Jenni8 Loc: Oceanside, CA

Before I got a DSLR I mainly used photoshop. I would use Camera Raw to do the more natural touchups. Photoshop for more dramatic edits. Then when I got a DSLR I started using Lightroom, and now I rarely ever open up photoshop anymore. Lightroom is great for organization and does wonderful adjustments in using RAW.

This is how I see it, Lightroom or Camera Raw edits the information when using RAW and Photoshop pushes pixels.

Go RAW and stop pushing pixels, IMHO.

Elle Loc: Long Island, NY

Photoshop, despite it's name, is geared to much more than photographs..it is also the standard for graphic artists and illustrators. It is capable of doing things that most photographers will never need or want to get into.

Jenni8 Loc: Oceanside, CA

Which is why they made Lightroom.

bill unger

Photoshop is difficult to learn. If you take a course in a local college you can qualify for a student price. As far as learning it, I used on line video lessons at Lynda.com. They were great. You can play them over until you are comfortable with each individual lesson.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Adobe isn't as annoying as Microsoft when it comes to protecting their software. That said, installing a copy without paying for it is piracy, is illegal under copyright law, and has the effect of jacking up the price for legitimate purchasers. I'm no fan of Adobe's pricing models, but they are entitled to set their own price.

PS has a steep learning curve. The pros use it. English Wolf is a purist, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I suspect he's in the minority among pros. I've known several, and they consider PS as much a tool of the trade as their lenses. (Side note: I should ask one of my friends, an ex-Life Magazine photographer for her views. She has them on just about any subject under the sun.)

If you've got doubts, don't sink all that money into PS. You can get most of its capabilities with GIMP, which is a free download, and you can get a much easier to master interface with PS Elements for a fraction of the cost. That way, you can decide how far you want to push yourself without breaking the bank. You can use the savings on a new lens, or something. When you feel that Elements is cramping your style, then maybe it's time to move up to PS.

What I love about PS and other graphic programs I've used is that they allow me to make all the mistakes I want, see the consequences, and experiment creatively at no cost after the initial one, except for my time.

And I'm still learning, even on my creaky ol' CS2 version. I've been getting some real use out of LAB color mode over the past year, partly from some online tutorials, and partly from suggestions from a pro at a premier ad agency. When I first tried working in LAB on my own, I was totally thrown off by how drastically an image changed with the slightest tweak to a curve. I have a much better appreciation for its use now that I have acquired some techniques.

Fairy Princess Loc: Mississippi

I have not messed with alot of programs to see what they do,,,but i would like to know how i would go about opening someones eyes in a great photo. Which program would you recommend??

gizzy.whicker Loc: Cumberland Co., Illinois

This I have actually done on a number of occasions. Not that it's really possible to "open" eyes in a photo editing program. But what I HAVE done is copy/paste the eyes from another similar photo onto the one whose eyes are closed, and with only a wee bit of adjusting, you'd never know the difference.

Elle Loc: Long Island, NY

Depends on what you are trying to fix...if the eyes are entirely shut..the only way to have them appear open is to take another photo. copy them, adjust for sizing , and paste them onto the photograph. If they are squinting but you can still see the the iris and pupil, there is a program called Portrail Professional that allows opening the eyes wider, although there would still be signs of squinting.

skidooman Loc: Minnesota

I had a lengthy response to this including thoughts on "Hacking a copy", but decided against it. Download trial versions and check them out. Make an informed decision on what would work best for you, based on your needs as a photographer. PS may not be the answer for you, but then again. Websites should list features of the programs, then you'll have a better idea.

MWAC Loc: Somewhere East Of Crazy

Actually you don't need anything but PhotoShop to open squinting eyes, liquify tool does this with ease.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Somewhere, I read that the eyes of Hollywood stars are routinely sized up by 8 percent in their photos. Can't locate the source, though.

reddawg413

I agree with Rhino...Adobe does that so that "more adventurous and less frightened (and poor)" photographers
learn all we can before we die.

reddawg413

I agree with Rhino...Adobe does that so that "more adventurous and less frightened (and poor)" photographers
learn all we can before we die. :lol:

jf65625

HiJack: You can probably get an HiJacked or hacked version of Photoshop out of China, but don't count on it working. Or, at least working very well. And, just forget about up dates, or up grades. But, if you just check the Ads on YouTube, you'll discover that you can get a legit program from Adobe right now at an 80% discount. You'll probably pay that much of a "hacked" program.

But, if you are a serious photographer, you would not like others stealing your photos; so why would you steal someone else's software?

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Just one more thing: if you get a hacked version off the Internet, you're likely as not getting more than you bargained for. When you install it, you'll likely be installing malware on your computer. A couple of years ago, a site claimed you could get a working version of Photoshop for the Mac, and, indeed, you could. And when you installed it and it asked for your password, it installed an extra package in the Startup Items folder, and you no longer owned your computer, come the next time you started up.

As for what constitutes piracy, like it or not, it's simple. If you're a professional photographer and someone copies your photo and uses it for their own purposes, even for resale, what would your reaction be? Your work has been stolen, misappropriated.

Adobe is out to maximize profit, they're not altruistic. They spend plenty of money on R&D, product development, tech support, etc. And they get paid plenty to do it. I'm with you if you think they get too much for it. But it's their privilege to charge what the market will bear, and it clearly bears plenty.