What editing program should I be using?

[Ysarex]

Why do people keep suggest pixel manipulating software for simple processing?

Yep! I'm guessing it's a hold over. But then why aren't they suggesting 6mp DSLRs and 8gb SD cards? Here's a graphic I use in class when we talk about workflow.

Joe

 

[Dikkie]

just LR, or any other workflow/processing software. Stay away from pixel manipulators like Photoshop.

It depends on what you want to do with your image.
A raw converter only processes your raw image and exports it to a .jpg for example. Alright, you can do a lot of edits in it before you export, but maybe the .jpg is not your final step or end product.

For me it mostly starts there, if you do graphic design based on a photo you exported out of a raw converter, you still need a pixel manipulator like PS/Gimp. You can do so much more with it to manipulate.
You can even start creating something from scratch, from a blanc file, you don't even need a source file. I'm wondering if you can create something with lightroom from scratch, without a source file...

And you can even add Illustrator/Inkscape (vector graphics) to your toolset aswel for other layers you can add on top into your pixel manipulator.

 

[Braineack]

LR is a workflow and image post-processing software. That's why it makes sense to suggest to photographers that want to post-process images.

everything else is the wrong answer.

 

[photoflyer]

If you are in the field and want to do something quick against a jpeg try Snapseed. It runs on Android and Apple and all you need is your phone.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Photoshop is Byzantine and a far better and less expensive option is Affinity photo for pixel editing, i,e removing things from images. Lightroom is designed specifically for workflow, library, catalogues etc and is very capable overall but adobes cash cow payment structure reminds me of chiropractors. Unfortunately its either lightroom or burst for most as far as workflow is concerned the only thing I would suggest is go for a few free trials and be wary of subscription plans.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Why do people keep suggest pixel manipulating software for simple processing?

Yep! I'm guessing it's a hold over. But then why aren't they suggesting 6mp DSLRs and 8gb SD cards? Here's a graphic I use in class when we talk about workflow.

Joe

View attachment 168874

There seems to be a few stool pigeons flying round here

 

[Dikkie]

LR is a workflow and image post-processing software. That's why it makes sense to suggest to photographers that want to post-process images.

everything else is the wrong answer.

The OP asked for "what editing program", so there's nothing wrong with helping the OP with a photo editor.

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.

That's why I use the combo of RawTherapee and Gimp.

 

[Ysarex]

LR is a workflow and image post-processing software. That's why it makes sense to suggest to photographers that want to post-process images.

everything else is the wrong answer.

The OP asked for "what editing program", so there's nothing wrong with helping the OP with a photo editor.

The OP specified she was saving raw files. There's nothing wrong with helping the OP but the information we give her should be as helpful as possible since she's facing a decision that involves time and money. Your recommendation could prove more costly. She deserves to know that and we should tell her.

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.

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.

That's why I use the combo of RawTherapee and Gimp.

Beyond a workflow that is non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable, using a parametric editor to complete editing also dramatically reduces the required disk space for image storage (by way more than 1/2).

Joe

 

[Dikkie]

The OP specified she was saving raw files. There's nothing wrong with helping the OP but the information we give her should be as helpful as possible since she's facing a decision that involves time and money. Your recommendation could prove more costly. She deserves to know that and we should tell her.

RawTherapee can handle raw files... What's in the name...
More costly? It's FREE, open source and fast.

Beyond a workflow that is non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable, using a parametric editor to complete editing also dramatically reduces the required disk space for image storage (by way more than 1/2).

Yes, RawTherapee is non-destructive and re-editable, aswel as Gimp if you work with layer masks and save as .xcf file to re-edit later on.
It takes disk space yes... , but it has it's advantages to have non-destructive and re-editable files...

Anyway, the OP is shooting in Raw+Jpg. She can still decide what to use.
And you never need to shoot 28 MP images when you're doing shoots you'll never print or just use for the internet if you want to save disk space.

 

[Ysarex]

The OP specified she was saving raw files. There's nothing wrong with helping the OP but the information we give her should be as helpful as possible since she's facing a decision that involves time and money. Your recommendation could prove more costly. She deserves to know that and we should tell her.

RawTherapee can handle raw files... What's in the name...
More costly? It's FREE, open source and fast.

Beyond a workflow that is non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable, using a parametric editor to complete editing also dramatically reduces the required disk space for image storage (by way more than 1/2).

Yes, RawTherapee is non-destructive and re-editable, aswel as Gimp if you work with layer masks and save as .xcf file to re-edit later on.
It takes disk space yes... , but it has it's advantages to have non-destructive and re-editable files...

