What editing program should I be using?

[vintagesnaps]

Here's what I don't get - I realize the OP was asking about what people use to post process, but why not just frame differently to keep that pole out of the picture? Or change the vantage point of the winter scene so the bird house was not in view? Why not adjust the vantage point before releasing the shutter?

Even with the pole out of the frame there will still be power lines going to the building (and are some to the right), but it doesn't make sense to NOT have any to the left since a house/building would be connected to electricity (unless it was long abandoned or a cabin in the woods etc.).

It just seems like there could've been relatively quick adjustments when framing the photo. I can understand adjusting the color, or contrast, etc. to enhance the warm tone. I guess it was done for the purpose of being a tutorial, it just seems to be making unnecessary work to do this in real life when it would've been possible to adjust the vantage point at the time.

 

[Dikkie]

Here's what I don't get - I realize the OP was asking about what people use to post process, but why not just frame differently to keep that pole out of the picture? Or change the vantage point of the winter scene so the bird house was not in view? Why not adjust the vantage point before releasing the shutter?

Even with the pole out of the frame there will still be power lines going to the building (and are some to the right), but it doesn't make sense to NOT have any to the left since a house/building would be connected to electricity (unless it was long abandoned or a cabin in the woods etc.).

It just seems like there could've been relatively quick adjustments when framing the photo. I can understand adjusting the color, or contrast, etc. to enhance the warm tone. I guess it was done for the purpose of being a tutorial, it just seems to be making unnecessary work to do this in real life when it would've been possible to adjust the vantage point at the time.

That's totally true.

I remember the time my grandfather shot slides and projected it on a wall with a projector in his photo club.
All these images were just standard developed in the lab, without further editing.
The images you saw on the wall were as is, as seen in real life that moment.

A good photographer is a photographer that has to do the least editing afterwards, in my opinion. It's someone with a good eye for composition.

 

[Ysarex]

A good photographer is a photographer that has to do the least editing afterwards, in my opinion. It's someone with a good eye for composition.

A very good argument to stay away from pixel editors then like Photoshop and GIMP. A good parametric editor is certainly the preferred tool for doing the least editing afterwards.

Joe

 

[Dikkie]

A very good argument to stay away from pixel editors then like Photoshop and GIMP. A good parametric editor is certainly the preferred tool for doing the least editing afterwards.

That's why I use RawTherapee for my parametric editing.

 

[Ysarex]

A very good argument to stay away from pixel editors then like Photoshop and GIMP. A good parametric editor is certainly the preferred tool for doing the least editing afterwards.

That's why I use RawTherapee for my parametric editing.

And then you don't GIMP up your photos once you have all the editing completed in RT -- right?

I prefer the combo of RawTherapee and Gimp

When I use a post-processing software like Lightroom, I end up with an image but it's mostly not my final image.
I use an editor afterwards to create something from that image to have my final photo product.

Anyway, if you only want to use lightroom or RT, you'll lose the functionality of the editors.
Tell me how to use complex layers, masks and blend modes in LR?

 

[Dikkie]

And then you don't GIMP up your photos once you have all the editing completed in RT -- right?

I still use GIMP in many many occasions, as a photo is in many cases not my end product, as I already explained before.

Artists, designers, editors and creative jobs who work with mixed media,... they don't limit themselves with a raw converter.
Graphical designers use other tools on top of a raw converter: paper and pencil, drawing tablet, an already developed photo, ... and they use other software too: inkscape/illustrator to draw and use photo editors to create collages with elements from different media sources...
And that's what I have explained earlier in this thread: for photographers, the photo is the final product, but for lots of other people, it starts where it ends for a photographer. Some people start creating something from a photo as a base. And for lots of occasions you're not done with a raw converter alone.

Take this image below.
It consists of different layers. The watertower is shot during daytime in hazy sun. The lemon is edited so it fits around the subject as a border.
I'm wondering how you can just export an image like that from exactly one raw file that contains different photos?
I prefer to use an image editor for this, it's just my workflow that suits me and I'm not going to change that if you prefer another workflow.

 

[K9Kirk]

I bought Photoshop Elements 2018 for a one time fee, no monthly fee. I suppose that means you don't get updates either but you do have what you need for editing pics. The first thing I did with mine was superimpose a cropped telephoto pic of the moon onto a different pic, it was so easy to do. I'm not saying it's the best program to use, just saying I like it ok for my needs --- so far.

