# Editing programs, what is good?



## FITBMX (Dec 21, 2014)

I already have Light room, but was looking into a good full editing program.

I was thanking of Corel Paintshop pro X7, do any of you have any experience with it?
Or if you have had great luck with a different program let me know!

Even though it is out of my price range right now, is Photoshop CC really the best out there?

Any help would be great!


----------



## DBA (Dec 21, 2014)

FYI the Adobe Photographer bundle (LR & PS) is only $10 per month.
Adobe Creative Cloud


----------



## tirediron (Dec 21, 2014)

^^ That!  ^^  PaintShop Pro is very good software, but it lacks considerably behind Photoshop.  That said, it's a matter of deciding whether you need those extra features on Photoshop enough to justify a "monthly plan" as opposed to 'buy it once' software.


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 21, 2014)

Is PS very hard to learn how to use?


----------



## KmH (Dec 21, 2014)

All 'good full editing programs' are pretty complex and indeed have a learning curve.

To describe all the features, functions, and capabilities Photoshop CC has requires a 752 page book:
Adobe Photoshop CC for Photographers, 2014 Release: A professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC

I have been using Photoshop for about 15 years and LR since 2008 and am still learning new ways to use both.


----------



## limr (Dec 21, 2014)

I use the Corel Paint Shop Pro x5 and it's perfectly adequate for my needs, which admittedly are not very extensive. I'm sure Corel can do more than I ask it to do, and if I were editing more heavily, I might understand its limits more clearly. I use it because years ago, my brother-in-law gave me Paint Shop Pro (might have been the original version - very early on at least) and I liked it well enough to upgrade a couple of years ago.

If I get anything else, I'm playing with the idea of downloading Gimp. My boyfriend uses it and I like the interface a bit better for some tools. But I've also heard many good things about it. Plus, it's free


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 21, 2014)

KmH said:


> All 'good full editing programs' are pretty complex and indeed have a learning curve.
> 
> To describe all the features, functions, and capabilities Photoshop CC has requires a 752 page book:
> Adobe Photoshop CC for Photographers, 2014 Release: A professional image editor's guide to the creative use of Photoshop for the Macintosh and PC
> ...



Thanks for the info!


----------



## Microbois (Dec 21, 2014)

While LR and PS are certainly great software, I don't need their learning curve, nor do I need all their tools. I edit my pictures on a variety of software, depending on the type of work. I have Paint Shop Pro X7 (to do the PS type of work), ACDSee Pro (to do LR type of work), and Perfect Photo Suite when I need to enhance some pictures with filters, and such. All those software are sold under 100$ each, and they have trial version available.


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 21, 2014)

limr said:


> I use the Corel Paint Shop Pro x5 and it's perfectly adequate for my needs, which admittedly are not very extensive. I'm sure Corel can do more than I ask it to do, and if I were editing more heavily, I might understand its limits more clearly. I use it because years ago, my brother-in-law gave me Paint Shop Pro (might have been the original version - very early on at least) and I liked it well enough to upgrade a couple of years ago.
> 
> If I get anything else, I'm playing with the idea of downloading Gimp. My boyfriend uses it and I like the interface a bit better for some tools. But I've also heard many good things about it. Plus, it's free



I just finished reading up on Gimp, the main problem I saw was, it sounds like it is hard to use RAW files with. If that's true it would be a problem.
Thanks for recommending it, I do like free!!!


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 21, 2014)

FITBMX said:


> limr said:
> 
> 
> > I use the Corel Paint Shop Pro x5 and it's perfectly adequate for my needs, which admittedly are not very extensive. I'm sure Corel can do more than I ask it to do, and if I were editing more heavily, I might understand its limits more clearly. I use it because years ago, my brother-in-law gave me Paint Shop Pro (might have been the original version - very early on at least) and I liked it well enough to upgrade a couple of years ago.
> ...



GIMP isn't a raw file converter but it can be used in conjunction with UFraw to handle that task. If you're looking at GIMP because it's inexpensive then there are also good raw converters that are free. Raw Therapee and LightZone are excellent and can be used in conjunction with GIMP. 

Joe


----------



## Trever1t (Dec 21, 2014)

I use 1/2 of 50% of a fraction of a thousandth of a percent of what can be done with CS. @ $10/month it's hard to beat. Learning curve? Everything has one. Youtube has killer tutorials. Get it and start learning.


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 21, 2014)

Trever1t said:


> I use 1/2 of 50% of a fraction of a thousandth of a percent of what can be done with CS. @ $10/month it's hard to beat. Learning curve? Everything has one. Youtube has killer tutorials. Get it and start learning.



