I Tested 10+ Photoshop Alternatives to

See How They Stack Up

DEC 15, 2017 ALAN DYER

795 18 COMMENTS
Shares 860 SHAR E 87 TWEE T

To Adobe or not to Adobe. That is the question many photographers are asking with the spate of new
image processing programs vying to “kill Photoshop.” I tested more than ten contenders as
alternatives to Adobe’s image processing software, evaluating them for the specialized task of editing
demanding nightscape images taken under the Milky Way, both for single still images and for time-
lapses of the moving sky.

If you are hoping there’s a clear winner in the battle against Adobe, one software suite I can say does
it all and for less cost and commitment, there isn’t one. Sorry!

However, a number of contenders offer excellent features and might replace at least one member of
Adobe’s image processing suite.

For example, only four of these programs can truly serve as a layer-based editing program replacing
Photoshop.

The others are better described as Adobe Lightroom competitors – programs that can catalog image
libraries and develop raw image files, with some offering adjustment layers for correcting color,
contrast, etc. But layering of images – to stack, composite, and mask them – is beyond their ability.

For processing time-lapse sequences, however, we don’t need, nor can we use, the ability to layer
and mask several images into one composite. What we need for time-lapses is to:

Develop a single key raw file, then …

 Copy its settings to the hundreds of other raw files in the time-lapse set, then …
Export that folder of raw images to “intermediate JPGs” for assembly into a movie.

Even so, not all these contenders are up to the task.

The Competitors
Here are the image processing programs I looked at. Costs are in U.S. dollars. Most have free trial
copies available.

The Champion from Adobe

Adobe Camera Raw, Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom — the standards to measure others by

Cost: $10 a month by subscription, includes ACR, Photoshop, Bridge, and Lightroom
OS: Windows and Mac

Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) is the raw development plug-in that comes with Photoshop and Adobe
Bridge, Adobe’s image browsing application that accompanies Photoshop. Camera Raw is equivalent
to the Develop module in Lightroom, Adobe’s cataloguing and raw processing software. Camera Raw
and Lightroom have identical processing functions and can produce identical results.

Photoshop and Lightroom complement each other and are now available together, but only by
monthly subscription through Adobe’s Creative Cloud service, at $10/month. Though $120 for a year
is not far off the cost of purchasing many of these other programs and perhaps upgrading them
annually, many photographers prefer to purchase their software and not subscribe to it.

Thus the popularity of these alternative programs. Most offered major updates in late 2017.

My question is, how well do they work? Are any serious contenders to replace Photoshop or
Lightroom?

Lightroom Contenders: Five Raw Developers

ACDSee Photo Studio (current as of late 2017)

Cost: $60 to $100, depending on version, upgrades $40 to $60.

OS: Windows and Mac
I tested the single MacOS version. Windows users have a choice of either a Standard or Professional
version. Only the Pro version offers the full suite of raw development features, in addition to
cataloging functions. The MacOS version resembles the Windows Pro version.

Capture One v11 (late 2017 release)

Cost: $299, and $120 for major upgrades, or by subscription for $180/year
OS: Windows and Mac

As of version 11 this powerful raw developer and cataloguing program offers “Layers.” But these are
only for applying local adjustments to masked areas of an image. You cannot layer different images.
So Capture One cannot be used like Photoshop, to stack and composite images. It is a Lightroom
replacement only, but a very good one indeed.

Corel Aftershot Pro v3 (late 2017)

Cost: $80, and $60 for upgrades

OS: Windows, Mac, and Linux

Here’s a low cost Lightroom replacement for image management and raw processing abilities. Noise
reduction is “Perfectly Clear” from Athentech and works well.

DxO PhotoLab ELITE v1 (late 2017)

Cost: $199
OS: Windows and Mac

The ELITE version of what DxO now calls “PhotoLab” offers DxO’s superb PRIME noise reduction and
excellent ClearView contrast enhancement feature. While it has an image browser, PhotoLab does not
create a catalog, so this isn’t a full Lightroom replacement, but it is a superb raw developer. DxO also
recently acquired the excellent Nik Collection of image processing plug-ins, so we can expect some
interesting additions and features.

Raw Therapee v5.3 (mid-2017 release)

Cost: Free
OS: Windows, Mac, and Linux

This free open source program has been created and is supported by a loyal community of
programmers. It offers a bewildering blizzard of panels and controls, among them the ability to apply
dark frames and flat field images, features unique among any raw developer and aimed specifically at
astrophotographers. Yes, it’s free, but the learning curve is precipitous.

Photoshop Contenders: Four Raw Developers with

Layering/Compositing
These programs can not only develop at least single raw images, if not many, but also offer some
degree of image layering, compositing, and masking like Photoshop.

However, only ON1 Photo RAW can do that and also catalog/browse images as Lightroom can.
Neither Affinity, Luminar, or Pixelmator offer a library catalog like Lightroom, nor even a file browsing
function such as Adobe Bridge, serious deficiencies I feel.

Affinity Photo v1.6 (late 2017)

Cost: $50
OS: Windows and Mac

This is the lowest cost raw developer and layer-based program on offer here, and has some
impressive features, such as stacking images, HDR blending, and panorama stitching. However, it
lacks any library or cataloguing function, so this is not a Lightroom replacement, but it could replace
Photoshop.

Luminar 2018

Cost: $80, and $40 for major upgrades

OS: Windows and Mac

Macphun has changed their name to Skylum and now makes their fine Luminar program for both Mac
and Windows. While adding special effects is its forte, Luminar does work well both as a raw
developer and layer-based editor. But like Affinity, it has no cataloguing feature. It cannot replace
Lightroom.

