Post Processing Software (Page 12): Ney, ney I say. The best is the benchmark PhotoshopCC, Lightroom Classic combo. If you are going to recommend, recommend from the top. It isn't only...

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Ney, ney I say. The best is the benchmark PhotoshopCC, Lightroom Classic combo. If you are going to recommend, recommend from the top. It isn't only the best, it has the greatest availability for free tutorials, paid tutorials, paid full courses and the greatest number of printed publications. It is not a difficult program set in reality. You can do a little or as much as you want or you can slowly expand your knowledge and ability.

Quantus5 wrote:

The best we can do for the newbie is let them know there is choice, and plenty of great choices -- and that every choice has their pros and cons, and educate them on those pros and cons.

The newbie is then able to make the optimal choice based on their needs, as everyone has different needs. There is no "best".

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

Exactly! Newspapers are pinche tight! They demand value for every penny they spend because they are in a penny business. The Herst group in particular. There is no argument that can be made against the ability afforded by Adobe – and for a reasonable fee. I use almost daily, Photoshop CC, Lightroom Classic, InDesign 2018, Illustrator 2018, Bridge and many of the Adobe assets available. When I get stuck, I YouTube and in 5 minutes I usually have whatever dilemma solved. I do use plugins from Topaz, On1 and Luminar. I use CaptureOne for tethering. There are pixel masters that can use almost any program and produce a great set of images. It doesn't matter what they use because of their sheer skill. Go look at the work of Sandra Shaw Pierce from Florida. She is 72 and an absolute genius. Photoshop by definition is the benchmark.

btbg wrote:

I did tell you. You just didn't pay any attention. I work for a newspaper. Photoshop works better with the page layout software than anything else. Serif PagePlus may be fine for what you do, I doubt that you can find a newspaper anywhere in the country that uses it.

When you design a flyer or a newsletter you can use any fonts that you want. You can do the layout however you want. That isn't true in the newspaper industry. You use the same fonts for the same thing over and over again. Anything that you can do to make templates or presets that will save time the next time that saves the company money and the employee energy.

Photoshop is the same thing. One of the biggest advantages of photoshop is how easy it is to make a custom setting for the gym that I shoot in most often, or for the football field that I shoot most games on. Then I can open my images and batch process every single image while I am writing my story. Finish writing and the photos are done. Just have to pick the one I will be using. Photoshop can be fully automated. Batch processing saves hours and hours.

If you look at the reviews, that's one of the biggest areas where photoshop still has an edge is batch processing.

The problem with the logic that this program or that program does everything that photoshop does isn't what the programs do or don't do. It's how they go together with other software to save time and improve output.

There are programs that do some things better than photoshop. However, what makes photoshop the industry standard is that it will do everything. I have used it for 13 years now, and am still learning new things that it will do. No matter what I list that photoshop can do you can undoubtedly find another program that costs less that can do the same thing.

What you won't find is another program that has the built in flexibility to be customized to exactly the work flow and style of both the individual and the industry. I'm not denigrating the other programs. I just get tired of people saying it will do everything that photoshop does. If that were true, don't you think that businesses would get rid of photoshop and save themselves money? They don't. Every newspaper and magazine publishing company that I know uses it. That should speak volumes with how dollar conscious companies are today.

I did tell you. You just didn't pay any attention.... (show quote)

btbg

Quantus5 wrote:

Yes, I probably can.

Yes, but none of the other programs do everything. That and integration of software are the two biggest reasons to use photoshop and lightroom.

Do you really think that the newspaper industry would universally use photoshop if they had another valid alternative. Our newspaper has five copies of the Adobe Suite at $50 per month per copy. We also have three more copies that are lesser suites that don't contain all the software, I don't know what those cost.

There are 23 newspapers in the corporation. At five copies a paper, that's 115 copies. At $50 per month per copy that's $5,750 per month, or $69,000 per year.

If something else worked as well, such as Luminar, which is much cheaper don't you really think that every paper would use it.

What that tells you is that the other software doesn't do everything photoshop does. It may well do all you will ever need. But no matter what you think it isn't as good. Maybe someday, but not yet.

I haven't checked, but I would guess that not only will it not edit directly in CMYK, it probably doesn't edit directly in LAB either, and I use that every day both at work and at home. Everyone should learn how to edit in LAB. It has some huge advantages when it comes to color management and sharpening.

You are correct that most people on UHH don't work for newspapers. You are probably even correct that most don't need photoshop. My problem is that you persist in thinking that the other software is just as good as photoshop and lightroom and the reality is that they just aren't. They may be as good for you. They may even be as good for 90 percent of the people on UHH, but they still aren't equal to photoshop. Believe whatever you want, but corporations don't just throw money away, and if your premise were correct that is exactly what they are doing.

I will continue to use trial versions of On 1 to see if it gets good enough to add to my workflow. It's getting close. As far as Luminar goes and Affinity, someone is going to have to prove to me that they have all the bugs out of their pc software before I try them again.

