Editing software

[TJMcG101]

I resisted Adobe for a while but in the end when I wanted to advance, I found that most of the tutorials out there are Adobe centric and not using it was hindering my editing development.

Personally, I like Lightroom Classic and find it much easier to use than Photoshop. And now with the AI selections tools it is even more user friendly. Free tutorials all over YouTube. For noise reduction and sharpening, I still prefer Topaz Denoise and Topaz Sharpen.

I like the pay monthly $ Adobe model where you always have the latest updates vs buying something for $$$ that is out of date a few months later. Technology advances so quickly now!

Adobe is the professional standard at this time, and has been for decades. I personally agree with you about the subscription model. I like what I get for one price per year, and I love the instant and constant updates. I use Photoshop every day, and I would be upgrading regularly anyway, so I have no problem with paying yearly.

What I like to point out, though, is that Lightroom is essentially a raw file developer, and not a comprehensive editor. It has that database that so many people love to use to organize files, but I do all the organizing I need in Bridge, and all my raw file development in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Once I have the basic crop, color, and tone in ACR, I go to Photoshop. AI noise removal and all the other tools found in Lightroom are identical in ACR and completely non-destructive. Also, ACR is available at any time from Photoshop as a non-destructive filter.

Lightroom is easier than Photoshop because it doesn't have the depth and breadth, or the sophistication of Photoshop. Layers and channels are basic tools in Photoshop and are nonexistent in Lightroom. Control over selections and masks is superior in Photoshop. You can't make composites in Lightroom. Photoshop is not just a tool for photographers, but also for graphic designers and artists. Photoshop is hard because it does everything better than other software, and that's why it is used so extensively by professionals. But it does take more work to learn all that stuff, and only you can decide if it's worth the effort for your photography journey.

Because the thing is, not everyone needs or wants that level of sophistication. If you are a hobbyist shooting for fun and social media sharing, there are hundreds of programs that will get you there. It's when you realize that you want to do more, but your free or cheap software can't do that, that you start to look for better programs. Some never want to do more, and that's fine. I started this digital journey with Photoshop more than 30 years ago, so I find just about everything else inadequate.

 

[Ysarex71]

Adobe is the professional standard at this time, and has been for decades. I personally agree with you about the subscription model. I like what I get for one price per year, and I love the instant and constant updates. I use Photoshop every day, and I would be upgrading regularly anyway, so I have no problem with paying yearly.

What I like to point out, though, is that Lightroom is essentially a raw file developer, and not a comprehensive editor. It has that database that so many people love to use to organize files, but I do all the organizing I need in Bridge, and all my raw file development in Adobe Camera Raw (ACR). Once I have the basic crop, color, and tone in ACR, I go to Photoshop. AI noise removal and all the other tools found in Lightroom are identical in ACR and completely non-destructive.

Yes, Lightroom and ACR are 100% non-destructive parametric editors. However Photoshop is a raster editor and partially destructive. Move an image from LR or ACR to Photoshop in a raw workflow and you can end up adding a destructive element to your edit, not to mention massively bloating your edit. Like LR & ACR Capture 1 and DXO PL are 100% non-destructive parametric editors. It's a rare case that I can't complete an edit using one or the other without need to resort to a raster editor and so my raw workflow stays 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.

Also, ACR is available at any time from Photoshop as a non-destructive filter.

Lightroom is easier than Photoshop because it doesn't have the depth and breadth, or the sophistication of Photoshop. Layers and channels are basic tools in Photoshop and are nonexistent in Lightroom. Control over selections and masks is superior in Photoshop. You can't make composites in Lightroom. Photoshop is not just a tool for photographers, but also for graphic designers and artists. Photoshop is hard because it does everything better than other software, and that's why it is used so extensively by professionals. But it does take more work to learn all that stuff, and only you can decide if it's worth the effort for your photography journey.

Because the thing is, not everyone needs or wants that level of sophistication. If you are a hobbyist shooting for fun and social media sharing, there are hundreds of programs that will get you there. It's when you realize that you want to do more, but your free or cheap software can't do that, that you start to look for better programs. Some never want to do more, and that's fine. I started this digital journey with Photoshop more than 30 years ago, so I find just about everything else inadequate.

 

[TJMcG101]

Yes, Lightroom and ACR are 100% non-destructive parametric editors. However Photoshop is a raster editor and partially destructive. Move an image from LR or ACR to Photoshop in a raw workflow and you can end up adding a destructive element to your edit, not to mention massively bloating your edit. Like LR & ACR Capture 1 and DXO PL are 100% non-destructive parametric editors. It's a rare case that I can't complete an edit using one or the other without need to resort to a raster editor and so my raw workflow stays 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.

We've been through this before, and you're still wrong. Editing in a parametric editor is non-linear, and Photoshop is linear, but fully nondestructive if you know how.

 

[Ysarex71]

We've been through this before, and you're still wrong. Editing in a parametric editor is non-linear, and Photoshop is linear, but fully nondestructive if you know how.

Here's proof that you're wrong:
Edit begins opening a raw file into either LR or ACR. The photo has a retouch job to do that is beyond the crude tools in LR/ACR so smart object off to PS.
In the illustration below (your left) the smart object has been received in PS.
Clone/healing work can't be done directly on a smart object.
Solution is to create a raster layer above the smart object and set the clone/healing brushes to current and below. You see that clone/heal job accomplished in the middle image of the illustration.
Edit is then done for now you can save a monster bloated PSD file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You return to the edit the next day, the next month, in six months whatever. And you decide it would look better with a different input profile.
Open the PSD file and double click on the smart object.
You're back in ACR able to make changes so you select a different input profile -- yep that's much better.
Back in PS the smart object updates the input profile change which changes the image.
Illustration your right and the clone/heal work you did on the raster layer does not update the change. Ouch! You just got bit by a destructive editing element in PS. You have to do your work over to affect the change.
Photoshop is partially destructive in a raw workflow.

