jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

I know how to save PSD files in PS, it's just extremely inefficient.

And, I never lose XML sidecards... I backup all my network in a local NAS, which in turn is backup on a second NAS located on a different location via VPN which - in turn - is backup on the cloud.

Yes, the cloud is rented, but I keep my primary backup locally, so if I want to quit the cloud or move to a different one, I lose nothing.

russelray Loc: La Mesa CA

File>Save as..... Yep, really inefficient. But if you consider it so inefficient, I would recommend learning how to record actions, especially using stop functions in your actions. It's pretty cool.

I have nothing in the cloud, just originals on one computer, backups on another computer, backups in house on 12 TB's of external hard drives, and backups off site on another 12 TB's of external hard drives. I make an extraordinarily nice residual income in my retirement years from my Photographic Art, so that last thing I need is to be losing it.

trikke1976

Whatever program you chose just check that it supports your camera and lenses. Cr3 files can be a problem at the moment. I have a Adobe subscription BC I need to. But I also have on1 and prefer it over the LR/PS. I moved to on1 for the same reason I hate subscriptions. Those free updates everyone talks about are just tiny improvement. LR still looks the same as when it came out. On1 on the other hand has changed a lot and are now on the point that it's easier to use and has more functionalities. Yes it needs some more work. Backups are a pain and do is speed. But with on1 I know they use my money to bring the best year after year. Once I don't need LR anymore it goes away. And the other advantage is that once I have no interest in the on1 updates I can just skip a year . Btw if you chose to go for on1 consider the plus package. It gives you access to the forum, access to free stuff, early test upgrades,....

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

Here's a little reality check for you. Adobe, the industry leader, didn't get there with photographers and an industry that does not believe in photo enhancement. Over 9,000,000 photographers including corporate graphics departments, art schools, advanced intermediates, and hobbyists in photo clubs all do some form of image enhancement. This follows in the footsteps of some of the greatest visual artists in the medium of photography.

In order to create art, you need to make a piece of art that has visual appeal. Sometimes the subject has potential, but needs a little help.

Another little reality check. Software companies need to stay in business. They do this by creating product that serves their target endusers. Those that get it right, grow. Those that don't, go away or get purchased. In order to maintain a leadership position, two things are necessary - you need to publish a relevant, high quality product, and you need to charge money for it.

I am sorry that you don't understand the business model. But you either pay $1000s for a custom piece of software that you can "own" or you pay a small fee so that you can use it - aka a software license - which makes considerably more economic sense for the average end user. The last so-called "perpetual license" of Photoshop cost $1000. Enough photographers thought it was of sufficient quality, and they bought it. When the upgrade came around - and it always did in prior versions - you were able to use your current license and get a considerable credit towards the new version. But that would still cost $250.

The context of your objection does not exactly jive with a rational understanding of business and cost/benefit. Photoshop and Lightroom simply is the best deal out there. It is unparalleled in market share, usability, educational support (IT is the software that is most widely taught in HS and colleges), and it is one of the most aggressively maintained and updated software in the marketplace. There is nothing that can be done to an image that cannot be done in the PS/LR package. And you are complaining that $120/yr is somehow an example of getting screwed.

Sure you can get free or low cost stuff, with very little support and software that blows up on your computer, or is missing key features, etc etc etc. That to me sounds more like getting screwed. What's the point of paying little or nothing for second class software?

The answer is simple. Find another photo club that is better aligned with your photographic standards and goals, and forego the post processing thing altogether. OR, get on board, pay a totally fair price to use some really good software, and learn how to make your images better or discover a more creative side to your photography.

Well, you did ask for the good the bad and the ugly - I hope I didn't let you down.

BTW - I know that some of the images that you might see in a club's "members' night" or competition might seem contrived, but for the most part, they are heavily altered. As an example, in the fashion advertising world, the really good ones look great and natural. but trust me - the makup artist and wardrobe person did a bit of magic even before the subject got in front of the camera, and there is the matter of lighting, which really does make a tremendous impact (and it rarely reflects reality), then the flaws are retouched, skin texture is enhanced, blemishes, shine and other distractions are mitigated, etc etc etc - and in the hands of a team of professionals - the final product often looks quite good, or is made to adhere to a particular, client driven aesthetic standard. This is true for fashion/apparel, food, product, real estate (not the multiple listing stuff, but the really stunning high end stuff), and even nature and wildlife, where images are adjusted to put in what nature left out or the camera failed to capture in proper balance. The only places were photographers are not allowed to alter an image include documentary/journalistic, forensic, reportage, the photography of works of art, etc.

