Photoshop CC is complete. Raw converters-only do a great job at creating high quality proofs, but fall short of proper photo finishing, and they cannot perform layer and mask based operations - which are the strengths of Photoshop.

Getting PSE is a route many take, because they fear buying (paying for) functionality they may never need (use). That is not a great reason to reject or choose software.

PSE will cost you $70, and you get a very decent photo editor with some raw conversion capability. It cannot be upgraded. When you purchase a new camera or lens, and it is not supported by your current version, you have to purchase the new one, and there is no value attached to the current one - in other words, it is not an upgrade - you just buy a new version.

The concept of "getting it right in the camera" is one of the most overused and least understood terms in photography. What does "getting it right in the camera" actually look like? Does it mean that the image that comes out of the camera is perfect and needs no adjustment? Or does it mean that the camera has recorded what is necessary, with the help of a little post processing, to produce a great image? Or something in between.

You can come very close to the first definition when you have 100% control over the light - as in a studio setting. But if you shoot landscapes, wildlife, botanicals, etc, you often have little control over the light other than choosing the right time of day and avoiding direct sunlight.

With the second definition you have the opportunity to leverage raw accessible dynamic range, which is, by definition, not really available to photographers who are content to accept the in camera jpeg as the final image.

I like that you are looking down the road and trying to choose a path that will allow you explore and grow your editing skills, and explore and better utilize your camera's capabilities.

I have been a Photoshop user since it was first available on the Windows platform - around 1992. I realized back then that since I was not a creative artist, or involved in creating content for websites, or illustration work and other common uses for Photoshop back then, I would not likely use all or even most of it's capabilities. But I did recognize the full suite of tools it contained to be able to allow me have the creative expression I wanted for my images. At the time the competing software packages were Paint Shop Pro, Corel, and Picture Window Pro. I liked that I could customize the Photoshop workspace to my specific needs and workflow, so I settled on Photoshop.

Today I use Photoshop, Lightroom, DXO Photolab 3, Capture One, and On1 - each brings something slightly different to the table, and part of the decision to use one or another comes from having learned them all and understanding where the strengths are, and how one may produce a result that is more to my liking than another.

I would say I use Lightroom 100% of the time for it's catalog and culling/rating/keywording, as well as Photoshop for finishing 100% of the time. My workflow also includes On1 for special effects, DXO Photolab for its excellent perspective correction tools, Prime noise reduction and image enhancement, and its integration with Nik software, which I also use for special effects, Capture One for its very close to finish quality editing (unusual for a raw converter), and how it renders the colors and contrast in Sony camera images.This is what works for me, your mileage can and probably will vary.

Below is my favorite example of gettin it right in the camera, and a typical creative director's markup for a headshot, ready for the retouchers and colorists to execute. What is striking about the headshot is that most photographers would be perfectly OK with the shot as it came out of the camera. Yet there is much work to be done to get it ready for publication, as you can see. By a wide margin, Photoshop and Lightroom are a very complete solution, lacking nothing that one might need to do anything to an image. PSE would be the entry level version.

.