What Photo Editor to use?

<p>Hi all!<br>

I have been doing photography for a little while ad I want to start editing my images the best that I can, but I have no idea what photo editor to use. There are so many (The line of Adobe Photoshop and Elements) how do I know which to choose? I do many portraits, commercial,food, and nature photography. Is there a particular photoshop that I need? </p>

<p>Thank you!<br>

-Brandy</p>

<p>There are plenty of free programs, but Lightroom is arguably the standard photo editor. It also allows you to organize and catalog your images, and uses non-destructive editing.</p>

<p>Lightroom is ok, but for <em>picture editing</em> you're still better off with Photoshop Elements, IMHO.</p>

<p>Lightroom believers are very enthusiastic in their support for their program, but there <em>are</em> alternatives -- once you are really into it, and if you intend to be a professional at image editing, there's still nothing better than the full power of Photoshop.</p>

<p>JDM has a point, assuming you really mean editing and not just making adjustments. Lightroom covers 95% of what I need, but when I actually need to edit a photo, I use Photoshop.</p>

<p>+1 Jay/JDM.....Really you need both Lightroom and an Editor and since it reads that you are a professional that means Photoshop or a recent version of Elements. Though I gather there are professionals around using Paint Shop Pro. Whatever you choose it will be a steep learning curve and plenty of experience in trying the various ways they alll have to accomplish different projects.<br>

I know some who have the editor and do not bother with Lightroom becuase everything LR does can be done with current editors I gather. But the editors PS,PSE,PSP can do real editing.<br>

If you start with PSP or PSE you will probably prefer what you started with ... I started with PSP as the only alternative was the very expensive PS,[ PSE was still on the drawing board and was pretty pathetic when it arrived ] so when eventually I got PS I simply did not like it and dumped it at a computer change.</p>

 

<p>If you've never used any photo editing software at all, or at least not a good program, start with the freebie Picasa. It's a very capable program for quick and easy edits and organizing photos to make them easy to find. I found the transition to Lightroom very easy because it was fairly comparable to Picasa (although Lightroom is far superior for editing raw files and more advanced organizing).</p>

<p>One of the main advantages to Adobe software is the ready access to good tutorials, especially video tutorials. If you work only on one or two photos per session, rather than large batches, Elements may be right for you. I usually edit larger batches of photos per session, with the goal of consistency in appearance throughout the session, so Lightroom suits my preferences, as does Picasa for some quickie editing of JPEGs for web display.</p>

<p>It is obvious that Picasso is not an editor by Lex's description :-). A clunky but quite able editor is Paint.Net, a free download. Not for a professional though.<br>

Not to forget GIMP which I gather matches Photoshop, is like it in approach, and is a free download... never seen it myself but it is liked by many.<br>

The amusing thing about programmes today that a good proportion of them is devoted to organisation of ones files when a good system was provided by MS back when I got my Windows 3.1.1 computer back in the dark ages and was little different to what I had with earlier computers. But with a library background prior to computers perhaps I am different to many without a clue how to organise things.</p>

<p>All of these answers ignore a fundamental flaw in your question. What level of editing are you trying to do? If you are doing composites, for example, you will need something like Photoshop. If you're doing general cleanup, cropping, image tonal adjustments, etc., Lightroom is fine.<br>

<br />I do sports, music events, and portraits professionally and use Photoshop about once every three months, and for specific things. I did a CD cover shoot last weekend, and did a mockup of a cover. I couldn't use Lightroom for that because I need some specific layer effects and I need to build up a logo on the cover, and that isn't possible in Lightroom. But it was the first time I've used Photoshop in months.</p>

<p>Most people can do fine if they learn to use Lightroom fully, and, if you're shooting a lot, the workflow is terrific. </p>

<p>Corrallory question: I have CS2 (PS ?) and wonder how it compares to the latest PS Elements. Anything to gained by going to the latest elements?<br>

I hereby ackowledge this to be a sleazy, cheap and disgusting approach from somebody who is too damn lazy to properly do my own research by using both and then posting a considered sober comparative review. Sue me.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lightroom is ok, but for <em>picture editing</em> you're still better off with Photoshop Elements, IMHO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Apples and oranges. Lightroom isn't a picture editor, it is an excellent RAW development program. PS Elements is a cut down RAW Developer with a cut down Image editor. Photoshop is an excellent RAW development package and full featured digital art package and image editor - but has a hefty price tag.<br>

<br />Each of them is excellent for different needs. I started out using PS Elements to process my RAW files and do editing. As I got better at taking pictures I found that I used the PSE image editing abilities less and less, because I didn't need to save problematic images. Eventually I got to the point where I needed more advanced RAW processing capabilities - so I switched to Lightroom. </p>

<p>Many people use Lightroom together with Photoshop Elements. You will use Lightroom for 97% of your edits and the remaining 3% can be done in Elements. What Lightroom also gives you is that it manages the workflow, which is really important. You could also use Lightroom with Photoshop but that can be expensive. </p>

<p>I use Darktable, which is an open source clone of Lighttable. I am not sure how close it matches Lightroom as I have never used that program. If I need to do serious editing I use the GIMP. GIMP is available for windows, not sure about Darktable. I've also used rawtherapee.</p>

<p>Considering the original question was posted to the Beginner Forum it's probably a good idea to clarify some of the references here.</p>

