FYI that's the only reason I use LR - batch conversion. It was a huge difference as of a couple years ago.
I usually then dump the raw images to TIFF and I found Lightroom to be significantly faster than competing products in that process - like 5x faster. Adobe Bridge and ACR certainly struggle with that process but I found them better than doing the same with competing products. When I process them I usually need to open them up in a raw processor (ACR) and make adjustments then apply those adjustments to thousands of images. Because I do timelapse it's not unusual for me to capture 10,000 images over a couple days. It's the file handling that is probably the biggest one for me. I can remember, however, where I found PS to be better: masking/selections and batch file handling/processing. It's been a couple years since I tried something else for photo editing and I can't remember what I've tried. That's all you need to know! Adobe has gone from a software company for creatives to a data harvester and has turned to see their customers as cash cows.Ĭlick to expand.Honestly I can't recall. When kindly asking about these server connections the company gets defensive and denies any information. Plus, Adobe constantly runs questionable server connections in the background which are not disclosed and which I see as a potential privacy offense of the biggest kind. It is perfectly suitable for most tasks.Īdobe on the other hand adds more bugs than features to Photoshop these days and their quality control has gone down the drain since they introduced the subscription model.
That used to take tens of minutes with a Wacom tablet, first carefully selecting the subject and then painstakingly painting them out with the clone stamp tool.Ī couple of years ago, I produced a product video for Honeywell where the products had crenelated edges (like a medieval castle!) and were white on a white background. With a single click I can select a whole person and then with another click, remove them from a scene. It's just a few years behind where Photoshop is right now. With Affinity you just get what you get, which can be a bit hit and miss in my experience, with considerable tidy up required.ĭon't get me wrong - it's a massive bargain (I paid $25 each for Affinity Photo and Designer!) and I'd love one day to move on from Photoshop. In Photoshop you can define the area you want it to sample from when cloning and (depending on the material of course) it does a really good job without any work required. Click to expand.Inpainting isn't as nuanced in Affinity.