CaptMD

New to photography, five years. New to Ugly Hedgehog...love it! Photography was suggested to me in a PTSD group, they were right, life looks brighter now . Anyway, I like Luminar and Aurora, easy to use, easy to understand. What concerns me, I want to join some photography workshops hosted by (for Example) 'Arizona Highways', however when the "golden hours" are finished, the rest of the time is spent working on your photographys using...what else, Lightroom and Photoshop. Why? Are those two processing programs the oldest kids on the block, is that the reason? Insights would be appreciated.

rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania

They are the best documented, most powerful and most advertised of the photo editing software.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

They have become the de facto standard due to longevity, integration with other graphics programs, and massive marketing.

Some people swear by a different program, but then again, many folks thought Word Perfect was better software than Word and Lotus 123, which once had a dominant market position, bent under the weight of Mighty Microsoft's all-powerful development and marketing. By the time 123 died, Excel was clearly the better product.

So you pays your money (or not) and takes your chances. I've used PS Elements and Organizer for years, but recently switched to LightRoom / PS and couldn't be happier for ten bucks a month (except maybe if it were five bucks a month...). But I still have GIMP and use it occasionally, just to keep in practice in case Adobe suddenly jacks the price of LR.

One bit of advice: Pick your software and learn it thoroughly before you give up on it. There are many good ones out there, but any of them can do the job. It's kind of like the Canon/Nikon thing, only with one mega player and a bunch of smaller independents. Get skilled in the one you choose, and you can make a judgment on whether it does what you need it to do before moving on or continuing.

Andy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Photoshop for starters, followed, chronologically, by Lightroom are the applications all the others try to mimic. PS is a lot more powerful than LR for doing editing. It allows a great deal more than LR. I've been using PS since 2002 and have updated since. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, it's extensive. I'd prefer to work with the original rather than the "it works like photoshop" imitations.
-Bob

DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area

Lingua Franca Definition: A language that is adopted as a common language between speakers whose native languages are different.

LR and PS are the Lingua Franca of the photographic post-processing world.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

5 years does not sound new to me. Anyway...

Photoshop was the first digital editing tool and it has grown and changed over time, Adobe's creative tools are the standard for graphics arts professionals. Use what you like, if you like Luminar and Aurora then keep using them.

jtlareau Loc: Hurst, TX (originally Toledo, OH)

First let me say that what I am saying is strictly MY opinion only and hate, sarcasm and one-upsmanship are not appreciated. Many here have strong opinions about these programs based on years of experience and they are welcome to their opinions.

That said, I really have much more experience as a computer guy (45+ years) than an amateur photographer (~ 2 years)... Based on my experiences, I am not impressed with Lightroom. Being a catalog database based system it is extremely dependent on doing EVERYTHING through the program, meaning that you may have to change how you interact with the computer in order to avoid 'losing' photographs as the program loses track if the operating system (i.e. Using file explorer to copy or move photographic files); they are not really lost... Lightroom must simply find the files again and synchronize its catalog to the new location(s). Additionally, like any other catalog or database oriented systems, it is more prone to issues during operating system crashes, power outages, and system update events. If you are well organized in doing regular backups and feel comfortable in an environment that requires this, you will feel comfortable with Lightroom. Also, if you are a professional or long time amateur photographer, Lightroom's processes will likely seem familiar to you.

Photoshop is a different matter. In my opinion, Photoshop is the best program to use for post processing AND creative effects in photography and graphic design. I'm sure that there are equally good programs out there that do similar types of processing, but Photoshop tutorials are widely available, using Google to quickly find solutions or answers to Photoshop questions is really easy, and results are amazing. There are no catalogs to corrupt or lose, you can continue using any operating system knowledge to manipulate, move or copy files and you can continue to maintain any file system structure that you choose to organize your photographs.

In the end, you will have to research the available programs, their usage, and their ratings with users and eventually make up your own mind based on your own experiences.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Solid advice. And one of the members who realizes that what's right for one is not necessarily right for another.

Personally, I love LightRoom, and am willing to do the somewhat clunkier file management from within it for the overall convenience and control it gives me. The export function allows you to use and edit RAW files many times without the loss that comes when you edit and save JPEGs many times. You can save as many versions as you want - they come in the form of "instructions" on what to do with the original RAW file, so you never lose image quality. I also like the way it mimics what I used to do in a darkroom, but with more capability. There are also a number of special effects presets and plug ins available for it, which is really a plus if you like certain "looks" or effects. I find myself going full Photoshop less and less often as I gain experience with LR.


That's my choice, but I totally realize that others might not have the same reasons or preferences. I hope you get a lot of advocates for other software packages as well, so you can make up your mind on which features are most important to you.