I love using YouTube for tutorials, and there are tons of them!!!


----------



## JoeW (Dec 22, 2014)

Take a look at Pixelmator.  It was originally designed for a Mac OS but I believe it now runs on PCs.  It was intended to be an alternative to PS.  Can't beat the price.  All of the instructional info is set up as videos so if you love learning by YouTube than this will be right up your alley.

TidBITS:  Can You Replace Photoshop with Pixelmator?


----------



## astroNikon (Dec 22, 2014)

There's also Photoshop Elements, which is a stripped down version of Photoshop in a way.  And inexpensive, buy once use forever.
For my simple requirements this fits just fine with LightRoom.


----------



## psreilly (Dec 22, 2014)

I previously only used Capture one software from Phase One, but due to it missing some key tools that I need for my type of photography I had to say goodbye to it. I just bought the full adobe photoshop CC package after playing around with it for a few years but never really giving it a shot. I can't say I was surprised at how great it was because deep down I think I always knew it was the superior editing software, but it was more intimidating than Capture One for some reason for me. Anyway i'm starting to really like it, I think it's definitely worth the price in the long run

As far as Corel goes I actually used that a couple years ago. I don't know how much it's improved since, but back then it took a backseat to other programs


----------



## KmH (Dec 22, 2014)

A key for evaluating editing applications is how many, if any, 16-bit depth tools an application has available so we can edit photos that have a 16-bit depth range of colors which helps avoid posterization/banding and color loss.

Both GIMP and Ps Elements are pretty much limited to 8-bit depth tools.
As mentioned GIMP does not include a Raw converter, but there are standalone Raw converters that can be used with GIMP.

Another consideration is that each Raw converter application renders a digital photo a bit differently than other Raw converters, because each uses somewhat different algorithms to render Raw conversion application edits.
Adobe uses the same Raw conversion software in PsE Camera Raw, LR Develop module, and CC 2014 Camera Raw - ACR - Adobe Camera Raw.
The version of ACR included with PsE only has about 1/2 of the tools. features, and functions the full version LR and CC 2014 have.


----------



## FITBMX (Dec 22, 2014)

Thanks for all the help everyone!
Sounds like I will be looking into PS CC!


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 23, 2014)

Count me in as an LR + PSE user.  I use both for features unique/easier to use in each.  Plus, my add-on noise reduction software product only works in PS or PSE (or Apple).  Between the two of them, I've been able to do just about everything I need to do.  Now, all I have to figure out is how to take the smiling face of an individual in a group shot and paste it over the not-so-smiling face of the same person in an otherwise outstanding group shot!  I know it can be done in PSE, I just have to take the time to read/watch/try it all out.


----------



## yellow ant (Jan 5, 2015)

I use GIMP, its free and open source. Takes a bit of getting use to but then they all do. Lots of youtube videos or web articles to help with any questions.


----------



## Orrin (Jan 6, 2015)

yellow ant said:


> I use GIMP, its free and open source. Takes a bit of getting use to but then they all do. Lots of youtube videos or web articles to help with any questions.



Ditto!  I would try GIMP before spending money on another program!


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 6, 2015)

After years of being a photographer, I finally learned Photoshop a year ago.  Yeah, it's not an easy program to use but it's the industry standard.


----------



## sashbar (Jan 6, 2015)

Photoshop is a very complex programme, but it has a very logical interface, so it is easy to learn as far as I am concerned. It takes time anyway because of its overall complexity. But I need less than than 10% of its functions anyway. I guess it is true for most photographers.
  I do not think though that it does all things better that all other programmes. I had some better results with Capture One Pro , but it's  interface is a nightmare. Sometimes it seems they made it so awkward on purpose - for it not to look like PS. 
  DxO is another high quality tool, but again, PS interface is much more user friendly.

But the best thing is you can try all these programmes for free. Capture Pro is free for two months, The previous last year version of DxO was free completely recently.  You could download it instead of GIMP ann use for as long as you want.


----------



## Forkie (Jan 6, 2015)

I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop.  I really don't.  It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop.  It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it.  Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop. 

I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 6, 2015)

Forkie said:


> I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop.  I really don't.  It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop.  It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it.  Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.
> 
> I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software.



I'd have to guess price and performance. Photoshop certainly isn't one of the less expensive alternatives. And when I have a raw file that I want to process and get the best output possible ACR/LR is rarely the software I load up first.

Joe


----------



## Forkie (Jan 6, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why anyone would use anything other than Photoshop.  I really don't.  It's synonymous with photo editing, is the industry standard and is universally supported by any imaging/design/photography educational institutions the world over as well as 3rd party developers and there are endless tutorials on how to use it anywhere you care to look on the internet or in any library/bookshop.  It's interface and terminology is universally understood by every photographer everywhere and it's power is limited only by your own imagination, if you care to learn it.  Even the free softwares Gimp and Pixlr are modelled on the fundamentals of Photoshop.
> ...



