# What editing program should I be using?



## CherpeAr (Jan 9, 2019)

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


----------



## acparsons (Jan 9, 2019)

Check out GIMP(GNU Image Manipulation Program).


----------



## tirediron (Jan 9, 2019)

The Photoshop / Lightroom combination from Adobe is only $10/month - that's what... two Starbucks chemical experiments?


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 9, 2019)

CherpeAr said:


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



Lightroom. If you can't afford the $10.00 per month in perpetuity then DarkTable. Photoshop comes with Lightroom. To supplement DarkTable Affinity Photo.

Joe


----------



## D7K (Jan 10, 2019)

I'd recommend the LR/PS combination, it just does what it says on the tin, upgraded often and a wealth of tutorials freely available.  Darktable is a good free option for processing RAW but as mentioned you'd still need a program like GIMP (Complicated) or Affinity Photo as a Photoshop equivalent ...


----------



## Jeff15 (Jan 10, 2019)

Adobe Photoshop Elements 18.....


----------



## JoeW (Jan 10, 2019)

Affinity Photo.  No monthly fee.  I paid $30 for it, I think it's up to $40 now.


----------



## RVT1K (Jan 10, 2019)

I use Adobe Photoshop Elements, too. 

If money is a concern, you can get an older version on Amazon for much less than the more current version.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 10, 2019)

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


----------



## adamhiram (Jan 10, 2019)

Another vote for the Lightroom/Photoshop combo.  Spend some time learning how to import and organize your photos with Lightroom, then start learning how to perform basic Raw edits.  Since it is the most common tool used, you'll have a much easier time finding help when you're not sure how to do things.  Photoshop will come in handy when you need to do something beyond the capabilities of Lightroom, and you can slowly learn that application over time with the abundance of freely available tutorials as well.

For what it's worth, I used Tony Northrup's Lightroom eBook when it first came out a few years ago as a crash course in how to use Lightroom, and found it incredibly useful.  I didn't agree with all of his recommendations, and it was only $10 back then, but having a comprehensive set of videos (and text) to better understand and learn how to use each module was very helpful.


----------



## D7K (Jan 10, 2019)

Braineack said:


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



Ahhh. a purist


----------



## Designer (Jan 10, 2019)

CherpeAr said:


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


As was mentioned; GIMP is free, but not easy to learn.  Check out the other programs mentioned by reading about them online.

I use Aperture 3 (Mac OS only) but it is no longer being supported by Apple (big surprise there, or not).  It is very easy to use, and I think LightRoom is similar in its ease of learning.  If you're on a Windows PC, then you can still find a stand-alone LR, but it won't be updated (ever).  If you go for the subscription of PS and LR together, you don't have to use PS, just use the LR function and save yourself from learning PS.  Still $10 a month with a 12-month contract, so you're on the hook for $120 a year.  I don't know what happens if you decide to quit the subscription.  You should ask about that.  You will still have the images on your computer, but no more editing if you stop paying them.  

If you are interested in one particular program, read about it, then ask specific questions on here.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 10, 2019)

D7K said:


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



A realist.  Use the correct tool for the job.

I've been using Photoshop since it first came out in the early 90s, and Corel Draw before that.  I've been doing graphic/web design my entire career, now I do mainly development.  I used to use it a on regular basis, now I rarely do -- unless I need to.

PS is not an ideal program to process/edit/organize your photos.  It wasn't designed for it; software like LR is.

The OP is looking for software to process raw photos, suggesting PS is doing a disservice.

LR is easy to use. Purpose built for post-processing. Non-destructive. Establishes Workflows. Keeps you organized. Apply presets on import. Batch Process. Accesses Metadata.

what it cant do?  allow you to cut the subject away from the BG and put it on a white BG to use for product images online...


----------



## ac12 (Jan 10, 2019)

I use a couple editors
- OLD version of Picasa.  Google no longer supports it, so you have to find some site that has it available for download.  It is my 'quick and easy' editor that I use for most the photos I shoot for the yearbook.  It can't do a lot, but it does 95% of what I normally do; straightening, lightening, and cropping.
- OLD version of Photoshop Elements.  I got it bundled with something that I bought, so it was essentially free to me.  Not as feature rich as full blown Photoshop, but good enough for me, and a LOT cheaper.  And as limited as it is, compared to full Photoshop, I have not used 50% of it's capabilities.

