as long as it makes me capable of producing images that I’m satisfied with. I just felt that Lightroom wasn’t able to do that for me. We’re talking about a “relationship” here. And I was getting increasingly dissatisfied in this marriage. So I decided that monogamy was not for me any more, –what else is out there to explore, I thought?
So, I started to look around for yet another solution. First I started testing DxO and comparing output with same files with output from Lightroom. And I found that the renditions from DxO where way better for me to work with in post-adjustments in Photoshop (and plugins such as NIK collection). I loved the way I was able to control the amount of sharpness in conjunction with noise-reduction tools in DxO gave me. But, the best part was that I felt that the DxO software was able to really lifted the image to its full potential. And that with only a few very basic adjustments. So, I finally came to the conclusion that I was going to abandon Lightroom as my tool for adjusting my raw’s. But what to do with the lacking catalog-building facilities and storage in DxO? One solution would be to use Lightroom for just the storage and then develop my raw’s in DxO built-in as a plugin in LR. But since I (at that point) really wanted to leave LR all together, I was stuck with yet another problem? –Now I had a raw editor that I liked but it was not giving me the ability to create catalogs and store my files instead! –Is there yet another solution out there to be discovered, I thought?
I knew about the existence of Capture One Pro, but I had never really tried it out in any meaningful way. So now was the time to give it a real chance to proof itself, I thought! And just after a few random tests I was amazed to see the results! The quality of the rendered raw’s it was able to produce, just through using the most basic sliders or sometimes even without touching the sliders at all, blew my mind! And, on top of that, all the fantastic tools that are there to be used, should I really need them! The feeling was that here was a piece of software that not just gave me tools to convert my raw’s in a satisfactory way, but something that is actually able to make me produce better images than ever before! This really sounds like a “sales-pitch” from the company itself, but I promise you I have nothing to do with the people behind this software. I was just so happy about its existence. I see in your review of Capture One Pro that you think it is lacking somewhat in the catalog department. I’m not sure what you’re referring to but I find everything I need to catalog, store and organize my files there. What I would like the developers to take a look at is the user interface, at some point. For me it is just too black/white and flat to be pleasing to the eye. Apples Aperture was always my favorite when it comes to user interface for this kind of software. But that’s a minor issue really. And after I discovered that among all the fantastic abilities of COP it also provides me with the freedom of “de-connect” all the develop-modules (or duplicate them) and rearrange them to my liking. This is a fantastic feature for those of us that are working with two screens. In COP we can have all our developing modules on a second monitor, just like we’re use to in Photoshop or Illustrator, etc. –leaving the primary monitor open and free for the image itself. I could go on much longer, but I encourage everyone that have “issues” with your current solution to take a look at Capture One Pro. Sure, it is the most expensive and I know what a big step it is to move over to a new work-flow. All I can say is that the flaws in Lightroom forced me to do the transition.
/Thomas
I apologize for linguistic error. English is not my native tongue.
Glad you all found another software application you like so you can stop pouting about Lightrrom now.
The fastest application for me is Apple Photos, by far. It is insanely fast, and also has great file and cloud management features.
Coupled with the DxO photo optics extension, it is a serious RAW processor.
I chose that over Adobe Lightroom and never looked back.
Oded, if Apple did not discontinue Aperture, I would have included it in the list. Sadly, Apple Photos is not a replacement to Aperture, since it has a pretty simplified interface and is designed to be used with an external editing software. I guess the combination of Photos + DxO would work in that regard, so I can see why it works for you.
Nasim, the latest version of Apple Photos has extensibility, it is basically a better version of Aperture’s plugins model. DxO Options runs as a plugin inside Apple Photos, not as a delegate app.
www.dpreview.com/artic…s-software
Oded, that’s great to know, thanks for pointing it out.
I think you mean Apple -not Adobe . I’m not sure Photo’s + DXO would work for me as I use Fuji RAF files which DXO bluntly refuse to support ( I’ve spoken to Hector about this on three occasions ) . I agree Capture One 9 is a steep learning curve especially after using Aperture since day One but there are very good Tutorials & Webinars + a very useful third party book available on Rooky Nook.
Kevin, yes, thanks for pointing out the typo! Sadly, DxO has no plans of introducing Fuji support, which really sucks, since the product is great.
I have never heard anyone use that combination, how does it compare to lightroom and could you give me a more detailed review? Thanks
As someone who shoots infrared, i’d be interested to know which software has a channel mixer.
Sue, I don’t think any of the above non-destructive software has this capability – you will need to use software like Photoshop in order to completely swap channels for infrared.
It is not very difficult to learn Caputre One Pro 9. All you need is working with it, and at a glance you will understand the tools and how they work. Very helpfull are the tutorials on the web and the webminars, heavy for me in english, but now they will be in spanish too.
I only work with Capture One, and if the photo needs more adjustments you can edit with Photoshop, save and you have it inside your catalog.
So, try it
Thank you Francisco, so far I like Capture One Pro 9 quite a bit. Looks like very solid software, especially when it comes to layers and brushes.
Unless I missed something, where’s Corel Aftershot Pro?
I do like ACDSee Pro, being a recent user – it’s actually fun and relaxed to use rather than the formality of the other programs.
In essence, it’s quite simple. Adobe has a dominant market position and has a large R&D resource – so LR and PS/ACR are the benchmarks. From that, each competitor has to beat them in the feature that you are interested in. I doubt the market share of competitors in total comes anywhere near Adobe market share.
Ananda, you are one of the very few on this website who asked about Corel Aftershot Pro – I guess not many people use it out there. I looked through the specs and it looks impressive, so perhaps we will add it to the list on the next edit. I agree about ACDSee Pro, it is indeed very easy and simple to use.
Fully agreed on your last paragraph, Adobe has a huge market share and resources compared to everyone else.
In my experience Aftershot works very easy and quick but in my experience the IQ cannot reach the level of C1 and lightroom (at least not for a D800 but quality of converter is also camera dependend).
I’ll second that! It would be great to see Aftershot Pro compared to the other editors. I’ve found it to be quite fast, and relatively stable, but the controls are not quite as advanced as Lightroom.
+1 for adding the Aftershot
Photoshop being really expensive, many look for cheaper options. When one changes that, why not change the bulk editor as well.
Corel has a full stack in PaintShop + Aftershot and they are really competitive from feature and especially from the price perspective.
Some time ago I decided on Aftershot Pro 2 as a replacement for Picasa, and have found that I just don’t really use it much. Despite the UI being pretty intuitive and much snappier than Lightroom, I think my frustrations comes down to a few major flaws:
1) There isn’t really a good import-from-device tool. I’d really like to see previews of images on my SD card or device before downloading, and perhaps give me hints about things I’ve already downloaded/imported to my desktop so I don’t accidentally copy them again. They have a sort of batch “download” process, but it is not very intuitive or graphical.
2) Really poor lens correction support. I have a Panasonic G6, and none of the lenses I use seem to be recognized/calibrated. This is really bad with RAW images, which have no lens correction applied. Basically, it makes shooting in RAW completely unpractical. ACDSee Ultimate 9 has amazing lens correction that matches the in-camera correction almost perfectly.
3) Collections are a bit of a mess. I’ve accidentally added a folder to a collection, and surprisingly, there is simply no way to undo such a thing. You basically have to manually remove every image, or delete the collection and start a new one.
There are a lot of things I missed from Picasa – primarily its simplicity, but also facial recognition, simple title editing, tagging, etc.
I’m strongly considering ACDSee next.
If you like Capture One Pro so much why didn’t you just right an article about the software? No Selective Noise Reduction? It’s in the adjustment brush. Price 10.00? That includes Lightroom and Photoshop CC, two programs for less than it cost for Capture One.
My question to you would be how many subscriptions users? Lightroom/Photoshop CC vs Capture One Pro?
