# RAW Editing -Digital Photo Professional or Photoshop?



## decado (Jun 13, 2010)

Which would I be better off editing RAW images with?


----------



## Garbz (Jun 13, 2010)

Starting a war in another country, Sharp stick or Bazooka, which would I be better off with? 

Photoshop will be the obvious answer. But then you haven't told us anything at all about your budget. Photoshop is not cheap. 99% of normal editing done to photos in Photoshop can be done in a decent RAW converter like Lightroom. Photoshop is the be all and end all of image manipulation programs. It comes with a learning curve shaped like a cliff face next to the ocean but can ultimately do anything. But has the price to match.

Photoshop is designed to do anything and anything with images. If you're after editing photos, and specifically gearing at RAW files, Lightroom is a dedicated RAW processor and image editor designed in consultation with photographers and not graphic designers. A LOT of what can be done in Photoshop can not only be done in Lightroom but can be done faster too. 

I'd advocate downloading a trial of Lightroom 3 (it came out 3 days ago) and having a play with it. Then you let US know in 30 days which one you prefer and would be better off with  If it isn't enough for your needs you can always consider Photoshop or another program then.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2010)

I dont get it.  My Adobe photoshop CS4 cant open the raw file.  I have to convert them to jpg first.  Am I missing something?


----------



## ann (Jun 13, 2010)

you need to be sure you have the lastest version to match your camera type


----------



## D-B-J (Jun 13, 2010)

lightroom 2 or newer is GREAT software for raw editing.  Much better than cs3's ACR plugin


----------



## JessicaBlair (Jun 13, 2010)

How hard is Lightroom 3 to use? I've only done basic editing in Elements.


----------



## KmH (Jun 13, 2010)

Photoshop cannot process RAW files.

You must use ACR (Adobe Camera Raw), but ACR comes with Photoshop.

The image editing part of Lightroom 2/3 also uses ACR.

Lightroom 2 uses ACR 5.7 (current release), Lightroom 3 uses ACR 6.1 (current).


----------



## Garbz (Jun 13, 2010)

JessicaBlair said:


> How hard is Lightroom 3 to use? I've only done basic editing in Elements.



A mental two year old can figure out how to use it.*

*The above claim is entirely unsubstantiated.


----------



## davebmck (Jun 13, 2010)

JessicaBlair said:


> How hard is Lightroom 3 to use? I've only done basic editing in Elements.


It's very easy to use, but I would suggest getting one of the books written for the program.  There are just so many slick features it would take you quite a long time to discover them on your own.


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 13, 2010)

Garbz said:


> JessicaBlair said:
> 
> 
> > How hard is Lightroom 3 to use? I've only done basic editing in Elements.
> ...


 
Coming from one of the more experienced, intelligent individuals on this site, that comment is really harsh...



LR has been evolving, and for someone who has little to no experience with editing, there still is a learning curve.
Using an editing program is not just pushing sliders, one has to have some idea of what it is the final product should look like. So, it is not just the program, but knowledge of photographic skills as well.

For those who are new to it, I think that LR (of which there are also all kinds of plug-ins, which make it feature rich) is a challenge most will be up to. 

There are some features that LR is not capable of, that is where a program such as PS or even PSE may be helpful - such as removing light poles from a landscape type photo to make it less urban. etc...

*Note*
Using an editing program will also extend one's knowledge of photography...because one has to pay particular attention to detail. The result hopefully being able to _'see more of the image'_.


----------



## Garbz (Jun 14, 2010)

Well I meant it more of how easy is it to open an image and do a basic adjustment. Really really easy. My girlfriend figured it out in a matter of minutes. 

Sure there a nuances that I don't even know and every day Lightroom surprises me with something new and I've been using it since v1.0. But compare a basic exposure adjustment in Lightroom to Photoshop and my statement still holds through.


----------



## pbelarge (Jun 14, 2010)

Garbz
What I meant by you being harsh, had nothing to do with people who can defend themselves.
I was referring to the portion of your comment "_a mental two year old_".


I understood what you were trying to say. There is a better way to say what you meant to say.



I agree that basic adjustments are as easy as shooting in auto mode, just push some buttons.
Editing to hopefully bring the photo to where one imagined what he saw when he took the photo is not necessarily so easy, certainly not for a beginner.


----------



## irfan (Jun 14, 2010)

+1 for lightroom.  I use that for all of my general editing, and the new LR3 has the latest camera raw in it.  

I still use photoshop for cloning and fixing bad shots, but for regular touch up and adjustments lightroom is fantastic.


----------



## Josh66 (Jun 14, 2010)

pbelarge said:


> There are some features that LR is not capable of, that is where a program such as PS or even PSE may be helpful - such as removing light poles from a landscape type photo to make it less urban. etc...


LR _is_ capable of doing just that.  Yes, it would be _easier_ in PS, but it is certainly possible in LR.

I can think of very few things that most photographers do to their images that LR can not do...  One big one that comes to mind is combining two images.  (That's actually the only one I can think of right now...)


----------