ON1 Photo RAW 2018

Cost: $120, and $100 for major upgrades

OS: Windows and Mac

Of all the contenders tested here, this is the only program that can truly replace both Lightroom and
Photoshop, in that ON1 has cataloguing, raw developing, and image layering and masking abilities. In
fact, ON1 allows you to migrate your Lightroom catalog into its format. However, ON1’s cost to buy and
maintain is similar to Adobe’s Creative Cloud Photo subscription plan. It’s just that ON1’s license is
“perpetual.”

NOTE: Windows users might find Corel’s Paintshop Pro 2018 a good “do-it-all” solution – I tested only
Corel’s raw developer program Aftershot Pro, which Paintshop Pro uses.

Pixelmator Pro v1 (late 2017 release)

Cost: $60
OS: MacOS only

The “Pro” version of Pixelmator was introduced in November 2017. It has an innovative interface and
many fine features, and it allows layering and masking of multiple images. However, it lacks some of
the key functions (listed below) needed for nightscape and time-lapse work. Touted as a Photoshop
replacement, it isn’t there yet.

The Challenge
This is the image I threw at all the programs, a 2-minute exposure of the Milky Way taken at Writing-
on-Stone Provincial Park in southern Alberta in late July 2017.

Note: Click/tap on any of the screen shots to bring them up full screen so you can inspect and save
them.

Original Raw Image Out of the Camera, BEFORE Development

The lens was the Sigma 20mm Art lens at f/2 and the camera the Nikon D750 at ISO 1600. The
camera was on a tracking unit (a Sky-Watcher Star Adventurer Mini ) to keep stars pinpoints.

Thus the ground is blurred. Keep that in mind, as it will always look fuzzy in the comparison images.
But it does show up noise well, including hot pixels. This image of the sky is designed to be
composited with one taken without the tracker turning, to keep the ground sharp.

Raw Image AFTER Development in Adobe Camera Raw

Above is the image after development in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR), using sliders under its Basic,
Tone Curve, Detail, HSL, Lens Corrections, and Effects tabs. Plus I added a “local adjustment” gradient
to darken the sky at the top of the frame. I judged programs on how well they could match or beat
this result.
 Same Image Developed in Adobe Lightroom

Above is the same image developed in Adobe Lightroom, to demonstrate how it can achieve identical
results to Camera Raw, because at heart it is Camera Raw.

Feature Focus
I have assumed a workflow that starts with raw image files from the camera, not JPGs, for high-quality
results.

And I have assumed the goal of making that raw image look as good as possible at the raw stage,
before it goes to Photoshop or some other bit-mapped editor. That’s an essential workflow for time-
lapse shooting, if not still-image nightscapes.

However, I made no attempt to evaluate all these programs for a wide range of photo applications.
That would be a monumental task!

Nor, in the few programs capable of the task, did I test image layering. My focus was on developing a
raw image. As such, I did not test the popular free program GIMP, as it does not open raw files. GIMP
users must turn to one of the raw developers here as a first stage.

If you are curious how a program might perform for your purposes and on your photos, then why not
test drive a trial copy?

Instead, my focus was on these programs’ abilities to produce great looking results when processing
one type of image: my typical Milky Way nightscape, below.

TIFF Exported from DxO PhotoLab … then Imported into Photoshop

Such an image is a challenge because…

The subject is inherently low in contrast, with the sky often much brighter than the ground.
The sky needs much more contrast applied, but without blocking up the shadows in the
ground.
The sky is often plagued by off-color tints from artificial and natural sky glows.
The ground is dark, perhaps lit only by starlight. Bringing out landscape details requires
excellent shadow recovery.
Key to success is superb noise reduction. Images are shot at high ISOs and are rife with
noise in the shadows. We need to reduce noise without losing stars or sharpness in the
landscape.

I focused on being able to make one image look as good as possible as a raw file, before bringing it
into Photoshop or a layer-based editor – though that’s where it will usually end up, for stacking and
compositing, as per the final result shown at the end.

I then looked at each program’s ability to transfer that one key image’s settings over to what could be
hundreds of other images taken that night, either for stacking into star trails or for assembling into a
time-lapse movie.

Summary Conclusions

Results of 8 Programs compared to ACR (at left)

None of the programs I tested ticked all the boxes in providing all the functions and image quality of
the Adobe products.

But here’s a summary of my recommendations:

For Advanced Time-Lapse

None of the non-Adobe programs will work with the third-party software LRTimelapse. It is an
essential tool for advanced time-lapse processing. LRTimelapse works with Lightroom or ACR/Bridge
to gradually shift processing settings over a sequence, and smooth annoying image flickering.
If serious and professional time-lapse shooting is your goal, none of the Adobe contenders will work.
Period. Subscribe to Creative Cloud. And buy LRTimelapse.

For Basic Time-Lapse

However, for less-demanding time-lapse shooting, when the same settings can be applied to all the
images in a sequence, then I feel the best non-Adobe choices are, in alphabetical order:

ACDSee
Capture One
Corel Aftershot Pro
DxO PhotoLab
ON1 Photo RAW

… With, in my opinion, DxO and Capture One having the edge for image quality and features. But all
five have a Library or Browser mode with easy-to-use Copy & Paste and Batch Export functions
needed for time-lapse preparation.