Mark, I am planning to, once I get used to it – there is a lot to learn. Lightroom might have a noise slider in the adjustment brush, but without all the other options, it cannot be directly compared to something like Capture One Pro. Yes, $10 includes Lightroom and Photoshop, but if you did not want Photoshop, you cannot reduce that price. As for the number of subscribers, I am sure Adobe’s base is huge in comparison. Capture One is a more niche product, since many of its advanced features aren’t for everyone.
A nice one for the very few linux users here is darktable.
It is still a little quirky to use, but it includes some quite powerful filters, and it’s actively maintained.
Available on Mac/Linux, not on Windows…
On linux, RawTherapee seems nice too, but I didn’t try it.
Fred, I wanted to give Darktable a try, but there was no option to install on Windows. When we go in detail on Affinity, I will do my best to give Darktable a try.
I am a long term Capture One user and it is fantastic as Raw editor (not difficult to learn and there are plenty of tutorial videos). Its Catalog function however is weak and I do not understand why they do not enhance their MediaPro, which is a reasonable Catalog. However, Capture One is they only application for which I have to keep my Windows 7 alive. All the other stuff I do now on Linux. So I have been looking at Darktable and I am impressed with it functions. Less so in its user interface. Catalog functionality is absent essentially, but the great thing with Darktable is that everything is open and I can design my own Catalog. However I would REALLY, REALLY prefer a Linux version of Capture One (are you listening PhaseOne ?????).
Nice work, Mr Mansurov.
I see Iridient Developer mentioned often in Fuji forums as giving better results than Capture One Pro. This isn’t something I can test, as I use only Windows software. Did you consider including it in your tests?
Regards,
Roger
Roger, I tried to avoid software in the chart that only works on a single platform, since it limits its use. I have not tried Iridient, but perhaps next time I am on the Mac, I will give it a try and see what it has to offer compared to others.
Nasim I have tried Iridium and compared it with C 1 . IMHO they are both good with Fuji – best compared with any other software. C1 is a complete package & my only fault with it is the lack of Plug in compatibility .
Re Nik Software since Google took it over there have not been any updates or product updates ( apart from keeping up with OS updates ) What does that tell you ?
Agree DXO is nice – I used it with Nikon but a no go since I switched to Fuji.
Regards
Kevin
> Roger, I tried to avoid software in the chart that only works on a single platform, since it limits its use.
Ah. That wasn’t clear from what you wrote.
BTW, what the significance of the yellow rectangle above the last row?
Roger
I was going to mention ID as well, especially for Fuji where it truly shines. I find the interface a lot more intuitive for LR users than switching to capture one and it is fairly easy to integrate as an external editor for LR as it has the capability to “retrieve” the raw file that LR used to generate the TIF file it sends to the external editor.
That way ID works its magic in the raw file, generates a new TIF file and then update the TIF generated by LR. Easy to use once set-up.
I don’t find ID any better than LR or C1 on canon or Nikon files but on Fuji it trounces LR and may have a slight edge over C1, or maybe just because it is easier to get good results with. The defaults are really optimized for great results.
Only big gap I find is that ID or C1 do not provide lens profiles unlike LR. Not an issue for Fuji as lens profiles are embedded in the raw file and are automatically applied to the raw file. And of course ID does not catalog files.
C1 is a fabulous tool – probably the most powerful of them all, but it is quite demanding to master I find whereas ID is very intuitive.
I agree ID is a very good Raw Developer but it is not a complete software processing package . Regarding Lens Corrections in C 1 – yes they are Manual except for Phase One lenses but that does bother me as I use Fuji and any corrections are done in camera and embedded in the Raw data.
Since the NIK Suite is available for free and integrates seamlessly with Lightroom and Photoshop I feel you should include it some way. Also I find the integration of PhotoNinja is so good and its excellent implementation of learning noise presets compelling. Some difficult noise and dynamic range situations are handled so easily with PhotoNinja as compared to Lightroom I just bypass Lightroom except as the database. I used to go to Nikon Capture NX2 for these situations, but now it is PhotoNinja. Since most people using Lightroom will use the CC version (if not now then later) which gives them Photoshop CC with its excellent integration with the above mentioned tools especially allowing the use of ACR as a filter, I feel your analysis is lacking. In my testing many of the other converters fall far behind in efficiently getting to a photo realistic result as compared to the Bridge/Photoshop/Google NIK/Lightroom/PhotoNinja suite of tools. It is how the photo result looks not just the specification comparison that counts. Looks like Google has thrown a monkey wrench in your course/analysis.
> Since the NIK Suite is available for free and integrates seamlessly with Lightroom and Photoshop I feel you should include it some way.
One doesn’t have to use Adobe software to benefit from the Google/Nik Collection. It also integrates closely with Capture NX2 (as it should, having been written by the same people).
Although CNX2 is obsolete, it’s still a very good secondary editor when working on TIFF or JPEG files from a Raw converter. This especially so when using it with the Nik tools. I use the combination with the outputs of Capture One Pro.
You can also ’round trip’ from C1P without involving CNX2. “Edit with” lets you send a TIFF version of the file you’re working on directly to your chosen Nik tool. The file returns to the CiP catalogue when edited.
It’s likely that something similar can be done with other Raw editors.
Roger
I use the combination with the outputs of Capture One Pro, but you can also ’round trip’ from C1P. “Edit with” lets you send a TIFF version of the file you’re working on directly to Nik. It then returns to the CiP catalogue when edited.
It’s likely that something similar can be done with other Raw editors.
Roger
Good point….I have fallen in love with the NIK suite as I have found that I can get extremely good results in a fraction of the time it was taking in Photoshop.
Jay, I love Nik Software, but I cannot include it in the list, since it is a plugin, it is destructive and it is not designed to be used by itself.
Not destructive if used in photoshop as a smart object. My guess is that the majority of folks are using LRCC and PSCC as compared to the other editors. I would also imagine that folks would be encouraged to shoot raw or raw + jpeg for the obvious advantages and always go back to an original if destructively editing. My opinion is that one should be more concerned about the quality of results for the amount of time invested in post processing, which maybe should find a place in an analysis of editing software. Over the years I have tried every one of the windows editors in your list in the various versions and I always have run into a show stopper in the trial with the exception of PhotoNinja. Once presets are saved for my various cameras, then for most photos there is little no adjustment needed to the converted image. This is just amazing in a high noise situation and for the situation where the highlights are blown. The results are very photorealistic. It is slow, but such a time saver when it is needed. I’m not trying to sell it as I maybe use it on 5% of my images, but combined with the other tools I mention above it earns its cost, at least for me.
On the IMPORT TOOL line of your table ACDSee has a NO. ACDSee does have an import tool in the manage menu. Easy to turn off the notifications, it’s a separate program you delete or rename. Trouble is it’s so long since I’ve done it I don’t recall what it is!
Chuck, thanks for pointing out the typo – I fixed the table. In terms of the notifications, I should not have to deal with renaming or deleting programs – ACDSee needs to eliminate that junk from the software…
That goes for all software makers :-) I was just pointing out a solution.
Hands down, there are only two packages to recommend, Adobe’s Lightroom and Photoshop. Why? Because of the huge community support of them which includes books, tutorials, on-line videos, etc. One of the cheapest avenues to learning and mastering these applications is our educational system. You will find college courses in Lightroom and Photoshop. You will not find others. You will find Lightroom and Photoshop as part of any and most art degree programs, including graphic design, industrial design, etc. Learning LR and PS is leads you into Illustrator, inDesign and others. The share a common interface.
You may rebel and challenge the dominance of Adobe but why? You will only be cutting off your own revenue stream. I can not tell you how many art/photographers work in education at least part time. You have Adobe skills, there is a place for you. You’ve mastered any of the others – no way.
You want to share technique with others, what find what other techniques artists are using? It is usually LR or PS. If you use any of the others, your circle of friends and influence diminishes.
BTW, if you get-it-right-in-camera, there is little that the post processing application will need to do.
