dannac Loc: 60 miles SW of New Orleans

Standalone LR ver 6 has camera raw 9 and will recognize D7200 ... just sayin.

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

Thanks

wendallb

You might consider looking at Aftershot Pro 2, which I use and like very much

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

FYI: You should clarify what "other software" is. Other people might think that Capture One Pro is 8 bit and that would be "rong" to think that way.

Bobbee

Ron, on this list, just showed me RawTherapee-4.2.1, try it for RAW. Not bad. After that there are tons of JPG editing softwares.

Billyspad Loc: The Philippines

Not one objective reply for this person. All the usual I have bought it/rent it so therefore you should.
Look I post process stuff to hell and back and use Photoshop CS6 available online for around $50 or free if your a software pirate. My copy is at least 6 years old and never been updated. Anyone welcome to look at my profile and images and tell me what I have been missing?
If I was like you and moving from Picasso go for Adobe Elements or take a look at Paint Shop Pro.
Look at the number of problems Lightroom causes people on here and ask yourself why rent a headache.Its main problem is once installed you have to change your whole way of working to LR methods. Make a simple error and it screws you big time. An awful piece of badly written software.
But we have a member with inside info on Adobe business models etc so may know if a program re-write is on the cards lol.
So Elements or Paint Shop Pro. Or join me on the dark side and Ill show you where to buy them very cheaply.

Kuzano

As a truly committed "Hater" of everything Adobe (There, I said it!), I encourage you to consider Windows Live Photo Gallery as the next best move from PICASA. Very simple, yet wide ranging organizer functions, including tags and keywords in Metadata (EXIF), yet simple and casual edit function similar to PICASA. Mild learning curve.

The organizer operates as a "shell" of the windows folder system, and changes you make in organization ripple back through the windows folder/file system. Likewise, changes you make in windows operating system ripple through the WLPG organizer. You can do new folders, keywords and tags, and other organizational functions in Windows (outside the WLPG program), without corrupting a catalog (Adobe's system of organization). This is much nicer than "all things Adobe", where making changes outside the program FUTZ's up your organizer catalog in PSE and in LightRoom.

Again, learning curve and ease of use... That's why you used PICASA as long as you did.

Windows Live (Essentials) Photo Gallery is much closer to what you are used to, unless it is your desire to get trapped into a sketchy organization system, and months learning how to master Adobe products. (Does anyone ever really master Adobe products? :?: :?: :?: )

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

I have always preferred to own something rather than rent it. I have the stand alone version of LR, and it's fine for me. Adobe will soon stop selling it, and they will also stop updating it. I'm not willing to pay over $120 a year for updates. At some point $10 will become $12 or $15. When you end your subscription, you no longer have LR.

Here are links for processing

http://digital-photography-school.com/a-beginners-guide-to-choosing-the-right-post-production-software/
http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2015/03/23/best-photo-editing-software-photoshop-cc-and-7-photoshop-alternatives-tested/1/
http://www.redmondpie.com/best-adobe-photoshop-alternatives-for-windows-and-mac-list/

And for free -

http://fieldguide.gizmodo.com/the-best-photoshop-alternatives-that-are-totally-free-5974500
http://lightzoneproject.org/

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I'd suggest looking at Light Zone. It's free.
--Bob

johneccles Loc: Leyland UK

I have been using a European programme called Zoner Photo Studio for years now, there are quite a few UHH members who also use it, it has a small learning curve but the inbuilt help it very comprehensive.
The ZPS app works on your libraries so no importing or exporting is required except when you are importing new photos from your camera.
You can try it for FREE for 30 days after that you can keep using it indefinitely as long as you don't restart it.
Use this link:http://www.zoner.com/free-photo-editor-download

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

I would go with the subscription this way you get all the latest updates which you will not get with the stand alon PLUS tou get Photoshop with is a great addition to LR

Bobbee

Being kind of IT literate I know how to get to things. My rule of thumb was if it was a oneoff use or very very seldom we go the free route. If I use it extensively I pay for it. This was not the case till Adobe offered CC. I mean I had a side business and a lot of the money would have went to paying for this. I have CC now and feel happy I am compliant.

