rgood44

LR is not that hard to learn and as many others have stated there are many free resources available. One thought to save money is to look into the educational program that Adobe offers. I get all of the Adobe (everything that they offer) for $20 mo because I teach part time at a University. If you have a student or teacher in your household you could take advantage of this program.

xt2 Loc: British Columbia, Canada

Try Luminar3 for free for a month and you can see just how inexpensive and easy/intuitive and fun post & cataloguing can be.

Cheers!

texaseve Loc: TX, NC and NH

I love Lightroom, and found it easy to start in, however, I took me a while to understand that you must move files around from within Lightroom so you keep the catalog straight; otherwise LR gets confused and you have to "reconnect" it with the photo files.
Luminar is a nice program also, and it may be easier for you. Kind of depends on what you are used to.

SusanFromVermont Loc: Southwest corner of Vermont

You have been given some good suggestions, and by now you probably realize how many different opinions there are!

I like the idea of starting out with the editing program from Canon. I started that way when I got my first digital point-and-shoot. This will give you a feeling for how editing programs in general work, and for what you can do with them. It will also eventually help you realize the limitations of a very basic program. That is when you should decide on whether going for a more advanced program is what you want to do.

As for LightRoom, I started using it a long time ago and found it very intuitive to use. Sliders are sliders, they add or subtract whatever function they control. The specific tools are also pretty easy to learn. The most difficult part about LR is to learn about the more in-depth functions. And, as others have stated, the Catalog system has basic rules that need to be followed, but once you learn those, it is a powerful tool for keeping your images organized. I still needed a book to help, used one by Scott Kelby. There are others that are also good, and YouTube videos.

I started with the stand-alone versions of LR, and did not want to be upgrading every year for just a few new features. But when the Adobe CC subscription was offered, I jumped right in, because I had always wanted to learn PS which had been too expensive for me. Now the updates come on a regular basis, not only when they have enough to make it worthwhile to put out a new edition. LR Classic CC is the equivalent of the previous LR versions, and that is what I use exclusively on my desktop and laptop. [The new LR CC is a mobile version, not as complete, and uses Cloud Storage for the images. It does not suit my purposes.]

Hope this helps.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

HI,

Any program you purchase will have a learning curve. Some are more difficult than others. The hardest part of LR for most people seems to be learning the Library Module. The Develop Module, for basic edits, is pretty easy to learn. If you were to read the Adobe help manual online BEFORE you opened up the LR program you most likely would not have a great deal of difficulty. I like the Martin Evening book as he goes step-by-step without skipping around too much. I have and use LR, it is my main processing program, but I use other programs, too. You might find Luminar to be a little easier as the program seems to be more geared for beginners and provides many quick filters that you can use. Most application websites will allow you a 30-day free trial.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Based on your description, I'd recommend you get Adobe ELEMENTS 2019 instead. It costs less, does more of what you will need to do with your images, all in one program, and is more "user friendly". Currently $100. You can do a 30 day trial download first, if you wish, from the Adobe website. (Note: Premiere Elements is a separate program for video... can be bought in conjunction with Elements for $150 if you want to work with video too.)

Lightroom actually is not especially difficult to learn and use...

HOWEVER, it's actually more of a catalog and archiving tool than an image editor. Yes, it has some basic image adjusting and tweaking tools. But it also lacks some major ones. Lightroom is designed to work in conjunction with Photoshop for advanced image editing... And Photoshop IS extremely complex and involved with a steep learning curve. Some people use just one or the other, but most users need and get both.

HOWEVER, you no longer can "purchase" Lightroom and Photoshop. Adobe only offers them by subscription now. $120 a year for home users for both programs. That's a good deal, but not if the software is overkill for what you want to do... and has too long, steep learning curve to get up to speed and enjoy working with both.

Elements has built in new user support (LR & PS don't). In fact you can select from Beginner, Intermediate and Expert interfaces with it.

Elements is more of an "all in one" program. It has aspects of both LR and PS... It's a "Lite" version of both of them, in a sense.

Elements is sold with a perpetual license, not a subscription. You only ever need to "upgrade" if you want a new feature that's added to a future release of it or if you get a new camera that's not supported by an older version of Elements.

Get Elements 2019... you'll be much happier.

Oh, and by the way, if you look at the front of your camera I think you'll find it's a Canon "5D" Mark III (I think Nikon might make a "D5")

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Curious why you say this as LR has many of the same algorithms as PS? " HOWEVER, it's more of a catalog and archiving tool than an image editor. Lightroom is designed to work in conjunction with Photoshop for advanced image editing..." Perhaps you were not successful in using it and that is why you have this opinion? I've processed about 10,000 images on LR, and I also use PS, many of which have won awards and been sold so I am of a different opinion on the subject. I like to let the individual user decide which program works for them without a blanket statement of its usability based on one opinion. Yes, in general, PS can often improve an image, as can other programs, but that does not mean the LR is not a good image editor. Just my thought on the subject.

rond-photography Loc: Connecticut

As for "same algorithms", if you are shooting RAW, when you open an image in PS, you will start in Adobe Camera Raw. That is the same "engine" as the develop panel in LR, so if you are familiar with LR and use ACR, you will see the same sliders, adjustments, etc. that you are already familiar with in LR. I have noticed though that some things in ACR do not work as well as in LR. Unless I did something wrong or they changed it, the "click a slider while holding the shift key" in ACR does not do anything - in LR it chooses the best value for that slider (for example, Black Point) so you don't have to fiddle with it so much.

canon Lee

The key phrase is "I only want to edit one picture at a time". Save your money you do not need LR. LR, is specifically for photographers like myself that shoot hundreds of shots on a shoot, and need a program like LR that can handle making selections from hundreds of images. It also will "export" more than one picture at a time, saving time .. Photoshop has the same exposure controls and can edit on a pixel level where LR just selects and adjust exposure quickly.
I find that photoshop is a lot more intense a program than Light Room .

ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

Do you shoot in Raw? Have you tried Photos, which is built into your Mac? It is easy to use and quite good, it will also convert raw photos. Very basic editing (raw & jpeg) but it has some nice features.....built-in photo sharing and easy to understand album techniques.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Lr is actually fairly easy to use BUT there is a learning curve for sure. I would endorse Laura Shoe's training DVDs, for about $ 100.00 as an easy way to learn. BEFORE really going down the Lr path, YOU MUST UNDERSTAND the concept of the Lr Catalog. Once this is completed, you will be a fan for life. I use Lr almost every day, in fact that's what I should be doing right now! Best of luck.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Like you, I use both Lightroom and Photoshop. I've used PS for around 25 years and LR for over 10 years now. I have 16 LR catalogs, each containing on average approx. 75,000 images... upwards of 1 million images total. I'm setting up my 2019 Lightroom catalog now, in fact.

LR is great for what it is.... a versatile, dynamic archive organizing and management tool with light, rapid image editing tools and batch RAW conversion capabilities. It's good for web gallery maintenance, producing thumbnail catalogs and making slide shows, too! I use LR to gather images, straighten them as needed, make tweaks to exposure, color balance, etc., and make proof quality image files in batches. But have never fully "finished" an image with LR alone. For that, PS is absolutely essential, in my opinion.

LR simply doesn't have a lot of the fine tools that PS has... LR cannot work in layers and masks and it's clone brush is downright crude in comparison to PS. Selective editing in PS can be done right down to the individual pixel level, if need be, while LR only offers a wide brush for that purpose. Ever tried to replace a sky in LR? Or attempted to blur a background while sharpening a subject? You can't "soft proof" an image with a particular print profile in LR either, the way you can in PS. There are myriad other things that can be done in PS... but not in LR.

Don't get me wrong... I wouldn't want to be without LR. I worked large numbers of images without it for many years and LR really speeds up my work flow! I rely on it heavily. After a major shoot I can work through 1000 to 1200 images a day in LR, taking them from RAW to a "proof" quality level so that my customers can see them and make their selections. I spend less than a minute per image tweaking things in LR. The same work in PS (Bridge), takes much longer. Someone who is merely converting RAW images for posting online in typical Internet size, resolution and color space might find LR does all they need. But anyone truly finishing an image for more advanced purposes... prints larger than 5x7 and/or various client uses up to and including commercial printing... really needs to use PS too, with it's much more powerful images editing capabilities. After my customers (or I) make their selections, I use LR again to locate the image, change the crop if needed, then pass the image off to PS for finishing work that can take anywhere from a few minutes to some hours per image, depending upon what's needed.