Maggie-the-Cat,
You have reminded me that I have always been puzzled as to why so many people are willing to spend a large sum of money on their camera gear, and latterly on their computer for editing their digital images, yet they baulk at the relatively meagre cost of attending expert tuition classes.
I don’t rebel at the dominance of Adobe in digital image editing; I find it increasingly adorable. I don’t use Adobe software for the simple reason that I’ve always tried my very best to avoid producing ‘Photoshopped images’. Your mileage may vary :-)
What you say seems to me applicable mainly or solely to professional photographers, US-based at that (“our educational system”). Many of us on here are neither, so our needs and expectations will differ. A “revenue stream” is the least of an amateur’s concerns.
Capture One Pro, for instance, is used by many amateurs as well as professionals, has its own discussion forums as well as being discussed in 3rd party fora, and offers a wealth of training material, including free tutorials and Webinars. There’s even a book (not free but neither are those on Adobe products). There may well be college courses for it in its native Denmark.
I expect much the same can be said of ISL in Japan, whose Silkypix software is bundled (in basic versions) with Fujifilm, Ricoh and Samsung cameras, among others. The full version works with Raw files from over 600 models of camera.
Roger
“What you say seems to me applicable mainly or solely to professional photographers, US-based at that (“our educational system”). Many of us on here are neither, so our needs and expectations will differ. A “revenue stream” is the least of an amateur’s concerns.”
An excellent point. Nasim may disagree, but this website is strongly oriented not only to advanced amateurs, but to advanced amateurs who live in the Southwestern United States. I live in Oregon and find large skill areas completely ignored. Easterners will find even more neglected skill areas. Forest shots and human dominated landscapes are the most obvious. Journalist style photography, much more salable to editorial clients, is entirely missing. I see this as a Southwestern thing, where journalist style photographs of dismal deserts will not be salable; you need to focus on details and then process the heck out of them. (And yes, I’ve been there.)
That said, this is an awesome website, of great use to the working professional as well as the advanced amateur.
Yandoodan, thank you for your feedback. I agree with you, since many of the team members are indeed from the Southwestern US. We will do our best to cover more topics in the future :) I would love to live in Oregon for a few years. Actually I seriously considered moving to Bend a year ago…
OTOH, Adobe has the worst F1 help in the business, hands down, no competitors. You hit F1 and you wait and wait for a search program to open in a web browser — and then get irrelevant results. Then you bring up Google and get the web pages you need.
Adobe’s lazy and cheap approach to Help exemplifies their corporate attitude. That said, I use Photoshop, and have since version 4. And you are right about the marketability of Adobe skills.
Maggie, good point on education – I have added another row called “Training Availability”, which shows some relevant data. You are in right, there are far more Lightroom / Photoshop tutorials out there compared to everything else. However, I would not make the two my #1 recommendation solely based on that. Lightroom’s slowness and stability issues are driving people crazy and away from the product, looking for alternatives. And I can’t blame them – Adobe has been just adding more and more layers to Lightroom, making it worse and worse every year. Feature-wise, it is the richest, but stability-wise, it is the worst.
It is, perhaps, a blessing that Adobe is not “adding more and more layers to Lightroom” — just think how unstable it would become if Adobe attempted to add “Layers” to Lightroom :-)
“…Lightroom’s slowness and stability issues are driving people crazy and away from the product, looking for alternatives…”
True. I used Lightroom 6 for a short time but was dissatisfied with its [lack of] speed and reverted to Lightroom 5. If/When I purchase a camera that requires LR6/LRCC then I will likely refer to the chart at the top of the article and find a replacement application.
Thanks, Nasim, for putting this together. It’s very informative and useful.
For sure LR CC is terribly unstable compared to LR5, which for me is rock solid, but I think this is somewhat hardware and OS related. I run Win10 on an AMD 6 processor FX. Adobe recommended the AMD R9 technology, but for expense reasons I purchased an R7/370 card. This fixed most of my problems with Adobe lockups. That said I found that the Microsoft update to my wifi driver was causing Win10 crashes and major performance issues. Once I re-loaded my old wifi driver I now have an almost totally stable system. The reason I go into this detail is that Adobe may be getting some of the blame for Win10 driver problems with older hardware. So at this point I am not throwing all my stones at Adobe.
I couldn’t agree with more, I use LR CC also, and after about 15 minutes of editing my PC slows down to a point where LR CC is not even useable. The lag time gets to 4-5 five seconds when using a simple brush. I have a 15″ Macbook Pro with every option including the AMD GPU and I thought it would work pretty good with LR CC, however such is not the case – very frustrating at times. I think I will look into Capture 1 very soon. Learning new things is always good. Autodesk’s AutoCAD is also a rather difficult application at first, and by the way it works just great all day on my Mac, no issues whatsoever.
Anyway, thanks for the great job you did comparing all the different photo editing applications, very informative…
There is selective noise reduction in Lightroom through the adjustment brush – or are you looking for something more complex.
It would be good to have hue/ saturation in Lightroom available through the adjustment brush, radial filter, etc.
Murray, I am aware of that, but considering that there are no additional options aside from a single slider, it is too simple to be taken seriously when compared to others. Saturation is already included in the adjustment brush and radial filter in Lightroom – perhaps you have an older version?
I have the current CC version. I was just saying it would be nice to have the full range of hue/saturation controls by colour but for selections.
I agree – Adobe should have allowed the use of all the sliders in the adjustment and other brushes – perhaps a small hidden section that says “Advanced”, which would reveal the extra controls…
Hello Nasim.
I don’t know exactly what do you mean by “dual monitor support”… Can you elaborate a bit further?
I’m asking because the tool I most often use for first (and sometimes last) step in my work-flow is DxO Optics Pro 10 (I find it so easy to use, although in my machine it isn’t as stable as Capture One Pro 9) and, for me, it works perfectly with two monitors. I’m using an external monitor to show the picture I’m working in, together with main menu, EXIF data, histogram and a small thumbnail, and my laptop monitor to show all the other tools, in “floating” mode.
Sure, DxO OP isn’t doing anything different because I have two monitors, but since I can “float” almost everything in the OP interface I feel it really doesn’t need to… It would be nice to have working image full screen view (more or less what F12 does in OP) in one monitor without loosing the floating tools on the other monitor, perhaps that’s why your table shows no dual monitor support…
Thanks again for your incredible patience in your reviews.
All the best,
Paulo
In Photoshop you can pull the tools onto your second monitor and make the photo take up your entire main monitor. If this is what Nasim meant I am surprised to see Lightroom listed as having it. When I tried it recently I couldn’t figure out how to keep the tools from hogging one or both edges of the main monitor, reducing the area of the photo. I got a big color-accurate monitor to adjust photos, not display buttons and text.
Yandoodan, please see my response to Flores.
Paulo, dual monitor support in this case means native support to take advantage of two screens. Being able to move parts of the floating application to a different screen is something most software support out of the box, but being able to see different output is a whole different ballgame. Lightroom allows looking at an image separately on the second screen and you can go through different modes. For example, you can be in a grid mode on the main screen and see the large version of the selected image on the other.
Thank you Nasim.
Good example of something impossible to do in DxO OP. I agree, no NATIVE support of dual monitor in OP, it kind of works with a dual monitor setup, but only because of the Operating System support, not because DxO as included native support for it in the software itself.
I really appreciate you took the time to clarify this!
All the best,
Paulo
I didn’t know that. Thanks! Now I have a good reason to replace my PoS second monitor, used only for things like email and Photoshop tools.
Whether a program supports a second monitor for things like toolbars depends on the program. Specifically, it depends on what type of window its developers decide to use for these things. My copy of Paradox from 2001 supports this. Many recent applications do not. (I expect this to get worse as companies chase phone users.)
Hello again Yandoodan.