Before Adobe switched to the subscription model, I had considered Lightroom and Photoshop.
I understand why companies switched to the subscription model.  But it does not fit to how I work, so I currently do not subscribe to any software.  For me it is a hobby, not a business, so I do not NEED to keep up to the current version.  I upgrade after 3+ version upgrades, or when something that I need comes out.  If I was in this professionally, then I would subscribe to PS.


----------



## Strodav (Jan 10, 2019)

GIMP is free, is feature rich, well supported and there are plenty of online tutorials.  Here is a good youtube tutorial you can watch to decide if you want to go that way.  Mine as well download it and try it as there is no risk  




Personally, I went with the Adobe Creative Cloud, which is about $10 / month.  The two most useful apps are LightRoom Classic CC and PhotoShop.  LR is a photo organizer in addition to an editor.  PhotoShop is the industry standard for image manipulation.  If you are serious, you will go this way.  Again, there are plenty of Adobe as well as 3rd party tutorials.

If you don't plan on "repairing or enhancing" you pics, the learning curve isn't too bad.  Photography is a beautiful blend of science and art and good image processing software will allow you to achieve artistry you can't with the camera and lens alone.  Mostly, you will need to find motivation, perseverance,  and patience.  Enjoy the journey as you capture, share and treasure the little slices of time that come from camera and lens.


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2019)

The OP noted using raw files. GIMP will not open and convert raw files.

Joe


----------



## ac12 (Jan 10, 2019)

Designer said:


> CherpeAr said:
> 
> 
> > I’m shooting in raw+jpeg so I need one to open and edit well.  Free or really cheap preferably!
> ...



This is what I do not like about some software.
Stop paying and it stops working.  Well that is the idea of subscription, you are basically renting the software for a defined period of time.  Vs. buying a license to use it for an indefinite time.
The other is when they put a time-bomb in the software.  So the software STOPS working after a certain amount of time or date, forcing you to upgrade.  Or in my case, switch to another software.

The danger for the consumer in both of these models is, if the company goes under, the software will become unusable.  I had at least three such instances:

The software "calls home" during installation for authentication.  If there is no "home" it won't authenticate, and it won't complete the installation.  This happens when the company shuts down/goes out of business.

Related to this was where the company stopped ALL support for the old software, including the authorization server.  They abandon the product.

Another where the software "timed out" and refused to function.  This is a disguised subscription model.  You are renting the software for a period of time, but they don't tell you this when you buy it.  Worse is when the current software does not read the old files.  



In all these cases, the traditional safety of a backup copy of the software does not help, because the backup cannot be installed.


----------



## Strodav (Jan 10, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> The OP noted using raw files. GIMP will not open and convert raw files.
> 
> Joe


This is a youtube tutorial on how to open raw photos with GIMP 2.10:


----------



## Ysarex (Jan 10, 2019)

Strodav said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The OP noted using raw files. GIMP will not open and convert raw files.
> ...



Like I said GIMP will not open and convert raw files. That video confirms what I said.

The problem with using a separate raw converter and then moving to GIMP for further processing is that such a procedure is workflow destructive. A non-destructive workflow is better. The irony of the video you posted is that DarkTable which he recommends is one of the more capable parametric editors and gives the user a good shot at realizing a non-destructive workflow for most images.

Joe


----------



## markjwyatt (Jan 10, 2019)

I would say that if you are using a non-Fujifilm digital camera, the best choice may be Lightroom + Photoshop, mainly because it is so well represented. There are tons of articles about handling various situations, etc. It is basically a standard.

Fujifilm X-Sensor has a non-Bayesian pattern, and there is some issue as to whether Lightroom does as good a job demosaicing (basically taking the raw RGB data to produce a pixelated image). I chose ON1, but Capture 1 may be better (and signifcantly more expensive).  Lightroom probably is just fine, but I did not go that route. ON1 can be used as a plugin to Lightroom and can output photoshop files, so I could still go that route if desired.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 10, 2019)

I have Photoshop Elements, but can't remember offhand what number I'm on by now... Renewed it in the past year, and discovered you can still pay outright for it, you don't have to subscribe and I don't. 

I do minimal editing in post. I don't usually need to do too much. Learn to get proper exposures; that's mostly where I see people having to do a lot of editing because the exposure was off in their original photos. You'll need to learn a certain amount of digital editing so I'd plan on doing some learning and practicing. I started out with photos I just took around home that I could play around with and see what  various settings would do, etc.


