mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Classes and workshops tend to use them because they are used by so many people and are the closest thing to a post processing international standard. Practically everyone has heard of Photoshop even though they may not have ever seen it or used it. I suppose the goal if for everyone on the same platform for consistency.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

Yes, Why, and Why are the posted questions. The simple answer is that those who do not apply reason apply name-recognition. For me, the goal is to edit a photo as easily as possible, PS and LTR make life difficult with steep learning curves and profitable for Adobe by monthly fees. There are many edit programs for free or one reasonable fee; Affinity is one of the new kids on the block with new program coding and lots of online tutorials.

I have used Topaz Plugins for years, was told that PS could do any thing that Topaz does. Well perhaps, but climb a mountain with PS when there is a Topaz Tunnel thru gets you to the goal quicker and with ease. While I pay little for the Edit Program I use, I pay well for the important plugins.

Next time you blow your nose on a generic "Kleenex" remember that the end result of an edited photo by any edit program is "Photoshop-ed."

The basic tools of all edit programs are sufficient to crop to the story. Composition is key to a winning photo, the eye will excuse many deficiencies as long as the message is given to the mind. Check out "A psychological exploration into how people create, share, and react to images in the age of cyberspace and digital photography" This book is free and is extensive with photo examples.

http://truecenterpublishing.com/photopsy/article_index.htm

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

As far as expenses go, I don't think it is that expensive when you think about the earlier versions of Photoshop, first you had to buy the software for either $700 or $1,200 depending on version (plain or 3D) and then to keep up with updates at least $200 every other year. So at $120/year or $9.95/month I don't think it is bad and you get the updates for free.

mdeveria

What other software program has become a standard, oft used verb? A photo has been 'shopped' or 'Photoshopped', never heard of a photo being 'Lightroomed'. Just saying. Now going back to shopping my pics.

Nikonman44

this is an idea from just a very happy, photographer who spends probably 25 to 30 hours every week behind the camera and sharing the products of my efforts.

Please don't misunderstand my thoughts; I believe the program are good and are crutches for folk who like to tweet what their eyes and brains created.

Again don't get upset but those programs are to create a vision that was not there or the photographer wanted to capture (what they thought would be) in the view finder but missed it.

They are extremely good if you believe the work you did needs a touch up or two.

My intent is to see, imagine and capture that fleeting moment that was in fact there and want to share with others.

They have a place and very valuable but I like to see what the Nikon and me can do by ourselves.

Good luck

mborn Loc: Massachusetts

Gene, as usual right on!

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I started with Adobe Lightroom about 7 years ago (before Adobe Cloud). I had program on disk (the only way you could get it at the time) and loved it. I was invited to the Adobe Cloud rollout about 4 years ago and signed up immediately. The wife and I both attended a really good presentation by Adobe and the Tampa Bay Photography Club. I was impressed with all that you got for the $9.99 per month including and especially all of the updates. I have it installed on 5 computers (2 desktops and 3 laptops) with one license that is good for 2 installs at any given time. All this means is that, if I am already logged into two computers, the Adobe application will tell me that all my licenses are used and that I can either log out of one, or it can log out of both for me so that I can log in with the computer that I'm on now. It's a very good system as it doesn't limit me to a specific machine. Also, when on the laptops, I have a couple of 4tb usb 3.0 drives that I use to upload my images to from the cameras. This keeps my SD cards empty and ready for the next shoot. I also have my WD Cloud drive attached to my home computer network, so I can upload a copy of all of my images back to the home and get them away from my current location (this is backup insurance incase the hotel room is robbed, hotel fire, etc.). My point to all of this is that Adobe allows me to work the way that I want to and keeps everything easily transportable. I have many of the other programs installed on my home desktop and some of the ones that I use most often installed on the laptop, but Adobe is where I start and everything else is just gravy. I can do 99% of everything within Adobe...
NOTE: with the Adobe Cloud, you do NOT have to have internet access to open and use your Adobe apps. You need to have internet access to log-in the first time to get it "registered" and to unregister the other computers, but Adobe allows you to use the program for roughly 30days without internet (once it is initially connected and the id is verified). This is nice if you are camping in the boonies and don't have internet access. I have a laptop with 2 spare batteries and also access to a generator if I'm really out in the field.. Usually though, I'm in a hotel or motel and do have internet access and power.
In answer to the other part of this... I use Lightroom about 90% of the time and (knowing the limitations of Lightroom) if the photo requires something beyond the scope of Lightroom, I can export the image to Photoshop (keeping the edits from Lightroom) and continue to work the image. I use Lightroom multiple times a day and Photoshop, maybe once or twice a week. Yes, I could probably get by with Lightroom only, but for $9.99 per month, I get both so why would I bother?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Lightroom is a basic editing tool, but I use it more as an organizational tool. I can add keywords to all my photos and the database makes it really easy to find things years later using those keywords. The database seems restrictive to some because you have to do any moving of photos through it in order to keep things in the database, but it doesn't have to be restrictive. (If you move something outside of Lightroom you are still provided with the tools to tell the database where they have been moved to).

