Editing programs, what is good?

[KmH]

A key for evaluating editing applications is how many, if any, 16-bit depth tools an application has available so we can edit photos that have a 16-bit depth range of colors which helps avoid posterization/banding and color loss.

Both GIMP and Ps Elements are pretty much limited to 8-bit depth tools.
As mentioned GIMP does not include a Raw converter, but there are standalone Raw converters that can be used with GIMP.

Another consideration is that each Raw converter application renders a digital photo a bit differently than other Raw converters, because each uses somewhat different algorithms to render Raw conversion application edits.
Adobe uses the same Raw conversion software in PsE Camera Raw, LR Develop module, and CC 2014 Camera Raw - ACR - Adobe Camera Raw.
The version of ACR included with PsE only has about 1/2 of the tools. features, and functions the full version LR and CC 2014 have.

 

[FITBMX]

Thanks for all the help everyone!
Sounds like I will be looking into PS CC!

 

[bratkinson]

Count me in as an LR + PSE user. I use both for features unique/easier to use in each. Plus, my add-on noise reduction software product only works in PS or PSE (or Apple). Between the two of them, I've been able to do just about everything I need to do. Now, all I have to figure out is how to take the smiling face of an individual in a group shot and paste it over the not-so-smiling face of the same person in an otherwise outstanding group shot! I know it can be done in PSE, I just have to take the time to read/watch/try it all out.

 

[yellow ant]

I use GIMP, its free and open source. Takes a bit of getting use to but then they all do. Lots of youtube videos or web articles to help with any questions.

 

[Orrin]

I use GIMP, its free and open source. Takes a bit of getting use to but then they all do. Lots of youtube videos or web articles to help with any questions.

Ditto! I would try GIMP before spending money on another program!

 

[Vtec44]

After years of being a photographer, I finally learned Photoshop a year ago. Yeah, it's not an easy program to use but it's the industry standard.

 

[sashbar]

Photoshop is a very complex programme, but it has a very logical interface, so it is easy to learn as far as I am concerned. It takes time anyway because of its overall complexity. But I need less than than 10% of its functions anyway. I guess it is true for most photographers.
I do not think though that it does all things better that all other programmes. I had some better results with Capture One Pro , but it's interface is a nightmare. Sometimes it seems they made it so awkward on purpose - for it not to look like PS.
DxO is another high quality tool, but again, PS interface is much more user friendly.

But the best thing is you can try all these programmes for free. Capture Pro is free for two months, The previous last year version of DxO was free completely recently. You could download it instead of GIMP ann use for as long as you want.

 

[Forkie]

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop. I really don't. It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop. It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it. Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop. I really don't. It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop. It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it. Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.

I'd have to guess price and performance. Photoshop certainly isn't one of the less expensive alternatives. And when I have a raw file that I want to process and get the best output possible ACR/LR is rarely the software I load up first.

Joe

 

[Forkie]

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop. I really don't. It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop. It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it. Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.

I'd have to guess price and performance. Photoshop certainly isn't one of the less expensive alternatives. And when I have a raw file that I want to process and get the best output possible ACR/LR is rarely the software I load up first.

Joe

Price is no longer an issue at $10/£8 per month. You get Lightroom and Photoshop for that when it used to cost £650 +/- off the shelf. Most people have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime and/or Cable TV subscription that cost much more than a Photoshop CC subscription.

I happen to use ACR for my RAWs, but appreciate that other people use Capture One or their camera manufacturer's own software, but for anything after RAW processing or general image editing there are few, if any programs that are comparable apart from the free ones, which I think are perfectly useable if all you want to do is adjust some contrast or curves. Photoshop doesn't even need much processing power if you're editing Jpegs.

The 75MB RAWs that the Nikon D810 spits out however, are of course another matter in that respect..!

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop. I really don't. It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop. It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it. Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.

I'd have to guess price and performance. Photoshop certainly isn't one of the less expensive alternatives. And when I have a raw file that I want to process and get the best output possible ACR/LR is rarely the software I load up first.

Joe

Price is no longer an issue at $10/£8 per month. You get Lightroom and Photoshop for that when it used to cost £650 +/- off the shelf. Most people have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime and/or Cable TV subscription that cost much more than a Photoshop CC subscription.

I don't have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime or Cable TV subscription. And I retired financially secure and debt free at the age of 56. $10.00 per month is $120.00 per year forever -- that's an issue.

I happen to use ACR for my RAWs, but appreciate that other people use Capture One or their camera manufacturer's own software, but for anything after RAW processing or general image editing there are few, if any programs that are comparable apart from the free ones, which I think are perfectly useable if all you want to do is adjust some contrast or curves.

So right there you're making the argument against Photoshop. Capture One begins a long list of modern raw converters with extended capabilities such that you often don't require anything "after RAW processing." Keep a copy of Photoshop current to clone out utility wires?

