Total Noob to PP

[MaxPix]

In the past I have shot totally in JPEG and have only occasionally edited or corrected an image (clear up a dust artifact or something similar). I am now embarking on a lifelong goal to begin serious landscape phtography. I would like some guidance on LR and PS.

I intend to shoot landscapes in RAW mode and use LR to correct the images. I am not looking for extreme graphics/art tools in PS and from reading posts on TPF, LR looks like the way to go. I also like the file management tools LR offers,

However, I have about 5000 JPEG images in my library currently. "Summations" posted in another thread:

Lightroom being RAW exclusive is not entirely true. Plenty of people I know use Lightroom for JPEG editing. Sure it's a bit less powerful (WB info is lost), but still the same excellent thought out program making it easy to manage large volumes of photos that need processing.

That's the key difference too. Lightroom is for image wide touchups of entire photo collections. It makes the process fast and easy. But it has very few pixel by pixel tools. You won't for instance be able to make the top of the image darker than the bottom (easily done in photoshop with a gradient mask).

Lightroom was designed specifically for photography and photographers. There are no drawing, or layers, or painting or compositing tools. This being said it is a great compliment to photoshop. In fact if you have CS3 you have lightroom right there in Bridge for the most part. It looks different but the tools all work the same.

You can work on your JPEG files just as easily as RAW and your originals never get touched.
Don't be afraid. Download it and try it. You will see for yourself.

So if I'm not interested in extreme graphics editing of PS, will LR suffice or should I go with LR & PS so I can do the pixel level corrections. Thx in advance for your input.

 

[Ysarex]

LR should handle the bulk of your processing requirements. I assume you ask because you still have the option to either purchase the CC bundle subscription or the perpetual license LR. What you need is LR, but you will also at times require some of the pixel-level editing ability available in a raster editor. Your need there should be light and PS can of course do that but so can lots of other apps that are far less expensive -- for example Affinity ($49.00).

Joe

 

[MaxPix]

Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.

Dave

 

[DGMPhotography]

Get the photography program from Adobe CC. $10/month for Lightroom and Photoshop. Should be more than adequate for your needs!

 

[Ysarex]

Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.

Dave

If you go the route of LR non-subscription then you don't have too many pixel-editors to chose from that will allow you to maintain the quality level you're establishing in LR. Basically the issue is 16 versus 8 bit. Many of the inexpensive and free options out there are 8 bit limited. If all you're going to use the pixel editor for is some cloning work then no problem. However if you get an occasional photo where the masking capability in LR comes up short and you want to do something more sophisticated along that line then you're best off working in 16 bit. That requirement is going to sweep away 90% of the budget options out there; Affinity photo is the answer.

Tutorials is always a tough question. Start on Adobe's own site and go through what's there. Be forewarned that Youtube and FB are the largest repositories of misinformation ever compiled in human history.

You can always bring an example photo back here.

Joe

P.S. Your question and response is raising the issue of Adobe's subscription model versus other options. It's a difficult question. I would really encourage you to adopt a workflow built on a parametric editor. Your goal should be to do all of your processing parametrically. What little you can't do parametrically then get's handled with the pixel editor. Your best chance of doing that is with LR or Capture One. ACDSee is a weak 3rd and as I've been informed has MAC problems. There is little else. LR is the professional app of choice and is the easiest to learn and use -- superior interface. Last I checked LR is still available without the subscription but it's also obvious Adobe is pushing the subscription to the point of hiding alternatives. This of course begs the question will they soon pull LR as a perpetual license and force the subscription. And then what?

$10.00 a month seems an easy answer but it is in fact the most expensive photo processing option out there. Run the numbers out over time and Adobe is going to cost you more than any of the competitors. On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing. If you purchase a perpetual license product at least you get to use that until it will no longer run on your updated IS or work with your new camera files. And then there's always the question of when will Adobe raise the price? They've already begun raising the price in other countries.

All that said my answer to your initial question is still LR. If dealing with Adobe and their marketing/pricing behavior causes you to pause and ask is there any other option then yes, there's Capture One.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.