For Still Image Nightscapes

If you are processing just individual still images, perhaps needing only to stack or composite a few
exposures, and want to do all the raw development and subsequent layering of images within one
non-Adobe program, then look at (again alphabetically):

Affinity Photo
Luminar 2018
ON1 Photo RAW 2018

… With Affinity Photo having the edge in offering a readily-available function off its File menu for
stacking images, either for noise smoothing (Mean) or creating star trails (Maximum).

However, I found its raw development module did not produce as good a result as most competitors
due to Affinity’s poorer noise reduction and less effective shadow and highlight controls. Using
Affinity’s “Develop Persona” module, I could not make my test image look as good as with other
programs.

Luminar 2018 has better noise reduction but it demands more manual work to stack and blend
images.
While ON1 Photo Raw has some fine features and good masking tools, it exhibits odd de-Bayering
artifacts, giving images a cross-hatched appearance at the pixel-peeping level. Sky backgrounds just
aren’t smooth, even after noise reduction.

To go into more detail, these are the key factors I used to compare programs.

Noise Reduction
Absolutely essential is effective noise reduction, of luminance noise and chrominance color speckles
and splotches.

Ideally, programs should also have a function for suppressing bright “hot” pixels and dark “dead”
pixels.

Here’s what I consider to be the “gold standard” for noise reduction, Adobe Camera Raw’s result
using the latest processing engine in ACR v10/Photoshop CC 2018.

BEFORE and AFTER Noise Reduction with Adobe Camera Raw (ACR)

I judged other programs on their ability to produce results as good as this, if not better, using their
noise reduction sliders. Some programs did better than others in providing smooth, noiseless skies
and ground, while retaining detail.

BEFORE and AFTER Noise Reduction and Other Adjustments with DxO PhotoLab

For example, one of the best was DxO PhotoLab, above. It has excellent options for reducing noise
without being overwhelming in its choices, the case with a couple of other programs. For example,
DxO has a mostly effective dead/hot pixel removal slider.
ACR does apply such a hot pixel removal “under the hood” as a default, but often still leaves many
glaring hot specks that must be fixed later in Photoshop.

Comparing Noise Reduction

300% Close-Ups to Compare Noise Reduction

Above are 8 of the contender programs compared to Camera Raw for noise reduction.

Missing from this group is the brand new Pixelmator Pro, for MacOS only. It does not yet have any
noise reduction in its v1 release, a serious deficiency in imaging software marketed as “Pro.” For that
reason alone, I cannot recommend it. I describe its other deficiencies below.

Lens Corrections
The wide-angle lenses we typically use in nightscape and time-lapse imaging suffer from vignetting
and lens distortions. Having software that can automatically detect the lens used and apply bespoke
corrections is wonderful.

Lens Corrections in Capture One

Only a few programs, such as Capture One (above), have a library of camera and lens data to draw
upon to apply accurate corrections with one click. With others you have to dial in corrections
manually by eye, which is crude and inaccurate.

Shadows and Highlights

All programs have exposure and contrast adjustments, but the key to making a Milky Way nightscape
look good is being able to boost the shadows (the dark ground) while preventing the sky from
becoming overly bright, yet while still applying good contrast to the sky.

Shadows and Highlight and other Enhancements in DxO PhotoLab

Of the contenders, I liked DxO PhotoLab best (shown above), not only for its good shadow and
highlight recovery, but also excellent “Smart Lighting” and “ClearView” functions which served as
effective clarity and dehaze controls to snap up the otherwise low-contrast sky. With most other
programs it was tough to boost the shadows without also flattening the contrast.

On the other hand, Capture One’s excellent layering and local adjustments did make it easier to brush
in adjustments just to the sky or ground.

However, any local adjustments like those will be feasible only for still images or time-lapses where
the camera does not move. In any motion control sequences the horizon will be shifting from frame to
frame, making precise masking impractical over a sequence of hundreds of images.

Therefore, I didn’t place too much weight on the presence of good local adjustments. But they are
nice to have. Capture One, DxO PhotoLab, and ON1 win here.

Selective Color Adjustments

All programs allow tweaking the white balance and overall tint.

But it’s beneficial to also adjust individual colors selectively, to enhance red nebulas, enhance or
suppress green airglow, bring out green grass, or suppress yellow or orange light pollution.

Some programs have an HSL panel (Hue, Saturation, Lightness) or an equalizer-style control for
boosting or dialing back specific colors.
 Color Adjustments in Capture One

Capture One (above) has the most control over color correction, with an impressive array of color
wheels and sliders that can be set to tweak a broad or narrow range of colors.

And yet, despite this, I was still unable to make my test image look quite the way I wanted for color
balance. ACR and DxO PhotoLab still won out for the best looking final result.

Copy and Paste Settings

Even when shooting nightscape stills we often take several images to stack later. It’s desirable to be
able to process just one image, then copy and paste its settings to all the others in one fell swoop.
And then to be able to inspect those images in thumbnails to be sure they all look good.

Some programs (Affinity Photo, Luminar, Pixelmator Pro) lack any library function for viewing or
browsing a folder of thumbnail images. Yes, you can export a bunch of images with your settings
applied as a user preset, but that’s not nearly as good as actually seeing those images displayed in a
Browser mode.

Copy and Paste Settings in ON1 Photo RAW

What’s ideal is a function such as ON1 Photo RAW displays here, and that some other programs have:
the ability to inspect a folder of images, work on one, then copy and paste its settings to all the others
in the set.

This is absolutely essential for time-lapse work, and nice to have even when working on a small set to
be stacked into a still image.

Batch Export
Once you develop a folder of raw images with “Copy and Paste,” you now have to export them with
all those settings “baked into” the exported files.

