lsimpkins Loc: SE Pennsylvania

The comparison is signed off "Cheers, Darlene". Not a he.

I think this amounts to someone trying to justify their personal opinion (or bias) under the guise of objective testing.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

I am the INITIAL POSTER.Had no idea this would be so controversial. Being a beginner At PP I just thought I would see if I could help some other beginners.....guess beginners did not waste time replying. RATHER SMART OF THEM I WOULD SAY. There are many of us who are totally baffled by all the choices. Unlike many of you we are not biased. We are just looking to learn and decide. Anyway I know I am not interested in spending an hour editing 1 picture.....I would rather be behind my camera. Good luck to all in your PP decisions. And that's all I have to say about this.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Sorry that some got very adamant in their software choices. There are many good PP software packages on the net some free and some at cost, but it does become an individual decision and no one person can tell anouther what is right for them.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

Bruce everyone has a right to their opinion and choice as you just indicated. You do not need to apologize. Perhaps the post was biased toward one software item. I am not sure. The fact remains that various programs were reviewed and compared with others.

There are many people here and many types of photographers from one end of the spectrum to the other. Many are professionals and serious Amateurs while others are really simply casual picture takers. Our needs are not the same, our time commencement and our price commencement is not the same and that is fine.

I have no problem or did I have any problem with any of the comments except that none of the comments ever made constructive criticism which might have been very beneficial to any one wondering about a program for themselves. They all simply seemed to be based on the personal bias and experience of the poster. Perhaps somewhat like the woman who wrote the piece?

It would have been more useful I think if anyone would have gone into particulars as to what, in their opinion, was correct, what was incorrect within various comments of the woman who wrote the comparisons and to clarify. Thanks for commenting back though.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

It just sounded like the member anderzander (who is probably not on UHH anymore) had a problem with the discussion, I don't know what his problem was as no one stepped on him personally, but it seems like he was annoyed and decided to leave.

anderzander

My replies are in support of a good product, it was developed at the U of U, OK its obvious who you are if you can't appreciate some enlightened information on the state of technology that is used world wide.

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

I believe you, I myself use Bridge and Photoshop CC to do most of my processing (and have been doing so since 2008 with version 4 of Photoshop), I have extensive amount of plug-ins to assist in special tasks as well as actions. I do not have a stake in any one processing technology, but all my efforts are in photo editing (and I understand there is more to Photoshop than just photo editing), and on this site the majority of people are interested in photo editing. There are a number of photo editing software available to photographers and no one software package is suitable for everyone, some are willing to put in the time and investment to learn Photoshop/Lightroom and others are not willing to do so and there are alternatives. I am not an educator and do not promote my ideas only my experience with what I have and have done. Do you believe that your way is the only way and if others do not follow your train of thought they have less intelligence (that is how you seem to be coming off and I may be wrong in my assumption)?