I would reach for Capture One before ACR/LR, likewise DxO and/or Photo Ninja -- not because they're cheaper, but because I get better results. If I get my processing work finished in C1 then I need Photoshop for what?

Joe

 

[Forkie]

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop. I really don't. It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop. It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it. Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.

I'd have to guess price and performance. Photoshop certainly isn't one of the less expensive alternatives. And when I have a raw file that I want to process and get the best output possible ACR/LR is rarely the software I load up first.

Joe

Price is no longer an issue at $10/£8 per month. You get Lightroom and Photoshop for that when it used to cost £650 +/- off the shelf. Most people have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime and/or Cable TV subscription that cost much more than a Photoshop CC subscription.

I don't have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime or Cable TV subscription. And I retired financially secure and debt free at the age of 56. $10.00 per month is $120.00 per year forever -- that's an issue.

I happen to use ACR for my RAWs, but appreciate that other people use Capture One or their camera manufacturer's own software, but for anything after RAW processing or general image editing there are few, if any programs that are comparable apart from the free ones, which I think are perfectly useable if all you want to do is adjust some contrast or curves.

So right there you're making the argument against Photoshop. Capture One begins a long list of modern raw converters with extended capabilities such that you often don't require anything "after RAW processing." Keep a copy of Photoshop current to clone out utility wires?

I would reach for Capture One before ACR/LR, likewise DxO and/or Photo Ninja -- not because they're cheaper, but because I get better results. If I get my processing work finished in C1 then I need Photoshop for what?

Joe

Even if you didn't want a monthly subscription, second hand older versions of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements are available for a one-off price.

If all you do with your photographs is make exposure corrections and contrast/curves/levels adjustments, then yes, I can't argue with the fact that there are hundreds of softwares out there that do a perfect job. But for anything more than that, like, as you said, cloning areas of a photo or layering and masking, warping and/or liquifying, drawing, compositing, or anything that isn't a one-click filter, which is what I assume the OP meant by "good full editing software" then Photoshop is the only serious way to go. I'd go as far as to say that Photoshop is to photo manipulation as a macro lens is to OrionMystery.

 

[Buckster]

It's an interesting aspect of photography that so many of those who are into it will spend incredible amounts of money on gear, from bodies to lenses to memory cards to lights and modifiers and straps and anything else you can imagine, but treat software as something of an afterthought that they can just scrimp on, when it can be just as important a tool to their photography as any piece of gear they have or want.

 

[Ysarex]

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop. I really don't. It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop. It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it. Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.

I'd have to guess price and performance. Photoshop certainly isn't one of the less expensive alternatives. And when I have a raw file that I want to process and get the best output possible ACR/LR is rarely the software I load up first.

Joe

Price is no longer an issue at $10/£8 per month. You get Lightroom and Photoshop for that when it used to cost £650 +/- off the shelf. Most people have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime and/or Cable TV subscription that cost much more than a Photoshop CC subscription.

I don't have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime or Cable TV subscription. And I retired financially secure and debt free at the age of 56. $10.00 per month is $120.00 per year forever -- that's an issue.

I happen to use ACR for my RAWs, but appreciate that other people use Capture One or their camera manufacturer's own software, but for anything after RAW processing or general image editing there are few, if any programs that are comparable apart from the free ones, which I think are perfectly useable if all you want to do is adjust some contrast or curves.

So right there you're making the argument against Photoshop. Capture One begins a long list of modern raw converters with extended capabilities such that you often don't require anything "after RAW processing." Keep a copy of Photoshop current to clone out utility wires?

I would reach for Capture One before ACR/LR, likewise DxO and/or Photo Ninja -- not because they're cheaper, but because I get better results. If I get my processing work finished in C1 then I need Photoshop for what?

Joe

Even if you didn't want a monthly subscription, second hand older versions of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements are available for a one-off price.

If all you do with your photographs is make exposure corrections and contrast/curves/levels adjustments, then yes, I can't argue with the fact that there are hundreds of softwares out there that do a perfect job. But for anything more than that, like, as you said, cloning areas of a photo or layering and masking, warping and/or liquifying, drawing, compositing, or anything that isn't a one-click filter, which is what I assume the OP meant by "good full editing software" then Photoshop is the only serious way to go. I'd go as far as to say that Photoshop is to photo manipulation as a macro lens is to OrionMystery.

Photoshop Elements isn't Photoshop by any stretch of the imagination.

You're not hearing me or you're ignoring the point: You asked, "I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software." I said price and performance. May I again stress PERFORMANCE. I have a raw file I want to process. Maybe I'm not going to use Photoshop because I prefer the better performance I get from other software.

Joe

 

[Buckster]

It's true that it depends largely on what each person actually needs. Some don't need much in the way of converting and / or adjusting and editing their photos straight out of the camera, while others prefer to do much more, or to at least have the ability to do much more.