I don’t know how to do it in Lightroom (because I don’t have Lightroom) but in DxO Optics Pro its very easy, you just choose to “float” any window, that “undocks” the window and you can move it anywhere, independently of the number of monitors you have (so windows can be moved to somewhere on the same monitor or to another monitor). I imagine it should be similar in Lightroom. Very easy and useful indeed.
However, like Nasim pointed out, DxO does not know if you have more than one monitor and so, when one selects to see the image one is working in full screen, all the other windows disappear :-(
From what Nasim told us Lightroom allows you to see the image full screen in one of the monitors and tools and menus in another. And that is really very nice.
I do hope photo edition software will retain dual monitor support, its easy to move between dual monitor and “phone like” experience. However perhaps I’m being optimistic and you are being realistic… I hope that’s not the case ;-)
All the best,
Paulo
For $299, I can have Lightroom and Photoshop for 2.5 years. I think its the perfect combination. And if you don’t want to deal with Photoshop, just use Lightroom with Google’s Nik Software (it’s free), which has many powerful features and is easy to use.
Daniel, Capture One Pro has a cloud subscription too, but it is a bit more expensive in comparison to Adobe’s offering. You can get Capture One Pro for around $12 when they have promotions.
Thank you for that, it is quite a useful comparison. I own 4/6 of these, and I guess I don’t need Corel Aftershot Pro after all. I have been considering Corel products as well, because I will not join Adobe’s subscription rip-off. Photoshop CS 6 cannot read Nikon D500 NEFs, but Lightroom CS 6 can. I had stopped using Lightroom before, but am using it again for this reason only. Though DNG Converter is an option.
Why stopped? Because I find Capture One superior – if a bit frustrating to learn. Combine C1 with DXO’s unique features, and you have the best combination (- that is once they support the D500). My wish is for those two programs to become better integrated – everyone seems to want to integrate with LR instead. And they will be able to deliver Nikon D500 to PS as TIFs.
I also have On1 (and Topaz, Nik) but am not a heavy user of those. Will be interesting to see how things change when On1 raw converter becomes available in a few months. I use PS for special edits.
I don’t trust Corel. I’ve been using their products since the 1990s, and still use Paradox heavily and WordPerfect occasionally. (I’ve databased my photo collection with Paradox since 1992. Talk about lock in!) Their product line is a mess of little used programs. They are financially weak and abandon software without warning.
Hallo Nasim
many thanks for the comparison chart. While I understand that it probably isn’t of interest to professional photographers, I think that many amateur photographers would like to know if there are any free software that they could use for non destructive editing. Besides Darktable (for Linux and Mac, but unfortunately not for Windows), which was mentioned/proposed above, I would suggest Digikam (www.digikam.org for Linux, Windows and Mac) as a candidate either to be included in the comparison or to be the subject of a (short?) review.
Thanks in advance
Myron
Myron, thank you for your feedback. I have never heard of Digikam, but after comparing GIMP to Photoshop, I realized that most open source software is pretty bad in comparison – there are simply not enough resources in the community to make something solid out there. I will take a deeper look into Digikam and see if it is worth considering.
Thanks for the answer, Nasim.
Open source software may certainly not be up to the level of professional software (especially the standard setting one, ie. Photoshop) and most probably do not fill the needs of professional photographers. Nevertheless they might be good enough for amateurs and those taking their first steps in digital photography and post processing.
Looking forward to read your opinion of it, when you have the time to give it a look.
What an awesome job. Thanks. What a lot of work. My suggestion for an internet chart is to repeat the heading every so often so that you do not have to keep scrolling back and forth to see what column you are looking at. Would love to see Iridient added. I know its promised PC version has not landed yet, but it is such a go to for users with Macs because it does such good job. It would also be nice to know whether the software includes a sophisticated printing package that loads paper curves.
“…My suggestion for an internet chart is to repeat the heading every so often so that you do not have to keep scrolling back and forth to see what column you are looking at…”
Agreed. I had to keep scrolling back to the top to see the headers — so this would really help.
Very nice chart, lots of work put into it. Myself, I would like to see a few rows dedicated to sharing and printing features.
The double edged sword of non destructive editing is you become dependent on THAT software for viewing and sharing. What if THAT software disappears? Myself, I used Aperture from version 1 to the bitter end. After that painful transition, I vowed never again to be dependent on one program for all my editing, sharing and cataloging.
I am looking forward to your course. I am wondering if you plan to cover the DAM option of separate editing and cataloging programs, I.e., where the cataloging tool is independent of the editing tools, and where one saves edited images in a format that is universal, such as TIFF or JPEG (not DNG).
I agree that the chart is useful and contains a lot of information.
I would also point out (like Jd750) that separate DAM options do exist for managing image collections separate from editing functions. An outstanding example is IMatch 5 (www.photools.com/im5), which uses open standards and works with a range of editing programs to manage originals and output images. I’ve found it vastly superior to Lightroom for this purpose. Perhaps Nasim could address the DAM option in a separate post?
A couple of points you may have missed, intentionally or not:
Do you not consider LR’s adjustment brush a viable selective noise reduction method?
The $10 includes the latest version of PhotoShop, that is kind of significant wouldn’t you say!
Monte, LR’s adjustment brush only has one slider for noise, which is inferior compared to what other tools such as Capture One Pro offer, which is why I crossed it out. As for the price, while it certainly does include Photoshop, you cannot remove it to reduce the price. However, I did mark that on the above table for future reference, since it is a good point either way.
I may be inferior for your useage but it still exists. Your table indicates it does not exist.
All features of these programs are inferior/superior to others in some way.
You wouldn’t say C1 did not have a file manager just because it was inferior to LR’s.
Interesting information. One thing (just for information): you say in the schedule that C1 does not supports plugins supports but I use google Nik collection in the same way as in Lightroom. Just use “edit in” and the plugin opens. You can save the edited picture in an other directory wich is more convenient imo because you keep the edited pictures separated. An other big advantage of C1 is that you don’t need to import the pictures into a catalog.
Thank you for this article. I use Lightroom extensively, as I need to track many images, and need to process many images quickly. I also use DxO Optics Pro; it’s lens correction, noise reduction, and other features also work well for processing batches of images taken in lower, available light. When doing more detailed, art photos, I use Photoshop (CC), with Topaz, Dfx, and also Nik plugins.
I have also used ACDSee Pro, but I agree, the interface needs a lot of work.
I think it is more of draw between LR and Capture One Pro (C1).
– You cannot, essentially, buy LR in future versions unless you rent it. But C1 has committed to always offering both (mainly, to compete against Adobe).
– Also, C1 is the most Aperture like interface. For former users and those that prefer that easier way of working, it is a big plus.
– On the face of it, the retail version of C1 is the most expensive. However, there is a 10% off coupon link floating around and they also offer an academic version. If you shoot or own a Sony or Phase One camera, you also get it for free or, a discounted full version.
– The advanced color adjustments are big deal in C1.
– You CAN use third party plugins. I use Nik and One1. It essentially allows you to go to those, do the editing, and bring it back. But, here is the THING about C1 and third party apps or plugins: C1 is SO GOOD and has so many controls that exceed or equal most third party plugins like black and white, film grain, skin, and many other things, I find I now never use those extra apps or plugins! You do not need them anymore. This may be one reason why Google gave away Nik and On1 and other former plug in companies are changing over to image managers and editors along the line of C1 and LR.
– Speed is very relative with C1. I have an old clunker 2009 iMac and, it actually is pretty darn fast with latest C1. But I noticed that some newer machines give people speed issues. I think it has less to do with the machine or OS and more to do with the number and way they manage catalogues or sessions in C1. Not that I do it better but, I do it more precisely and run them all externally on a faster drive. Beyond that, the explanation is too complex to go into here. Needless to say, LR had speed issues not long ago too so, it seems to be an issue that comes and goes with upgrades to all the options here. Adobe and Phase one seem to address it the best and most frequently.
