Lightzone vs lightroom 20154/7/2023 It has a relatively simple operating concept, which, however, does need a bit of getting used to. The program was in circulation as a commercial alternative to Adobe's Lightroom up to version 3.5. The reason for the sustained enthusiasm is probably the good quality of the source code and the images generated with it. This situation does seem to have been fixed in the current beta version 4.1.1. However, this improvement is currently happening at the expense of some previously supported camera models, such as Olympus. Support of RAW formats for newer cameras is one the significant improvements made in the new version of LightZone. It is, however, a Java application, which is not exactly the first choice for graphics software. The reasons for this are good: The software is designed very simply, is easy to operate, and does not confuse users with an impenetrable mess of functions. It may seem strange, therefore, that a veteran like LightZone, whose last major changes came in 2011 with version 3.5, still has a loyal following. Each program has specific advantages and disadvantages, particularly in terms of the degree to which you can edit when converting. Darktable leads the field, but others include digiKam, RawTherapee, and UFRaw. A whole series of programs in Linux are able to perform these conversions. I have not tried it.RAW converters read raw data from cameras and convert that data into bitmap graphics. I do agree that using the database can be less intrusive (although I think you can set LZ that it does not display the jpgs), from what I've heard LZ printing seems to give some people problems. It's also easy to create several different version from one image. You have all your data in one place, for example I have all my images on a portable HDD and can work on it at home or in my office, without having to worry about the editing info. This does have several advantages over using a database. However instead of collecting the processing info in a database like I believe LR does, it's saves the info in a small jpg file which is associated with the original RAW or JPG file. Also I do like the zone map system of LZ and the "layers". Also the cataloguing features, slide shows, printing features in LR beat LZ any day. LZ has to save a jpeg\tiff every time you edit an image and that just doesn't work with my work flow. Well I chose LR mainly due to it being non destructive
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |