johnbhome2 Loc: Wyoming, Michigan

I fail to see what a expensive motorcycle or anything else has to do with this issue. They are free to do as they please as we all are. Of course newbies should get the best advice but I put my two cents in and so did you. A newbie who doesn't read all the answers to this question is either dumb or lazy which opens up another can of worms. Be that as it may, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink."

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I can't even run my Prius on 9 tanks of gas a year. And it gets 60-80 mpg.
Looks like we need a better comparison.

Quantus5

I don't care what they drink. Like you I only want to make sure they know the water is there -- and that they have choice.

Information is important. Every PP program has it's pros and cons. I think we are doing a service in putting information out about a products pros and cons.

In the end, I don't care if a person uses PS/LR, PSE, Affinity, Capture 1, GIMP, Luminar, Paint Shop Pro, Picassa, Google Photo, FastStone, etc...

Heck -- my Dad still uses Picassa, and for him and his needs -- he's completely happy with his choice.

Quantus5

Actually with a Prius my example even gets better.

Let's assume $4 for a Gallon of gas, and let's assume your Prius only averages 60 mpg.

$360 / 4 $/gallon X 60mpg = 5,400 miles. That's a lot of miles. :-)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I drive it 12-15000 miles/year
But I get value for my money. By my value system, anyway.

Quantus5

Yes, but $5000 miles is about 1/3 of your total annual mileage. That's 4 months worth of gas. That's really good IMHO.

AndyH Loc: Massachusetts and New Hampshire

The convenience of use and intuitive controls make Lightroom the best choice for me. Not suggesting it is for everyone, but I have little time for PP or for starting a new learning curve on new software.

I have some basic photoshop skills and LR integrates seamlessly. YMMV, but I get more out of this ten bucks than the two Vente Grandes it would pay for each month. 👍

btbg

I find no fault with anything you are saying. Adobe is more expensive than other alternatives. But if you look at the frequent posts railing against Adobe, it isn't the cost that they complain about it's the subscription model, which is still cheaper than using Adobe before they went to the new model.

You are welcome to save your money. Feel free to use any software you wish. However, you are mistaken about paint shop pro doing virtually everything that photoshop does. For work the biggest advantage of using photoshop is something that no one here ever talks about with software. It's that our publishing software, ad building software and photo processing software work seamlessly together. For example if we need or want to do a cutout of someone for publication In Design and Photoshop are designed to work together to make the process both easier and more efficient.

Likewise it works better with our press than any other alternative. The company provides me with photoshop at work. It makes no sense to use different software at home even if I would save a few pennies.

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

When you say "our publishing software" are you speaking as a user of Adobe software, a creator / marketer of Adobe software, or something else. I'm not objecting, but whose voice(s) are you speaking with? Just curious.

However, I do agree that using tools that you are familiar with makes a huge difference, and there is a huge community that can provide unofficial support for Adobe products because of its huge user base. That in itself has significant value.

Quantus5

Beyond the two examples I gave: Directly editing in the CYMK color space and native photo stacking. Like what? What feature does does PS have that allows me to do something that I cannot do in PaintShop Pro?

They are both very mature and advanced programs.

Note: My company does not use Adobe products and does not provide me with any Adobe products at work. I hardly ever do any DTP work, but when I do, like a flyer or a newsletter, I have a copy of Serif PagePlus that I bought for $60 (a perpetual license), which is a pretty fantastic product. Never needed anything else.

btw: If your company provides you with something -- then I agree no need to go shopping for something else -- for you Adobe is free -- because your company is paying for it.

btbg

I'm speaking of the company I work for. The only two softwares that I am aware of that newspapers use to put their papers together are quark and indesign. Photoshop works much better with indesign.

It's not a matter of using tools that I am familiar with. It's a matter of using tools that go together. We used to use quark. We were bought by another company which uses indesign. In design is meant to be used with photoshop and vice versus.

For the post processing that is allowable for a newspaper just about any software would work for most things. But when you want to use layers or cutouts on a page then it really helps to have software that goes together.

Choosing to use the same software at home is just common sense

btbg

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.

btbg

By the way Quantus 5. They are paying for my work copy. They are not paying for my home copy. And as far as directly editing in CMYK goes. That's something that I have to do every day at work. That's a real biggie.

Quantus5

In that whole long email you never did. All you said is that InDesign and PhotoShop are better integrated than other programs (i.e. work better together).

Yes -- I get it. You work at a newspaper. Your use case is probably less than 1% of the photographers here at UHH. Yes, editing directly in CYMK would be useful if you worked in a print house. I don't -- that feature is not useful to me at all.

Quantus5

Yes, I probably can.