– I do agree the learning curve for C1 is steep. Other than similarity to Aperture for catalogue and editing UI, it is a little *different* way of doing things and different UX model. Sometimes, that is good (very flexible and customizable) but, it is also not intuitive and sometimes, adds in one or two extra steps that other, simpler programs did not. But, maybe if Aperture had been updated, it too might have reached a somewhat more complex UI and UX experience as it did more stuff. Alas, that did not happen.
– In some parts of the UI, C1 UI is so simple, you actually just do it. No need to click off or whatever. Like the crop tool. Just crop and move on. No need to “make it happen” or some other click or command. This is technically easier but, takes some getting used to. No need to watch the toaster to get perfect toast. It is automatic in a lot of ways.
– I am finding that C1 also has a lot of power hidden in what you call templates or presets. This too is different. Things have different names like variants and recipes. Icons also have different names. Once you get used to it, it is no big deal.
– But one thing that helps a user along is a HUGH amount of resources. Phase One has a lot of tutorial videos and recordings of webinars. It has a web based manual and reference. There is also now a Rocky Nook published book out on learning C1. There is a FB group and Phase One has a forum, albeit, the interface for the forum stinks and focuses more on the cameras but, still, it is a resource.
– Unlike Adobe, Phase One is a small company. 300 or so employees world wide. It is also a camera and optics company. DxO is probably the closest of all the competitors in terms of it being a photo technology company (and not massive Adobe). C1 is made by photography experts and camera makers. A big plus IMO.
– IMO the HDR and Panorama are nice but, I do not use them and, if I did, I would use a dedicated app for those. So I do not see that as negative to not have nor a positive to have. It is feature bloat at worst, nothing at best.
– As for what C1 does have that matters, your long green column shows that it is a major and important competitor to LR. C1 has been around longer and is a more mature program in many ways.
I also hope that ACDSee, On1 and DxO make theirs even better! Then we will see some real innovation and competition for Adobe. This only makes it better for all the users!
A very-interesting comparison, thanks Nasim. I am getting frustrated with Lightroom, or perhaps I should say Adobe. Your findings with Capture One Pro are real interesting.
I look forward to your in-depth comparison of Affinity Photo, especially now that they claim a Windows version is coming soon. (affinity.serif.com/en-us/windows/). A direct comparison to LR and Capture One Pro will be helpful. I’m hoping Affinity Windows comes out soon since that seems a very promising alternative.
Pete
Sorry, just use the comment function to subscribe further comments ??
Capture One is awesome – for studio work its simply the best. But i still like DxO better – at the end nothing beats PS for a final edit, and dxo has better noise reduction, keystoning, film adjustment, lens correction than anything else. But again, for studio work Capture One rocks (color adjustments in CO are just simply amazing)
I use Nikon Capture NX-D for RAW conversion and basic corrections like white balance and highlight and shadow recovery. What I like about Nikon’s software is it is the best RAW converter for NEF files and it doesn’t touch the original file, instead it puts all the edits in a separate folder. You can also use the “Flat” colour profile that isn’t available on older Nikon models like the D610. What I hate about Nikon’s software is it’s slower than a snail on sleeping pills.
I save the images as 16-bit tiff files and import them into Aperture which works really well with the Nik Collection plug-in, or if I want to do anything more serious involving layers I’ll use Photoshop.
On1 is worth the price just for the masking tools.
You did not mention Digital Photo Professional (DPP), a free RAW processor for Canon shooters. It has the advantage of carrying all the camera settings with the RAW file. Considering there are a lot of Canon shooters out there, it seems like a worthy candidate. Any reason why it was not included?
Corel came out with Aftershot 3, I am looking for some comparisons but could not find any. If someone can comment on this app it would be great.
Affinity Photo for Mac is being well received and will also be available for Windows soon. affinity.serif.com/blog/
VERY timely article, thanks Nasim. My iPhoto is on its knees struggling with A7Rll files (wonder why!) and will, of course, never be updated. So I’m looking for a new library. I use LR for editing. I don’t think LR has good library functionality?
I’m currently thinking of using Acdsee as the library and carry on short term with LR for editing. Probably move to C1 fairly soon.
I’d be interested to hear people’s thoughts on this, especially Acdsee users. Ta
“I don’t think LR has good library functionality?”
Explain that statement? I just don’t understand it at all. What do you mean by library? What functionality is Adobe LR missing in that regard?
NOTE: I am not trying to start an argument. I just don’t understand how that statement related to LR, an application designed specifically for image catalog management.
It’s my opinion that the library management in LR isn’t very good, and that’s it. You’re right I’m not getting into and argument or discussion about it here. Do you work for Adobe?
I agree. It is confusing and cumbersome. If you do not understand that way Lightroom organizes the folders and files you might find yourself with a disaster if something goes wrong. I mean a HUGE disaster!
Their default way of organizing is even worse, make sure you do not save under sub-folders, it is stupid and confusing.
Motti. I do and I have! In prep for moving away from iPhoto I’ve done two iPhoto back ups and painstakingly move all 65k photos to folders. I’ve got LR backed up a separate hard drive and Timecapsule! Nothing like being prepared…
True!
“It’s my opinion that the library management in LR isn’t very good, and that’s it. You’re right I’m not getting into and argument or discussion about it here. Do you work for Adobe?”
In all fairness Keith you can’t just make a statement like that and not elaborate on what your reasons are for having this opinion.
“Do you work for Adobe” is very childish.
Idiot
But ut was more eloquent than your’s!
But it was more eloquent than your’s!
And why can’t he make this statement? He said it was “his opinion”… ? Isn’t he entitled to one? He doesn’t have to present supporting facts as it is “his opinion”. In my opinion LR sucks (compared to both Capture one and DxO) and I do not have to, or care to, elaborate why I think it does as it is “my opinion” and I am entitled to it… ;)
At the end – who cares what software was used, really… All that matters is a final product and how efficient the process is – everything else is just useless noise and the “i like my pony better than yours”. But that’s just me.
” All that matters is […] how efficient the process is”
You said it: amongst the other things, the software speed determines how quick, and thus, efficient, the editing is.
Oh so true, but I would add “are you having fun”
For Linux users the best options are:
1. Darktable (Linux/OS X)
2. Rawtherapee (Linux/OS X/Windows)
3. Aftershot Pro (Linux/OS X/Windows)
4. Digikam (Linux/OS X/Windows)
5. Photivo (Linux/OS X/Windows)
6. Lightzone (Linux/OS X/Windows)
No 1 to 3 are the most advanced and powerful editors. Great filters, masks, plugins and so on. Unfortunately, quite poor photo management – for this Digikam is the best.
Darek, have you used Digikam? What were your impressions?
I’m totally converted to Corel’s Aftershot Pro 3 for RAW and minor edits.
For major image editing I use Picture Window Pro 7, on Windows 7 64bit.
Used GIMP for many years but got totally fed-up with waiting for it to support 16-bit colour and moved on.
Never regretted it, although the UI of Picture Window Pro is a bit weird.
I think you need to clarify the use of the term “Database Catalog” in the table. I think it gives the impression that these applications store user images in a database. In the case of Adobe Lightroom that is not true at all. The images are stored in folders. The “Database Catalog” is simply an internal database of where in the file system the images are located. Deleting the database does not delete any images etc.
I have use the Darktable free open source software. Useable if you are an amateur and need something FREE. I would not use are part of a professional or even prosumer.
I have been using Lightroom since version 2. I have found the software and it’s third-party filter and plugin support to be incredible.
I have recently
I don’t think that either, basically we have a linked list that stores all the changes that we make. If we delete the list, or in your case database catalog all we do is delete any saved changes, however the original images stay intact. And that’s great because we can use LR, Phase One or whatever and not worry about alterations to our original files. Hence, non-destructive…For sure the way to go.
Thanks a lot for this post, Nasim. What a coincidence really that you posted this basically at the same time as I started thinking more seriously about reasonably priced editing options.