 

[crf8]

Your original question doesn’t have much information. Windows or Mac? Hobby or pro? Prefer to pay once or subscription?


FB.me/CRFinTN Facebook
www.flickr.com/crf8/

 

[Ysarex]

And then you don't GIMP up your photos once you have all the editing completed in RT -- right?

I still use GIMP in many many occasions, as a photo is in many cases not my end product, as I already explained before.

You did and we had that conversation, remember:

And if that's the case then you need to continue with your workflow (are you sure you're taking full advantage of LR's capabilities?). But you've chosen a workflow that is destructive. Given what you're doing that may be necessary but the OP should nonetheless be informed: 1. The industry consensus is that a non-destructive workflow is preferable. 2. If possible given the type of work she does, a fully non-destructive workflow results from using a single parametric editor to complete editing. For many if not most of us now a feature rich parametric editor like LR makes that possible.

Your workflow is destructive. The choice of RT forces a destructive workflow. The OP is posting in a Photography Forum and your excuse for your destructive workflow is that you're a graphic artist -- fine -- that's off topic.*

As has been made clear in this thread a photographer (not graphic artist) is better served by a fully non-destructive workflow for the majority of their photo editing.

Joe

*Although a fully non-destructive parametric workflow is preferable certain applications eg. graphic arts and images that contain non-photographic content will require editors that can manipulate images at the pixel level.

 

[smoke665]

One software that doesn't get much press is Corel. I've used it before and found it similar to PS. The problem I had with it was it's tendency to crash occasionally which was a PITA. However according to this they are non-destructive. AfterShot

 

[Ysarex]

One software that doesn't get much press is Corel. I've used it before and found it similar to PS. The problem I had with it was it's tendency to crash occasionally which was a PITA. However according to this they are non-destructive. AfterShot

AfterShot is Corel's raw converter and is typically sold in combination with PSP which is a pixel editor like PS. Very much like LR/PS but without the DAM capabilities of LR. Any work you do in AfterShot is non-destructive but if you start with a raw file in AfterShot and then move on to further edit in PSP you can add a destructive element to the process by performing raster edits in PSP.

The Corel alternative is inexpensive and the software is reasonably capable. Corel is infamous for their after-sales support.

Joe

 

[smoke665]

is infamous for their after-sales support.

Yup as in lack of. Did they ever fix the crashing problem?

 

[Ysarex]

is infamous for their after-sales support.

Yup as in lack of. Did they ever fix the crashing problem?

I have the most recent version on my laptop and it's running fine.

Joe

 

[DanielPSAC]

In my opinion, this is a very important question.

It used to be that it was either Photoshop or GIMP. Some people used Macromedia Fireworks for a time. Macromedia was later acquired by Adobe and Fireworks was changed a little.

Now it's Photoshop, GIMP and Lightroom.

Regardless of what way you look at it, Adobe has always been at the forefront...

Adobe Photoshop was released in 1990 and it's still here 28 years later.

Lightroom has perhaps become the de-facto standard for photo editing these days as it's easier to learn, but this comes at a cost. It's essentially training wheels for photoshop and while you can certainly get good results with it, it's never going to be as powerful as Photoshop.

GIMP is great for hobbyists in my opinion. The reason I say this is because if you're actually running a Photography business you should be able to afford $10/mo for either Lightroom or Photoshop.

The bottom-line is do you want to pick something and learn a software that you may later want to move away from? If you want the best possible results, if you care about consistently advancing your career then Photoshop is where you will end up. I don't care how much you earn, or what recognition you've got there's no getting around the fact that if you're a perfectionist you'll end up on Photoshop. If you use Lightroom and think you're a perfectionist, sorry, you're not.

So do you take a slightly steeper learning curve with photoshop now? In my opinion yes. Why put it off? The older you get the harder it is to learn for many reasons.

 

[Dao]

the fact that if you're a perfectionist you'll end up on Photoshop. If you use Lightroom and think you're a perfectionist, sorry, you're not.

Lightroom and Photoshop are 2 different software and they works together and one cannot replace the other. And that's why you can launch PS from within LR. There are stuff you need to do it in Lightroom. Most of the POST I did I only do it in LR. And once in a long while I may need to fire up PS when I really need to *EDIT* the photo.