This step is to create an intermediate set of JPGs to assemble into a movie. Or perhaps to stack into a
star trail composite using third party software such as StarStaX, or to work on the images in another
layer-based program of your choice.

Batch Export in ON1 Photo RAW

As ON1 Photo RAW shows above, this is best done using a Library or Browser mode to visually select
the images, then call up an Export panel or menu to choose the image size, format, quality, and
location for the exports.

Click Export and go for coffee – or a leisurely dinner – while the program works through your folder.
All programs took an hour or more to export hundreds of images.

Design
Those functions were the key features I looked for when evaluating the programs for nightscape and
time-lapse work.

Every program had other attractive features, often ones I wished were in Adobe Camera Raw. But if
the program lacked any of the above features, I judged it unsuitable.

Yes, the new contenders to the Photoshop crown have the benefit of starting from a blank slate for
interface design.

Luminar 2018’s Clean User Interface

Many, such as Luminar 2018 above, have a clean, attractive design, with less reliance on menus than
Photoshop.

Photoshop has grown haphazardly over 25 years, resulting in complex menus. Just finding key
functions can take many tutorial courses!

But Adobe dares to “improve” Photoshop’s design and menu structure at its peril, as Photoshop fans
would scream if any menus they know and love were to be reorganized!

The new mobile-oriented Lightroom CC is Adobe’s chance to start afresh with a new interface.

Summary Table of Key Features

Click or tap to view and save full screen version.

Fair: Feature is present but doesn’t work as easily or produce as good a result

Partial: Program has lens correction but failed to fully apply settings automatically / DxO has a Browse
function but not Cataloging

Manual: Program has only a manually-applied lens correction

–: Program is missing that feature altogether

Program-by-Program Results
I could end the review here, but I feel it’s important to present the evidence, in the form of screen
shots of all the programs, showing both the whole image, and a close-up to show the all-important
noise reduction.

ACDSee Photo Studio

ACDSee Full Screen

ACDSee Enlargement

Pros: This capable cataloging program has good selective color and highlight/shadow recovery, and
pretty smooth noise reduction. It can copy and paste settings and batch export images, for time-
lapses. It is certainly affordable, making it a low-cost Lightroom contender.

Cons: It lacks any gradient or local adjustments, or even spot removal brushes. Lens corrections are
just manual. There is no dehaze control, which can be useful for snapping up even clear night skies.
You cannot layer images to create composites or image stacks. This is not a Photoshop replacement.

Affinity Photo
 Affinity Photo Full Screen

Affinity Photo Enlargement

Pros: Affinity supports image layers, masking with precise selection tools, non-destructive “live” filters
(like Photoshop’s Smart Filters), and many other Photoshop-like functions. It has a command for image
stacking with a choice of stack modes for averaging and adding images.

It’s a very powerful but low cost alternative to Photoshop, but not Lightroom. It works fine when
restricted to working on just a handful of images.

Cons: Affinity has no lens correction database, and I found it hard to snap up contrast in the sky and
ground without washing them out, or having them block up. Raw noise reduction was acceptable but
not up to the best for smoothness. It produced a blocky appearance. There are no selective color
adjustments.

Nor is there any library or browse function. You can batch export images, but only through an
unfriendly dialog box that lists images only by file name – you cannot see them. Nor can you copy
and paste settings visually, but only apply a user-defined “macro” to develop images en masse upon
export.

This is not a program for time-lapse work.

Capture One 11
 Capture One 11 Full Screen

Capture One 11 Enlargement

Pros: With version 11 Capture One became one of the most powerful raw developers, using multiple
layers to allow brushing in local adjustments, a far better method than Adobe Camera Raw’s local
adjustment “pins.” It can create a catalog from imported images, or images can be opened directly for
quick editing. Its noise reduction was good, with hot pixel removal lacking in Camera Raw.

Its color correction options were many!

It can batch export images. And it can export files in the raw DNG format, though in tests only Adobe
Camera Raw was able to read the DNG file with settings more or less intact.

Cons: It’s costly to purchase, and more expensive than Creative Cloud to subscribe to. Despite all its
options I could never quite get as good looking an image using Capture One, compared to DxO
PhotoLab for example.

It is just a Lightroom replacement; it can’t layer images.

Corel Aftershot Pro 3

 Corel Aftershot Pro Full Screen

Corel Aftershot Pro Enlargement

Pros: This low-cost option has good noise reduction using Athentech’s Perfectly Clear process, with
good hot pixel or “impulse” noise removal. It has good selective color and offers adjustment layers for
brushing in local corrections. And its library mode can be used to copy and paste settings and batch
export images.

Again, it’s solely a Lightroom alternative.

Cons: While it has a database of lenses, and identified my lens, it failed to apply any automatic
corrections. Its shadow and highlight recovery never produced a satisfactory image with good
contrast. Its local adjustment brush is very basic, with no edge detection.

DxO PhotoLab

DxO PhotoLab Full Screen

 DxO PhotoLab Enlargement

Pros: I found DxO produced the best looking image, better perhaps than Camera Raw, because of its
DxO ClearView and Smart Lighting options. It has downloadable camera and lens modules for
automatic lens corrections. Its noise reduction was excellent, with its PRIME option producing by far
the best results of all the programs, better perhaps than Camera Raw, plus with hot pixel suppression.

DxO has good selective color adjustments, and its copy and paste and batch export work fine.

Cons: There are no adjustment layers as such. Local adjustments and repairing are done through the
unique U-Point interface which works something like ACR’s “pins,” but isn’t as visually intuitive as
masks and layers. Plus, DxO is just a raw developer; there is no image layering or compositing. Nor
does it create a catalog as such.