Dave

If you go the route of LR non-subscription then you don't have too many pixel-editors to chose from that will allow you to maintain the quality level you're establishing in LR. Basically the issue is 16 versus 8 bit. Many of the inexpensive and free options out there are 8 bit limited. If all you're going to use the pixel editor for is some cloning work then no problem. However if you get an occasional photo where the masking capability in LR comes up short and you want to do something more sophisticated along that line then you're best off working in 16 bit. That requirement is going to sweep away 90% of the budget options out there; Affinity photo is the answer.

Tutorials is always a tough question. Start on Adobe's own site and go through what's there. Be forewarned that Youtube and FB are the largest repositories of misinformation ever compiled in human history.

You can always bring an example photo back here.

Joe

P.S. Your question and response is raising the issue of Adobe's subscription model versus other options. It's a difficult question. I would really encourage you to adopt a workflow built on a parametric editor. Your goal should be to do all of your processing parametrically. What little you can't do parametrically then get's handled with the pixel editor. Your best chance of doing that is with LR or Capture One. ACDSee is a weak 3rd and as I've been informed has MAC problems. There is little else. LR is the professional app of choice and is the easiest to learn and use -- superior interface. Last I checked LR is still available without the subscription but it's also obvious Adobe is pushing the subscription to the point of hiding alternatives. This of course begs the question will they soon pull LR as a perpetual license and force the subscription. And then what?

$10.00 a month seems an easy answer but it is in fact the most expensive photo processing option out there. Run the numbers out over time and Adobe is going to cost you more than any of the competitors. On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing. If you purchase a perpetual license product at least you get to use that until it will no longer run on your updated IS or work with your new camera files. And then there's always the question of when will Adobe raise the price? They've already begun raising the price in other countries.

All that said my answer to your initial question is still LR. If dealing with Adobe and their marketing/pricing behavior causes you to pause and ask is there any other option then yes, there's Capture One.

$10/month is one of the most affordable options out there. If you spend $300 on one license of Lightroom you get that single version of the software, and that's it. If that's all you want, cool. But if you want the new version that just came out, another $300. Adobe rolls out new versions of their software all the time with new features and fixes that are all included in the subscription.

 

[Ysarex]

Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.

Dave

If you go the route of LR non-subscription then you don't have too many pixel-editors to chose from that will allow you to maintain the quality level you're establishing in LR. Basically the issue is 16 versus 8 bit. Many of the inexpensive and free options out there are 8 bit limited. If all you're going to use the pixel editor for is some cloning work then no problem. However if you get an occasional photo where the masking capability in LR comes up short and you want to do something more sophisticated along that line then you're best off working in 16 bit. That requirement is going to sweep away 90% of the budget options out there; Affinity photo is the answer.

Tutorials is always a tough question. Start on Adobe's own site and go through what's there. Be forewarned that Youtube and FB are the largest repositories of misinformation ever compiled in human history.

You can always bring an example photo back here.

Joe

P.S. Your question and response is raising the issue of Adobe's subscription model versus other options. It's a difficult question. I would really encourage you to adopt a workflow built on a parametric editor. Your goal should be to do all of your processing parametrically. What little you can't do parametrically then get's handled with the pixel editor. Your best chance of doing that is with LR or Capture One. ACDSee is a weak 3rd and as I've been informed has MAC problems. There is little else. LR is the professional app of choice and is the easiest to learn and use -- superior interface. Last I checked LR is still available without the subscription but it's also obvious Adobe is pushing the subscription to the point of hiding alternatives. This of course begs the question will they soon pull LR as a perpetual license and force the subscription. And then what?

$10.00 a month seems an easy answer but it is in fact the most expensive photo processing option out there. Run the numbers out over time and Adobe is going to cost you more than any of the competitors. On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing. If you purchase a perpetual license product at least you get to use that until it will no longer run on your updated IS or work with your new camera files. And then there's always the question of when will Adobe raise the price? They've already begun raising the price in other countries.

All that said my answer to your initial question is still LR. If dealing with Adobe and their marketing/pricing behavior causes you to pause and ask is there any other option then yes, there's Capture One.

$10/month is one of the most affordable options out there. If you spend $300 on one license of Lightroom you get that single version of the software, and that's it. If that's all you want, cool. But if you want the new version that just came out, another $300. Adobe rolls out new versions of their software all the time with new features and fixes that are all included in the subscription.

The Adobe subscription over time is the most expensive option out there. Do the math.