You're not getting it: The combination of the two is destructive to your work, unless of course you're perfect and never re-consider or learn anything. When you work between two apps the gap between those apps is destructive. You can't return to app ONE and decide to make a change and have that change magically update the work you did in app TWO. Try this: Convert a raw file in RT and then finish editing the image in GIMP. Then later re-consider that you should make a change to the WB value in RT. Make that change. Either your software is magical or that WB change in RT is going to force you back to work in GIMP. That's work-destructive and prevents your workflow from being non-linearly re-editable. Re-considering and/or improving your work happens enough times, it should if you're any good at this, and the time lost re-doing your work is worth a whole lot more than some software -- that's the cost.

Joe

Anyway, the OP is shooting in Raw+Jpg. She can still decide what to use.
And you never need to shoot 28 MP images when you're doing shoots you'll never print or just use for the internet if you want to save disk space.

 

[tim collins]

I’m shooting in raw+jpeg so I need one to open and edit well. Free or really cheap preferably!
Thanks in advance

You should try PhotoViewerPro, it is free and it is very practical and easy to use!

 

[Dikkie]

You're not getting it: The combination of the two is destructive to your work, unless of course you're perfect and never re-consider or learn anything. When you work between two apps the gap between those apps is destructive. You can't return to app ONE and decide to make a change and have that change magically update the work you did in app TWO. Try this: Convert a raw file in RT and then finish editing the image in GIMP. Then later re-consider that you should make a change to the WB value in RT. Make that change. Either your software is magical or that WB change in RT is going to force you back to work in GIMP. That's work-destructive and prevents your workflow from being non-linearly re-editable. Re-considering and/or improving your work happens enough times, it should if you're any good at this, and the time lost re-doing your work is worth a whole lot more than some software -- that's the cost.

Joe

Of course that's not possible, but both your RT and Gimp file can be non-destructive.
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?
Tell me how to use more complex self scripted actions/macros, that are maybe not possible to use, well I don't know how to, but maybe you know a way to use it in LR.
I'm wondering that Adobe would make a LR with all editor functionality inside like PS has, ... so PS would become unnecessary.

 

[Ysarex]

You're not getting it: The combination of the two is destructive to your work, unless of course you're perfect and never re-consider or learn anything. When you work between two apps the gap between those apps is destructive. You can't return to app ONE and decide to make a change and have that change magically update the work you did in app TWO. Try this: Convert a raw file in RT and then finish editing the image in GIMP. Then later re-consider that you should make a change to the WB value in RT. Make that change. Either your software is magical or that WB change in RT is going to force you back to work in GIMP. That's work-destructive and prevents your workflow from being non-linearly re-editable. Re-considering and/or improving your work happens enough times, it should if you're any good at this, and the time lost re-doing your work is worth a whole lot more than some software -- that's the cost.

Joe

Of course that's not possible, but both your RT and Gimp file can be non-destructive.

Yes, but that's not 100% non-destructive. If we can achieve 100% non-destructive it would be better. Better is good.

Anyway, if you only want to use lightroom or RT, you'll lose the functionality of the editors.

Yes, which is why the engineers designing the parametric raw converters have been consistently expanding their feature sets to replace what the pixel editors provide.

Tell me how to use complex layers, masks and blend modes in LR?

Well specifically how differs one editor to the next but your question here seems to suggest that they're not available in LR et al. Where have you been? I would use them like this:

Camera JPEG for reference:

Final processed image:

All processing which required 10 layers and includes cloning out rock lower right corner, cloning out rock across lake, cloning out reflections in water, cloning out utility cart, changing color of bridge and lots more was completed parametrically in Capture One. All that "complex layers, masks and blend modes" type stuff is now likewise available in LR but C1 is my preferred choice. That's the whole point! Where have you been?

The two app solution (RT + GIMP or DX0 + PS, etc.) was a necessity of the past when RT (still can't) or DX0 or PN etc. couldn't do all that "complex layers, masks and blend modes" stuff and you had to move on, destructively, to the second app to get the job finished. I believe the image above is evidence that things have changed.

And now the processing of the above image is 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable and that is better.

Tell me how to use more complex self scripted actions/macros, that are maybe not possible to use, well I don't know how to, but maybe you know a way to use it in LR.

They're called presets but basically it's the same idea. Again where have you been?

I'm wondering that Adobe would make a LR with all editor functionality inside like PS has, ... so PS would become unnecessary.

There are still things that only a pixel editor can do and so pixel editors like PS, Affinity, and GIMP will remain necessary tools. LR, C1, DarkTable can't copy the open eyes of someone from group shot B and paste them into group shot A because in group shot A the bride was smiling. We're going to still need PS, Affinity, GIMP to do that. But how often do we do that? I process a hundred photos in C1 and get the job done for every one photo where I have to do the kind of editing that requires a pixel editor. And when I do complete an edit in C1 it's better than doing it between two apps because 100% non-destructive is better.