So it is not a full replacement for either Lightroom or Photoshop. But it does produce great looking
raw files for export (even as raw DNGs) to other programs.

Luminar 2018

Luminar 2018 Full Screen

 Luminar 2018 Enlargement

Pros: Luminar has good selective color adjustments, a dehaze control, and good contrast adjustments
for highlights, mid-tones, and shadows. Adjustments can be added in layers, making them easier to
edit. Noise reduction was smooth and artifact-free, but adjustments were basic. Many filters can be
painted on locally with a brush, or with a radial or gradient mask.

Cons: It has no lens correction database; all adjustments are manual. The preview was slow to refresh
and display results when adjusting filters. The interface is clean but always requires adding filters to
the filter panel to use them when creating new layers. Its batch export is crude, with only a dialog box
and no visual browser to inspect or select images.

Settings are applied as a user preset on export, not through a visual copy-and-paste function. I don’t
consider that method practical for time-lapses.

ON1 Photo RAW 2018

ON1 Photo RAW Full Screen

 ON1 Photo RAW Enlargement

Pros: ON1 is the only program of the bunch that can: catalog images, develop raw files, and then layer
and stack images, performing all that Lightroom and Photoshop can do. It is fast to render previews in
its “Fast” mode, but in its “Accurate” mode ON1 is no faster than Lightroom. It has good layering and
masking functions, both in its Develop mode and in its Photoshop-like Layers mode.

Selective color and contrast adjustments were good, as was noise reduction. Developing, then
exporting a time-lapse set worked very well, but still took as long as with Lightroom or Photoshop.

Cons: Despite promising automatic lens detection and correction, ON1 failed to apply any vignetting
correction for my 20mm Sigma lens. Stars exhibited dark haloes, even with no sharpening, dehaze, or
noise reduction applied. Its de-Bayering algorithm produced a cross-hatched pattern at the pixel
level, an effect not seen on other programs.

Noise reduction did not smooth this. Thus, image quality simply wasn’t as good.

Pixelmator Pro

Pixelmator Pro Full Screen

Pixelmator Pro Enlargement

Pros: It is low cost. And it has an attractive interface.

Cons: As of version 1 released in November 2017 Pixelmator Pro lacks: any noise reduction (it’s on
their list to add!), any library mode or copy and paste function, nor even the ability to open several
images at once displayed together.
It is simply not a contender for “Photoshop killer” for any photo application, despite what click-bait
“reviews” promise, ones that only re-write press releases and don’t actually test the product.

Raw Therapee v5.3

Raw Therapee Full Screen

Raw Therapee Enlargement – With and Without Noise Reduction

Pros: It’s free! It offers an immense number of controls and sliders. You can even change the
debayering method. It detects and applies lens corrections (though in my case only distortion, not
vignetting). It has good selective color with equalizer-style sliders. It has acceptable (sort of!) noise
reduction and sharpening with a choice of methods, and with hot and dead pixel removal.

It can load and apply dark frames and flat fields, the only raw developer software that can. This is
immensely useful for deep-sky photography.

Cons: It offers an immense number of controls and sliders! Too many! It is open source software by
committee, with no one in charge of design or user friendliness. Yes, there is documentation, but it,
too, is a lot to wade through to understand, especially with its broken English translations. This is
software for digital signal processing geeks.

But worst of all, as shown above, its noise reduction left lots of noisy patches in shadows, no matter
what combination of settings I applied. Despite all its hundreds of sliders, results just didn’t look as
good.

Even More Options

Not enough choices for you? How about …

Alien Skin Exposure x3

Alien Skin Exposure x3 at work on the the image

Available for Mac and Windows for $150, this Lightroom competitor offers a good browser function,
with the ability to “copy-from-one and paste-to-many” images (unlike some of the programs below),
and a good batch export function for time-lapse work. It has good selective color controls and very
good noise reduction providing a smooth background without artifacts like blockiness or haloes.
Local adjustments, either through brushed-on adjustments or through gradients, are applied via
handy and easy to understand (I think!) layers.

While it has auto lens corrections, its database seemed limited — it did not have my Sigma 20mm
lens despite it being on the market for 18 months. Manual vignetting correction produced a poor
result with just a washed out look.

The main issue was that its shadow, highlight, and clarity adjustments just did not produce the snap
and contrast I was looking for, but that other programs could add to raw files. Still, it looks promising,
and is worth a try with the trial copy. You might find you like it. I did not. For similar cost, other
programs did a better job, notably DxO PhotoLab.

darktable

In the same ilk as Raw Therapee, I also tested out another free, open-source raw developer, one
simply called “darktable,” with v2.2.5 shown below. While it has some nice functions and produced a
decent result, it took a lot of time and work to use.
 darktable RAW Developer

The MacOS version I tried (on a brand new 5K iMac) ran so sluggishly, taking so long to re-render
screen previews, that I judged it impractical to use. Sliders were slow to move and when I made any
adjustments often many seconds would pass before I would see the result. Pretty frustrating, even for
free.

Iridient Developer

Iridient Developer

A similar crowd-developed raw processing program, Iridient Developer (above), sells for $99 US. I
tested a trial copy of v3.2. While it worked OK, I was never able to produce a great looking image with
it. It had no redeeming features over the competition that made its price worthwhile.

