Adobe Photoshop

[jeffashman]

I have PSE, but not wholly impressed. It keeps choking

I've said it many times before that I cringe when these questions on which software to use come up, because they usually descend into a "My free, low cost, nonsubscription plan is better". I've not heard of any problems with PSE but never used it. Several years ago I used Corel Paintshop, which actually was a pretty good alternative to PS, however it had a bad habit of crashing in the middle of an edit.

I look at from the standpoint of need. If I was only doing minor edits on one or two images, then the lessor cost options would be feasible, but I'm not.

I understand. My original question was regarding PS specifically, and what I’m most interested in is why people like it. PSE was a side trail. [emoji6] It’s a useful tool, but doesn’t like importing HEIC images. End goal though, is on people’s thoughts on the full blown PS, and is it worth the annual investment. Thanks, your input is valued! [emoji846]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smoke665]

End goal though, is on people’s thoughts on the full blown PS, and is it worth the annual investment.

See earlier comment. The subscription isn't just for PS. My workflow incorporates Bridge, LR, and PS. For that it is definitely worth the investment.

 

[jeffashman]

End goal though, is on people’s thoughts on the full blown PS, and is it worth the annual investment.

See earlier comment. The subscription isn't just for PS. My workflow incorporates Bridge, LR, and PS. For that it is definitely worth the investment.

Thanks! I’m looking at the LR/PS sub. Bridge looks like it would be a good addition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

I have PSE, but not wholly impressed. It keeps choking

I've said it many times before that I cringe when these questions on which software to use come up, because they usually descend into a "My free, low cost, nonsubscription plan is better". I've not heard of any problems with PSE but never used it. Several years ago I used Corel Paintshop, which actually was a pretty good alternative to PS, however it had a bad habit of crashing in the middle of an edit.

I look at from the standpoint of need. If I was only doing minor edits on one or two images, then the lessor cost options would be feasible, but I'm not.

I understand. My original question was regarding PS specifically, and what I’m most interested in is why people like it. PSE was a side trail. [emoji6] It’s a useful tool, but doesn’t like importing HEIC images. End goal though, is on people’s thoughts on the full blown PS, and is it worth the annual investment.

Yes, at $10.00 a month and given it's capabilities PS is absolutely worth it. However if you get it try and avoid using it like it was a plague. Use LR instead.

The difference is about workflow. Photoshop is fundamentally a raster editor. Lightroom is fundamentally a parametric editor. If you can do it, using a parametric editor provides some significant advantages. The "if" at the front of that last sentence is hugely significant.

First, what are the advantages of using only a parametric editor:
1. A raw workflow that is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.
2. Reduced file management complexity.
3. Huge reduction in required disk storage.

So why use the raster editor? Because you need what it can do. A raster editor is a pixel pusher. You can get extremely precise and literally address a pixel in your image. Pixel pushers can cut and paste between images like take someone's open eyes from one photo and combine them with a better smile in another. Pixel pushers can do detailed re-touch work like skin re-touch or remove objects from an image. The parametric editors are much less capable of this type of work. Pixel pushers can isolate an article of clothing and change it's color. A parametric editor might be able to do the same but often in a less polished manner.

But the pixel pusher pays for what they get. You have to save the layered raster files -- in Photoshop a PSD or TIFF file. Over a parametric editor think 80% more disk space and of course it's an extra file. The other price pixel pushers pay is an inability to go back and easily make adjustments/changes. You can spend considerable time and effort pushing around some pixels and then come back 6 months later and decide you want to change something and realize: Oh crap! I have to do all that work over to make the change.

So avoid the extra files to manage by avoiding PS.
So avoid the extra disk storage required by avoiding PS.
And avoid getting caught having to re-do work unnecessarily by avoiding PS.
But if you need to push pixels you need PS.

I edit photos every day. I start with a raw file in every instance. I start let's say in LR (I use an LR alternative but same idea) and 99.9% of the time I finish in LR. I avoid the pixel pusher penalty in all but a few photos.

The Adobe photo deal at $10.00 month is one of the best deals out there to give you best possible tools at a good price. (I pay more for that LR alternative -- it's in part a specific camera issue). I recommend LR for most people.

 

[jeffashman]

Thank you! This is very helpful.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nevermore1]

Yes. The photography plan is worth the $10 a month. I have the full plan as my daughter uses the illustration apps as well, I would definitely use the photography plan if I didn't need the other apps as well. I primarily use PS for my editing but that's because that's what I'm used to and haven't really learned LR yet (I went from PSE to PS).

