Thank you all for your replies and compliments on the first attempts at 'proper' photography.
I purchased Rob Sylvans book on the D3300 when I purchased it - has really helped to understand ISO/SS/Aperture as most of those pics were shot in Manual with editing.
Your question about software is better answered with a little more info here. Your camera can save raw (NEF) files and/or processed JPEG images or both. What are you doing? What type of file did you edit? What are you planing to do -- will you be saving raw files and editing those or will you be saving JPEG images and editing those?
Designer, the 35mm becomes 50mm with the crop sensor which I have read is a good focal length for portraiture. The f1.8 is something I haven't used up until now so I'm finding it fascinating. Thank you for your advice re what i'm shooting though.
Is there much difference between grabbing lightroom 5 + an older photoshop version or would 100% just dive in at LR6+Photoshop CC??
Lightroom is the industry default (used by majority of photographers) and likewise my default recommendation but your question above indicates some hesitation and I'll assume that hesitation is over Adobe's lease commitment. So it may be worth talking about that. There are other options but it's a complicated business.
First, there's a good reason why Lightroom is the industry default and why I and so many others recommend it. Especially when used with raw files, the processing methodology used and supported by LR is the best way to go when working with digital camera photos. LR gets that right; LR is a fully re-editable non-destructive parametric editor. There are only a few other alternatives that equally get that right.
However Adobe's lease commitment may not be the best option for everybody. It's worth noting that at least right now you can still purchase LR new without the lease:
Amazon.com: Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6: Software You won't get Photoshop but that's not a big deal and Photoshop is frankly easier to replace with an alternative like Affinity Photo for $50.00.
Back to the lease: $10.00 a month seems like no big deal, couple coffees, what the heck. But priced out over time it really does make the LR/PS bundle from Adobe pretty much the most expensive photo processing software available. In 5 years that's $600.00 and if at the end of 5 years you stop paying the software stops working. I'm officially retired but I still teach a couple college classes a year. I teach LR of course. Go to any college campus and the software installed for student use will be Adobe with usually no other options. In the world before Adobe's lease students got a discount to buy LR/PS. It was still a lot but less than a microbiology text book. They could then keep and use the software. Now they have to pay the same $10.00 per month and the software shuts down at the end of the year unless they keep paying. Overall the students I encounter preferred the non-lease option and I now get a lot more of them asking me if there's ways around the lease. What they don't like is:
a) keep paying forever,
b) or else no software.
It's easy to do what everybody else is doing and there are real benefits to that. You're going to find a lot more support out there if you go the LR route than not.
If you decide against the lease, then to answer your question, I'd say no. Don't look for the old version option -- usually too much trouble in that with computer and OS compatibility issues and camera support. If you try that make sure at least that your camera's raw files are supported by what you get.
The other alternative is non-Adobe software: Capture One would be the major competitor that arguably offers the same (even better) functionality but about the same cost with the caveat that should you decide to stop paying for upgrades the software you have keeps working. ACDSee is a much less expensive alternative (MAC problems). Both Capture One and ACDSee support the working methodology I identified above, like LR they are fully re-editable non-destructive parametric editors.
A whole lot of additional options open up if you're willing to compromise that working methodology a little. Historically that's where we've come from and a lot of photographers are still quite happy working with both a more limited parametric editor and then an RGB pixel level editor. Or even just the RGB pixel level editor (edit camera JPEGs). Now there are lots of software choices including even excellent free options that rival the quality you can produce with LR. In some cases there are even arguably better options in terms of image IQ (DX0 or PhotoNinja for example) but with less working flexibility.
Joe