Perpetual license LR is $149.00 by the way not $300.00 and upgrades are $79.00, but let's do a comparison between Adobe subscription and a $300.00 app over 5 years. Adobe CC cost is easy: 5 years times $10.00 per month = $600.00.

Now start year one with Capture One at $300.00 and in order to be fair you need a fill-in for PS so let's add Affinity for $49.00. We'll call that $350.00. Phase One has been very consistent. All new upgrades are free in a version number and new version numbers turn up on average once every 18 months. So you start with version 10. 18 months later version 11 is out and your upgrade cost is $99.00. You don't have to make that purchase. If you haven't bought a new camera you're still fine with version 10. Phase One is very understanding and when version 12 comes out in another 18 months they'll still let you update for $99.00. You decide to go with every other version release so that 36 months in you're now at $450.00 with the purchase of version 12. The five years will pass before C1 version 13 is released but maybe you buy a new camera and decide to go for that version. You're down $550.00 which is still less than you've paid for Adobe. Stretch the time out longer and C1 which is arguably the most expensive option out there keeps getting cheaper and cheaper than Adobe.

And then comes the kicker: You decide let's say after 8 years for whatever reason you're not going to upgrade again for some undetermined time. You stop paying Adobe you've got instant bupkis as the software shuts down. You keep using C1 for as long as you like.

I still recommend LR but there's no getting around what that subscription costs comparatively and the bottom line is that over time it's the most expensive option available.

Joe

 

[weepete]

On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing

Sorry Joe. Being a PITA that I am I need to pick you up on this and I especially don't like it when it it someone that has vastly more knowlege than I do and also you are also someone I have A LOT of respect for. But that is a bit dramatic. You'll still be able to access all your raw files and your edited jpegs. The only thing you won't be able to do is revisit parially completed work or basically use the software. The idea that you'll loose everything, won't happen. You'll just need to move to open source or get an editor that you are willing to pay for.

I do recognise what you are saying though. Some people don't like a subscription model.

It's far more likely that, as you said, just stop supporting the stand alone option.

Personally I'm a fan of a low cost subscription model more than a single payment. Yes, it might cost more in the long run BUT (and it is a big but) I can totally justify spending £10 / month on it for what I get out of it. In the UK a subscription to photoshop per month costs less than I spend on coffee. And there are upsides too. I can use lightroom snd photoshop on two devices and switch that when I please plus I get all the latest updates. I would still support an option to buy a standalone version if that is what you wish though.

 

[Ysarex]

On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing

Sorry Joe. Being a PITA that I am I need to pick you up on this and I especially don't like it when it it someone that has vastly more knowlege than I do and also you are also someone I have A LOT of respect for. But that is a bit dramatic. You'll still be able to access all your raw files and your edited jpegs. The only thing you won't be able to do is revisit parially completed work or basically use the software. The idea that you'll loose everything, won't happen. You'll just need to move to open source or get an editor that you are willing to pay for.

If you stop paying, subscription LR will still give you access to your database -- that's correct. But it will not allow you to edit your files or import and edit new files. You still want to take photos?

And Photoshop just quits.

So you effectively have no editing ability at that point. I'm still calling that bupkis.

I do recognise what you are saying though. Some people don't like a subscription model.

It's far more likely that, as you said, just stop supporting the stand alone option.

Personally I'm a fan of a low cost subscription model more than a single payment. Yes, it might cost more in the long run BUT (and it is a big but) I can totally justify spending £10 / month on it for what I get out of it. In the UK a subscription to photoshop per month costs less than I spend on coffee. And there are upsides too. I can use lightroom snd photoshop on two devices and switch that when I please plus I get all the latest updates. I would still support an option to buy a standalone version if that is what you wish though.

I recommend LR. People ask me what to use and LR is the first word out of my mouth and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I'm just not going to tell people that $600.00 over five years is the inexpensive option when it's not and especially so given what happens if you stop paying. Most of my time interacting with people over photo software is with college students who are always struggling with budgets and school costs. You want to look out over a room of 18 young photographers and tell them that the only way they can get PS/LR is to buy a 1 year subscription and that if they don't keep paying at the end of that year they lose it. Try convincing them that's a great value.

