In what seems like a time-honored tradition every time Adobe announces a price increase, photographers are looking at alternatives to the company's subscription-based Creative Cloud photo editing tools.
Emily Lowrey over at Micro Four Nerds is no exception to that, as in light of Creative Cloud's monthly subscription plans increasing (pre-paid years up front remain the same), she explores free and one-time payment options for photographers.
While you generally get what you pay for, as Adobe is pretty much the standard by which Lowrey (and admittedly, most photographers) are judging the software, there are certainly some diamonds in the rough there.
Lowrey takes a look at the pros and cons of the free options in the video above: Darktable, RAWtherapee and OM Workspace (for users of OM System cameras only). The paid options she looks at are Capture One Pro, Luminar Neo and ON1 Photo Raw.
The video reminded me that Canon users also have access to decent editing software in the form of Digital Photo Professional (you can select your camera and operating system at this link and download the right version for you). It might be worth checking your camera manufacturer's website, where you may find that a native raw editor specifically for your camera might do better than Adobe. Years ago, when I used Canon's software, while it took a little more work than Adobe Photoshop, I was able to eke out ever-so-slightly better raw conversions from it.
That said, in the event I need free photo editing software, as I have a few computers and only so many Adobe licenses, I turn to Affinity Photo, now on version 2, for $70. The $50 I paid for version 1 lasted for several years and many versions, so by all accounts, it's an excellent value proposition for what is a very good piece of editing and raw development software.
In any case, check out Lowrey's takes on free photo editing software, and if you have go-to piece of software that you like to use that isn't on this list, leave it in the comments below.
A bit superficial and not very meaningful - not very helpful.
I don't know why people think software development and updates have no cost. I get it, no one likes subscriptions, but we pretty much all have them, from our monthly streaming, to our monthly mobile phone bills, to our monthly ISP bills, to our monthly utility bills, etc. It cost money to do the things we like to do, just like your employer doesn't offer their services for free, so why should Adobe? People complain about LR and other Adobe software doesn't have this feature or that feature, pretty much like a lot of photographers complain about their cameras don't have this feature of that feature, when we have the most advanced tools available. At some point, the creativity has to come from the person behind the camera 0- but I digress. If you can't pay $10 a month (which has been the price for over 12 years no), you should find another hobby/profession. I've tried On1 Phot Raw and they have some good tools, but if you don't upgrade every year, you have the "old" features and then you're right back where you are with the LR and PS complaints. That's my 2 cents.
The way it should work is, 1. I pay for software, 2. they release update which costs money, 3. If update is meaningful I buy it, if it's not enough to justify paying then I don't.
"If you can't pay $10 a month don't be into photography" I deeply disagree.
Well, to each their own. Maybe that would be nice, but at some point, they will stop supporting that version (pretty much like Apple and everyone who makes hardware and software). But there is a cost of doing business in everything and if you can find that model and it works well for you, go for it!
Tyler - yes! This is the way it was for so long. If I wanted to ride out CS3 for a few years, I could skip version 4 and 5 if it didn't feel like a meaningful upgrade to me and save money. Now, not only am I locked into this cycle of always paying, a couple of my computers have started aging out of updates. They're working perfectly fine and I feel like if I'm paying for all of this money for a subscription, Adobe should still run on those machines (it's a 2013 iMac 27" with all the options available at the time, it's old but it's plenty powerful enough).
It probably isn't powerful enough for the DSP based software that I want.
I think that's more Apple's fault than Adobe's. Apple moved from Power PC based computers to Intel based, to ARM based... Companies can't continue to develop every version of every piece of software for multiple architectures for the same OS. It's gotten to a point now, that the vast majority of Apple computers in use are ARM based, so that is all the companies are going to continue to develop for. Unfortunately, Apple themselves aren't even developing OS updates for their Intel computers anymore.
Wasim, this article perfectly captures the growing frustration many photographers feel with Adobe’s pricing model and the search for viable alternatives. Lightroom and Photoshop remain industry standards, but as subscription costs continue to rise, it is becoming harder to justify—especially when some long-requested features remain absent.
I have not personally used Affinity Photo, but I have worked with Affinity Publisher and was very happy with it. Now that they are owned by Canva, I expect continued investment in their tools, which makes them a promising alternative. In fashion and editorial photography, a seamless workflow is key, so switching software is not just about affordability but also about efficiency and compatibility with industry expectations.
Paul Tocatlian
Kisau Photography
www.kisau.com
The the subscription for LR and PS hasn't risen in over 12 years? What other product has done that and gives you the power and flexibility like that?
Very true.
Software development and updates do have a cost, but let us not forget that Adobe used to offer versions of their software with a perpetual licence. The price they charged for standalone products was enough to pay for software development and still make a handsome profit. The reason they switched to the subscription model is that it makes them even more money, with no benefit that I can see for the customer. I agree with Tyler Thomas. If you’re happy with the version you currently have and don’t need an upgrade, why should you have to keep on paying? In theory, I could afford to pay £10 per month, but am I really getting good value for money? In 2015 I bought a standalone copy of Lightroom for £120 and used it for 5 years. That works out at £2 per month over 5 years. I think £2 per month is a better deal than £10 per month (for the same product), don’t you? The folks at Adobe are laughing all the way to the bank.
I believe sometimes it is necessary to complain, otherwise nothing will change.
You do realize that companies are in business to make money, right? What product do you know remains the same price forever or even 10 years and running like LRC and PS? Can you buy an iPhone today for the same price you paid for it just 4 years ago or a laptop or anything?
"Can you buy an iPhone today for the same price you paid for it just 4 years ago or a laptop or anything?" I'm glad you asked. Yes, definitely....
I bought an Apple Macintosh Plus (1 Megabyte of RAM) in 1986 for US $2,600. That would translate to roughly $7,000 in today's dollars. A 2024 Apple iMac with 24" display and 24GB Ram costs $1,899.
The first Apple Laserwriter printer cost me $7,000 ($19,000 in today's dollars). Looks like an HP black and white laser printer is presently $289.
The cost of Microsoft Windows Professional 7 software, released in 2009, was $199.00. The cost for Microsoft Windows Pro 11 is currently $199.99. The difference between Microsoft and Adobe is that Microsoft is not trying to convince you that you need an upgrade every other day.
--- "Can you buy an iPhone today for the same price you paid for it just 4 years ago"
Yes. For instance, in 2020, an iPhone 12 128GB was about $799-849. Today, an iPhone 16 with 128GB is about $799-829.
I understand that you can't include every single piece of software in such a comparison, but DxO PhotoLab is kind of a strange omission given that it's generally a more famous and praised RAW developer than ON1 and Luminar.
I can't believe there are so many Adobe shills in this thread.
The subscription model is geared solely around hooking people and keeping them hooked in perpetuity and then racking prices to drive shareholder return ongoing. Profit is fine, just make it in the right way.
As has been mentioned by others here a more customer centred approach is to sell the software outright and then pay for upgrades. I'm sure they could do this in parallel to the subscription mode by that is right for some if they cared to.
The constant upgrading of the software with features that not everyone needs also drives hardware obsolescence and end user cost.