 

[Original katomi]

Jeff not sure but I think that pse has a limit of 3Gb

 

[smoke665]

Lightroom is fundamentally a parametric editor. If you can do it, using a parametric editor provides some significant advantages. The "if" at the front of that last sentence is hugely significant.

This follows along with my earlier statement that Bridge, Lr and PS are all a part of my workflow as they contribute to the process. However in use I've found Lr to be very limited in anything but the basic edits. The problem comes in when you start using adjustment brushes on a lot of images at once. I have fairly fast system, and it will still bog down to a crawl as the edits mount. This has always been a problem with Lr (though it's better than it used to be). Still tracking all those edits so they can be undone takes processing power. Actually since the latest update to Bridge I can edit straight from Bridge in ACR, then go to PS, bypassing Lr on the front end for the basic edits.

While it's true that Ps doesn't have quite the flexibility of a parametric editor, that doesn't mean you "have to" lose everything to start over either. Clicking in the history (depending on your settings) can take you all the way back to the beginning or anywhere in between. Practicing an orderly transition on your editing layers, groups and creating layers as smart objects, makes it fairly easy to undo things without losing everything.

 

[Ysarex]

Lightroom is fundamentally a parametric editor. If you can do it, using a parametric editor provides some significant advantages. The "if" at the front of that last sentence is hugely significant.

This follows along with my earlier statement that Bridge, Lr and PS are all a part of my workflow as they contribute to the process. However in use I've found Lr to be very limited in anything but the basic edits. The problem comes in when you start using adjustment brushes on a lot of images at once. I have fairly fast system, and it will still bog down to a crawl as the edits mount. This has always been a problem with Lr (though it's better than it used to be).

Agreed. That is one of LR's big weaknesses. It can do it on paper but once you roll up your sleeves and dig in it drops the ball if you push it. I almost never process an image without applying a handful of local adjustments and after about 1/2 dozen LR can start to drag.

Still tracking all those edits so they can be undone takes processing power. Actually since the latest update to Bridge I can edit straight from Bridge in ACR, then go to PS, bypassing Lr on the front end for the basic edits.

While it's true that Ps doesn't have quite the flexibility of a parametric editor, that doesn't mean you "have to" lose everything to start over either. Clicking in the history (depending on your settings) can take you all the way back to the beginning or anywhere in between. Practicing an orderly transition on your editing layers, groups and creating layers as smart objects, makes it fairly easy to undo things without losing everything.

 

[jeffashman]

Jeff not sure but I think that pse has a limit of 3Gb

Well, there is definitely more than 3GB worth of photos to be imported.

 

[jeffashman]

I went ahead and subscribed. Now to learn the tools and see what I can do with them. Thanks everyone for the helpful comments, greatly appreciated!

 

[smoke665]

Now to learn the tools and see what I can do with them.

The nice thing about Lr and Ps, is there are thousands of videos on the internet that address about anything you want to know. Lr by and large is pretty straight forward, and if you're unsure of what to do with an image there's a little magic button at the top of the Basic panel, click it and it uses AI to adjust the image for you, or there's a virtually unlimited supply of presets or profiles that you can use. Ps can be more difficult to learn. The greatest strength of Ps is there are many, many ways to do the same thing. The biggest downside of Ps is there are so many ways to do the same thing, but picking the right way for the current image can be confusing.

If you get stuck or have questions, post them or you're welcome to PM me also, be happy to help.

 

[jeffashman]

Now to learn the tools and see what I can do with them.

The nice thing about Lr and Ps, is there are thousands of videos on the internet that address about anything you want to know. Lr by and large is pretty straight forward, and if you're unsure of what to do with an image there's a little magic button at the top of the Basic panel, click it and it uses AI to adjust the image for you, or there's a virtually unlimited supply of presets or profiles that you can use. Ps can be more difficult to learn. The greatest strength of Ps is there are many, many ways to do the same thing. The biggest downside of Ps is there are so many ways to do the same thing, but picking the right way for the current image can be confusing.

If you get stuck or have questions, post them or you're welcome to PM me also, be happy to help.

Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FBPB]

Personally, I have abandoned Adobe in favour of Affinity Photo / Designer / Publisher.

Granted, it does not have all of the bells and whistles of Adobe CS, and there is a slight learning curve if you are coming from Adobe. However, it is an outright licence (not a subscription) so you pay €50 for each licence only once (€150 for the suite). And currently they have a 50% off sale, which makes it a very good investment, if only to learn an alternative to Adobe.

And no, I have no affiliation with them, I just love their software!

 

[AQS]

Another fan of Affinity here. For the price, it cannot be beaten! Plus, there are tons of tutorials on Youtube etc. I can highly recommend it.