Total Noob to PP

[Ysarex]

@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.

You should have your original raw files. LR doesn't alter them unless you convert to DNG on import and even then your raw data remains intact and unaltered. That's one of the major reasons for saving raw files in the first place -- you can't overwrite the data.

Joe

 

[DGMPhotography]

Well, most college students (myself being one recently) have access to $10 a month. Not as easy to save up $179.

 

[Ysarex]

Well, most college students (myself being one recently) have access to $10 a month. Not as easy to save up $179.

Where are you getting $179.00? That's not the cost of LR perpetual license. Earlier you came up with $300.00 as the cost for LR:

$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.

Where did you get that? And then you incorrectly stated that a new version is another $300.00. If you buy LR perpetual license you can upgrade to the next version release for $79.00. If you have LR version 2 you can upgrade to the current version for $79.00. Your figures are wrong.

Adobe CC is not one of the most affordable options out there. Do the math. I'm not recommending people don't go that route. I never once in this thread recommended avoiding the Adobe subscription option and I consistently recommended LR. But I know how to add and I'm not pulling wildly inaccurate figures out of the air like you.

Adobe CC at $10.00 per month is going to cost you more than most alternative software options over time. It's the more expensive option. That's a simple fact. Just because you're spreading the cost out into a monthly payment doesn't mean you're paying less. Did I really have to say that?

Do a cost comparison of Adobe CC with ACDSee Pro over 5 years. Adobe CC will cost almost twice as much. How is almost twice as much "one of the most affordable"? Show me the math and use accurate figures.

Joe

 

[Dave442]

I will also suggest LR.

I also bought On1 a few years ago and they just released a new version for 2017. I still do not use On1 that much, mainly as a LR plug-in, but it is my backup plan so as not to rely on one company for my image processing needs.

 

[Derrel]

I prefer Lightroom for 99.5% of the images **that I** want to have edited/adjusted. I've been a Photoshop and Nikon Capture and Nikon NX and FujiEX Converter and SilkyPix and MacBibble softeware user, with about 19 years of digitial camera use, converting raw files...after all those various raw file converters, I prefer Lightroom for fast, easy, smooth editing. Photoshop 2.5,3.5,4,5,7,10,and PS CC...all those went by the wayside once I bought Lightroom.

 

[DGMPhotography]

Well, most college students (myself being one recently) have access to $10 a month. Not as easy to save up $179.

Where are you getting $179.00? That's not the cost of LR perpetual license. Earlier you came up with $300.00 as the cost for LR:

$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.

Where did you get that? And then you incorrectly stated that a new version is another $300.00. If you buy LR perpetual license you can upgrade to the next version release for $79.00. If you have LR version 2 you can upgrade to the current version for $79.00. Your figures are wrong.

Adobe CC is not one of the most affordable options out there. Do the math. I'm not recommending people don't go that route. I never once in this thread recommended avoiding the Adobe subscription option and I consistently recommended LR. But I know how to add and I'm not pulling wildly inaccurate figures out of the air like you.

Adobe CC at $10.00 per month is going to cost you more than most alternative software options over time. It's the more expensive option. That's a simple fact. Just because you're spreading the cost out into a monthly payment doesn't mean you're paying less. Did I really have to say that?

Do a cost comparison of Adobe CC with ACDSee Pro over 5 years. Adobe CC will cost almost twice as much. How is almost twice as much "one of the most affordable"? Show me the math and use accurate figures.

Joe

Relax, I meant $149. But that's not the point, kid.

My point was that even if it costs more over the long run, it's much easier to budget for a $10 monthly payment than a $149 lump sum. Especially for the college demographic you mentioned.

Anyway, this isn't the purpose of this thread.

OP, Lightroom is fine for most things. But if you get interested in skin smoothing, cloning out distracting background elements, special effects, etc. you would have to branch out. But for the time being, you should just experiment with different programs and find what works best for you. A lot of these programs offer free trials that you can use to see if you like the program. Good luck.

 

[KmH]

. . . If you have LR version 2 you can upgrade to the current version for $79.00. . .

Did Adobe do away with upgrade limits?

Back when, Adobe limited upgrade pricing to 3 versions away.
So someone using Lr 2 would last qualify for upgrade pricing to Lr 5, and would no longer qualify for the upgrade price going from Lr 2 to Lr 6.

 

[Ysarex]

. . . If you have LR version 2 you can upgrade to the current version for $79.00. . .

Did Adobe do away with upgrade limits?

Back when, Adobe limited upgrade pricing to 3 versions away.
So someone using Lr 2 would last qualify for upgrade pricing to Lr 5, and would no longer qualify for the upgrade price going from Lr 2 to Lr 6.