I’m also looking forward to that upcoming one, which includes Affinity Photo, as I’m considering getting that in combination with Lightroom 5.
Why Lightroom 5?
Well, because I happen to have an old(ish) 2012 MacBook Pro that doesn’t seem to have the required 1GB of ram (or at least, I don’t think it does). Not to mention that, from what I’ve read, quite a few people seem to find LR6 struggling, especially in terms of getting stuck and being slow. Have you experienced any of that?
Also, did you at any point have OS X El Captain installed with Lightroom 5? If so, did everything still work? After all, the LR5 requirements are OS X 10.7 – 10.10, or something, which is just adding to my struggle…
Thanks in advance and keep us posted :)
The title of this post (“Best”) is misleading. You are providing information that each individual can use to determine what “best” satisfies his or her specific needs. None of the products in the table, by themselves, satisfy all of my needs. A better approach would be to define image processing criteria, show both what combination of image editing products best meets those criteria, and rank each of those combinations against each criteria. For example: Lightroom + Photoshop might meet all criteria but have a RAW processing weakness that could be overcome by using DxO Optics Pro, which integrates seamlessly.
Ultimately, I am interested in which product or combination of products allow me to manage my image files AND produce the highest quality image.
So far, I haven’t found a product that does it all to my satisfaction, although Capture One Pro 9 appears to come the closest. Can I use a separate program that handles HDR, Panorama, and image stacking to achieve greater depth of field?
Lightroom has great file management capabilities, but the RAW processing engine disappointing. Lightroom used in combination with DxO Optics Pro 10 and Photoshop works much better.
You have undertaken a difficult task. I am confident the final result will be very valuable to a great many photographers.
If you want to know what works best for you just try it… “best”, it’s VERY subjective term – best for me may not be best for you…
So true ..
A well done article. Thanks for the objective summary. It certainly was a lot of work to get there.
Layers in ACDSee
I think the difference between ACDSee Pro and ACDSee Ultimate is the layers. To get layers “Ultimate” is needed). However, it seems the price is associated with Ultimate. Thus maybe this is a typo? Albeit an easy typo as it seems ACDSee has done their best to confuse potential customers with their type of product definitions.
Update frequency
I would rate ACDSee 1/5. A single update per seems to be the best case. To me this is very week.
Table attributes
I may be a minority here, but I run 100% of my files across the network to NAS drives. I also have redundancy and back-up systems for the NAS drives. I am probably a bit OCD when it comes to not losing image. Thus, I would add one attribute to the table. I would call that attribute “network-ability”. One poster mentioned show stoppers. Network-ability was my show-stopper for LR. I spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to operate LR but just wasn’t able to get it to work with having only files only on the network. No matter what I did, LR always had to keep local copy of files. ACDSee works fine over the network.
Thank you Nasim for another, very informative and well though-through article on your site! I have read it with caution since I was always wondering whether I am losing something not using the Capture One. So many software packages out there, many people have their favourites (that they try to push on you if you start asking some detailed questions regarding the photo processing ;)
It does look, that Capture One could be the “it”, the “one-in-all” to rule them all :D But I am definitely not going to spend any more money on another computer programme. Just did some big purchases in the last autumn, after a big trip to Borneo.
My workflow currently includes (I shoot only Nikon, so no Fuji problem for me):
*Nikon ViewNX for quick download, preliminary selection, checking sharpness (AF points) and all other Nikon related staff (like Advanced Lighting, Picture Control – if used etc).
*DxO Optics Pro 10 + ViewPoint 2 – this is for my main processing. I get through all the photos, develop RAW files, apply lens corrections, adjust perspective, horizon, light, cropping etc. I simply love this software for both the ease of use (it had a very short and flat learning curve) and great results it gives.
*Photoshop Elements 14 + NIK collection (VIVEZA!) If anything needs any special treatment, I would add this step. This would depend on the subject, lightning conditions and “severity” of the photo – sometimes the holiday photo is not perfect but is still “nice enough” so I do not want to lose too much time on post processing every single one. The corrections would include stamping something, some serious modifications, working on layers, excellent Viveza plugin for spot light/colour corrections (this would apply when the standard DxO Optics Pro 10 adjustments are not enough).
*JPEGmini The last step would be the newest programme that I bought after reading about it on Photography Life – thank you Nasim, once again. I do shoot only RAW, but after processing I export everything to JPEGs for convenience. If the photos are very important I would keep RAWs for future reference – HDD space is not an issue today; for your regular everyday trips etc. I would only keep the end JPEGs. JPEGmini is really a stellar piece of software that would make those thousands of photos much smaller. Very important for uploading the photos to online galleries, sending them to friends and family or simply streaming to your TV.
Thank you so much, Nasim! A wonderful article. And the work involved! You really put your heart into everything and it’s appreciated. Keep up the good work. It is also interesting to read the comments. I use LR/PS CC and was/am thinking about Capture One. I also have the NIK and OnOne plug-ins. After reading this information, I’m thinking just to keep practicing with what I have!
Thank you again.
I too have the same software configuration you mention… But the other day I purchased Capture One and I can tell you it was money well spent. Really nice application, not sure why they say there is this ‘steep learning curve’. For sure if you compare to LR it’s not the same, but so what, learning new things is good. I never really liked this renting software thing, but for some I guess that’s ok. After using Phase One for only two days though I don’t think you could go wrong….Good luck, hope your photos look good in post no matter what you decide…..
Another point of reference: ACD Systems regularly has ‘sales’. Never buy retail, always wait for the ‘sale’ at ACD Systems. At present you get 5 of their titles for not very much money.
The same with DxO software. You can save up to 50% off the price they have on their site!
Sony has a special relationship with CaptureOne – you can get the full program (but only for Sony cameras) for cheap, something like $30 when I bought it 18 months ago. I really like C1, but for the over-green grass I always get!
Nice list Nasim. A lot of editor decisions are based on what you need to do.
Portrait photographers vs. landscape vs. wedding, etc.
I stick with LR 90% of the time because when I export to another program it creates a giant TIFF file (I have a D800).
For applying changes across a group of photos and the basics it works pretty well. Wish it would start with a better raw read.
On1 has tremendous fast-masking capabilities for certain kinds of photos – those that have sharper lines of delineation.
They seem to want to try to make the tool set better. I am waiting – like others – for their raw converter.
DxO has great raw/lens capabilities and great noise reduction. No brushes or selective editing. I cannot for example sharpen a part of a photo – as far as I can tell.
Lightroom (develop module) and Capture One apply temporal dithering to screen output.
That means “virtual 10bit” whatever your display is … and that means no banding due to color management like in a true 10-bit workflow in Photoshop… without Quadros or Firepros in MS Windows. Just keep in mind that if your graphics card causes banding due to calibration issues like intels or geforces do, it won’t solve it.
Awesome feature…
Hi, Nasim: How I wish you had done this analysis two or three years ago, so you could have saved me the bother of doing it myself!
After Aperture was left stranded, I spent some time trying all the different programs to find the one I wanted to replace Aperture. I echo the comments of Thomas Daland and ‘Mike’, so I will try not to repeat what they said: I made a similar journey and settled on Capture One. LR is overrated, and anyway I am more than happy to use Photoshop ACR if I want to try a different conversion for RAW files, which does happen every now and again.
The most powerful tool in Capture One is the color editing feature: I am constantly amazed how I can isolate a single color, confirm the isolation by viewing the selected color against a black and white background, and then make that color a layer to adjust to an exact rendering of what I want. That alone is worth the price of admission. Masking is the second most powerful and useful tool.
As for third party plug ins, CO does allow that but using Photoshop in a seamless round trip way to and from Capture One means you have access to all plug ins so it is a moot point. I can save layered files and revisit them later using the Open With command, (not Edit With), and go back to Photoshop and see the layers. Yes CO might be a bit slower than LR, but the UI and customization are excellent, and any perceived shortcomings, in context, are acceptable to me.