What editing program should I be using?

Joe

 

[smoke665]

@Ysarex you've been a wealth of information to me and others, so here's a question for you. I'm not familiar with Capture One, but in Lr I can make a Virtual Copy and my original file is still intact, I can then edit that Virtual Copy in Lr and my original stays intact. Are we in agreement to this point??

I can also open that Virtual Copy in Ps (my original is still safely tucked away). Now I have that image in Ps, but the layer is locked. Until I change it, my understanding is that it remains unchanged, there have been no destructive actions on the file. I can unlock that layer and edit it, but instead I duplicate the layer. Now edits done to that layer are destructive, but not to the underlying layer. Are we still in agreement?

Now if I'm doing edits like cloning, blemish, dodge and burn, etc. if I open a blank layer I can correct blemishes and clone (assuming I've checked the sample all layers box) on that blank layer without being destructive to the layers below. If I want to dodge and burn I open a new layer and fill it with 50% gray set the mode to soft light. Its my understanding that there is still no destructive editing to that bottom level or even the duplicate layer by doing this. As long as that background layer remains locked there is no destructive editing to the original are we still in agreement?

It's my understanding that only when the layers are flattened that the edits become a part of the original background copy are destructive to that layer, and not open to change any of the preceding edits. However, again if I'm editing a virtual copy my original is still unchanged is it not? I'm free to make as many virtual copies of that original as I want, without affecting the original file. Or optionally, merging layers down, rather then flatten, maintains the background layer, and allows me to go back and change previous Ps edits.

The advantage of using both Lr and Ps is that Lr is fast to a point but when you start using adjustment brushes, blemish correction, etc., it will eventually slow down to a crawl. Ps has none of that slow down. Start editing multiple images with multiple adjustment brushes used on each and it will reach a point that it will eventually crash unless you start clearing out the history on each individual image, and then in essence you've lost your ability to go back and change any edits you've already made.

 

[Ysarex]

@Ysarex

Agreement -- yes.

Adobe implements what they call smart object technology. When you pass an image from LR to PS you have two options Edit in PS or Edit Smart Object in PS. Even though either choice is initially non-destructive you are saying goodbye to LR. From that point on your option to make changes in LR and have them update through the pipe or have changes in PS back update through the pipe are cut. That is a destructive gap. Therefore the smart object as Adobe calls it. At least if you send through a smart object to PS all the work done in LR passes through and remains accessible in PS. Double click on the smart object layer and ACR will open and you'll still be editing your raw file in ACR.

As you continue to stack layers in PS your editing remains non-destructive until you start pushing around pixels. There's the speed bump or pothole or whatever you want to call it in the process. If you actually start pushing pixels around you place a destructive pothole in the middle of the road and it's can be an axle breaker. You're toward the end of a complicated edit and you decide you want to see if a WB change is an improvement. That means going back to ACR. If you haven't pushed any pixels around then double click on the smart object layer and make the change. Presto it will update through the rest of the Photoshop layers. But it won't update a raster layer where you pushed pixels.

Adobe's solution to bring in smart objects of course begs the question WTHF what the hell for? It maintains 100% non-destructive editing between LR -> ACR/PS and gets you access to some more powerful tools in PS. The trick is what's a smart object? Basically it's a parametric reference and so it maintains a parametric process inside PS. What can't you do with a smart object? Push pixels. As soon as you need to really start moving pixels around PS forces you to create a raster layer and bang damn! it felt like that pothole maybe bent an axle!

The advantage of using both Lr and Ps is that Lr is fast to a point but when you start using adjustment brushes, blemish correction, etc., it will eventually slow down to a crawl. Ps has none of that slow down.

Yes. We all know this and I think I can confidently say it is the #1 complaint about LR -- most unfortunate because the promise is there. The most recent update has helped a lot but it remains an issue. If you put a dozen adjustment pins (layers) onto an LR edit the drag will set in. I don't want to use this opportunity to gloat and I continue to recommend LR as my first choice when someone asks me what to use but C1 does not suffer the same problem. C1 unfortunately does not compare with LR on the DAM end and that's critical for many photographers.

Either way; LR, or LR -> smart object to ACR/PS, or C1, or DarkTable, or now some new hope in products like DX0 Photolab if you can get the job done without the pixel pothole you're winning.

One more caveat about the LR -> smart object ACR/PS option. There's another cost on the back end when you click SaveAs in PS. LR will show the file and manage it for you but that file is big.

Joe

Start editing multiple images with multiple adjustment brushes used on each and it will reach a point that it will eventually crash unless you start clearing out the history on each individual image, and then in essence you've lost your ability to go back and change any edits you've already made.