----------



## Derrel (Jan 10, 2019)

Yet another suggestion for Lightroom. It's very capable, and "relatively" easy to learn. I bought a stand-alone copy, but if one has a newish camera, the older,stand-alone versions might not open raw files--unless the raws have first been converted to DNG format.


----------



## Dave442 (Jan 10, 2019)

I also use Lightroom and it is my preference for managing and processing Raw files. I also have On1 just so I have a standalone program that is not subscription based.


----------



## Dao (Jan 11, 2019)

Before you invest any money you can try those free software like Dark Table. Or use the one that comes with your camera.

Go here
Support for Cameras


Select your camera and then go to the download section.  You should see a Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) download for your Computer OS.  While you are there, you can also download other camera utilities.

Article Details


Of course, LR is my choice.


----------



## greybeard (Jan 11, 2019)

Pretty much the industry standard is lightroom and then add photoshop later.  There are tons of videos on youtube to help you get started and for even advanced functions.  The down side to adobe is that it is EXPENSIVE like $10 mo for ever.  I got mine before they went the subscription rout and I have no plans for going with a subscription.  As a free alternative I also use Nikon ViewNX-i and Capture NX-D.  These are free Nikon programs that do nice basic editing but are slow and rather complicated to use and learn.  They are for Nikon RAW files but will work with any JPEG or TIFF files.


----------



## JonFZ300 (Jan 14, 2019)

First, I would try the free one that came with your camera. It may have a steep learning curve but it will do everything you need to do. If you don't like that one, try something like Photoshop Elements. It's pretty powerful for beginner and novice level editing. I think it's $100 now, 80 for students. If you're ok with a recurring 10/month, just get Lightroom/PS and be done with it. If you think you are going to stick with photography, you'll probably end up there anyway. 

I shoot raw and only process to jpg for posting here or sharing via text or whatever. I use Fast Stone for previewing/viewing, Elements15/CameraRaw for editing raws and stuff like spot healing or sharpening on jpgs. It's enough for me and there's no way in hell I'm signing up for 10/month forever.


----------



## Photo Lady (Jan 29, 2019)

ac12 said:


> I use a couple editors
> - OLD version of Picasa.  Google no longer supports it, so you have to find some site that has it available for download.  It is my 'quick and easy' editor that I use for most the photos I shoot for the yearbook.  It can't do a lot, but it does 95% of what I normally do; straightening, lightening, and cropping.
> - OLD version of Photoshop Elements.  I got it bundled with something that I bought, so it was essentially free to me.  Not as feature rich as full blown Photoshop, but good enough for me, and a LOT cheaper.  And as limited as it is, compared to full Photoshop, I have not used 50% of it's capabilities.
> 
> ...


 I love love picasa..old version or not.. it does a pretty good job.. and i thank you for telling me about it a while ago.. i will always remember that that was a good day and i enjoyed once again being able to edit my photos free........ it used to be free programs on older pc's..such a shame they took so much away and now everything is extra.. this picasa is just right for me.. i am sure theres better but i am satisfied.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 3, 2019)

I prefer the combo of RawTherapee and Gimp

It's free, open source and works on all platforms.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 3, 2019)

Designer said:


> As was mentioned; GIMP is free, but not easy to learn.


It's as easy as Photoshop, don't know why people seem to think it's difficult. 
Only the menus appear slightly different due to the layout, but the workflow is actually the same. 

If one needs the photoshop appearance in Gimp, one could simply install GimpShop:
Gimpshop | The Photoshop Free Alternative


----------



## Braineack (Feb 3, 2019)

Why do people keep suggest pixel _manipulating_ software for simple *processing*?


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 3, 2019)

Braineack said:


> 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 (Feb 4, 2019)

Braineack said:


> 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 (Feb 4, 2019)

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 (Feb 4, 2019)

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 (Feb 5, 2019)

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 (Feb 5, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people keep suggest pixel _manipulating_ software for simple *processing*?
> ...



There seems to be a few stool pigeons flying round here


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 6, 2019)

Braineack said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2019)

Dikkie said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.



Dikkie said:


> 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.



Dikkie said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> 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.


Ysarex said:


> 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 (Feb 6, 2019)

Dikkie said:


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



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



Dikkie said:


> 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 (Feb 12, 2019)

CherpeAr said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2019)

Dikkie said:


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



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



Dikkie said:


> 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.



Dikkie said:


> 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.*



Dikkie said:


> 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?



