# Total Noob to PP



## MaxPix (Mar 31, 2017)

In the past I have shot totally in JPEG and have only occasionally edited or corrected an image (clear up a dust artifact or something similar). I am now embarking on a lifelong goal to begin serious landscape phtography. I would like some guidance on LR and PS.

I intend to shoot landscapes in RAW mode and use LR to correct the images. I am not looking for extreme graphics/art tools in PS and from reading posts on TPF, LR looks like the way to go. I also like the file management tools LR offers,

However, I have about 5000 JPEG images in my library currently. "Summations" posted in another thread:



Garbz said:


> Lightroom being RAW exclusive is not entirely true. Plenty of people I know use Lightroom for JPEG editing. Sure it's a bit less powerful (WB info is lost), but still the same excellent thought out program making it easy to manage large volumes of photos that need processing.
> 
> That's the key difference too. Lightroom is for image wide touchups of entire photo collections. It makes the process fast and easy. But it has very few pixel by pixel tools. You won't for instance be able to make the top of the image darker than the bottom (easily done in photoshop with a gradient mask).





pawdog said:


> Lightroom was designed specifically for photography and photographers. There are no drawing, or layers, or painting or compositing tools. This being said it is a great compliment to photoshop. In fact if you have CS3 you have lightroom right there in Bridge for the most part. It looks different but the tools all work the same.
> 
> You can work on your JPEG files just as easily as RAW and your originals never get touched.
> Don't be afraid. Download it and try it. You will see for yourself.



So if I'm not interested in extreme graphics editing of PS, will LR suffice or should I go with LR & PS so I can do the pixel level corrections. Thx in advance for your input.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2017)

LR should handle the bulk of your processing requirements. I assume you ask because you still have the option to either purchase the CC bundle subscription or the perpetual license LR. What you need is LR, but you will also at times require some of the pixel-level editing ability available in a raster editor. Your need there should be light and PS can of course do that but so can lots of other apps that are far less expensive -- for example Affinity ($49.00).

Joe


----------



## MaxPix (Mar 31, 2017)

Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.

Dave


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 31, 2017)

Get the photography program from Adobe CC. $10/month for Lightroom and Photoshop. Should be more than adequate for your needs!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2017)

MaxPix said:


> Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.
> 
> Dave



If you go the route of LR non-subscription then you don't have too many pixel-editors to chose from that will allow you to maintain the quality level you're establishing in LR. Basically the issue is 16 versus 8 bit. Many of the inexpensive and free options out there are 8 bit limited. If all you're going to use the pixel editor for is some cloning work then no problem. However if you get an occasional photo where the masking capability in LR comes up short and you want to do something more sophisticated along that line then you're best off working in 16 bit. That requirement is going to sweep away 90% of the budget options out there; Affinity photo is the answer.

Tutorials is always a tough question. Start on Adobe's own site and go through what's there. Be forewarned that Youtube and FB are the largest repositories of misinformation ever compiled in human history.

You can always bring an example photo back here.

Joe

P.S. Your question and response is raising the issue of Adobe's subscription model versus other options. It's a difficult question. I would really encourage you to adopt a workflow built on a parametric editor. Your goal should be to do all of your processing parametrically. What little you can't do parametrically then get's handled with the pixel editor. Your best chance of doing that is with LR or Capture One. ACDSee is a weak 3rd and as I've been informed has MAC problems. There is little else. LR is the professional app of choice and is the easiest to learn and use -- superior interface. Last I checked LR is still available without the subscription but it's also obvious Adobe is pushing the subscription to the point of hiding alternatives. This of course begs the question will they soon pull LR as a perpetual license and force the subscription. And then what?

$10.00 a month seems an easy answer but it is in fact the most expensive photo processing option out there. Run the numbers out over time and Adobe is going to cost you more than any of the competitors. On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing. If you purchase a perpetual license product at least you get to use that until it will no longer run on your updated IS or work with your new camera files. And then there's always the question of when will Adobe raise the price? They've already begun raising the price in other countries.

All that said my answer to your initial question is still LR. If dealing with Adobe and their marketing/pricing behavior causes you to pause and ask is there any other option then yes, there's Capture One.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 31, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> MaxPix said:
> 
> 
> > Joe, thanx for your reply. LR it is. I'll also look into some low cost pixel-editing options. Now for the tutorial. I've seen suggestions doing TPF searches so I'll make my decision using that.
> ...



$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. Adobe rolls out new versions of their software all the time with new features and fixes that are all included in the subscription.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > MaxPix said:
> ...



