I've been getting into photography lately too and running into the same question. There's no way I'm getting an adobe subscription. But I'm not sure what tools do I want to pick up instead. Apple Photos has gotten me pretty far, but I'm hitting the limits of what it can do. And my photo library is getting pretty big now - big enough that I want some software to manage where my photos live as well.
Played with Nitro this morning and compared my edits to those that came out of Lightroom and my camper manufacture’s RAW software and am very happy with the results. It has a user friendly interface, which I prefer to Lightroom’s, and I love that it’s a one time purchase. Thanks for the recommendation
Firstly it's a matter of reliably storing image files. I just make a new folder in the file system — each-time I transfer image files from camera to computer — named as the transfer-date YYYYMMDD. I wrote a 10-line script to give those image files unique-sequence-names YYYYMMDD-00N.ext.
So when I mistakenly copy into the wrong folder, it's obvious which image files don't belong. So I don't need to delay while I think of the best descriptive folder name. So I don't need to sort yesterdays photos into a different folder than todays photos.
Secondly it's a matter of deleting image files. I take a look with some viewer app and use the file system to delete whatever doesn't seem worth any more attention.
Thirdly whatever trial photo software is available is probably good enough to start learning.
Pixelmator pro is nice on the Mac, and it's a one time purchase, not even expensive. And CameraBag was not bad last time I tried it, also a one time purchase.
IME GUI is mainly important when you craft a new profile. In many workflows, you don’t do it very often. I create a profile once and then apply it to hundreds of frames without launching the GUI at all or mostly using it just to preview how the profile works with a particular frame and make a couple of minor tweaks.
I used RawTherapee a ton, but changed to Lightroom because the denoising is so much better. (I’m sure a more expensive camera would also help here, but I have what I have.) Now that I’m used to Lightroom it will be hard to switch back.
Yeah, LR's denoising is chef's kiss. It's much better than what Canon's own raw processor can do, for example.
Another thing I noticed with RawTherapee after LR was the sloooowness. Lightroom has been super optimized to show all edits (or their preview versions anyway) in real time.
Because those open-source editors are made by coders, not photographers.
Those tools you really need for properly edit raws are hidden in blated features (multiple demosaic algorithms) or completely missing (AI masking). And UI is not user friendly.
They are made by and for photographers. This software is designed for many use cases, not just creative photography - hence multiple demosaicing algorithms. AI masking is missing exactly because it's made by photographers - they don't have the required expertise. UI is not intuitive because a) it's designed by photographers' committee, not UI designers, and b) you are familiar with a completely different workflow.
Most photographers don't know how develop software at all.
Please explain why photographers need 20 differnet sharpening methods, 5 demosaicing algorithms, many colour corrections that are almost useles if AI masking is not present?
Coders often lost in all kind of geeky features that missing actual usability by targeted audience. Bloated software is not what I would expect from alternative to commercially used proprietary software.
Because it's not necessarily about creative/artistic photography, it's also for things like e.g. microscopy or negative or scan processing, and it's not an alternative to Lightroom which does "magic" unacceptable in many technical use cases.
You can ignore features that aren't made for you, and actually I think they're mostly hidden by default in DT (make a preset if you don't like the default tool selection). All these features were added because somebody needed them at some point, the DT/RT/ART communities are chaotic and lack vision but they're actually using their stuff.
>Coders
As I said, this is not software made by coders for coders. This is exactly how the software made by photographers would look if they lacked organization, focus, and UX skills. If it was made by coders (and UI designers), it would probably have looked like Lightroom and had AI selection.
Another terrible design in darktable is default settings. I have no problem with options, but then you need carefully choose defaults that are selected questionable here - pure exhibitionism right after opening software.
I don't agree with your statement about developing by photographers. If so, there is higher probability that they would focus on UI with more aesthetic care than coders would do.
Lack of AI masking is too expensive to use by professionals. You simply cannot afford to mask manually bunch of images. Wider adoption among photographers is simply impossible.
RawTherapee is better than Darktable. But that’s a pretty low bar to clear. There are reasons people pay for Lightroom.