Dikkie said:


> 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 (Feb 18, 2019)

@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 (Feb 18, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @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!



smoke665 said:


> 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



smoke665 said:


> 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.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 18, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> 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.



Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but I routinely go back and forth between Lr and Ps when editing, making edits in both. Granted the "initial edits" made in Lr are no longer available, but when I make new edits on a Ps file those edits will transfer to Ps when I reopen the file in Ps.



Ysarex said:


> But it won't update a raster layer where you pushed pixels.



The smudge tool works by moving pixels, as such Ps has to rasterize the layer in order to allow you to move those pixels. However, the pixel movement is limited to that layer and not the layers below, unless you flatten the image. Once I'm in Ps I find it easier and more productive to make color changes via RGB channels in the tone curve. On occasion I will use ACR for editing a layer, but since so much of the color temperature work is done in Lr, before it's brought into Ps, I very rarely use ACR. Maybe if I was doing all my editing in Ps.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 18, 2019)

smoke665 said:


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



That's what I meant. Now if you had moved a smart object to PS then those initial LR edits would be available for the smart object but accessed via ACR.



smoke665 said:


> but when I make new edits on a Ps file those edits will transfer to Ps when I reopen the file in Ps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



pothole!



smoke665 said:


> However, the pixel movement is limited to that layer and not the layers below,



pothole layer in the middle of the stack!



smoke665 said:


> unless you flatten the image. Once I'm in Ps I find it easier and more productive to make color changes via RGB channels in the tone curve.



That's a different process than a WB change and it produces different results. The real point however is that a raster layer and moved around pixels is a break that you can't smoothly get past. You can't go back to where you started and decide to tweak a change and have that tweak update through.

Here's an example:

Over the New Year holiday I re-visited some old photos and found this one -- we-re talking 9 years old, but the processing is entirely parametric in C1.




 

I processed it to have a gloomy dark forest feel and above is just for reference -- look left center and see the bird house.

Now actually I decided I didn't want the bird house there -- no sign of human touch -- and so it's removed with a parametric clone/heal:



 

In fact there's three other clone/heal object removals in the image.

Now let's say I want to revisit the image and create a variant with a different color feel:



 

Some winter cold instead of the warmth of the first version. If those clone/heal jobs had been accomplished on a raster layer pushing pixels then the simple WB change I made to effect that color change would have no effect on them and they'd stick out in the image as off color spots. What could I do? I'd have to instead create a flattened version of the photo and apply the color change differently after the fact making the alteration to the RGB image instead of to the raw original.

What I did above cost me no additional disk space and was simpler and more effective. I'm 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable. The pixel pothole breaks that.

Joe



smoke665 said:


> On occasion I will use ACR for editing a layer, but since so much of the color temperature work is done in Lr, before it's brought into Ps, I very rarely use ACR. Maybe if I was doing all my editing in Ps.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 18, 2019)

@Ysarex Wait you missed my earlier post. Clone stamp, blemish, spot heal, etc. I do on an empty layer, sampling layers below. I don't do those edits on an image layer. My image can still be edited with ACR to change WB. And I don't flatten my layers, I merge down when I need to.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 18, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> @Ysarex Wait you missed my earlier post. Clone stamp, blemish, spot heal, etc. I do on an empty layer, sampling layers below. I don't do those edits on an image layer. My image can still be edited with ACR to change WB. And I don't flatten my layers, I merge down when I need to.



I got that, but that empty clone layer is still a raster layer and if you do a clone operation to remove something from the sky and then later change the color of the sky in the layer below the clone work on the empty layer will show as a different color. The empty raster layer is still a pothole in that you'll either have to re-do it or separately apply a change to it directly. If you merge it down into the layer below you're committing pixels and they don't uncommit. You're close to 100% non-destructive but not really 100% and not non-linearly re-editable. I want to be always able to go back as far as step one and if I want to re-assign the camera input profile as the first step in processing the raw file then I want to be able to do that and have every edit made after that instantly update to that change. To do that we have to avoid raster pixel layers.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 18, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> empty clone layer is still a raster layer and if you do a clone operation to remove something from the sky and then later change the color of the sky in the layer below the clone work on the empty layer will show as a different color



I've already shut down the computer and a Drs appointment tomorrow but when I get back I'll do a little experimenting but I'm not sure I agree with you. The layer I'm using for cloning is empty, it's pulling it's data from the layer/layers below. Like I said I don't normally do WB corrections in Ps via ACR. I know that doing a curves layer above and using RGB channels works, or at least I've yet to notice an issue. Ps also has the option of creating a virtual layer that represents the image with all the edits in the stack below, which I believe will let you edit in ACR. I'll try it also.

