Photoshop/Lightroom replacement

[mcbroomf]

Good example of Adobe's commitment to continuous improvement in LRC 15 and PS 27 releases today

https://www.youtube.com/@jkost/videos

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So, the announcement is public now, the full Affinity suite version 3 is free.
https://www.affinity.studio/photo-editing-software

No Lightroom catalog functionality, but most of Photoshop+Illustrator+InDesign functionality, and then some.

Free, where's the catch?

Well the additional AI functionality is subscription only, but from what I've seen it is not of adequate quality (yet). So I'd hold off a subscription for now.
Obviously, Canva the new owner of the Affinity company is out to lure in a share of Adobe's clients, and hopes to gain paying customers with the AI functionality.

Cheers,
Bart

[Rhossydd]

No Lightroom catalog functionality, but most of Photoshop+Illustrator+InDesign functionality,

Unless you like using raw files. Affinity's Achilles heel has been not having a way to save raw edit settings and return to them later (like LR & PS, CO, DXO etc).

A nice suite if you have modest DTP requirements, but 3 doesn't seem to have much more than 2, which in itself was underwhelming from v1.

Great to be free if you haven't got any of this already, but are we back to Serif's old business model of offering a cheap free version, but charging for good features ?

[kers]

Affinity photo has some benefits over PS like really using all the cores at some tasks, but I would miss a lot of things like actions, lens distortion profiles, the quality of the raw development and now the ai noise reduction... etc
Also another learning curve to a goal that is not as good and complete as PS+LR;
and PSD + LR is still cheap - a no brainer.

[StephaneB]

Getting tired of the increasing monthly fees accosiated with photoshop and lightroom. Are there non subscription repalcements that can do the same as photoshop and lightroom?

Good luck. I have tried very hard. The alternatives are either open source which are inferior in ergonomics and ease of discovery on top of other deficiencies, or alternative paying products that can be less or more expensive than the Lightroom subscription, but none of them offers the same breadth and depth as Lightroom. None.

After 18 months with Capture One several years ago and 10 months with DxO last year, I am back with Lightroom. Both are good products, but DxO has severe limitations and Capture One has since moved to a subscription model that is more expensive than Lightroom and its library management is way below Lightroom's. Trying to find an alternative has been a huge waste of time and money.

Now, if you're looking for alternatives that are inferior, there are plenty.

The good way to buy or extend a Lightroom subscription is to take advantage of the Amazon Prime Days prices, the discount is roughly 50%. No idea if they do the same for Black Friday.

[Rhossydd]

The good way to buy or extend a Lightroom subscription is to take advantage of the Amazon Prime Days prices, the discount is roughly 50%. No idea if they do the same for Black Friday.

They have done for the last three years, that's how my Photography Plan is fully paid up until 2029 :-)
It seems churlish to moan about the cost when you can pick up a year for £42. The cost of keeping up with Lightroom and Photoshop in the past was far more.
Whether a similar offer will be available again this year is uncertain. The subscription details having changed this year.

Like StephaneB I've been through most other products; Capture One lost the plot when they started messing with costs and upgrades that offered so little to general users.
I find DXO can give sharper results for some supported lenses, but that's all it can offer now.

All the others are very second division.

Having just bought two rolls of 35mm to put through an older camera for the first time in years (£20+processing), the costs of LR+PS seem really trivial.

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

IMO whether / to what extent you can replace LR and PS depends on how you use them, and how close a pair of replacements you need. For someone looking for a pixel editor who doesn't need quite everything PS offers and doesn't need to do raw conversions with the pixel editor, the new free Canva Affinity 3 is probably a pretty good substitute, albeit with something of a learning curve. Maybe you'd find the free / open-source Darktable an adequate replacement for LR as a DAM and raw converter. If you don't really need the DAM, then the free / open-source RawTherapee (which has a substantial learning curve) might be an adequate raw converter for you. If you print yourself and you use Windows, then you probably need to add the free Epson Print Layout (if you have an Epson printer) or Canon Professional Print & Layout or Canon Print Studio Pro (if you have one of the supported Canon printers). So that at least mostly replaces LR and PS for free. That said--and I say this as someone who has pretty much abandoned Adobe for photo software--if you want something that will be over time substantially less expensive than Adobe, then you probably have to accept tools that are 'less than'. I'm not claiming that my suggestions are as good or as powerful or as capable as LR + PS; the question is whether they're enough for you.

