Poorfag here:
Im looking for a free (or at lest non-subscription) alternative to lightroom. Need some sort of software for a class and i dont need to spend $20 a month for one program
>>2805545
RawTherapee.
The best free solution for Windows.
Get RawTherapee or darktable if you hava a Mac(book).
>>2805548
Thanks man
I don't think anyone here pays for lr t b h
>>2805564
The vast majority of us do
>>2805580
i've never felt a stronger urge to give in to the cuck meme
>>2805580
>hiring software
wanna buy a bridge?
(it's a nice bridge...very cheap)
>>2805545
*$10 a month for the two most well developed and supported industry standard products in the game.
It's $8 a month on Amazon right now for PS and LR. Not that expensive poorfags.
>>2805545
As a GNU+Linux user I wish there was.
But unfortunately no free as in freedom software can even get close to Lightroom.
>>2805955
$96 per year is quite expensive for software.
It's easily $300-$500, depending on how often you would have upgraded.
>>2805951
Have you never heard of renting an apartment or leasing a car?
It's made for professionals, not backyard flower fags. Professionals generally upgrade along with the releases. If you look at the up front purchase price for a license plus the cost of upgrading, it works out to be about the same. If you weren't going to ever upgrade, then buy the old license for the older version, and keep it. What's the issue?
>>2806021
>$96 per year is quite expensive for software.
For the best most comprehensive industry standard software in the field? Clearly you don't know much about software. Look up pricing for design/cad applications, flight sims, etc.
>>2805545
GIMP
Krita
There are people here that don't pirate their software?
>>2806027
>Clearly you don't know much about software.
I make and sell software for a living.
Pirate LR. Are you retarded?
>>2806048
Lightroom isn't specialized software.
Photography is a very common field, and loads of amateurs use it not just professionals.
I make customized software.
Prices range from 15k to over 100k per year.
But you can't compare that to off-the-shelf stuff sold to millions of people.
>>2806051
Adobe products aren't designed with casual enthusiasts in mind. They are complex, powerful, and made for professionals who know what they're doing, and want to work with their files. Hell, even shooting in raw isn't really designed for casual shooters. (the cameras that most people own can't even do it at all, and notice that the auto modes designed for casual shooters usually force even DSLRs into jpeg mode)
Just because a lot of people with no real use for the software have decided they want it doesn't mean it's designed for them, and I think you'll find that most of the people in your life don't have lightroom or photoshop installed on their computer.
Any amateur cooking enthusiast can buy a master-chef level kitchen if they want, but they're going to sound really stupid when they wonder why their top of the line restaurant level stove costs so much.
>>2806053
It didn't cost $500 before the subscription plan.
>>2806053
Not to mention, even if you do think it's expensive you can buy the standalone LR6 for $130. I've had my Lightroom 4 since release, so if I'm adding up it's cost me like $3 a month over the past 4 years.
Otherwise check out Darktable
>>2806056
Photoshop and Lightroom? You sure about that? I'm not, but I remember once looking to buy photoshop without any student discount or anything, and seeing a price tag of $700
>>2806057
>buy the standalone LR6 for $130.
EXACTLY my point.
My comment was ONLY about the $8/month being "not that expensive".
That's the same kind of mental flaw people make when claiming $40/month for 24 months gets you a "free" phone.
>>2806053
ITT adobe shills and people justifying their cuck status.
>>2806066
It really depends on how often you upgrade Lightroom and if you use Photoshop I think.
I basically am upgrading my $150 LR4 for another ~$150. I'd probably think I'd upgrade basically every other version. So basically for me a Lightroom install would be ~3 years, so about $4 a month.
If you upgrade every version (~18 months) it makes a lot more sense as that goes down a bit over $8 a month.
If you need Photoshop it's even more appealing.
I guess the X factor I don't know is how good is the Cloud feature? The idea of syncing between my laptop when I'm traveling to desktop at home is pretty appealing.
>>2806057
>being a luddite cheapskate
wew lad
>>2805545
I pirated Lightroom myself because I'm poor
I also pirated all 7 of the vsco film pack presets because I'm poor
Nothing is impossible
>>2805548
>Raw The rapee
pretty sure that's superduper illegal
google "nik". shit is free as fuck.
>>2806024
Or, since he is not a professional, he can just pirate it.
>>2806027
You sound like an utter faggot. 96 bucks a year is a lot of money for a piece of software you use as a part of your hobby. If he was making money off it, sure, nothing wrong with kicking back a part of it to Adobe for enabling his business, but that is simply not the case for the vastest majority of photography fans.
>>2807421
This tbqh
![wood_mounted_rubber_stamp_laughing_man_victorian_bald_mustache_18614_3d5a62dc[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/rCVbRLu.jpg "wood_mounted_rubber_stamp_laughing_man_victorian_bald_mustache_18614_3d5a62dc[1].jpg")
>>2807424
>96 bucks a year is a lot of money
absolutely devastating
>>2807424
Formula one cars should be cheap because most of the people who want one won't ever drive it in a formula one race, so it's stupid to expect them to pay as much as the formula one guys.
>>2807424
What's Photoshop elements cost? You know, the one made for enthusiasts who will never try to make money off of it?
>>2807507
Pretty stupid to expect them to buy a formula one car indeed. Your creative paraphrasing powers are impressive.
>>2807504
$96 a year for something you would use for a hobby, non-serious work is a lot which gets more and more as the months go by.
Not considering piracy, you can also use a free product that can produce the same or similarly good results and you can spend the money on something else.
It's an increasing sum of money against no costs at all (with the usual updates to the software) for very small difference in the results. Which one you would choose? (as a non-pro photographer)
(inb4 >pros on /p/)
>>2807520
if you're gonna be in photography and you flinch at 96/year you're only at the foothill of the difficulty curve
there's a reason this thread is titled "alternatives to lightroom," because it's a standard, and there's a reason it's a standard and adobe prints money like they do
>>2807514
>not knowing that PSE is widely used in the corporate sector as a replacement for MS Paint
>>2807543
Good, I see no problem whatsoever then. It is a tool for professionals and professionals are buying it. What are you trying to argue for again?
>>2805545
My licences and wannabee richfags aside, if you're on Sony, Capture One Express is free and really good.
>paying software
why
>>2807545
The kids in their backyards complaining that the software that's not made for them is too expensive for them, and should be cheaper because they want it to be, for no other reason than small mindedness.
>>2807540
What's your point? I don't understand. Are you complaining that the cheaper lighter more easy to use version made for enthusiasts has less features than the full on pro level application? Are you that confused about the concept?
>>2807555
Adobe is obviously not making any immediate revenue from kids thinking that their software is too expensive and pirating it instead, but I fail to see how that affects you.
>>2807550
Bonus: The full version for Sony costs only 50 bucks.
>>2807567
What? How does any of this affect you? I'm directly responding to babies who don't shoot for money, complaining in this thread, that Photoshop costs too much.
>>2807574
It obviously costs too much for them. What is the point of your posting and how does it contribute to OP not having LR? To answer your question, I am curious why you are here.
>>2805548
Film emulation lut
https://mega.nz/#!rAZRmahQ
>>2811309
>but in some others it leaves Lr biting the dust.
explain