And I will continue to pay my home subscription to photoshop even after I retire in the next couple of years.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

btbg wrote:

Yes, but none of the other programs do everything. That and integration of software are the two biggest reasons to use photoshop and lightroom.

Do you really think that the newspaper industry would universally use photoshop if they had another valid alternative. Our newspaper has five copies of the Adobe Suite at $50 per month per copy. We also have three more copies that are lesser suites that don't contain all the software, I don't know what those cost.

There are 23 newspapers in the corporation. At five copies a paper, that's 115 copies. At $50 per month per copy that's $5,750 per month, or $69,000 per year.

If something else worked as well, such as Luminar, which is much cheaper don't you really think that every paper would use it.

What that tells you is that the other software doesn't do everything photoshop does. It may well do all you will ever need. But no matter what you think it isn't as good. Maybe someday, but not yet.

I haven't checked, but I would guess that not only will it not edit directly in CMYK, it probably doesn't edit directly in LAB either, and I use that every day both at work and at home. Everyone should learn how to edit in LAB. It has some huge advantages when it comes to color management and sharpening.

You are correct that most people on UHH don't work for newspapers. You are probably even correct that most don't need photoshop. My problem is that you persist in thinking that the other software is just as good as photoshop and lightroom and the reality is that they just aren't. They may be as good for you. They may even be as good for 90 percent of the people on UHH, but they still aren't equal to photoshop. Believe whatever you want, but corporations don't just throw money away, and if your premise were correct that is exactly what they are doing.

I will continue to use trial versions of On 1 to see if it gets good enough to add to my workflow. It's getting close. As far as Luminar goes and Affinity, someone is going to have to prove to me that they have all the bugs out of their pc software before I try them again.

And I will continue to pay my home subscription to photoshop even after I retire in the next couple of years.

Yes, but none of the other programs do everything.... (show quote)

Virtually every person I know in the graphics and publishing industry uses some version of the Adobe suite. While there's some truth in the fact that its universality is a major part of this, there's also the truth that no matter how dominant, if it doesn't keep up with the latest features and continually improve ease of use and flexibility between applications, it wil eventually be supplanted, no matter how dominant. I'm a native Masshole, and had many friends who worked at Lotus. Ask them about the results of "Our product is so superior we don't have to worry" when a big bucks firm like Microsoft decides to play.

Andy

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

AndyH wrote:

I'm a native Masshole, and had many friends who worked at Lotus. Ask them about the results of "Our product is so superior we don't have to worry" when a big bucks firm like Microsoft decides to play.

Andy

That sounds a bit like "Microsoft is coming, assume the Lotus position, 1,2,3...brace yourself!"

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Peterff wrote:

That sounds a bit like "Microsoft is coming, assume the Lotus position, 1,2,3...brace yourself!"

Oh yeah! There is not a single tech company whose honchos don't think about this literally every single day. No matter how dominant, if you can't keep up technically, or in the popularity wars (Clicks, I guess, in today's context...), you're subject to the Microsoft / Google consolidation that has characterized most industries for the past century.

If you don't believe me, you can ask Tom from Myspace.

I'm going to go take a ride in my (imaginary) Packard now and take a few shots with my (very real) Rolleis….

Andy

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

AndyH wrote:

Oh yeah! There is not a single tech company whose ... (show quote)

Andy, I certainly believe you, I've lived that experience for many years, and still do. Funnily enough we have a friend who actually does have a Packard, and the money came from being an early employee at Apple!

Quantus5

btbg wrote:

That and integration of software are the two biggest reasons to use photoshop and lightroom.
Believe whatever you want, but corporations don't just throw money away, and if your premise were correct that is exactly what they are doing.
.

You are confusing market share leadership with having better software.

Yes, Adobe is the market share leader by revenue in graphics software, and McDonalds is the market share leader in revenue in hamburgers and fast food.
Are McDonalds burgers the "best" burgers?, better than "Wendy's"?, "Jack-in-the-Box"?, "In and Out Burgers"?, etc... For me I like all the above mentioned burgers and they each have their unique pros and cons. There is no "best".

Being the market share leader doesn't mean you are the "best" and -- best anyways is a subjective term. Best for you may not be best for me, because my needs and wants are different than yours.

You like Adobe and use their software and I like PaintShop Pro and use their software. Neither of us are wrong. We are both entitled to our opinion. There is no such thing as an absolute best in the PP market.

And I'm all about choice -- about helping those just getting started to learn about the different pros and cons of the different PP programs out there at make a choice that best fits their needs. If that choice is PS/LR then that's fine, or if its PSE, or Affinity, Luminar, or Capture 1, etc...

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Quantus5 wrote:

You are confusing market share leadership with hav... (show quote)

I agree with most of your statement, but the Golden Arches is a bit unfair. If you asked, "Who has the best hamburger under $5?" you'd get a vastly different answer from if you asked "Who makes the best hamburger?" Price does enter into the equation.