I'm not saying Photoshop is "better" than Lightroom or vice versa. They simply serve different purposes. LR is an intensive cataloging and image archive management tool with light image editing capabilities. PS is an intensive image editing and optimization tool with limited archive management capabilities. They're designed to complement each other, like two sides of a coin.

https://www.creativelive.com/blog/use-photoshop-lightroom/
https://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/adobe-photoshop-vs-adobe-lightroom/
https://photographylife.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom

I also use various "plug ins" with both LR and PS... third party "extensions" of each program's capabilities. For example, I have several in LR that make for rapid uploads of proofs to galleries online and help me maintain those galleries. In PS I have several noise reduction plug-ins, as well as others for specialized image optimization techniques. There are dozens of other plug-ins available for both.

The original poster asked about "purchasing" a program... and both LR and PS are now only offered by subscription. You "rent" them rather than "purchase" them.

Adobe Elements is available to "purchase" with a perpetual license, combines major aspects of both LR and PS into one program, although it uses it's own distinct format. Elements has both archiving and image editing capabilities. In fact, it's more complete for image editing than LR and it's more complete than Photoshop for archive management. On the other hand, Elements is not as powerful (or as intimidating) as the Lightroom/Photoshop combo. And recent versions of Elements have significant support for new users, which both LR and PS completely lack. There are also plug-ins available for Elements (and even when not, some of the plug-ins I use can be bought and used as separate stand-alone programs instead).

Our goals are the same... to give the original poster information to help them decide what's best for them: A one-time $100 purchase of relatively easy-to-use Elements that will serve until they upgrade to a new camera or Adobe adds some gee-whiz, just-gotta-have-it feature to a future version of Elements? Or rent LR and PS for $120 a year from now to infinity, get continuous updates, but plan to buy a bunch of books, take a number of classes and spend the next months and years learning to use them well? LR isn't difficult to learn... most people get adept at using it within a month or two. Might to buy a book or take a class or two. PS is much more complex and involved... probably will take a year's worth of college level books and classes to truly master it.

ABJanes Loc: Jersey Boy now Virginia

Sure makes sense to me! Try Mac Photos first, if it does not meet your needs then Elements 2018 or 2019, it often goes on sale i.e $70 vs $100. A nice gradual stepping stone & learning curve. I use both...

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

I concur that Canon Digital Photo Professional software is a good place to start. It is the best raw file convertor for Canons, since it contains ALL their color science. Adobe and everyone else has to reverse engineer that stuff.

However, DPP is a relatively poor choice for use as an editor/catalog/rating tool/print center/processing hub/etc. — and Lightroom IS really good at all that.

The BEST part of Lightroom is that it NEVER changes your original image file, regardless of what format the file is in — raw, JPEG, TIFF... etc. It makes proxy conversions to view on the monitor, and it converts to a new file when you EXPORT, or POST to the Internet, or BUILD A BOOK, or PRINT, or do a SLIDE SHOW. That way, anything you do in Lightroom before those ALL CAPS processes is non-destructive. You can change your mind!

What you learn from using different software is that after a while, you know most of what you need to know to run new software, without cracking the manual, just by going through all the menus and examining the functions.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The only problem most people learn to hate about Photos is that it "sequesters" your files deep in a weird "wrapper" structure. To get at them from another application, you have to dig many layers deep into that file structure (and know how to open Mac wrapper files). OR, you have to export from Photos.

Apple has an app in the App Store called Affinity Photo that they gave awards to back in 2015. It now runs on Windows and iOS devices. But, if you go to https://affinity.serif.com/en-us/photo/desktop/ and scroll to the very bottom of the page (LOTS of scrolling), you will see a link for a 30-day FREE TRIAL. The good news is, Affinity Photo is $50, one time. It is very powerful and intuitive. Consider it an alternative to Photoshop, and a complement to Apple Photos.

You can extend Photos for raw file editing with Raw Power, also in the App Store. It was written by former Apple employees who worked on iPhoto and Aperture and Photos. They know the Apple raw engine inside and out, and have created a program that can take full advantage of it, either as a plugin for Photos, or as a stand-alone app. It also features a file browser.