The Adobe subscription over time is the most expensive option out there. Do the math.

Perpetual license LR is $149.00 by the way not $300.00 and upgrades are $79.00, but let's do a comparison between Adobe subscription and a $300.00 app over 5 years. Adobe CC cost is easy: 5 years times $10.00 per month = $600.00.

Now start year one with Capture One at $300.00 and in order to be fair you need a fill-in for PS so let's add Affinity for $49.00. We'll call that $350.00. Phase One has been very consistent. All new upgrades are free in a version number and new version numbers turn up on average once every 18 months. So you start with version 10. 18 months later version 11 is out and your upgrade cost is $99.00. You don't have to make that purchase. If you haven't bought a new camera you're still fine with version 10. Phase One is very understanding and when version 12 comes out in another 18 months they'll still let you update for $99.00. You decide to go with every other version release so that 36 months in you're now at $450.00 with the purchase of version 12. The five years will pass before C1 version 13 is released but maybe you buy a new camera and decide to go for that version. You're down $550.00 which is still less than you've paid for Adobe. Stretch the time out longer and C1 which is arguably the most expensive option out there keeps getting cheaper and cheaper than Adobe.

And then comes the kicker: You decide let's say after 8 years for whatever reason you're not going to upgrade again for some undetermined time. You stop paying Adobe you've got instant bupkis as the software shuts down. You keep using C1 for as long as you like.

I still recommend LR but there's no getting around what that subscription costs comparatively and the bottom line is that over time it's the most expensive option available.

Joe


----------



## weepete (Mar 31, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing



Sorry Joe. Being a PITA that I am I need to pick you up on this and I especially don't like it when it it someone that has vastly more knowlege than I do and also you are also someone I  have A LOT of respect for. But that is a bit dramatic. You'll still be able to access all your raw files and your edited jpegs. The only thing you won't be able to do is revisit parially completed work or basically use the software. The idea that you'll loose everything, won't happen. You'll just need to move to open source or get an editor that you are willing to pay for.

I do recognise what you are saying though. Some people don't like a subscription model. 

It's far more likely that, as you said, just stop supporting the stand alone option.

Personally I'm a fan of a low cost subscription model more than a single payment. Yes, it might cost more in the long run BUT (and it is a big but) I can totally justify spending £10 / month on it for what I get out of it. In the UK a subscription to photoshop per month costs less than I spend on coffee. And there are upsides too. I can use lightroom snd photoshop on two devices and switch that when I please plus I get all the latest updates.  I would still support an option to buy a standalone version if that is what you wish though.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 31, 2017)

weepete said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > On top of that the minute you stop paying the software shuts you out and you've got nothing
> ...



If you stop paying, subscription LR will still give you access to your database -- that's correct. But it will not allow you to edit your files or import and edit new files. You still want to take photos?

And Photoshop just quits.

So you effectively have no editing ability at that point. I'm still calling that bupkis.



weepete said:


> I do recognise what you are saying though. Some people don't like a subscription model.
> 
> It's far more likely that, as you said, just stop supporting the stand alone option.
> 
> Personally I'm a fan of a low cost subscription model more than a single payment. Yes, it might cost more in the long run BUT (and it is a big but) I can totally justify spending £10 / month on it for what I get out of it. In the UK a subscription to photoshop per month costs less than I spend on coffee. And there are upsides too. I can use lightroom snd photoshop on two devices and switch that when I please plus I get all the latest updates.  I would still support an option to buy a standalone version if that is what you wish though.



I recommend LR. People ask me what to use and LR is the first word out of my mouth and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. I'm just not going to tell people that $600.00 over five years is the inexpensive option when it's not and especially so given what happens if you stop paying. Most of my time interacting with people over photo software is with college students who are always struggling with budgets and school costs. You want to look out over a room of 18 young photographers and tell them that the only way they can get PS/LR is to buy a 1 year subscription and that if they don't keep paying at the end of that year they lose it. Try convincing them that's a great value.

Joe

P.S. The subscription option is fine if that works for you and I can see that for many people it does. Like you say it's less than you pay for coffee -- no problem. So I'm not objecting or arguing that the CC subscription is a bad thing. It's not. Just want to be realistic about comparative costs and understand that some people need to consider that.


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 1, 2017)

what about saving all your edited files as tiffs?


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 1, 2017)

The_Traveler said:


> what about saving all your edited files as tiffs?