You can also ask "Who makes the healthiest hamburger/software?" or "Who makes the best spicy hamburger?", etc.

Purpose and price - that's what makes the determination of best for any individual user.

Andy

Quantus5

AndyH wrote:

I agree with most of your statement, but the Golden Arches is a bit unfair.
Andy

Yes -- the Golden Arches was a bit unfair, but I wanted to get my message home loud and clear.

Let me use one where price doesn't factor in as much. The current market share leader in beer is "Anheuser-Busch InBev".
Does this mean the beer that "Anheuser-Busch InBev" manufacturers is the best? Note: ABI owns brands like: Budweiser, Michelob Ultra, Bass, Boddington’s Stella Artois, etc...

Here is another example where price doesn't factor much. Personal computers. In 2017, the market share leader was HP, followed by Lenovo, and then Dell. Because HP is the market share leader in personal computers? Does that mean that HP makes the "best" personal computers.

The answer is it depends on the person.

There are lots of thing that factor into making a company a market share leader. Leadership, execution, distribution, operations, manufacturing efficiencies, products, brand, etc...

btbg

AndyH wrote:

img src="https://static.uglyhedgehog.com/images/s... (show quote)

You are absolutely right. That's why I have said more than once in this series of posts that some day one or more of the other post processing software programs could catch and quite possibly supplant Adobe. They just haven't done it yet.

btbg

Quantus5 wrote:

You are confusing market share leadership with hav... (show quote)

Respectfully, you are mistaken. It's great that you like paintshop pro. However, i am not mistaking market share for better. As I have already posted the corporation that I work for spends at least $69,000 a year for Adobe software. Newspapers are not cash cows. Many are losing money, and very few are making much. If there was a viable cheaper alternative they would be using it

That alternative just doesn't exist. Several of us regularly test other companies trial software. If we could find software that did page layout and design as well as In Design we would use it. If we could find post processing software that did the same job as photoshop and worked as well with In Design we would use it as well.

That's the problem. We can find photo processing software that would work for less money, but not that works as well with In Design. In the business world it's about dollars. Adobe is more expensive than ever one of it's competitors, yet business continues to use it, not because it has market share, but because it does the job better than the other choices.

And in point of fact your McDonalds example makes my point. I don't eat at McDonalds. I will willingly pay more to eat at Five Guys or I and Out Burger, and when none of those are available, then I will go to Carl's Jr, or I will choose something besides burgers.

IT's exactly the same as with software. I am willing to pay more for a better burger just like I am willing to pay more for a better software suite.

Quantus5

btbg wrote:

IT's exactly the same as with software. I am willing to pay more for a better burger just like I am willing to pay more for a better software suite.

You do realize that you just contradicted yourself.

James Slick Loc: Pittsburgh,PA

frjeff wrote:

I fit the "advanced in age" part. But do... (show quote)

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

Regardless of whether the Adobe line of products is the (admittedly subjective) "Best" in any or many subareas, you have to give it to the company for developing an awesome business model.

They have an integrated product lineup that works seamlessly through the spectrum of photography to graphics to publishing. InDesign is rather inexpensive (IMHO...) but full featured. Illustrator dominates the field. LR/PS is the standard in its area as well. Most importantly, they integrate seamlessly, and use the same terminology and paradigms. After messing about (and "messing" may be taken literally in some cases) in PSE for years, I switched to LR a month ago, and heard the sound of angels and a sunbeam come down from heaven when I did. The learning curve seems easy, and the tools are quick and easy to apply as well as to reverse. If you know even a bit from past editions of PS or PSE, you'll find this a breeze to learn.

That's where the marketing genius comes in - they've developed a seamless system that has become the professional standard, along with easy-peasy products for the average user. And they've developed a whole new marketing model to sell it to the consumer and business markets (Ten bucks a month? That's three large Starbucks coffees, and a LOT more fun...). This seems to be the way the world is headed - see Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Office 365, etc.

AutoCAD is trying a very similar thing in the CAD market, with both entry level and high end CAD products, encompassing tiered pricing and products. I think they're doing just fine, and I have subscriptions for both professional and personal products.

There are, of course, disadvantages to the subscription model, and any dominant company can be brought down when a bigger financial fish throws money at the design and development programming and aggressively takes on a smaller firm that dominates a subsection of the market. Microsoft could, literally, bring down Adobe, AutoCAD, or any other software company that is dominant in its field - it has the financial resources and ability to undercut pricing models.

Like it or not, it's the world we live in today. I'm pretty happy with both the product and the pricing. If the price goes wild in the future, I'll look for purchase/download options, but in the meantime I'm enjoying the benefits.

As always, just my thoughts. I've learned that insisting one is right is often the best way to make sure that you're wrong....

Andy