I am not trying to be a hardass, just trying to provide a different perspective.

You can always look at what is done in flickr or smugmug - you will see lots of bad and ugly, and occasionally some really good stuff.

Here is an example of a photographer's work whom I hold in high esteem - and she does not post a single image that has not been processed - ever. She has extremely high standards for image quality and balance, and has a lovely consistent style - regardless of her subject material - be it wildlife, birds, performance artists, ice on waterfalls in winter - her stuff is just really good.\

https://untamednewyork.smugmug.com/

Jan Overstreet

I use PaintShop Pro Ultimate. It is a very high quality program that allows you to do just about anything you want from post production to restoring and editing old photo's and anything else in digital from. It supports all file formats and is constantly being updated on a regular basis. The ultimate version sells for around 80.00 dollars and offers several of Corel's other programs of which one is AfterShot 3 which I like. One of the main reasons I like PaintShop Pro is the education that's available through the program in the form of tutorials, webinars, and hundreds of topics on photography, graphics, video, and the list goes on and it's all free. It's a very intensive program that will require you to invest the time to learn it. You can download a free 30 day trial of any of Corel software. I hope this helps. GIMP is a free program that will allow you to do just about everything that Photoshop and PaintShop will do and their are a lot of tutorials on YouTube.

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

Well, I use on a regular basis - On1, Capture One 12, LR and PS. I like the flexibility of LR/PS and how nicely it is integrated with On1, but clearly On1 is NOT a replacement for either. Not yet, anyway. Capture One had been my go-to since version 3, but I have found that I miss the integration with plugins that I like to use. AND,being a parametric editor, with weak local adjustment capabilities, not a complete package. It is fast, but has some limitations.

I suspect that you are not all that familiar with LR and PS - end to end - from memory stick to handing a client a set of finished images - it is actually pretty fast. But the speed in both LR and PS comes from automating repetitive tasks - between the scripting (macro), automation, presets, and ability to work with other programs in PS, and some of the automation possible in LR along with some lightweight local adjustment capabilities -the combo is quite fast in the right hands. In addition to photo enhancement I also have done some contract retouching work and photo restoration - few of the packages, with the possible exception of Paint Shop Pro - can actually handle restoration work. For proofing, I can definitely get there faster with Capture One, but can't actually get to the finish line with it - I still need a bitmap editing, layers and masks, custom brushes, blend modes on both brushes and layers, channel-based selections, smart objects, etc etc etc that I can easily do in Photoshop.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I'm not an Adobe user anymore but, yes its an absolute bargain. The last time Adobe sold a standalone version of PhotoShop it had a list price of $699. Lightroom's last standalone version was was around $140 but sometime before that Lightroom listed for around $300. Upgrades were every 2 1/2 years or so, and if I recall correctly, the upgrade cost for the standalone version of Photoshop was around $350 and Lightroom was about $90-$110. Therefore if you wanted the most current version of LR/PS standalone for 5 years it would cost you around $1300. I guess people don't realize or remember how expensive earlier versions of Lightroom and PhotoShop really were. It was out of reach for many, if not most, amateur photographers. That's why back in the day I purchased PS Elements instead of PhotoShop CS6. By comparison $10 a month is a terrific bargain.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Yes but not on raw files. Picasa is a great post processing program for beginners, or those not wishing to invest the money, time or effort to use or learn more feature rich software. Its not really serious post processing software but it fills a need.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

The software itself is not non-destructive as was discussed in another thread. What you are suggesting is a process flow that protects the original image, which is not the same thing.

suntouched Loc: Sierra Vista AZ

It's a one time purchase but even they charge for major updates and they manage at least one per year. Every time I think I'm good, there is another update to buy and learn.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Agree. ON1 sells for around $80 new when discounted. Yearly upgrades for authorized users are generally around $65. If you by it and want the most current version for 5 years it will cost you around $340 not the $100 in the post you quoted.

trikke1976

No one forces you to buy the upgrade if you don't want it just skip it.