That's somewhat defeating the purpose of the space saving ability of a parametric editor, but in the case of PS I guess it wouldn't be much different then processing raw files in another converter, then saving as Tiffs.

Now that I've started using collections in LR more, I have wondered if I should be saving a copy of my final edits as JPEG to another location.

@Ysarex  assuming you wanted to drop the subscription plan could you not then buy a copy of LR and edit your previous work? Also since there always seems to be new products coming out to fill a need, should Adobe stop selling LR, someone is likely to develop a product that wIil  import that data. My last version of Paint Shop X would import PS files.


----------



## KmH (Apr 1, 2017)

Make note that one of the advantages of using Lr *and* Ps is that they both use the same parametric Raw converter - Adobe Camera Raw (ACR).
Expect your Lr edits to look somewhat different once opened any non-Adobe pixel editing app.
Each Raw converter app uses somewhat different algorithms making it impossible to open an image different pixel editing apps and have it look exactly the same in each.

16-bit layered TIFF files are often larger than the original Raw file.
If you save everything as TIFFs be sure you have lots of storage space.
I only made TIFF files for commercial clients that would be doing editing beyond what I provided.

For those of us that have been using, and regularly upgrading, Lr and Ps for a lot of years the subscription pricing is less costly than way it worked before with new releases every 2 years or so and upgrade pricing.
There is no more waiting for new versions/features to be released and I no longer have umpteen older version boxed Ps & Lr discs cluttering up my work area.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @Ysarex  assuming you wanted to drop the subscription plan could you not then buy a copy of LR and edit your previous work? Also since there always seems to be new products coming out to fill a need, should Adobe stop selling LR, someone is likely to develop a product that wIil  import that data. My last version of Paint Shop X would import PS files.



Yes, if you quit the subscription you should be able to back down to the perpetual license LR and still be able to access and work with your database. That's assuming the perpetual license LR remains available. At this point I'm assuming it won't. And if it doesn't you keep paying the subscription or face the prospect of switching over to another product. You are again correct that some company out there is going to have at least an partial conversion option to transfer your LR database. That's a tall order and you can expect that the transfer may only be partial leaving you with hours and/or days and/or weeks of manual clean up and re-adjustment work.

This is an important topic for all of us to spend time considering. Software and camera companies are competitive and in their competitive efforts they're going to make decisions that benefit themselves and not us. If company X out there wants to develop an import and conversion process to move your LR database to their software you can bet that Adobe will do all that they can to prevent that and vice versa. Think car mufflers. Ask yourself why every car manufacturer redesigns the muffler every year for every model car. How f*ing hard is it to get the muffler right. When we chose an editing workflow we are also making decisions to basically marry a camera manufacturer and software vendor and divorce can be very messy. There are increasing levels of commitment depending on how we chose to work.

1. Save only camera JPEGs -- unmarried.
2. Save JPEG + raw files -- engaged.
3. Save raw files but two-stage process to TIFF files with additional processing -- married.
4. Save raw files and process parametrically -- married with a 50 page pre-nup.

The most productive workflow is to edit raw files parametrically in a single app if possible, but that's married with the pre-nup. Right now that means LR or Capture One. There are few competitive options beyond those two, ACDSee and that's about it. So we need to think about that pre-nup carefully and consider the consequences for the future. We're not going to lose our raw files but we're under threat of losing all our processing work; that's a serious threat if you multiply it by thousands of photos over multiple years.

If we get married without the pre-nup divorce is still messy but we get to keep all our stuff. But that also makes the workflow less productive. We ideally want the most productive workflow.

One way or the other we're making a commitment and moving in with that software company. How comfortable are we about their commitment to us and how do we feel they'll behave toward us in the future. What's in the pre-nup?

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Apr 1, 2017)

Learn Lightroom, for sure.


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 1, 2017)

@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.


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2017)

smoke665 said:


> @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 (Apr 1, 2017)

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


----------



## Ysarex (Apr 1, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> 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:


DGMPhotography said:


> $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 (Apr 1, 2017)

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 (Apr 1, 2017)

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 (Apr 1, 2017)

Ysarex said:


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



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 (Apr 2, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> . . . 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 (Apr 2, 2017)

KmH said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > . . . If you have LR version 2 you can upgrade to the current version for $79.00. . .
> ...



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

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Apr 2, 2017)

Ysarex said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2017)

DGMPhotography said:


> 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 (Apr 2, 2017)

smoke665 said:


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



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 (Apr 2, 2017)

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

Dave


----------