I have been using photoshop for quite some time. I also have a lot of 'free' offered software on my laptop. Yes, the learning curve is high to achieve the high end stuff. But this is processes you will not be able to do effectively in other softwares. Yes one may offer one of two features but not all as a whole. I agree with a comment somewhere that Adobe is 'it'. and charging for it is rightly so. they make it affordable now. $120 a year. I bet people spend more time and money putting gutters on their oddly shaped overhangs than paying for this once a year rental. I am the last one to let money slip through my fingers but I do think $120 a year is a cost vs options benefit. I do intense edits on about 2,000 photos a month. Between ACR and CC it is very easy to do and gives me room to play with my deliverables.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I'm a Lightroom advocate and I think CC is at least as good as sliced bread.

However, I understand it's not for everyone. It depends on your experience with technology. Many people use a folder-based organizational system and get along with it just fine. Lightroom uses a database organizational system and lots of people think it does a great job, but another lot of people just can't get the hang of it. I'd say that summarizes the primary reason for the dichotomy of opinions on Lightroom.

I think that if you have a lot of photos (tens of thousands) Lightroom organization is really useful. Searches take seconds instead of poring through folders to find what you want. The key is to use keywords on your photos. That takes some time invested at postprocessing but it's worth it in the long run (in my opinion).

As far as standalone/CC, it depends on where you want to go with photography. If you are a casual user who only wants to take snapshots and family photos, you can probably make do with the standalone version of LR. If you plan to continue with photography more seriously, CC is probably the way to go. Having said that, the standalone version is not that expensive and is a good way to learn to use LR. If you decide later that LR is not keeping up with your needs, you can go with CC at that time.

Standalone LR will be pretty static as far as capabilities. All the newest improvements will show up in CC. You should also consider that standalone LR will not be able to use later versions of Adobe Camera Raw, which means that newer camera bodies will not be supported in your version of LR. You can get around that to some extent by using DNG.

Also, CC has the advantage that Photoshop is included. It's not a matter of using either LR or PS. I use both. LR is a basic editor with a few bells and whistles. PS is the epitome of editors with all the bells, whistles, gongs, hammers, scalpels and wrenches currently available. LR and PS talk to each other. 100% of my images go into LR (so they're in the catalog). About 10% of them go on to PS because LR doesn't do it all. For example panoramas and focus stacks get done in PS. When I'm done with them in PS, they get sent back to LR, so they're in the catalog. (PS: Panoramas can now be done in LR CC but not in LR standalone).

A lot of people complain about the "rental" software. Particularly about the cost. I don't think the cost is really a problem. It's $10/month, about what you'd pay for a couple cups of coffee. How does $120/year compare with your other photography-related expenditures? In my case it's down in the noise. And you should probably get used to that business model. It's going to get more prevalent as time goes on. Compare that $120/year expense to the cost of other hobbies. Golf. Fishing. Attending sports or concert events. Travel.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

There are certainly a lot of different programs out there to choose from. I've only used Lightroom briefly and can't justify saying much for or against it but feelings do seem to range from enthusiastic to disappointment - probably leaning toward the enthusiastic.

I am considering a CC subscription to give it and Photoshop a more serious consideration since I occasionally read about some feature of one or the other that I don't seem to have available now. I'm not sure I really need those features, but I do like to putter around with software.

Before you make the plunge, you might want to try out RAW Therapee; it's a free download (and it has free updates) it has a lot of features, including RAW conversion. The most significant downside is that it does not support layers; for that I use Paintshop Pro. You can pick up a copy of PSP on sale for as little as $39. Updates come out every year and I do generally update but generally there is not much of any importance that changes. My impression is that PSP is, for all practical purposes, not much different that PS - but I'm tempted to order CC for a year, just to make sure for myself.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

To me it is up the person who answer with a software title to give the bit depth information as they suggest it. I made a thread on how to answer requirement not long ago.

I use this 'software title'. It edits in 8 bit or it edits in 16 bit is not hard to type, I just did (that is telling you).

I have to add that it is also the OP responsibility to make sure the raw (16 bit) is important.