Btw I just heard that the price for LR/PS will change from 10 to 20$ per month at least that's what the Northrup's are telling.

Carusoswi

darktable as well as Capture 1 are not limited to working on RAW files only. In addition to shooting digitally, I shoot a lot of film which, after scanning to the TIFF format, I then edit using one of these or other applications that I have installed on my dual boot system.

I have always preferred darktable to Lightroom because of its strong masking and local editing capability. I recently took advantage of Capture 1's purchase promotion (not because I needed another Raw developer/editor, but because I needed something new to work on to overcome a bout of depression (worked a charm!)).

I do subscribe to Adobe's LR/PS package, and I also use GIMP which, by the way, is not a bit more difficult to learn than PS. The menus are laid out differently than PS, but if you can learn PS, you certainly can learn GIMP. The oft-heard claim that there exists little documentation for GIMP is also untrue. If you google for GIMP tutorials, you will find many, and, in reality, you only need one good beginner series which will have you up and running in no time. If you have never used Photoshop, you will find learning it every bit as challenging as learning GIMP.

Most of the major areas by which GIMP could have been described as less capable than PS have been fixed in recent updates (no more 8-bit limitation - can handle 32-bit float). Works well with darktable which I use to process RAW files (similar to the way LR is used to process RAW files before they can be worked with in PS). Many PS users are unaware that GIMP had content-aware fill before it was integrated into PS.

Personally, I find that most all of today's editing tools do a fine job. If the OP wants free and simple, he/she might have a look at the Lightzone project. This application will process RAW files and is a fine overall photo editor. It started life as a proprietary product, but today is free and open source. I have used it for years. I find the camera profiles to be very good, and it is also effective at performing localized edits (ie. if there is a bright spot on the nose of that photo of your sister, or the windows in the background are over exposed, you can mask those areas and lower the exposures on those parts of the photo without affecting the rest of the image). The advantage of making these localized edits with the RAW file is that you have more data with which to work than you do after converting to TIFF or JPG and then making these adjustments in PS or GIMP or whatever.

It seems that whenever someone asks advice on getting started with a photo editor, the discussion invariably turns to justifying (or refuting) the merits of the 'industry standard' LR/PS and the Adobe subscription model. Adobe's offering is good, no doubt. It is not so good that someone starting out is shortchanging him/herself by going with some other application.

I happen to love learning new applications, so I have subscribed to, purchased, downloaded open source, etc. in order to try many of them. Of those that I have mentioned in this post, there isn't one I couldn't recommend to the OP. If looking for lowest cost, then, by all means, try one of the open source offerings.

Good luck, and have fun.

Caruso

warrenrowephotography Loc: Kempner, TX

I use Adobe's photography package subscription, and for me it's a steal; I've wasted greater amounts of money on junk of, well...you name it. Like some others have posted here, I don't use my subscription to replace certain things like skies, birds, you name it. I start with using good glass with my camera, then use Lightroom/Photoshop to make adjustments as necessary to capture the scene as it was at that given moment. Occasionally, a nice small set of presets and actions can help - but don't go hog wild on purchasing large sets of them (many of them you'll never use). Shooting RAW certainly helps, but if you shoot using JPEG only - that's OK as well.

Of course, many other UHHers may have different opinions. It's simply what you are looking to do as a photographer as far as your particular style is concerned. As I like to say, your mileage may vary.

Carusoswi

I read through your article, found it valuable with respect to the proprietary applications that you covered. Your mention of the free, open source offerings was refreshing, but, IMHO, they deserved equal time in your article, and you basically, just lumped them together and basically advised against them (too complicated, too little support, too little documentation).

Each of those offerings benefit by mature forum support, adequate online tutorial resources, and each has its own subtleties.

Your quiz lost me when my choices of OS's was limited to Mac and Windows. As the entire piece appears to be a setup to sell On1 software, I know understand why you didn't include Linux as an OS option.

Sorry that it could not have been otherwise.

Caruso