wrangler5 Loc: Missouri

I bought Photoshop when I switched from film to digital, and updated about every other edition. Tried Lightroom when it first came out but didn't see the point, as I had a folder heirarchy for images that worked for me and I didn't see why I needed a "manager" program. But somewhere around LR3 I tried it again and liked the ease of making edits AND the fact that they were nondestructive - something that is NOT the case in Photoshop.

Now LR cannot do pixel level editing, so restoring old photos (for example) is best done in software like PS or PS Elements, as is creating text, which I have to do each year for the Christmas cards we send out. But aside from that, I'm finding that I can do almost everything else needed for MY photo purposes in LR.

LR also has the ability to apply editing adjustments across multiple images - like changing color temperature, or even applying a different crop ratio. And I keep finding more ways to use the Collections tools for making useful sub-organizations of images. Although I admit that it took me several years of using LR before I realized what Collections could do for ME - I don't do the kinds of things that the tutorials talk about using Collections for.

It HAS taken me a while to get used to ALWAYS bringing images into LR as the first step in getting them off the storage card from the camera. And to ALWAYS use LR to move them from the "Initial Imports" folder - where they get dumped from the card with automatic naming to my preferred file name style and then have initial review and culling - to the destination folder with a descriptive name that I can easily identify.

So for somebody starting out, I'd recommend just signing up for the LR/PS subscription and start using LR. When you get to the point you can't do the edits you want with the LR tools, flip out to PS to do what you want, and bring the final image back into LR.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I have updated my ON1 three times this summer as new improvements come out, and they have all been free. I have paid nothing.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

That was a good story, sorta like mine. I, for the life of me, cannot understand the thinking of buy cameras and associated equipment for hundreds and thousands of dollars but brag about saving $10/month. For a hobby they love. Its like spending a fortune in golf clubs and whining that you have to pay for quality ball. You get what you pay for.

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

I have been a PS user and instructor since 1994. I firmly believe that PS is the most advanced image editing program available. I do not believe it is possible to totally learn it. It is a program that provides "ways" to accomplish things with an image, and usually multiple ways to do the same thing. The program is not so-much a HOW TO program but a WHY TO program, meaning a particular direction is a better path to accomplish something like making something like a black and white image. Photoshop doesn't just give one way to accomplish that. You the editor must try several and figure out which is the best one for you. This makes the program very complicated and you need to learn the "Photoshop Approach" for doing things. Once you understand Adobe's approach, then you can figure out the myriad ways of editing your image. It is far more powerful than anything on the market, and has a steep learning curve. I am a Certified Expert and Certified Instructor and I STILL find new ways of accomplishing something. I know many professional Photo Shop editors who make their living out of using part of Photoshop to accomplish something. Yet every one of them will tell you they don't know everything the program will do.

If you want to develop a professional portfolio of images done in a style that is yours, PS is your product. Flexibility=Editing Power=learning curve. If you choose to be a PS user, then you should join the PS Community that exchanges ideas and new ways of doing things. That is the real power of Photoshop.

sodapop Loc: Bel Air, MD

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I agree totally. I purchased Adobe Lightroom 3.0 and did all of the updates and upgrades until the Cloud. It has been a great product and only got better as the software improved and with the advent of the Adobe Cloud. I think it was something like $300 and then the upgrade from 3 to 4 was $99 and so forth. The program was very good, especially for people shooting RAW. I had a Nikon D70s and started shooting (primarily) jpg.. but moved to RAW due the Lightroom. When the Adobe Cloud released for $9.99 per month and you got Lightroom and Photoshop, it was a no brainer. I have it installed on 2 good Windows Desktop/tower computers and 3 laptops.. Also have it installed on a computer that we use when we travel to Pennsylvania (but that one only gets used for about 3 months a year). The cloud is easy because it allows 2 computers to be logged in at any given time and you can temporarily deactivate one while you use another. This means that while the 2 towers at home are active, the laptops and the one in PA is inactive. If you login to Lightroom from an inactive computer it allows you to deactivate one of the other active computers. This works well for my wife and I. And yes, Lightroom Classic CC/Lightroom Classic/Photoshop/and Camera RAW are all installed on each computer. Now, the travel laptops and the computer in PA all write their libraries to a 1 TB USB external drive so that we can bring that data back to Florida and import it into our regular Lightroom library. This keeps the images all together for backups etc. The cloud has become so engrained in how we work that I can't imagine going back to some other method. Plus, it is portable.

Georgeski

I couldn't agree with you more --I have been using Photshop for over twenty years, and still haven't gotten to the bottom of what it can do--and it is the perfect artistic tool to develop the types of layered images with people and scenic, etc. backgrounds that I have been using first with Alaskan Native peoples and now with Latinos--I've had a number of museum exhibits of my work while in Alaska, and am now developing some online means of showing my latest work. It is the perfect tool for me I cam going to try and attach the Latino dance group video I recently completed which will go on youtube pretty soon.I hope you can see it, and I really appreciate your remarks--a lot of people don't seem to realize what a marvel Photshop in it's ongoing versions it actually constitutes. I couldn't live without it!! -George Sabo

Georgeski

I sent you a long message about how important photoshop has been to me over many years and i tried to attach a recent video an image gallery of a Latino Dance group i have been working with---but i don't think the attachment went out to you --if you want to see it, shoot me your email address and i'll attach the video file back to you --this works, i have already sent it to a bunch of people this way --my email: george13sabo@gmail.com ----thanks for you inspiring thoughts!! --George

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

If you are going to do a lot of editing, the subscription to Adobe makes sense. If you are not, the standalone version of Adobe Elements or one of the other programs makes sense.
Only you can determine if the programs are worth $10 a month. It is a small fee, but I choose to go with Elements, and it works great for me. Elements can do most, or maybe all, of the photo manipulations that the full photoshop can do. Don't forget, the full photoshop was meant for graphic artists, not necessarily photographers, so it is a huge program with many, many things that a photographer will never use.
Elements is meant for photographers. So the smaller program is probably all that you are going to need.