Joe

P.S. The subscription option is fine if that works for you and I can see that for many people it does. Like you say it's less than you pay for coffee -- no problem. So I'm not objecting or arguing that the CC subscription is a bad thing. It's not. Just want to be realistic about comparative costs and understand that some people need to consider that.

 

[The_Traveler]

what about saving all your edited files as tiffs?

 

[smoke665]

what about saving all your edited files as tiffs?

That's somewhat defeating the purpose of the space saving ability of a parametric editor, but in the case of PS I guess it wouldn't be much different then processing raw files in another converter, then saving as Tiffs.

Now that I've started using collections in LR more, I have wondered if I should be saving a copy of my final edits as JPEG to another location.

@Ysarex assuming you wanted to drop the subscription plan could you not then buy a copy of LR and edit your previous work? Also since there always seems to be new products coming out to fill a need, should Adobe stop selling LR, someone is likely to develop a product that wIil import that data. My last version of Paint Shop X would import PS files.

 

[KmH]

Make note that one of the advantages of using Lr and Ps is that they both use the same parametric Raw converter - Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).
Expect your Lr edits to look somewhat different once opened any non-Adobe pixel editing app.
Each Raw converter app uses somewhat different algorithms making it impossible to open an image different pixel editing apps and have it look exactly the same in each.

16-bit layered TIFF files are often larger than the original Raw file.
If you save everything as TIFFs be sure you have lots of storage space.
I only made TIFF files for commercial clients that would be doing editing beyond what I provided.

For those of us that have been using, and regularly upgrading, Lr and Ps for a lot of years the subscription pricing is less costly than way it worked before with new releases every 2 years or so and upgrade pricing.
There is no more waiting for new versions/features to be released and I no longer have umpteen older version boxed Ps & Lr discs cluttering up my work area.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex assuming you wanted to drop the subscription plan could you not then buy a copy of LR and edit your previous work? Also since there always seems to be new products coming out to fill a need, should Adobe stop selling LR, someone is likely to develop a product that wIil import that data. My last version of Paint Shop X would import PS files.

Yes, if you quit the subscription you should be able to back down to the perpetual license LR and still be able to access and work with your database. That's assuming the perpetual license LR remains available. At this point I'm assuming it won't. And if it doesn't you keep paying the subscription or face the prospect of switching over to another product. You are again correct that some company out there is going to have at least an partial conversion option to transfer your LR database. That's a tall order and you can expect that the transfer may only be partial leaving you with hours and/or days and/or weeks of manual clean up and re-adjustment work.

This is an important topic for all of us to spend time considering. Software and camera companies are competitive and in their competitive efforts they're going to make decisions that benefit themselves and not us. If company X out there wants to develop an import and conversion process to move your LR database to their software you can bet that Adobe will do all that they can to prevent that and vice versa. Think car mufflers. Ask yourself why every car manufacturer redesigns the muffler every year for every model car. How f*ing hard is it to get the muffler right. When we chose an editing workflow we are also making decisions to basically marry a camera manufacturer and software vendor and divorce can be very messy. There are increasing levels of commitment depending on how we chose to work.

1. Save only camera JPEGs -- unmarried.
2. Save JPEG + raw files -- engaged.
3. Save raw files but two-stage process to TIFF files with additional processing -- married.
4. Save raw files and process parametrically -- married with a 50 page pre-nup.

The most productive workflow is to edit raw files parametrically in a single app if possible, but that's married with the pre-nup. Right now that means LR or Capture One. There are few competitive options beyond those two, ACDSee and that's about it. So we need to think about that pre-nup carefully and consider the consequences for the future. We're not going to lose our raw files but we're under threat of losing all our processing work; that's a serious threat if you multiply it by thousands of photos over multiple years.

If we get married without the pre-nup divorce is still messy but we get to keep all our stuff. But that also makes the workflow less productive. We ideally want the most productive workflow.

One way or the other we're making a commitment and moving in with that software company. How comfortable are we about their commitment to us and how do we feel they'll behave toward us in the future. What's in the pre-nup?

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Learn Lightroom, for sure.

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex I'll admit I've gotten lazy. At first I was saving my raw files, making a duplicate processing it in a Pentax utility then saving it as a tiff for further editing. Then I got sucked in to how easy everything was in LR, and before I knew it I no longer had my virgin raw files. So I'm pretty much hooked now.