 

[TJMcG101]

Here's proof that you're wrong:
Edit begins opening a raw file into either LR or ACR. The photo has a retouch job to do that is beyond the crude tools in LR/ACR so smart object off to PS.
In the illustration below (your left) the smart object has been received in PS.
Clone/healing work can't be done directly on a smart object.
Solution is to create a raster layer above the smart object and set the clone/healing brushes to current and below. You see that clone/heal job accomplished in the middle image of the illustration.
Edit is then done for now you can save a monster bloated PSD file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
You return to the edit the next day, the next month, in six months whatever. And you decide it would look better with a different input profile.
Open the PSD file and double click on the smart object.
You're back in ACR able to make changes so you select a different input profile -- yep that's much better.
Back in PS the smart object updates the input profile change which changes the image.
Illustration your right and the clone/heal work you did on the raster layer does not update the change. Ouch! You just got bit by a destructive editing element in PS. You have to do your work over to affect the change.
Photoshop is partially destructive in a raw workflow.


View attachment 290418

Not doing this again.. I shoot only raw files, and I work nondestructively all day long.

 

[Ysarex71]

Not doing this again.. I shoot only raw files, and I work nondestructively all day long.

I provided you with a clear example of Photoshop being destructive in a raw workflow. You can't do what I just demonstrated for you non-destructively. Just because you may not have had recourse to the same action doesn't magically make PS 100% non-destructive for everyone else. I abandoned Adobe in 2012 over exactly the issue I just documented for you in which PS is destructive. You are proven wrong.

 

[Don Fischer]

I used the free Picasa program for a long time. Found it much easier than the one I bought! Tried Photoshop and simply to complicated for me. I think a problem with edit programs is they are designed not to improve the photo but to absolutely change the photo, ya know add stuff that was never there in the first place. Looking for another new free one know! I'm also cheap!

 

[RScottie100]

I have not gotten any editing software yet. I do have the ability to crop pictures with the viewer that came with Window's and that is the extent of editing that I have done.

I would like to be able to deal with chromatic aberrations and perhaps granulation from too high an ISO that have popped up when I've exceeded the limitations of my lens.

I really have not considered a need for totally changing my pictures by doing things such as removing objects or people or perhaps changing the real colors of things.

I have been working on proper White Balance in my camera and have made progress. I do not think the presets in my camera are close enough in a lot of cases though. I have the ability to tweak it above or below in my camera as well as make presets when I think I have it right, but with constantly changing light I think the ability to do so in software would be useful.

But, I am cheap. I don't like to spend money where I don't have to.

I will likely try a few free programs and see what I can do with them. I doubt I'll ever pay the amount that Adobe wants.

 

[smoke665]

Getting back on rails, another option not mentioned is Lightroom Mobile for IPhone, IPad, and Android. It's FREE, has a surprisingly good set of basic tools, and fairly simple to learn. I have it on my Samsung tablet, use it a lot.

 

[Ysarex71]

I have not gotten any editing software yet. I do have the ability to crop pictures with the viewer that came with Window's and that is the extent of editing that I have done.

I would like to be able to deal with chromatic aberrations and perhaps granulation from too high an ISO that have popped up when I've exceeded the limitations of my lens.

I really have not considered a need for totally changing my pictures by doing things such as removing objects or people or perhaps changing the real colors of things.

I have been working on proper White Balance in my camera and have made progress. I do not think the presets in my camera are close enough in a lot of cases though. I have the ability to tweak it above or below in my camera as well as make presets when I think I have it right, but with constantly changing light I think the ability to do so in software would be useful.

You should be able to set a custom WB in camera from a target. Targets are free -- cut a rectangle from a white Styrofoam food tray. The hassle in-camera is you need to set that custom WB before you take the photos. If you save and process raw files you can do it after you take the photos which is hugely more convenient. I posted some photos here two days ago: Back to Taking Photos and I'm a stickler for accurate WB so I shot a WB target. The first photo in that set is of a roselle hibiscus flower. Here's a screen shot of what I did immediately after taking that photo:

Those cut out pieces of white Styrofoam are in my jacket pockets and my camera bags and camera cases. Taken in the same light as the subject all I have to do is load that photo into my processing software, select WB and click on the card. Then note the new temp and tint values and transfer them to the actual photo.

But, I am cheap. I don't like to spend money where I don't have to.

I understand cheap, but if you're going to spend hundreds, thousands of dollars on camera gear then good processing software is a logical and inexpensive follow through. If the cost of the high-end software gives you pause then have a look at ACDSee products. They often go on sale and are economically priced and decent software. Here's that same roselle flower processed using ACDSee Gemstone:

Gemstone is a pretty decent processing option for both raw files and RGB image files. It's on sale right now till next Wednesday for $29.95 -- that's pretty cheap, and it's a better option than fooling around with the free stuff.

ACDSee Gemstone Photo Editor | Edit at the Speed of Your Imagination

ACDSee Gemstone Photo Editor is the creative software solution for all your graphic design and image post-processing needs. Lightweight and user-friendly by design, Gemstone combines usability with advanced photo editing capabilities to make you an artistic powerhouse.

www.acdsee.com

I will likely try a few free programs and see what I can do with them. I doubt I'll ever pay the amount that Adobe wants.

 

[Dikkie14]

Have been using ACDSee 15 years ago or so... It's nice when you're stuck to a proprietary operating system like Windows or Mac....
But if you can choose, go for Rawtherapee and Gimp, and freely use Linux with your favorite flavor.
I'm already 12 years in that last setting now, not planning to go back anymore.