Which photo editing program/service?

[DigiFilm]

Programs I use

Darktable: An amazing and powerful free program, well supported and updated twice a year. As powerful as Adobe, but focused more on processing than editing. Ridiculously powerful masking and top-notch batch processing. There is a learning curve, so be aware. Current version is 4.8. DT has been my go-to since 2019 or so.

Affinity: A good do it all program with plenty of editing features. Kind of a weird setup with different 'personas', I don't like having to develop my RAW file before I can do basic functions like cropping. Abhorrent batch processing but works very well for one at a time files. Excellent modules. Affinity updates for free, I think since I bought it the first time there was only one paid update, from Affinity 1 to Affinity 2. All interim updates have been at no cost, and they do include new features. Affinity also has a suite with graphics programs and others that all work together as a unit.

Other cool software:

FastStone image viewer: This will do all kinds of stuff like basic editing and processing, but the main thrust is sorting/culling/management. It has shortened my post workflow from days to hours. It uses the standard Windows file scheme. It will open any files you can think of, including HEIF (HEIC). Totally free and very intuitive, never seen an update for it in the two years I've used it, maybe I should check. Regardless, it works well the way it is.

Paint.net: Another freebie and well suited for getting deep into a jpeg. Won't do RAW. Works with layers and has some interesting effects. Another well supported open-source program, updates are regular. This was originally supposed to be MS Paint on steroids, but when MS abandoned it, the developer carried on. As such, it will look very familiar, except the steroids part.

DXO Deep Prime: A Denoise program that works on its own while you eat lunch. The results from this are always pleasing and sometimes jaw-dropping. Probably the best $ I've ever spent on software. The program recognizes the camera/len combination and downloads it from their site. It applies demosaic, lens corrections including vignette, soft lens correction, distortion, and denoise at the same time. It takes 1-1/2 minutes per photo on my computer, but I can put a whole bunch in and walk away while it works. Everything is automated. The result is a DNG file that can then be further processed same as you would a RAW file.

 

[Strodav]

The only real difference between LRC and PS (ACR), is the name if all you are going to do is edit simple photographs. Even with AI, which I refuse to use, simple is simple. However once you get past simple, then PS is your lifelong partner. Now you have a program with layers, masks, channels, etc. As to difficulty to use, it's like the difference between driving an old car with a slushomatic and driving a new Porche; once you get familiar with the controls, life in the editing studio is the Le Mans and many more races after that. I've been using PS since ver 1.1 (1991) and Beta testing every version since 2001. The hardest part about learning photoshop is ignoring everyone who tells you how difficult it is to learn. T'aint so, I say.

Jools..PS was never free and yes, like all editing platforms worth a flip, you pay for upgrades, except with the Cloud version. Since it came into being, I pay $9.99 a month, which considering what I get is pretty close to free.

I understand your argument, but the days of buy a license and expect updates forever are gone. With the Adobe subscription I get frequent updates that are not only bug fixes by major feature enhancements. The work (read that as salaries) that is required for enhancements is expensive, so I don't mind the subscription. The enhancements made to LrC and PS have been amazing over the last 12 months. With regenerative fill, I've been able to take those once spoiled shots with a twig or branch in front of a bird and just remove it as if it wasn't there. AI helps me bring a new level of creativity to my photography. Maybe Adobe's tools are not for everyone, but they sure have elevated my game.

 

[DavidVallone]

A good option is one that balances ease of use with powerful features. Look for something with strong editing tools and an intuitive interface that fits your style and workflow.

 

[JoolsW]

I love Affinity Photo, because it's very cheap, it works VERY well, and it frees me from the exploitative Adobe business model.

 

[21limited]

If your wife has an iPad, Photos, though a little quirky is great software. Its AI module corrects 7 different metrics and you work from there. Everything it does is on slider bars, so if you don't like what it's done, it's easy to change.

I have had files saved on jpeg, that a few years later when I went back to re-edit them had banding that made them unusable in the new look, making them unusable. The banding is caused by lack of colour depth in the jpeg image. (this is especially true if you are tying to rescue shadow detail.) If you want full access to colour depth your camera produces, RAW or TIFF is what works.
I used to teach high school photography, so I've taught photoshop. I consider it to be overly complex for my needs. Photoshop and Lightroom are great for graphic artists, but as a hobby photographer, way more than I'd ever use.

Over the last year or two I've gone back and redone many of my older photos using Apple Photos and I've been impressed with how many I've been able to improve. That plus Topaz, which again is quite quirky, but can do an amazing job on out of focus images and to cater to the optimum for human vision representation. ( The AI can emphasize details that off the carmera are two small to be seen., optimally, like the fur detail in the fox below. Topaz accentuates the fur detail.) However, you really have to watch out for the AI creating image ruining artifacts. Its always trial and error, and in some cases, for some images, it's algorithms produce unacceptable artifacts, no matter how you try and tweak it.