Paintshop Pro

Being a Mac user, I did not test this popular Windows-only program from Corel. It uses Corel’s
Aftershot Pro (which I did test) to provide its raw developing “engine,” which is what I am focusing on
here in all programs. So for the purposes I am showing, you can consider my review of Aftershot a
review of Paintshop, with the proviso that Paintshop Pro can also do further layering of images, as per
Photoshop. Indeed, it is promoted as a low-cost Photoshop replacement.

As such, Windows users may find Paintshop’s features attractive. However, Aftershot Pro (along with
Picktorial below) did the poorest job making my test image look good. So I wouldn’t use it.

Picktorial v3
 MacOS-only Picktorial v3, with its clean interface

This little-known MacOS-only program (only $40 on sale) for developing raw images looks very
attractive, with good selective color, lots of local adjustments, and good masking tools, the features
promoted on the website. It does have a browse function and can batch export a set of developed
files.

However … its noise reduction was poor, introducing glowing haloes around stars when turned up to
any useful level. Its shadows, highlights, and contrast adjustments were also poor – it was tough to
make the test image look good without flattening contrast or blocking up shadows. Boosting clarity
even a little added awful dark haloes to stars, making this a useless function. It has no lens correction,
either automatic or manual. Like Topaz Studio, below, it cannot copy and paste settings to a batch of
images, only to one image at a time, so it isn’t useful for time-lapse processing.

I cannot recommend this program, no matter how affordable it might be.

Topaz Studio

Topaz Studio at work on the test image

While Topaz Labs previously offered only plug-ins for Photoshop and other programs (their Topaz
DeNoise 6 is very good), their Topaz Studio stand-alone program now offers full raw processing
abilities.

It is for Mac and Windows. While it did a decent job developing my test Milky Way image (above), with
good color and contrast adjustments, it cannot copy and paste settings from one image to a folder of
images, only to one other image. Nor can it batch export a folder of images. Both deficiencies make it
useless for time-lapse work.
In addition, while the base program is free, adding the “Pro Adjustments” modules I needed to
process my test image (Noise Reduction, Dehaze, Precision Contrast, etc.) would cost $160 – each
Adjustment is bought separately. Some users might like it, but I wouldn’t recommend it.

Adobe Photoshop Elements v18 (late 2017 release)

What about Adobe’s own Photoshop “Lite?” Elements is available for $99 as a boxed or
downloadable one-time purchase, but with annual updates costing about $50. While it offers image
and adjustment layers, it cannot do much with 16-bit images, and has very limited functions for
developing raw files.

And its Lightroom-like Organizer module does not have any copy-and-paste settings or batch export
functions, making it unsuitable for time-lapse production.

Photoshop Elements v18 – Showing its Version of Camera Raw Lite

Elements is for processing photos for the snapshot family album. Like Apple’s Photos and other free
photo apps, I don’t consider Elements to be a serious option for nightscape and time-lapse work. But
it can be pressed into service for raw editing and layering single images, especially by beginners.

However, a Creative Cloud Photo subscription doesn’t cost much more than buying, then upgrading
Elements outright, yet gets you far, far more in professional-level software.

What Would I Buy?

Except for Capture One, which I tested as a trial copy, I did buy all the software in question, for testing
for my Nightscapes eBook.

However, as I’ve described, none of the programs tick all the boxes. Each has strengths, but also
weaknesses, if not outright deficiencies. I don’t feel any can fully replace Adobe products for features
and image quality.
A possible non-Adobe combination for the best image quality might be DxO PhotoLab for raw
developing and basic time-lapse processing, and Affinity Photo for stacking and compositing still
images, from finished TIFF files exported out of DxO and opened and layered with Affinity.

But that combo lacks any cataloging option. For that you’d have to add ACDSee or Aftershot for a
budget option. It’s hardly a convenient workflow I’d want to use.

ON1 De-Bayer Artifacts (Right) Compared to DxO PhotoLab (Left), at 400%

I’d love to recommend ON1 Photo RAW more highly as a single solution, if only it had better raw
processing results, and didn’t suffer from de-Bayering artifacts (shown in a 400% close-up above,
compared to DxO PhotoLab). These add the star haloes and a subtle blocky pattern to the sky, most
obvious at right.

To Adobe or Not to Adobe

I’m just not anxious, as others are, to “avoid Adobe.”

I’ve been a satisfied Creative Cloud subscriber for several years, and view the monthly fee as the cost
of doing business. It’s much cheaper than the annual updates that boxed Photoshop versions used to
cost. Nor am I worried about Adobe suddenly jacking up the fees or holding us hostage with
demands.

LRTimelapse at Work on a Time-Lapse Sequence

For me, the need to use LRTimelapse (shown above) for about 80 percent of all the time-lapse
sequences I shoot means the question is settled. LRTimelapse works only with Adobe software, and
the combination works great. Sold.
I feel Camera Raw/Lightroom produces results that others can only just match, if that.

Only DxO PhotoLab beat Adobe for its excellent contrast enhancements and PRIME noise reduction.

Yes, other programs certainly have some fine features I wish Camera Raw or Lightroom had, such as:

Hot and dead pixel removal

Dark frame subtraction and flat field division
Better options for contrast enhancement
And adding local adjustments to raw files via layers, with more precise masking tools
Among others!

But those aren’t “must haves.”

Using ACR or Lightroom makes it easy to export raw files for time-lapse assembly, or to open them
into Photoshop for layering and compositing, usually as “smart objects” for non-destructive editing, as
shown below.

Final Layered Photoshop Image

Above is the final layered image, consisting of:

A stack of 4 tracked exposures for the sky (the test image is one of those exposures)
And 4 untracked exposures for the ground.