Yep, Adobe will upgrade version 1 LR to the new version for $79.00.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

LR doesn't alter them unless you convert to DNG on import and even then your raw data remains intact and unaltered.

Unless you open and edit in PS from LR. However if you first import to LR then "open as a smart object in PS", it ensures that when you save your final edit in PS, you will get a new file in your LR catalog reflecting your PS edits. The original photo is unaffected and remains as a separate file in the LR catalog.

 

[Ysarex]

Relax, I meant $149. But that's not the point, kid.

My point was that even if it costs more over the long run, it's much easier to budget for a $10 monthly payment than a $149 lump sum. Especially for the college demographic you mentioned.

Well sonny boy, My experience with the college demographic that I mentioned is that, easier to budget for or not, they understand how to calculate cost over time and they really understand the concept of "stop paying the subscription price and the software shuts down." Student discount pricing before CC allowed them to buy a perpetual license for CS for about $100.00 and for LR about $60.00. It was common to find people signing up for classes just to get access to those prices. Students who were struggling financially nonetheless found a way to make the purchase because they considered that product purchase valuable. Now I encounter almost a reverse of that behavior. They go out of their way to avoid the CC subscription purchase and it hurts them academically. Common tactics now are to use the school lab for the beginning of the semester and then install the 30 day free trial in the last month at home, or try and spoof two or more 30 day free trials, or try a 30 day trial on a home desktop followed by a 30 day trial on a laptop and ironically more theft. This is especially the case with part-time students who don't take a full load and or don't attend classes in the summer. They calculate into the equation the time they're paying the monthly subscription over down time in class. A college semester is 4 months long and the Adobe CC contract term is 12 months long.

I have this conversation with them every semester and I have more students looking for alternatives than ever before. The Art majors understand they have to learn Adobe to enhance their job prospects -- I tell them the same and tell them to start their subscription. But in photo classes more than half the students are non-majors. Just like most of the people on a discussion board like this are non-professionals. A nursing major who is taking a photo class to fulfill a humanities requirement and thinks it's a great fit because he has a T3 and loves taking photos doesn't light up with delight over the additional cost of $120.00 for a year's subscription for software that's going to stop working when he stops paying. I used to be able to tell that student, "Look $60.00 gets you LR and you get to keep it and use it, it's a deal not to pass up." Unfortunately that student now is going to try one of the above avoidance tactics and then go right back to Apple Photos or PicMonkey as soon as the semester is over.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

LR doesn't alter them unless you convert to DNG on import and even then your raw data remains intact and unaltered.

Unless you open and edit in PS from LR. However if you first import to LR then "open as a smart object in PS", it ensures that when you save your final edit in PS, you will get a new file in your LR catalog reflecting your PS edits. The original photo is unaffected and remains as a separate file in the LR catalog.

That additional PS file is a PSD file, it's an RGB image file. As you say the original raw file remains untouched regardless of LR and/or PS edits and you retain the option to process the raw files with other software if you want.

There's two issues here in what you describe: 1. You're marrying the raw conversion software. Whatever software you chose you're making a commitment. As you edit more and more files the raw conversion process is entirely proprietary and the work you're doing is then only accessible with that software. You don't lose your raw originals and you can always start over with another app but the editing work you do in any raw converter isn't getting transfered to another raw converter. Make sure you like the raw conversion software and company that you chose or you may find yourself re-editing your files from scratch. That can be a really big deal.

2. You're workflow is spread out over two different editing methods. What this does is complicate and increase the editing work you may have to do to make a change. You lose the holy grail of completely non-destructive seamless re-edit access. This is the crux of why working in a parametric editor like LR or C1 and completing the edit parametrically is a big plus; you get complete non-destructive seamless re-edit access. If you break the edit up over two apps and the first is parametric while the second is a raster editor then if you decide later to make a change in the first app processing it may force you to re-do all of the second app processing. The flip side of this is that parametric editing is app proprietary and won't transfer to another app while raster editing will allow you to pick up and continue working with a different app. So the parametric editor choice really is you marrying the software.

In using LR your goal should be to avoid PS if possible. It's not always possible but still you want to keep what you do in PS to a minimum. So you look at a photo and decide you want the sky burned down. You can use a gradient in LR to do that or you can move the photo to PS and do that. Doing that in LR is the better choice and you avoid PS. You have a few sensor dust spots in the sky. You can remove those with LR's spot tool or move the photo to PS and do that. Doing it in LR is the better choice and you avoid PS. If you can complete the edit in LR and avoid PS you have an advantage. If later you want to make a change it's trivial to do so. If your edit took you to PS and back a later change could be a PITA.

Joe

 

[MaxPix]

A lot of good info. The OP sez: LR for now. Thanx to everyone for their .02! That's why I joined TPF.

Dave