So, my current workflow is Apple Photos, on my phone or my computer, then, Topaz. For most phone images Topaz isn't necessary. Apple has built a lot of AI into its in phone processing. For ILCs I find almost every image benefits from Topaz. And becasue I use it, I recognize it, or competing software, on most of the best image displayed. It creates a look, moving the images away from the "technical look" and more like an artistic look.

Almost all the images on my flickr page have been processed on Apple Photos, and most of the DSLR images have been processed in Topaz.

normhead

Explore normhead’s 2,796 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

And Photos is free, when you buy your Apple product, phone, tablet or computer, and updated free with each operating system upgrade... (which are also free.)

Topaz
2025-03-01-Feeder-Fox-3 by Norm Head, on Flickr

iPhone and Photos ( or whatever AI assisted software you choose. My understanding is almost all major processing platforms are including AI assists, but, if you are really interested, you might have to try a few to find out who's algorithms suit your style.) )
2024-10-21-AP-Opeongo-Access by Norm Head, on Flickr

The AI assisted post processing look is becoming standard.

"My wife only wants to use her her IPad to edit photos so this will obviously limit what she can do."

Have her start with Photos, included with the iPad software, move on from there if necessary. I don't think she'll find it limiting. And why pay for what you paid for when you bought your device if it meets your needs?

 

[10acres]

@21limited we’ve just been using the program on Photos on our IPads. We also store a lot of pics in Google Photos and they have a pretty good program also. We don’t like to do much editing so they have been working fine for our needs.

 

[tinytmp]

It's a choice and yes, if you want to do detailed fine art and have more control and like the hands on, sure. If the argument is space and someone is shooting RAW, they might as well shoot RAW+JPG because now you have the best of both, should you need something. What I mean is, if you want a fast and smaller image, you have the JPG. If you need to do some detailed editing, you have the RAW.

If you see that your RAW images aren't necessary, for what you do, you can always turn it off?

I don't shoot RAW, I don't use the files or need them. Personal choice for what I do.

Affinity Photo is a very capable software. I bought the first version, because I just wanted to see how I liked it. Lifetime updates, which I don't get, because they are on version 2 now. But still, it's a good one. CANVA just bought Affinity, I don't know what that means for the future or the price.

I own Photoshop Elements and that's what I use click here. Just in case someone doesn't need all the fancy parts of Photoshop, it's really a good tool. Most everything you can do in Photoshop, you can do with Elements, just that if you are going into deep editing and alterations, it will not be as easy, because less features are automated. Here's the point. If you are editing photos, Elements is just fine. You buy it, you own it, no CC charges.

Advantage to Adobe CC, your software will always be up to date, automatically, all the time. Features and fixes. $10 a month for Lightroom and PS, is $120 a year. I'm not sold on subscription, but how much did the software used to cost? So what if I owned it, I had to update every couple of years, which might be $350 or $700? The subscription is less, in the long run.

But being a stubborn old person, I buy Elements every few years for $79 and I'm happy. A bit of irony in all of that? I have a free photo CC subscription for LR, PS and some other photo applications, and I don't use them. I'm very happy with Elements.

After all of that, Affinity Photo does many more things than Elements, and has many more features. It edits more like LR in that you have non-destructive editing and working versions of files, that you can save Afphoto versions, and can go back. To create a JPG, or any other raster image, you export the image. Your originals are unaltered.

My vote is Affinity Photo, unless you like Adobe and only need photo editing, then Elements.

PS No one should be without Irfanview on their computer. Just for the filing and quick and easy features, renaming, resizing, basically everything except serious "photo editing". Crop, auto color, make thumbnail sheets, make websize versions, convert file types... and if necessary, quick photo editing, with minimal features. But Irfanview is an amazing tool for photographers, that's often overlooked.

Yes, shooting in RAW is recommended as it provides more flexibility for editing. Lightroom is a great choice for beginners and offers an easy-to-use interface with powerful features. The $10/month subscription for Lightroom and Photoshop is a good deal, especially if you’re just starting out. It’s user-friendly and perfect for someone new to photo editing.

 

[JoolsW]

Why knuckle-under and let Adobe get you by the balls and pay them for nothing. When you have free options at least as good?

 

[21limited]

Adobe makes great software for graphic artists, but is way more than you need for photography. My first expereince of Photoshop was in a graphic arts studio on what used to be called a ‘Midi” computer with 4 work stations. MY buddy did the Micheal Jordan cherios box on one of them. Every one of their demonstration videos, I always think “well that’s great, but I have no desire to do that.” Ifound with 90% of my photos ll I needed was the oen button auto-enhance feature don’t really know what they do now, but my Photo’s now is way more user freindly and productive than photoshop was, but that would be comparing AI software with photoshop from 20 years ago. I’m sure Photoshop has moved along, but, it will always be way more than I need. There is nothing that would make me switch to photoshop from photos. When I need photoshop type features, I use Pixelmator, and I use it maybe twice a year.