CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

Takes guts to post this, lol! A few weeks ago the same editor wrote part one which rated several PP software programs. Now she has posted her second installment with four more. She says there will be at least one more so a minimum of three covering a dozen or more programs.....some cost $$ some free.

Comments here from hoggers varied from disagreement to crucify her (or perhaps me for posting, LOL?) Most posters indicated she was paid by Luminar because she gave it top most ratings for beginners. Those posters who use Luminar offered praise naturally. She was accused of bias, but it seemed to me that almost everyone posting was evidencing the same bias. Everyone likes what they are used to and use, naturally....

I am not posting this for those who are happy with what they have, period. I honestly don't care what anyone other than myself use. But there are those who are here and do not know where to go with their PP and to those folks I submit this post, simply for consideration.

Wondering if I will have any friends here after this second installment, but I am interested to find out........here goes!

https://www.digitalphotomentor.com/best-photo-editing-software/?ck_subscriber_id=132361485

Joe Blow

I haven't read your link, yet, but agree we all like what we are used to.

BTW, how much are you paying for people to like you? ;-)

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

A simple question. Are you using UHH just to promote or advertise another website or author? Do you have any value to add in terms of your own assessment? I may be completely wrong, but your post has elements that may be considered disingenuous at best, and at worst would be subject to less flattering descriptions.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

All I do is try to thank anyone and everyone who takes the time to help me with my questions. I am an eager learner!

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

Peter, I think I summed it up in the opening post when I said "I am not posting this for those who are happy with what they have, period. I honestly don't care what anyone other than myself use. But there are those who are here and do not know where to go with their PP and to those folks I submit this post, simply for consideration."

I don't know whether the author has a vested interest in any of the vendors or not and honestly do not care. As far as I know this UHH site is a forum for sharing information. To my knowledge it does not sell PP software or anything else for that matter. With that said, it is disingenuous to infer that I am promoting "another website or author." As I indicated in the initial post, I am simply relaying details of various PP programs written by someone who studied various programs and knows far more than I do, for those who are having trouble deciding what they want to use. If you had actually read any of it with an open mind you would have seen that.

As far as answering any further silly comments anyone wants to make, you may all have the last word, or compete with each other for it. I will not waste further time with it.

Bill_de Loc: US

This belongs in LINKS & RESCOURCES where the other one was sent.

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

The internet is full of reviews by photography websites offering tuition,top tips etc. Most 'import' images that back up their advice rather than use their own work.
There are a number of well established Professional photographic artists who offer advice 'on what and how' they use 'X' to produce their work. They use their own images 'in the main'.

For the serious beginner Photoshop and PSE have the most tutorials. With a little thought these tutorials can be adapted easily to The Gimp and probably many more programmes that have been around for years such as Coral etc. The more modern programmes are starting to mimic Lightroom by building a catalogue with many key word search capabilities.

The main issues are initial cost and the degree of manipulation that you 'want to use' or 'are capable' of getting right.Do you want 'everything' in one programme (whether you need it or not)

Like photography, where people tell you how easy it is!!!Post processing has lots of 'expert' modes and 'presets' that may or may not give you a helping hand. But,the bottom line is that it is up to the individual to figure out how to 'improve' their images. People like different things.

Personally I would advise: use the free ones...These can be as complex as you want or, as simple as you need.
The shortcomings of one programme may be available in another. An image file can be worked on by different programmes at different times to achieve 'effects' . You just need to know what 'effect' you want and which programme will do it.

In the last decade, postprocessing has 'exploded' as has camera ownership (in whatever form). The 'older' programmes often have a 'legacy' of tips and tools and plug-ins. Modern programmes have responded to those particular 'effects' that have become 'mainstream'. So again, it depends upon what you want/need etc.

On UHH there have been several questions about 'the degree of manipulation' members use. It ranges from very little 90% of the time - to 'Lots' most of the time - to just the odd 'effect' as required. Whilst many use the same paid for programmes, many others use different programmes and or 'freeware'.

It isn't a case of what is best...or better than...It is having an understanding of what you need to do to achieve a specific effect. Then find a programme that will do it.

have fun

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

Now you may well be correct on that. I am relatively new here. How can I get it moved?

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I asked a question, since some people here do try and promote various solutions, sometimes to their own advantage. Is it disingenuous to ask the question?

As for silly, that is up to others to decide. You have no idea what I have read, nor how open / closed my mind is.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

Thank you for an informative and useful post. My own processing skills are relatively weak, I have used Picasa for years only recently moving to Lightroom Classic, which I am not very good at yet. Perhaps that is why I have been interested in helping others find good PP software.

Bill_de Loc: US

The administrators will take care of it.
It probably bordered on spam.

From the title you make it look like you are doing the comparisons, not promoting Darlene's site.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Your desire to help is laudable and appreciated. On the other hand, promoting other people's recommendations can be perceived as gratuitous or even spamming people. Adding your own value / experiences is a little different and certainly encouraged. My apologies if I overreacted.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

I re=read the title and agree it does read like I am making the comparisons, which I do not have the experience nor knowledge to do. Nor am I promoting a site. I simply wanted to share information. Seriously, as I said I am relatively new here. My motives were not selfish, on the contrary I was trying to help others who don't really know where they need to go for PP.

If this was not allowed, I am sorry. There was no intent to do anything other than help others who want to know a little more about the various alternatives.

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

Thank you Peter, I appreciate this comment. Perhaps I over-reacted as well. I had no intention of promoting her recommendations at all. She is a pro so I assume she knows what she is talking about. I thought reading her comments might assist someone in deciding what to perhaps try out.

After all most give a free trial period for making one's on evaluation....regardless, I do see where you are coming from. I assure you I was simply attempting to pass along what I personally found interesting, and thought might be helpful to someone. And no, she and I have never met and I am not being paid for recommending reading her posts.

Bill_de Loc: US

If that's the case, I apologize.

I think I mentioned the last time you posted this that she was providing discount coupons for one of the software packages. If you are an unbiased reviewer you don't promote a product.

You could probably find a better source for the information. When you provide a link with an endorsement like you gave the first time, things appear hinky. I quote:

"The purpose of this post is not to discuss this, it has been beaten to death already. I do want to share a link I saw just this morning, where someone who knows much more than I do, and perhaps some of you as well, who has taken it on to review the most popular, report back after use and to rate them not only as to which he likes, but to rate them as to which might be best for the beginner processor as well as for the intermediate processor."

Good Luck

--