Even if it doesn't it's a moot point because I still have my original in Lr. In a matter of mins I can create a new virtual copy change the color temperature, open it in Ps, select and copy the layers from the old edit, and paste them on the new copy. I guess I'm not understanding your concern.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 19, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > empty clone layer is still a raster layer and if you do a clone operation to remove something from the sky and then later change the color of the sky in the layer below the clone work on the empty layer will show as a different color
> ...



Yes it pulls the data from the layer below but it's a raster layer and so it freezes the data it pulls. Changing the layer below won't update the data on that raster layer with the same change -> pothole.



smoke665 said:


> Like I said I don't normally do WB corrections in Ps via ACR.



It doesn't have to just be WB; there are lots of possibilities. Sometimes I like to apply a grain simulation at the raw converter level. What if I decide latter to change that. We all start with a camera input profile. What if you go back and change that. At whatever point you introduce that raster layer you freeze all prior work done before then and you can't go back. You can go forward but not back.



smoke665 said:


> I know that doing a curves layer above and using RGB channels works, or at least I've yet to notice an issue. Ps also has the option of creating a virtual layer that represents the image with all the edits in the stack below, which I believe will let you edit in ACR. I'll try it also.
> 
> Even if it doesn't it's a moot point because I still have my original in Lr. In a matter of mins I can create a new virtual copy change the color temperature, open it in Ps, select and copy the layers from the old edit, and paste them on the new copy. I guess I'm not understanding your concern.



Let's do exactly what you describe in this second paragraph. Here's the test photo processed in LR:



 

I don't like the electrical service on the left side so I'll send a smart object over to PS. Once there I'll create an empty layer above the smart object and use that to clone from the layer below and remove the wires and pole. Got it:



 

So I'm looking at this photo and when I first processed it I adjusted the color to reflect that it was sunrise and the light on the building was orange. Now I'm thinking it was originally a white painted building and I kind of like that. So back in LR I re-adjusted the color. Then I again sent a smart object to PS and once there I copied the empty clone layer to this new smart object:



 

Ouch! Pothole! So my concern is that I ideally want my workflow to be *100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable.* A raster clone layer breaks that. If I had been able to manage that clone job parametrically then it would have updated along with the color change. Now that was a big clone job and it may not be possible parametrically and so we still occasionally need PS et al. to push pixels. But pushing pixels is digging potholes. Once that raster layer is in place you can't go back before it and make a change.

The parametric clone/heal tools in C1, LR and DarkTabke have improved substantially in recent years. I get almost all that I need done adequately in C1. So then if I decide later I'd like to see a photo with a different camera input profile (maybe a classic chrome film sim for example) I just create a virtual copy and make the change -- no potholes in the road and all editing simply updates the change. And not to forget my disk storage space remains basically the size of my raw file. To save those PS images where I did the clone work my hard drive got clobbered by 200mb PSD files.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 19, 2019)

So I decided to go ahead and try the above clone job in C1. Where the wires attach to the building can be tricky but it was possible. Here's a screen shot of me working on it in C1.



 

It's no more time consuming than doing the clone work in PS or another pixel editor. But because it's done parametrically it's magic.

Here's my first version of the photo with an orange glow for sunrise and the clone work in place:



 

I next created a virtual copy (variant in C1) and went back to the very beginning and changed the camera input profile to Classic Chrome (C1's simulation of Fuji's film simulation). CC is well-known for shifting the sky to a sick green (hold your breath). The input profile change altered a few other things and I tweaked the contrast and shadow tone a little but I didn't have to do anything about the clone work. Because the clone work is done parametrically it simply updated with the profile change.



 

This is a *100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable workflow* (and my hard drive usage remains only the size of my raw file.)

Joe


----------



## Braineack (Feb 19, 2019)

I've heard great things about C1.  I had an early version, but was too lazy to get over the learning curve.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 19, 2019)

@Ysarex I opened a new thread and tagged you, so as to not monopolize this one with an off post discussion. Working Edits In Both Lr & Ps


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 22, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> *That's the whole point! Where have you been?*


I lived in a big cave for years.
Ok, a lot of things can now be done in a raw converter, you convinced me here.