Andy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

You've echoed my sentiments regarding LR. Long before LR was released, I designed a database for my images, film and digital. After all is done and filed, I programmatically extract the exif data and use certain fields in that file to fill the database fields. That database runs on a server that allows me access to it from anywhere I have internet access. Search and sort on any number of fields and it returns the name and thumbnail of all the images that meet the search criteria.

I looked at LR when it was first released. It just didn't offer near the power or PS. I stayed with PS.
--Bob

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Photoshop was the preferred programme for professional photographers (A newsprint standard) and its original price made it 'aspirational' to amateurs. Once other programmes came online the cost of PS made it less popular / competative so Adobe dropped its price. Photoshop is the negative pronoun for editing your images.....But is still the number one 'wanted' programme.

LR is a catalogue and workflow system allied to photoshop and PSE. If you need the PC to find a particular image using several standard key identifyers, LR is probably the most difficult to set up and the quickest to use.

Non adobe products are quickly starting to dominate the market. From the simple to the extensive. Gimp has upgraded. Darktable is a great LR alternative. Digicam is a great standalone programme with regular updates.

Depending on your photographic needs, Post processing can be done using a whole host of programmes rather than 'in a single one'. The best ones are the ones that works for you in a specific area. Try several of the free ones. Don't immediately delete the ones that 'fail to meet your needs now' as some have a different sets of tools. Handy when you need them.....and at some point you will. There are raw converters too.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I use both regularly. I've been a Photoshop user since version 3 - not CS3 but the original Version 3 from the late 90s. It was good software then and is much better now. Well established, taught in high schools and colleges, used as the standard application in the majority of corporate graphics departments, has a user base of over 9,000,000, and is pretty much the standard against which all other software is compared.

Lightoom is a repackaged Adobe Camera Raw in a faster, sleeker, better organized user interface. It uses a Digital Asset Management (DAM) database to manage all of the images you ask it to manage for you. While detractors complain about the value of a catalog - I have over 200,000 images in mine, and if you ask me to find pictures of eagles taken in January 2011 at such and such location - it will produce the result within a second or two of my pressing the enter key.

Lightroom is not an image finishing program. Being a parametric editor, it will get you to a very good quality proof, but not good enough for client work or publication. That's were Photoshop, which is a pixel editor, shines. You cannot do fashion-industry quality retouching, image restoration, etc with LR.

DAM works best for those who take a few minutes up front to learn it. The benefit ends up being hours saved in image management. And no you don't have to carry on all of your management inside of LR. I will often return from a job with 1200 or more images, and find it faster to copy the images to the hard drive, use a simple file browser to cull the bad ones, and then add the folder to the catalog. Likewise if I need to move folders from one drive to another I can simply move them in Windows Explorer, then let LR know what I did by right clicking on the folder names with the Question Mark on them and selecting the option to Synchronize folders.

I have saved 100s of hours a year using LR, and since I charge for my time, that translates to a lot of $$$$$, and more time shooting for fun and/or profit. I found the browser method used by most applications, including Adobe Bridge, to be a bit more labor intensive and less efficient. For many years that was all I used, and found LR to be a breath of fresh air.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

I started out on PaintShop Pro (4.x) twenty(?) years ago, but quickly learned Photoshop (4) was way more powerful. Went through PS 5 and 6, then started using LR 5.x then 6.x as over time they were released. Now its PS CC and LR Classic CC (and a handful of subordinates/alternates, depending on the image or what evil intentions I might have any given moment), but the bottom line is that life without PS would be difficult, and without LR, there'd be no life at all. Those who believe LR is only good for database stuff are seeing the forest well enough, I suppose, but are missing the trees completely, IMHO.

I have no opinions about various of the other editing applications people use and swear by. Tried a few (Micrografx, Gimp, yada yada) along the way, but was never satisfied. I imagine the more recent ones get the job done, well enough, if the user's criteria is 'well enough,' but to me, well enough is not good enough. Ergo PS and LR. Complaints about learning curves are inaccurate, off-putting, and as far as I'm concerned, largely bogus. Whatever a person's learning style, if you want to learn something, and you spend some time actualizing that, you will learn the something you wanted to learn, and probably a great deal more.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

biggest market share, most common, more "how-tos", more add ons, plug ins, filters available etc etc etc
They are so dominant that they are the standard all other post processing apps are compared to or judged by.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Capt, welcome to the Hog!
Those two are the international std...., PERIOD!!!
That’s why!
SS

btbg

To put it simply that's what the workshop leaders, and the vast majority of professionals use. You can't expect the workshop leaders to learn new software just because you use it. Imagine the confustion of they teach a technique and half of the people in the workshop are using different software, which either can't do what they are showing, or does it with different terminology, or controls in different locations. The class would not work. It would be like teaching a workshop on how to use excel while half of the class was using open office. Both programs might work, but the instruction is based on the one that the teacher uses. They are teaching what works for them and what works for them is photoshop and lightroom.