Thanks for the article!
Thank you, Gerald. Your response is very helpful. I’ve been sitting on the fence about Capture One but Nasim’s article and your response are pushing me to jump! Thank you.
Hi,
very good idea and good approach.
I would also throw a +1 for AfterShotPro. But also would hope you consider RawTherapie and DarkTable.
For DarkTable there is an unofficial WIN Install: www.partha.com/ which works quite stable – at least here.
Cheers
Martin
Capture One is pretty slow in supporting new camera and lens. For example, my Fujifilm X70 has been introduced and sold for several months, but now in June, C1 has not supported its raw files yet. I don’t know what to do with that except staying with LR which I am not really like.
Its because it was made for a Phase One cameras – support for other cameras was an afterthought.
Put a similar Camera Name which is on the list into your exif data instead of X 70 e.g X-T1
??? I don’t understand?
The software reads the EXIF Data to establish which Camera System the Raw File belongs to, so as the X 70 is not listed but the XT1 is and they will have very similar Characteristics so if you edit the EXIF data you should get a decent result . I put in the XE2 Camera name in before the XT1 was listed and the results were fine.
Oh, I got you – yeah, that may work but if in reality do you want to change EXIF of 100’s images before processing them in Capture One? btw, Dx0 Optics Pro 11 is out :)
I’ve downloaded and briefly played with free demo versions of both Capture One Pro 9 and Aftershot Pro 3.
Capture One Pro 9 has some very nice controls for adjusting color, and for the first time I can actually repair a very difficult image that was a scan of a transparency of a waterfall scene from a very long exposure (hence color shift and contrast buildup) under a thick (green) tree canopy. Wow. I’ve just started exploring what I can do with this program. On the other hand, I tested it by importing eight large 16 bit TIFF files, and it seemed painfully slow doing the import. There seems to be a utility for importing an Aperture library with its adjustments (all of them?), which could be very helpful, although I haven’t tested it wondering how long that would take (overnight?). I prefer the thumbnails-in-a-grid style of browser rather than the film strip style, and it can do this, but the mechanics of using it is not as slick as it is with Aperture. The UI elements seemed to be designed for retina displays, and seem a little large on non-retina displays. I wonder if COP can somehow do a gradient-filter like effect. That’s another thing I need.
Aftershot Pro 3 was a surprise for the price. It doesn’t have the depth of controls of COP, but is otherwise fairly well thought out and pleasant to use. Imports were quicker and the browser with thumbnails worked more like Aperture, although annoyingly it always defaulted to the film strip style rather than the thumbnail style and there was no way to change that default. Unlike COP, it can work with plugins designed for it, and it looks like there might be a nice gradient filter. The size of the UI elements can be adjusted for retina and non-retina displays.
Will any of these programs still be around in five years, or will they be abandoned like Aperture was?
Are you questioning if Capture One will be around? Lol, yeah, i think it is a safe bet that it will be, since i do not see phase One going anywhere…
ACDSEE Pro 9 does not work with Mac. It is a Windows only software.
To use ACDSEE on a Mac you need to buy the ACDSEE Mac Pro 3 software. What I understand though is the Mac version hasn’t really been updated much in the last several years. Too bad cause I actually liked it. Pro 3 gave LR a run for its money when I was testing it a couple of months ago.
Thank you for the interesting comparison. I have used PhotoNinja for three years because, in my experience, it does the best job with Fuji X RAW files. Your note on lens correction could use an asterisk: PhotoNinja will correct for lens distortions, but you need to train it for your particular lens. It’s a bit bothersome but works well once you have done the training. I do not know why the programmers have not introduced an automatic lens correction algorithm or have not set up a way for PhotoNinja users to share their lens profiles. I also like this program because it does NOT force you into a proprietary catalog system.
Next test: can you include Irident?
After a trial period, I finally bought Capture One 9, and now I’m faced with a number of Aperture to CO migration questions. Should I go with managed or referenced files approaches, or a mix of the two? Should I go with one big catalogue or multiple catalogues? Everything in Aperture has been put into project containers which CO claims it can not import directly, so I’m going to have to export everything out of Aperture first. All of my Kodachrome scans required a lot of tweaking to look good, plus a lot of spot removal, so should I export both masters and versions to import into CO so that I at least have the work I’ve already done present in those exported versions? Should I store masters and versions in separate areas? Many many questions.
And speaking of film scans, I discovered while playing with Aftershot Pro 3 that its included Perfectly Clear noise and sharpening filters do a fabulous job with Kodachrome 25 film grain! Most noise filters are optimized for digital noise and barely put a dent in K25 grain, and sharpening filters typically sharpen the grain as much as anything else and make it more prominent. So, now I’m trying to figure out how to approach film grain reduction now that I’m moving to CO. I will probably have to somehow use third party solutions, and unfortunately, CO can not use plugin filters directly.
Actually, I’m not sure if there’s anyone listening here anymore.
I do not know anything about Aperture, but during Webinars of Capture One it comes up many times. Have you found the archived Capture One webinars ???
Capture One is great as a Raw processor, but I am having major issues with the Catalog part. I would be careful there. Being a Data Management professional (in a different area) I might have some different perspectives on what a Catalog should be…. But for me Capture One does not make the mark. For large number of images it is fairly useless. But if you can work with multiple smaller Catalogs, maybe………….. But that defeats the purpose of a Catalog in my view.
I would always store the masters of course, but if you have tweaked them already I would put the finished jpgs in a separate catalog. You might even consider MediaPro which, as a Catalog, is much better, except that it creates huge Catalog files since it stores all image previews inside the one file. If you go with managed files in CO Catalog you have the same issue. I think managed files is meant for easily exchanging small Catalogs quickly. Not for permanent archiving.
For me, a Catalog is a Data Management tool and editing images in a Catalog is a NO-NO for me. So in that sense Capture One is completely on the wrong track.
I hope it helps, but people tend to disagree with me……………
Cheers, Jozef Dassen
Jozef,
No, I haven’t stumbled on the archived Capture One webinars. I guess I’ll have to search for them.
I’ve decided that the best approach would be to reference image files rather than import them directly into the catalog. I originally imported directly into Aperture’s catalog, and think in retrospect that that was a bad idea. Inside the catalog, the original images are theoretically directly accessible to the Finder (OS X) via “show contents” on the catalog, so even if the database becomes hopelessly corrupt or the software for some reason isn’t working, the images can still be accessed, but they are stored in an enormous folder tree that makes dealing with them manually extremely inconvenient. Referencing the files external to the catalog also allows you to store the catalog on a fast internal SSD while storing an enormous image collection on an external drive. It also allows you to arrange them in some convenient, logical that makes accessing them manually much more easy. So, the bottom line is that I’m now thinking about how I would create and structure my own folder structure for this.
The downside of referencing files external to the catalog is that you are forced to use the application itself to move/add/delete files on the disk, otherwise links stored in the catalog are invalidated.
There may be a tool there that I’m just not seeing yet, but the one irritating thing about their catalog that I see is this: if I’m looking at an image in an album and decide that I want to completely delete it, all I can do while looking at it in the album is remove it from the album. It’s still in the catalog; just removed from the album. How do I find the original image in the catalog to finally delete it? If it wasn’t a recent import, I just don’t see how to do this easily. This was never a problem with Aperture.
Richard,
You can find Capture One Webinars on Youtube.
The catalog has two options for deleting an image. Plain delete key will remove it from the Catalog only. But Crtl-Del or Right Click- Delete will move the actual image to the Catalog’s Trash folder. Then at an opportune moment you can empty the Trash from within Capture One (under the file menu). I am talking Windows here, but Mac has similar functionality.
It is always a good idea to have a good file structure…………..
Did you have OpenCL enabled for Capture One processing…? If not that processing time will tumble.