But you're only listing paid software that doesn't even provide a version working on Linux. Why would I pay for it if it doesn't work on my system?
I'm not using much proprietary software anymore since I've done the transition from Windows to Linux.
However, I still want to pay for software, that's not the problem. There's lots of good software I paid for, and these companies deliver for all operating systems. The difference is that these companies sell it at reasonable rates, and certainly not with subscriptions.
There's some reasons why I switched to open source software, where I have more freedom.
BLVDi _______________ [^^]



Ysarex said:


> 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?


How often, that depends on what you use the editor for.
Photographers use a camera as a tool, and need a raw converter. And mostly, it ends there. Photographers for journals deliver from there to an editor or a publisher who decides what to do next, and they'll start messing around with your end product. 

Graphical designers use other tools on top too, paper and pencil, drawing tablet, an already developed photo, ... and they use software too: inkscape/illustrator to draw and use photo editors to create collages...
And that's what I have explained earlier in this thread: for photographers, the photo is the final product, but for lots of other people, it starts where it ends for a photographer. Some people start creating something from a photo as a base.  And yes, they sometimes use an editor for it, that's exactly what the OP asked for: which editing program?
Artists, designers, editors and creative jobs who work with mixed media,...  they don't limit themselves with a raw converter.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 22, 2019)

Dikkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > *That's the whole point! Where have you been?*
> ...



In the quote you post directly below note that I mention *DarkTable*. In the graphic I supplied back in post #31: What editing program should I be using? note that the three feature rich raw converters I listed are Lightroom, Capture One and *DarkTable.* 

Download darktable Linux 2.6.0

I've been listing it all along.

Joe


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 23, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> In the quote you post directly below note that I mention *DarkTable*.


I used DarkTable before, it's a few years ago now... but it didn't convince me at that time.
Corrections on perspectives didn't suit me that well. RawTherapee was much easier and better to work with.
Maybe it changed much over time.... 
But it doesn't seem you can do all the stuff with layers/blend modes/cloning/... like you did in your example with C1.


----------



## Robert Cudlipp (Feb 23, 2019)

I am a newbie in the sense that I have never used post software before.
TBH, I have found this thread Very, very confusing. Am aware of attachments of various users to Abode & competitors, but much of the thread has been " I prefer A or B" only leading to confusion rather than clarity.
Matters may have been aggravated by the fact that I am a Fuji XT 2 user and have read that some? post software is not all that effective on Fuji raw files ( no need to respond to Fuji X issue as am not attempting to high jack thread).


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 23, 2019)

Dikkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > In the quote you post directly below note that I mention *DarkTable*.
> ...



You can. DarkTable's masking capabilities and so local adjustment capacity are on par with LR and C1. The user interface isn't as slick but the functionality is there.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 23, 2019)

Robert Cudlipp said:


> I am a newbie in the sense that I have never used post software before.
> TBH, I have found this thread Very, very confusing. Am aware of attachments of various users to Abode & competitors, but much of the thread has been " I prefer A or B" only leading to confusion rather than clarity.
> Matters may have been aggravated by the fact that I am a Fuji XT 2 user and have read that some? post software is not all that effective on Fuji raw files ( no need to respond to Fuji X issue as am not attempting to high jack thread).



I likewise use Fuji X cameras. The Fuji X-Trans CFA is trickier to demosaic  than the standard Bayer array and as a result there is a wider range of variation in output from the different raw converters some either exhibiting difficulty controlling artifacts and/or extracting adequate fine details. So Fuji users need to pay closer attention to raw converter choice and run tests to make sure they're happy with the output.

Fuji's free raw converter that ships with the camera has long been a version of SilkyPix. Recently Capture One has begun supplying a Fuji X specific version of their Express product and most recently LR's latest update now includes a new fine detail option that can be used to improve output from Fuji X-Trans raw files. Iridient has long been a favorite of Fuji X users for the above reason. If you have specific questions I may be able to help.

Joe


----------



## vintagesnaps (Feb 23, 2019)

Here's what I don't get - I realize the OP was asking about what people use to post process, but why not just frame differently to keep that pole out of the picture? Or change the vantage point of the winter scene so the bird house was not in view? Why not adjust the vantage point before releasing the shutter?

Even with the pole out of the frame there will still be power lines going to the building (and are some to the right), but it doesn't make sense to NOT have any to the left since a house/building would be connected to electricity (unless it was long abandoned or a cabin in the woods etc.).

It just seems like there could've been relatively quick adjustments when framing the photo. I can understand adjusting the color, or contrast, etc. to enhance the warm tone. I guess it was done for the purpose of being a tutorial, it just seems to be making unnecessary work to do this in real life when it would've been possible to adjust the vantage point at the time.