Price is no longer an issue at $10/£8 per month.  You get Lightroom and Photoshop for that when it used to cost £650 +/- off the shelf.  Most people have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime and/or Cable TV subscription that cost much more than a Photoshop CC subscription.

I happen to use ACR for my RAWs, but appreciate that other people use Capture One or their camera manufacturer's own software, but for anything after RAW processing or general image editing there are few, if any programs that are comparable apart from the free ones, which I think are perfectly useable if all you want to do is adjust some contrast or curves.  Photoshop doesn't even need much processing power if you're editing Jpegs.

The 75MB RAWs that the Nikon D810 spits out however, are of course another matter in that respect..!


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 6, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...



I don't have a Netflix, Spotify, Amazon Prime or Cable TV subscription. And I retired financially secure and debt free at the age of 56. $10.00 per month is $120.00 per year forever -- that's an issue.



Forkie said:


> I happen to use ACR for my RAWs, but appreciate that other people use Capture One or their camera manufacturer's own software, but for anything after RAW processing or general image editing there are few, if any programs that are comparable apart from the free ones, which I think are perfectly useable if all you want to do is adjust some contrast or curves.



So right there you're making the argument against Photoshop. Capture One begins a long list of modern raw converters with extended capabilities such that you often don't require anything "after RAW processing." Keep a copy of Photoshop current to clone out utility wires?

I would reach for Capture One before ACR/LR, likewise DxO and/or Photo Ninja -- not because they're cheaper, but because I get better results. If I get my processing work finished in C1 then I need Photoshop for what?

Joe


----------



## Forkie (Jan 6, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Forkie said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



Even if you didn't want a monthly subscription, second hand older versions of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements are available for a one-off price.  

If all you do with your photographs is make exposure corrections and contrast/curves/levels adjustments, then yes, I can't argue with the fact that there are hundreds of softwares out there that do a perfect job.  But for anything more than that, like, as you said, cloning areas of a photo or layering and masking, warping and/or liquifying, drawing, compositing, or anything that isn't a one-click filter, which is what I assume the OP meant by "good full editing software" then Photoshop is the _only_ serious way to go.  I'd go as far as to say that Photoshop is to photo manipulation as a macro lens is to OrionMystery.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 6, 2015)

It's an interesting aspect of photography that so many of those who are into it will spend incredible amounts of money on gear, from bodies to lenses to memory cards to lights and modifiers and straps and anything else you can imagine, but treat software as something of an afterthought that they can just scrimp on, when it can be just as important a tool to their photography as any piece of gear they have or want.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 6, 2015)

Forkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Forkie said:
> ...



Photoshop Elements isn't Photoshop by any stretch of the imagination.

You're not hearing me or you're ignoring the point: You asked, "I always wonder why anyone would even consider any other software." I said price and performance. May I again stress *PERFORMANCE*. I have a raw file I want to process. Maybe I'm not going to use Photoshop because I prefer the *better performance* I get from other software.

Joe


----------



## Buckster (Jan 6, 2015)

It's true that it depends largely on what each person actually needs.  Some don't need much in the way of converting and / or adjusting and editing their photos straight out of the camera, while others prefer to do much more, or to at least have the ability to do much more.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 6, 2015)

Buckster said:


> It's an interesting aspect of photography that so many of those who are into it will spend incredible amounts of money on gear, from bodies to lenses to memory cards to lights and modifiers and straps and anything else you can imagine, but treat software as something of an afterthought that they can just scrimp on, when it can be just as important a tool to their photography as any piece of gear they have or want.



I agree -- good point. All digital photos require processing. You can't leave the job half done -- every link in the chain has to be equally strong for the whole chain to be strong.

Joe


----------



## dennybeall (Jan 6, 2015)

A couple of thoughts on Photoshop
First and foremost, if you get the subscription you can do the basic tasks you need the most with very little learning. Then as you need more complex tasks you can pick up those skills a few at a time readily easily.
Secondly, whether you're a pro or an amateur photographer, YOU DESERVE THE BEST and Photoshop is the best!


----------



## DavidVote (Jan 20, 2015)

If the full version of Photoshop intimidates you because of the learning curve, don't be! You don't have to know everything about the program instantly to start editing. Just learn it step by step. Whenever you want to do something, and not sure how to approach it in photoshop, google it. There are tons of tutorials on almost everything. And step by step, you'll get to know your way around.


----------