The mean stacking smooths noise even more. The masking reveals just the sky on the tracked set.
Every adjustment layer, mask, and “smart filter” is non-destructive and can be adjusted later.

I’ll work on recreating this same image with the three non-Adobe programs capable of doing so –
Affinity, Luminar, and ON1 Photo RAW – to see how well they do. But that’s the topic of a future blog.

Making the Switch?

The issue with switching from Adobe to any new program is compatibility.

While making a switch will be fine when working on all new images, reading the terabytes of old
images I have processed with Adobe software (and being able to re-adjust their raw settings and
layered adjustments) will always require that Adobe software.
If you let your Creative Cloud subscription lapse, as I understand it the only thing that will continue to
work is Lightroom’s Library module, allowing you to review images only. You can’t do anything to
them.

None of the contender programs will read Adobe’s XMP metadata files to display raw images with
Adobe’s settings intact.

Conversely, nor can Adobe read the proprietary files and metadata other programs create.

With final layered Photoshop files, while some programs can read .PSD files, they usually open them
just as flattened images, as ON1 warns it will do above. It flattened all of the non-destructive editing
elements created in Photoshop. Luminar did the same.

A Layered Photoshop PSB File Opened in Affinity Photo

Only Affinity Photo (above) successfully read a complex and very large Photoshop .PSB file correctly,
honoring at least its adjustment and image layers. So, if backwards compatibility with your legacy
Photoshop images is important, choose Affinity Photo.

However, Affinity flattened Photoshop’s smart object image layers and their smart filters. Even
Adobe’s own Photoshop Elements doesn’t honor smart objects.

Lest you think that’s a “walled garden” created by “evil Adobe,” keep in mind that the same will be
true of the image formats and catalogs that all the contender programs produce.

To read the adjustments, layers, and “live filters” you create using any another program, you will need
to use that program.
Will Affinity, DxO, Luminar, ON1, etc. be around in ten years?

Yes, you can save out flattened TIFFs that any program can read in the future, but that rules out using
those other programs to re-work any of the image’s original settings.

In Conclusion!

U-Point Local Adjustments in DxO PhotoLab

I can see using DxO PhotoLab (above) or Raw Therapee for some specific images that benefit from
their unique features.

Or using ACDSee as a handy image browser.

Luminar 2018 as a Plug-In Within Photoshop

And ON1 and Luminar have some lovely effects that can be applied by calling them up as plug-ins
from within Photoshop, and applied as smart filters. Above, I show Luminar working as a plug-in,
applying its “Soft & Airy” filter.

In the case of Capture One and DxO PhotoLab, their ability to save images back as raw DNG files (the
only contender programs of the bunch that can), means that any raw processing program in the future
should be able to read the raw image.
 DNG Raw File Created by Capture One Opened in ACR

However, only Capture One’s Export to DNG option produced a raw file readable and editable by
Adobe Camera Raw with its settings from Capture One (mostly) intact (as shown above).

Even so, I won’t be switching away from Adobe anytime soon.

But I hope my survey has given you useful information to judge whether you should make the switch.
And if so, to what program.

P.S. As I stated earlier, this review expands upon and updates mini-reviews I included in my
Nightscapes and Time-Lapses eBook.

About the author: Alan Dyer is an astronomy photography and author. You can find more of his work
and writing at his website, The Amazing Sky. This article was also published here.

TAG S: A L A NDY E R, A LT ERN AT I V E S, A P P S, CO M PET I TO R S, E D I TIN G, P H OTOE D I T I N G, P H OTOS H O P, P H OTOS H O PA LT E R N AT I V E S, P R O GRA M S, S O F TWA R E,
S U RVEY, T E STIN G

795 18 COMMENTS
Shares 860 SHAR E 87 TWEE T

d Welcome to Disqus! Discover more great discussions just like this one. We're a lot more
than comments.
Get Started

Dismiss ×

18 Comments PetaPixel 
1 Fabiano Palhano

Sort by Oldest
 Recommend 1 ⤤ Share

Join the discussion…

Steven Jeanrolus • 5 hours ago

I am very happy with AFFINiTY PHOTO, great price, no subscription fees, a lot of PHOTOSHOP tutorials on YT
b li d t AFFINITY f ti t l i i h t f bl b t I' t d t hi i
can be applied to AFFINITY functions, no cataloging is somewhat of problem but I'm not very good at archiving
anyway or rather knowing where I put specific stuff, so I maybe I'm being spared from even more
disorganization.
2△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Mike D • 5 hours ago

I use Photoshop subscription version 15.5 but I use it because of a few invaluable features. I sort and catalog
my RAW images with Photo Mechanic and always process and save the RAW images converting them to
flattened TIFF files. Sounds like most of the programs have Shadow & Highlight capability but its the Shake
Reduction, Content Aware, Dehaze filter and the numerous plugins from Nik (Vivesa) and Topaz (Adjust) that
really set Photoshop apart. With a little post processing, you can make an image look exactly what it looked like
in your mind when you captured the image.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Kyle Clements • 5 hours ago

As a long time Darktable user, I find the comments on sluggishness surprising. It's nice and snappy on my
system - an i7 2600 running Ubuntu.

The only time there is any noticeable lag at all in rendering the preview is some of the denoise filters when used
with blending modes.

Is the OSX version that much worse?

△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Ilia Sibiryakov • 4 hours ago

Wow Gimp not even in it :/ Free software world is really lacking in the photoshop-type photo editing software
department right now.
3△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Bill C. > Ilia Sibiryakov • 3 hours ago

GIMP can convert RAWs but you need to install the RAW converter into GIMP first. There are
instructions. It was too much work for me to try.