If you organize your photos through a good folder structure before importing them into LR, you can have it both ways. I recommend using a folder structure with meaningful names so it's easy to find things by subject. I also recommend changing the file names to meaningful names because if you copy a file or send it to someone it's immediately obvious what it is about before they open the file.

Photoshop is the most complete editing program I've come across and it does things beyond photography. I use it for signs and posters as well as photography. But you don't have to learn it all to be able to use it. In my case, Lightroom does editing well enough for maybe 90% of my photos. The rest go into Photoshop for mostly small changes. The combination of Lightroom and Photoshop works well together since you can import a photo into Lightroom, do some editing, then when you find you need to do something Lightroom doesn't do, you can send it to Photoshop right from within the Lightroom program. When you're done in Photoshop, saving the result sends it back to Lightroom and places it in the database. The handshaking makes the program pair outstanding.

sergio

they are the best although not the simplest.

tcthome Loc: NJ

You can always check with the instructors. If you have the same tools in your software there is no reason you can't do the same edits but, you probably won't get the same value out of the class. Another option is to subscribe , take your classes & unsubscribe if you feels its not worth it for you. Either way you choose , have fun.

LCD

Photoshop has more features and tricks than you'll ever need. They have the development budget other companies don't have, so they can constantly tweak improvements into it. Everyone uses it so it is the Lingua Franca of photographers. Lightroom is less dense with features and tricks, but does what it does very well. Saying that, PS and LR are lousy for just viewing your images, being personal or pulled from the internet. For that reason I use ACDSee for that purpose. Their photo editor is decent from what I've done with it. It doesn't commit you to using it forever like PS/LR. I would say there are small differences between it and LR and PS at my level of usage. But I've invested too much time learning to work with PS/LR and don't see the need to possibly confused myself with another system.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

rmorrison1116 gave a pretty good answer: "They are the best documented, most powerful and most advertised of the photo editing software."

I would like to add Adobe Photoshop is probably the first of today's popular ones. Corel was early in the game as well. Ps, Ps CS, and now Ps CC are the de facto industry standards. This is not to mean that others can not do the job as well. Some others are easier. Note a big difference between Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Lightroom is Photoshop is a pixel editor. Lightroom operates very differently and somewhat uniquely. Perhaps the most significant thing I can add that is often forgotten is Photoshop was originally created as a Graphic Design Program that had some features and tools useful to photographers. It evolved more into a photo processing program over time, as Autocad was created as an engineering drawing program.

Nikon1201

I agree with all the posts here. I think everyone should try the 30 day trial of On1 Camera Raw. To me it does it all and everything you need to know can be found in simple tutorials in YouTube.

LCD

Photoshop has more features and tricks than you'll ever need. They have the development budget other companies don't have, so they can constantly tweak improvements into it. Everyone uses it so it is the Lingua Franca of photographers. Lightroom is less dense with features and tricks, but does what it does very well. Saying that, PS and LR are lousy for just viewing your images, being personal or pulled from the internet. For that reason I use ACDSee for that purpose. Their photo editor is decent from what I've done with it. It seems to have reversed-engineered a lot of PS/LR features. It is cheaper. Plus, it doesn't commit you to using it forever, unlike PS/LR. I would say there are small differences between it and LR and PS at my level of usage. But I've invested too much time learning to work with PS/LR and don't see the need to possibly confused myself with putting another editing system into my head.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

All good points, and I concur.