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 24, 2019)

vintagesnaps said:


> Here's what I don't get - I realize the OP was asking about what people use to post process, but why not just frame differently to keep that pole out of the picture? Or change the vantage point of the winter scene so the bird house was not in view? Why not adjust the vantage point before releasing the shutter?
> 
> Even with the pole out of the frame there will still be power lines going to the building (and are some to the right), but it doesn't make sense to NOT have any to the left since a house/building would be connected to electricity (unless it was long abandoned or a cabin in the woods etc.).
> 
> It just seems like there could've been relatively quick adjustments when framing the photo. I can understand adjusting the color, or contrast, etc. to enhance the warm tone. I guess it was done for the purpose of being a tutorial, it just seems to be making unnecessary work to do this in real life when it would've been possible to adjust the vantage point at the time.



That's totally true.

I remember the time my grandfather shot slides and projected it on a wall with a projector in his photo club.
All these images were just standard developed in the lab, without further editing.
The images you saw on the wall were as is, as seen in real life that moment.

A good photographer is a photographer that has to do the least editing afterwards, in my opinion. It's someone with a good eye for composition.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 24, 2019)

Dikkie said:


> A good photographer is a photographer that has to do the least editing afterwards, in my opinion. It's someone with a good eye for composition.



A very good argument to stay away from pixel editors then like Photoshop and GIMP. A good parametric editor is certainly the preferred tool for doing the least editing afterwards.

Joe


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 24, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> A very good argument to stay away from pixel editors then like Photoshop and GIMP. A good parametric editor is certainly the preferred tool for doing the least editing afterwards.


That's why I use RawTherapee for my parametric editing.


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 24, 2019)

Dikkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > A very good argument to stay away from pixel editors then like Photoshop and GIMP. A good parametric editor is certainly the preferred tool for doing the least editing afterwards.
> ...



And then you don't GIMP up your photos once you have all the editing completed in RT -- right?



Dikkie said:


> I prefer the combo of RawTherapee and Gimp





Dikkie said:


> 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.





Dikkie said:


> 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?


----------



## Dikkie (Feb 26, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> And then you don't GIMP up your photos once you have all the editing completed in RT -- right?



I still use GIMP in many many occasions, as a photo is in many cases not my end product, as I already explained before.

Artists, designers, editors and creative jobs who work with mixed media,... they don't limit themselves with a raw converter.
Graphical designers use other tools on top of a raw converter:  paper and pencil, drawing tablet, an already developed photo, ... and they use other software too: inkscape/illustrator to draw and use photo editors to create collages with elements from different media sources...
And that's what I have explained earlier in this thread: for photographers, the photo is the final product, but for lots of other people, it starts where it ends for a photographer. Some people start creating something from a photo as a base. And for lots of occasions you're not done with a raw converter alone.

Take this image below.
It consists of different layers. The watertower is shot during daytime in hazy sun. The lemon is edited so it fits around the subject as a border.
I'm wondering how you can just export an image like that from exactly one raw file that contains different photos?
I prefer to use an image editor for this, it's just my workflow that suits me and I'm not going to change that if you prefer another workflow.


----------



## K9Kirk (Feb 26, 2019)

I bought Photoshop Elements 2018 for a one time fee, no monthly fee. I suppose that means you don't get updates either but you do have what you need for editing pics. The first thing I did with mine was superimpose a cropped telephoto pic of the moon onto a different pic, it was so easy to do. I'm not saying it's the best program to use, just saying I like it ok for my needs --- so far.


----------



## crf8 (Feb 26, 2019)

Your original question doesn’t have much information. Windows or Mac? Hobby or pro? Prefer to pay once or subscription? 


FB.me/CRFinTN  Facebook 
www.flickr.com/crf8/


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 26, 2019)

Dikkie said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > And then you don't GIMP up your photos once you have all the editing completed in RT -- right?
> ...



You did and we had that conversation, remember:



Ysarex said:


> 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.



Your workflow is destructive. The choice of RT forces a destructive workflow. The OP is posting in a Photography Forum and your excuse for your destructive workflow is that you're a graphic artist -- fine -- that's off topic.*

As has been made clear in this thread a photographer (not graphic artist) is better served by a fully non-destructive workflow for the majority of their photo editing.