I use GIMP 2.9 when I want to use all the bits in my 16 bit files as Photoshop doesn't let me.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Petapros 6.0 ✔ Intel Inside® • 4 hours ago

When it comes to skin tones Capture one is the best in my opinion. I know a lot of pro retouchers that use it for
that reason. Your best option is to use capture one and affinity combo.
2△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

mimstyle • 4 hours ago

Affinity photo is my favorite tool for 10 months now and I can't comeback to Ps for my usage no more ...
I can create (already) amazing macros to match with lightroom too.
Affinity is only in version 1.6 just wait....
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Vittorio Sergi Cucinelli > mimstyle • 4 hours ago

Mhe, couldn't care less that it is only 1.6.
There are some serious features and tweaks lacking in AP, from a long time, and the development team
does what? add freaking guided brush instead of improving their dreadful raw processing, inability to
align layers, disgusting luminosity mask based workflow...
I see more and more people saying AP is the best only because costs less....and that isnt a benchmark
for quality
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Azmodan • 3 hours ago

DxO Photolab and C1 Pro 11 are IMO the best alternatives to LR/ACR. After years of comparing RAW
converters DxO and C1 can extract more fine detail when using cameras like the 5DsR the difference can be
converters, DxO and C1 can extract more fine detail, when using cameras like the 5DsR, the difference can be
astounding, this also comes down to better lens profiles too. DxO's PRIME NR engine is hands down the best,
I've never regarded LR as great even though it was better than most, but PRIME often makes it unnecessary to
have to do more NR in post processing.

At this stage I'm only looking at LR replacements, I've used PS for so long I can run it blindfolded and it does a
good job. But LR is lagging now and is outdone by other converters in crucial areas. Not all of course, it still has
the best interface and easiest workflow but it can't match the DxO or C1 for ultimate IQ.

Luminair can get good results, but it's seem aimed at those that just want to get a quick result and think AI
should handle all the heavy lifting. It's far too basic at this stage.

Another reason to switch from LR is that Lightroom Classic CC runs like crap and has huge issues. The Adobe
forums have hundreds of complaints and all the talk about this update was about speed are BS. Now they have
launched Lightoom CC, the future for Adobe is mobile, Classic will get bare minimum upgrades and features
and all the work will go in to CC, and ultimately they'll dump Classic, although that might take 2-3 years.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Jimmer • 3 hours ago

I found this a bit hard to read. It's like I reach the end of a section and see "conclusion" but then I see he keeps
on going. I would have rather he did a complete summary of each one, finished the thought, and then moved
on to the next product. Then at the end had a final conclusion.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Mark Myhaver • 3 hours ago

Nice work! This is one of the best posts I’ve read on PetaPixel in quite awhile. This is a very comprehensive
comparison, thoroughly researched and reviewed, well thought out and written as well. It is long and in depth. If
you are questioning or exploring Adobe alternatives it is well worth the read. On the other hand, if you are
already using Adobe CR/LR and Photoshop you don’t need to read it as I agree with the results that you are
already using the best. Adobe still remains the benchmark for image processing with DxO PhotoLab being an
excellent (though not absolutely required by most) companion raw processor.
2△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Helmut G. • 2 hours ago

There is C1 and then a rest of the pack, at least in my humble opinion.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Olympus1974 • 2 hours ago

Interesting read although I have to wonder if some of the problems were more about unfamiliarity with the
product--it takes me at least a couple months to partially master a given program. Also, the focus on night sky
and time lapse photography led to some conclusions irrelevant to me. Work flow and comfort with the interface
are other key factors. Still, there are some good observations here. Of course, programs are always changing
so someone will have to revisit this next year. For example, Luminar will have a DAM soon.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

dave • 2 hours ago

Great comparison. Well done. I’d rather pay the CC monthly fee and get the best post processing and
cataloging software than “settle” for others and try to match adobe. it truly is a great deal especially knowing
you’re getting updates and improvements on a frequent basis.
1△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

NJOceanView • 2 hours ago

I'm a happy CC user and this is way more information than I would ever need, and I STILL loved reading it. I
don't believe there has ever been such a comprehensive overview done in the past, so thank you.

Separately, I use Topaz a lot but within CC, and I use Affinity occasionally because it has better selection
capabilities than CC (although Adobe is making continual improvements). I love that I can open a file in Affinity,
clip it, and save it as a .psd layer and throw it back into PS to finish up.

This was a labor of love and I appreciate you putting it together.

 pp y p g g
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Chris M. • an hour ago

I've been a Creative Cloud user for nearly 4 years now and love the way Lightroom CC Classic and Photoshop
CC function, not to mention the way they work with the Nik Collection and LRTimelapse. To me, it's a great tool
set that would be hard to recreate elsewhere.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

Emacs • 41 minutes ago

Great job, Alan.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

nikonian • 18 minutes ago

This review glaringly omits a product much closer to Photoshop, Corel Photo paint. While not Photoshop is far
more powerful than Corel Lightroom substitute After shot (which is what it is). Photo paint features a Raw
editor, layering blending modes, masking and selection. It seems he mentiond While Paintshop but I believe
that is still a different software as well. This review covers a range of great products it is a real shame this one
got left out.
△ ▽ • Reply • Share ›

✉ Subscribe d Add Disqus to your siteAdd DisqusAdd 🔒 Privacy

PREV

Meet the Photographer Who Hiked the Entire Colorado River