Please pardon a late entry into the discussion. I see earlier expressions of the opinion that darktable is ok as long as one is not serious or professional. My experience with it is rather different and much more positive. For me it is fast, fluent, and capable of sophisticated techniques. There is a bit of a learning curve, and newcomers may not be aware of what darktable allows one to do.
Hello Nasim. Thank you for a great website!
Just a few comments on your ‘non-destructive editors’ review.
1 I think you really mean ‘Raw converters’ (or perhaps not)
2 A ‘tick the boxes’ approach will not give you the best editor. You have based your ‘boxes’ on Lightroom.
3 You have a box for Database Catalogue/File Management – is this a valid part of an Editor? or is it another program?
3 Surely ‘The quality of the finished image’ is the paramount objective, with ease of use and speed to obtain good image’ coming in second.
4 Your ‘tick the boxes’ approach does not allow for – for instance – some DxO strengths – brilliant PRIME denoise, the best lens corrections (related to each camera), free and frequent updates for cameras and lens corrections etc. Plus renting versus buying. By the way, some programs are 50% off on Black Friday – this makes a big difference.
5 I have tested almost all raw editors – I think Capture One and DxO give the best image. Take Capture One for portraits, colour and tethered shooting and DxO for everything else.
Thank you Nasim.
I look forward to your ‘destructive editors’ review, as you call them.
But please don’t use the Adobe products to base your ‘tick the boxes’ on – go for a different approach.
Once again – thank you for a great website
Mike
If you are using a Sony camera, you can get Capture One for about $50
I have been a long time LR user, but like many, have gotten fed up with its slow performance (despite the fact that I have a super fast custom built PC). I just downloaded Capture One 10 to try for 30 days. I repeated your RAW to Jpeg conversion test, but found Capture One to be over twice as fast as LR. Not sure if this is because I am using ver 10 and you had tested version 9 or something different in our computers (I am using Windows 7 pro with Intel i7-6850k overclocked to 4.0GHz, 32GB 3200MHz RAM, with a Samsung 960 Pro M.2 SSD).
Hi Nasim,
last days I got a GIFT licence copy of DxO Optics Pro 9, ad I was wondering if you had written something before regarding Lr/ Adobe Camera Raw vs DxO Optics (vs other RAW converters) , discovering so this article.
Honestly, I have to read it (carefully) in the next days, but a quick browser “search” in this page seems to say you haven’t talked about Color Spaces used / managed by these RAW Converters, and the limits/advantages in using one against the others.
If so, would you like to write something more, starting from basics, since Color Management seems to be not as easy as sometimes claimed in articles that say they want to clarify you on this topic, making often more confused than before reading. Would you? :)
As always, many thanks in advance for your precious resources.
Sebastiano
Very nice job on the chart, thanks much for the work you put into this comparison. Right after graduating high school way back in 1971 one of the first things I bought was a Nikon SLR camera. I enjoyed using it as a hobbyist and documented my three kids as they grew up. As film cameras gave way to digital I never made the jump and only purchased a few point and shoots over the years as I was limited by money and somewhat intimidated by the technology. I made the plunge last year after retiring and bought an Olympus E-M5II and had been struggling to learn to edit RAW files. I tried to learn using several free programs, Gimp, Paint.net, etc, and also trials of Aftershot Pro3, Affinity, and others. When I finally tried the Lightroom CC I realized why it was so popular. One of the things that made LR so much easier to learn for me was the wealth of free tutorial videos found on the internet (including John’s excellent ones), plus the vast amount of books and courses available. With the help of those things I’ve found myself capable of doing a decent job of editing RAW files in a short time. Affinity seems promising, and I think Aftershot Pro could be really good if they could make some big improvements to the tools, but as of now I’m sold on using Lightroom. I only wish they would reduce the monthly cost of it, possibly by offering LR CC alone without Photoshop. I also want to thank you for putting together this great Photography site, it’s become one of my favorites.
Best Non-Destructive Editing Software for Photography
I’ve just found your helpful and informative web site. I feel like a kid in a candy shop, what delight shall I start with?
Being new to digital photography, following a big gap raising children, changing from employed to self employed, using video of sports for coaching now I’m back to stills and loving it!
I’ve been casting around for software to use based on the Linux operating system (I de-MS’d my life years ago). The open source crowd are starting work on something interesting, PhotoFlow. It would be helpful if you could add Photo Flow to your articles assessment/comparison grid of current ND editing software.
Hope this is a goer.
Regards… Peter E
Sorry, you might like a web link to their site:
aferrero2707.github.io/PhotoFlow/
Regards… Pete
For the vast majority of my photo-editing that does not require the power of Photoshop, I find Google’s discontinued-but-still-findable Picasa to be hard to beat.
It’s fast, free, reasonably intuitive, and really good at the subset of editing features it does include.
Two of my favorite features:
1. Create Collage
At first I used it just for that–collages. But I’ve come to realize it’s actually an (admittedly basic) graphic design program. Nice to have it built into a photo editor, basic as it is.
2. Export
There must be a million ways to export images from a non-destructive editor, but I can’t imagine one faster, easier, or more straightforward than the one in Picasa. Among the things I love about it: *So* easy to change the pixel dimensions (up or down) when you export.
As mentioned, Picasa has been discontinued by Google, but you can still find the downloadable installer online.
It’s a tragedy that Picasa was replaced by the lame and stupid editor in Google Photos. Weren’t they supposed to not be evil?
Hello,
I would suggest to use PhotoViewerPro, Its user friendly and non destructive.
You will like it a lot once you will start using it, It will boost up your photo without blurring the image.
Regards,
Steven Black
The current version of ON1 RAW upgrades greatly on the version 10 used in your review. As the name implies, it handles making ‘development’ adjustments to RAW files (non-destructive). It manages files but is not a full blown cataloging program; you set up your own filling system and software indexes there location, creates preview files, etc. It now includes an input function, as well as HDR and Pano. There is Tethering capability for Nikon and Canon camera. Selection can be done using local making brushes and/or Luminosity Masks.
ON1 RAW 2018 has grown by leaps and bounds; may be worth a 2nd look by you and your readers.
For Fujifilm photographers, Iridient X-Transformer does a slightly better job (in my opinion) of demosaicing RAFs than Adobe Camera Raw. Given its price ($30) and the fact it can be installed as a pluggin to Lightroom, I’ve added it to my workflow. A fully functional and free (watermarked output) trial version may be downloaded and test-driven.
You indicate in the table that Lightroom is not capable of selective noise reduction. However, the brush and graduated filter tools both allow selective application of noise reduction. A recent Lightroom upgrade added the ability to modify these tools based on the brightness or hue of the selected area.
Hi! This great article clearly generated a heated debate – quite good sign I think and clearly a tribute to the way the article was carefully and skillfully written.
An amateur at best, I am back to photography after almost 30 years, I did quite a lot of B&W in the 1980s and it’s only 1 year since I came back to this noble and remarkable hobby.
With this background, post processing is the topic I most struggle with, what I learned in the “old times” was the stinking Dark Room.
I am therefore not entitled to further elaborate on the comments that experienced and passionate photographers already wrote. However, my main concern – even after reading such an interesting article and the comments to it – is that I am completely lost in the daunting task to chose a post processing software to invest my energy to learn and that will somehow “preserve” my investment.
As far as I understand, my main concern with non destructive SW is that each one stores the edits in its proprietary format – quite a significant lock-in. Elsewhere Nasim or someone from Photographylife already outlined this as a concern with respect to Adobe subscription model. However, isn’t it lsimilar with all the other SW? Once one does some significant Raw post processing, isn’t it accessible only within the SW that created it? What if SW is discontinued, what if the SW maker bankrupts or is aggressively acquired? And, by the way, I am a SW pro and quite deep into these topics….
So with shame and low creativity I would still think that my best bet today lays with Adobe, albeit fully sharing concerns and remarks so well expressed above.
Any comment and advice is clearly welcome….
I don’t know about all the editors mentioned here but they are 2 versions out of date for Capture One Pro.