Joe

*Although a fully non-destructive parametric workflow is preferable certain applications eg. graphic arts and images that contain non-photographic content will require editors that can manipulate images at the pixel level.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 26, 2019)

One software that doesn't get much press is Corel. I've used it before and found it similar to PS. The problem I had with it was it's tendency to crash occasionally which was a PITA. However according to this they are non-destructive. AfterShot


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 26, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> One software that doesn't get much press is Corel. I've used it before and found it similar to PS. The problem I had with it was it's tendency to crash occasionally which was a PITA. However according to this they are non-destructive. AfterShot



AfterShot is Corel's raw converter and is typically sold in combination with PSP which is a pixel editor like PS. Very much like LR/PS but without the DAM capabilities of LR. Any work you do in AfterShot is non-destructive but if you start with a raw file in AfterShot and then move on to further edit in PSP you can add a destructive element to the process by performing raster edits in PSP.

The Corel alternative is inexpensive and the software is reasonably capable. Corel is infamous for their after-sales support.

Joe


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 26, 2019)

Ysarex said:


> is infamous for their after-sales support.



Yup as in lack of. Did they ever fix the crashing problem?


----------



## Ysarex (Feb 26, 2019)

smoke665 said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > is infamous for their after-sales support.
> ...



I have the most recent version on my laptop and it's running fine.

Joe


----------



## DanielPSAC (Mar 15, 2019)

In my opinion, this is a very important question.

It used to be that it was either Photoshop or GIMP. Some people used Macromedia Fireworks for a time. Macromedia was later acquired by Adobe and Fireworks was changed a little.

Now it's Photoshop, GIMP and Lightroom.

Regardless of what way you look at it, Adobe has always been at the forefront...

Adobe Photoshop was released in 1990 and it's still here 28 years later.

Lightroom has perhaps become the de-facto standard for photo editing these days as it's easier to learn, but this comes at a cost. It's essentially training wheels for photoshop and while you can certainly get good results with it, it's never going to be as powerful as Photoshop. 

GIMP is great for hobbyists in my opinion. The reason I say this is because if you're actually running a Photography business you should be able to afford $10/mo for either Lightroom or Photoshop.

The bottom-line is do you want to pick something and learn a software that you may later want to move away from? If you want the best possible results, if you care about consistently advancing your career then Photoshop is where you will end up. I don't care how much you earn, or what recognition you've got there's no getting around the fact that if you're a perfectionist you'll end up on Photoshop. If you use Lightroom and think you're a perfectionist, sorry, you're not.

So do you take a slightly steeper learning curve with photoshop now? In my opinion yes. Why put it off? The older you get the harder it is to learn for many reasons.


----------



## Dao (Mar 15, 2019)

DanielPSAC said:


> the fact that if you're a perfectionist you'll end up on Photoshop. If you use Lightroom and think you're a perfectionist, sorry, you're not.



Lightroom and Photoshop are 2 different software and they works together and one cannot replace the other.  And that's why you can launch PS from within LR.   There are stuff you need to do it in Lightroom.   Most of the POST I did I only do it in LR.  And once in a long while I may need to fire up PS when I really need to *EDIT* the photo.


----------



## DanielPSAC (Mar 15, 2019)

Dao said:


> DanielPSAC said:
> 
> 
> > the fact that if you're a perfectionist you'll end up on Photoshop. If you use Lightroom and think you're a perfectionist, sorry, you're not.
> ...



My point is that Photoshop can do everything Lightroom does. Lightroom can't do everything Photoshop does. So photoshop is more powerful. Why use both if you can do it all in Photoshop in my opinion.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 15, 2019)

DanielPSAC said:


> Dao said:
> 
> 
> > DanielPSAC said:
> ...



This is incorrect. LR (and similar parametric editors) can achieve a 100% non-destructive and non-linearly re-editable workflow (with massively increased efficiency) which PS can not do. There will always be situations in which a raster image editor is needed but if it can be avoided (usually can) there are substantial benefits.

Joe



DanielPSAC said:


> Lightroom can't do everything Photoshop does. So photoshop is more powerful. Why use both if you can do it all in Photoshop in my opinion.


----------



## Original katomi (Mar 30, 2019)

I was asked this question before by a newbi I would suggest photoshop or lightroom the photoshop elements is good
What ever you choose please please read up on what format to save in tiff, jpg, and so on I will not go into detail here but it’s worth learning about have fun and enjoy
Rem to save as you work so that you can go back to a good image if something you try ends up a mess


----------