Or you can get non-subscription software that's arguably about as good over all--but isn't really less expensive over the long term. Since mid-2017 I've used (and paid modestly for) Affinity Photo 1 and then Affinity Photo 2, and the new Affinity 3 appears to have all the same capabilities and more, so that might be a happy PS substitute. I used to print with LR, but now I use Qimage Ultimate, which I think is better and more powerful. I don't want and don't have a DAM. Then the real issue is raw converters. I think DxO PhotoLab Elite is the best (and I also license the optional DxO ViewPoint and FilmPack). But whether you license and pay to periodically update PhotoLab etc., or the same with the other IMO 'best quality' raw converter, Capture One, over time I doubt how much money you'd typically save over Adobe. Yes, you can get a perpetual DxO license and use it for many years, but after a year or two new cameras and lenses won't be supported. Overall I like my tools better than the Adobe alternatives, and I think overall they're about equally capable (better in some ways, worse in others). But I don't think they're clearly less expensive.

[BenjaminScott]

I’ve been using Luminar Neo for most of my editing lately, and honestly, it’s been a pleasant surprise. It handles big RAW files (45–60MP) without slowing down, and the AI tools  things like Relight AI, Sky AI, and Denoise AI actually do what they promise. They’re quick, accurate, and save me a ton of time when masking or cleaning up noise, without killing detail. What I really like is how easily I can mix manual control (curves, HSL, color balance) with non-destructive layers and masks. It feels a bit like Capture One or Lightroom, just less clunky and more streamlined. GPU acceleration makes a difference too  edits and exports stay fast, even on big batches. For my landscape and portrait work, Neo covers everything I need: solid dynamic range recovery, fine detail control, and natural-looking local adjustments. It’s not a full Photoshop replacement, but as a RAW editor and finishing tool, it strikes a nice balance between technical control and creative speed and I don’t have to deal with Adobe’s subscription model.

[MattBurt]

I've tried and was a Affinity user for a while. But for me it was the Lightroom catalog features I missed the most as well as all the keywording I've done over the years. I found Darktable ok at best but not really a valid Lightroom replacement for my needs.
Affinity v3 looks interesting and I have downloaded it but since I still need Lightroom for catalog management and that comes with Photoshop, it doesn't make me want to take the time to learn a new application.
If there is ever a truly competitive Lightroom replacement at a better price I might consider making the move again but for now Adobe has got me.

[Eric Brody]

I've never understood the vicious anti Adobe (especially the subscription model) sentiments expressed here and elsewhere. I'm definitely not a fanboy and have no Adobe stock. I'm just a "serious" amateur photographer who's ben at this for over 50 years.

I've used every format from Minox to 4x5. When I think back to the wet darkroom days and make comparisons to what I can do today with Lightroom and Photoshop, it's almost literally unbelievable, as in I would not believe it!.

If I had told my 1990 self that I could make a mask of just one tree, or the pupil-iris vs sclera, of a single person in a photo, I'd probably ask my younger self what I'd been smoking!

Computer programs have both a basic and a creative learning curve. I learned the basics of Lightroom/Photoshop long ago and am still learning almost every day on the creative side.

Like many others here, I work hard for perfection in my images, not so much for others, but for me. I spend as much time now with an image on the computer as I did in the darkroom but am one of those who enjoys it. I can work for an hour or even less on the computer, do something else and then come back to it. Try setting up to print for 30 minutes in a wet darkroom.

I have no problem with those who do things differently, if you enjoy film and the wet darkroom, have fun. Most of us here are amateurs; we do it for the sheer love of the process and the art.

[Redcrown]

 "make a mask of just one tree, or the pupil-iris vs sclera"...  Made me recall trying to use potassium ferrocyanide (Feri) in the darkroom to "dodge" a finished print, usually trying to lighten eye sockets and the sclera because dodging those during exposure was so difficult. Success rate was maybe 20%, so 5 prints made, one keeper. Also at risk of Feri death. I don't miss it at all. I don't miss buying fresh chemicals either, much rather pay a subscription.