<p>Some replies are differentiating between pixel level editing and global retouching programs, without explaining or clarifying the differences. <a href="http://photographyconcentrate.com/photoshop-vs-lightroom-epic-battle/"><strong>This article</strong></a> clarifies the main differences between Photoshop (including the more affordable Elements), and Lightroom.</p>

<p>If I understood what 'pixel level editing' and 'global retouching' were :-) </p>

<p>Talking to my son last night who to my disgust chose LR rather than PSE and he was waxing elequently about what LR does for him ... might convert his Dad to shooting RAW, or at least RAW+jpg :-) His main problem seems to be the size of the card in his camera which is easilly resolved these days.</p>

<p>Adobe Camera Raw works with Photoshop, by the way. It is a quasi-independent application.<br /> You can use ACR, Bridge, and Photoshop to do even many image <em>management</em> functions if your files are already well-organized.</p>

<p>If I were starting from scratch, I would certainly use either Lightroom or Aperture for image management, as well as using PS for "pixel" imaging, layers, and all the rest.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for the helpful knowledge. Also, I have been using Gimp for almost two years. I like it a lot, but then I got a hold of the "old" Adobe Photoshop CS2 and realized that the adjustments (as in levels and anything else that has to do with adjusting the color or changing the color completely) was much more powerful and accurate, if that makes any sense. However, I wanted to edit some of my RAW images using the CS2, but for some reason it will not let me upload my raw images (I use a Nikon D3000). So I thought that I i should probably upgrade my editor. And I am not quite a pro yet, I'm still learning a whole lot. I am more of an intermediate level. Also, whats the difference between an editor and an actual photoshop program? Don't they both do the same thing?</p><div></div>

<p> An example of how I edit my images. Basic color adjustments. Above is before, below is after.</p>

<div></div>

<p>I think people have over-emphasized the limitations of Lightroom for a photographer. For a graphic designer, the lack of pixel editing is serious, but for a photographer - almost everything can be done in Lightroom, unless it requires compositing. Also, there are plug-ins that can do sophisticated processing beyond what Lightroom itself can easily do, and the new pricing on the Nik Suite makes it pretty easy.</p>

<p>Here's an example of something done strictly with Lightroom from a shoot this week, original and LR-processed versions. I think most beginners couldn't even come close to this in Photoshop, whereas it's not all that difficult in Lightroom. If I print the final one, I will probably remove the wall socket too, easy in LR. (Sorry for the slight size difference, change in aspect ratio.)</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/scfix.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="300" /></p>

<p> </p>

<p>As you are a D3000 user, I'd suggest taking a look at the Nikon software too.</p>

<p>I use ViewNX2 for reviewing my images and CaptureNX2 for editing. I only use Adobe products (PSE and CS2) very occasionally for special effects.</p>

<p>Capture NX2 is a very powerful programme, and I think its a lot easier to use than CS2. It tends to have a bit of a poor reputation on this forum, but I couldn't live without it!</p>

<p>Chris<br>

</p>

<p>I have tried several, I like PhotoScape best!</p>

<p>It depends on your needs. I use Lightroom for 99.99 percent of my work. I can accomplish what I need to do with global parameters such as white balance, contrast, curves, lens correction, and sharpening along with local control from the gradient tool (excellent), the spot healing tool (very good unless you are going to make hundreds of edits in a single photo), the very easy to use crop tool, and the brush (by far the weakest of the local editing tools, but occasionally helpful).</p>

<p>The only time I go into Photoshop is for combination of multiple frames (panoramas, etc.), for tricks like putting borders around a frame, and for preparing some types of print jobs.</p>

<p>If you need to do lots of local editing or layers or composites, Photoshop is extremely powerful. It has HDR and Merge tools built in. But with that power comes a learning curve. You'll probably need training. Lightroom is so intuitive and fast, you can pretty much just start using it from day one.</p>

<p>I also like the fact that Lightroom doesn't alter your original raw files. Plus all of the labeling and organization tools (Smart Collections!). Plus the fact that Lightroom supports plug-ins. Plus the utility of the Book and Slideshow modules. So many things to love about the program!</p>

<p>+1 to Jeff Spirer, who expressed what I wanted to say more effectively and with fewer words. :-)</p>

<p>Surely the crux to how to preserve the original file is with the operator not the programme?<br>

What the programme is working on is a copy of the original not the original. If you are lazy and simply hit the save button you will loose the original, since 'save' over writes the original, but if you 'save as' you can save the new version along with the original ... all it takes is a slight change to the file name and they live happilly beside each other in the same folder.<br>

When I work up an image I save the result with a Z added to the end of the file name. The shift key and Z being next to each other on the keyboard :-) When I make a resized and compressed file to e-mail I will often add W. If I have second thoughts about that Z file I could save a further workup as Y and then the next X etc etc.<br>

This works with PSP,PS,PSE, P and PN being the only programmes I have used in recent memory.<br>

So my impression is that if you have control over the programme it does what you want it to do .. and it is a simple as the difference between save and save as.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"If you are lazy and simply hit the save button you will loose the original, since 'save' over writes the original..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That doesn't happen with raw files. Every photo editing program I'm aware of preserves the original raw file intact. Any apparent changes are either preserved as copies of the raw files or as sidecar or additional data files and applied only in compatible software.</p>

<p>Even JPEGs are protected by most photo editing software. For example, Picasa is very careful to protect all original JPEGs. Any changes are preserved only within Picasa, and any saved files are saved as copies, never overwriting the original JPEG. Other programs will prompt users with a reminder to warn them that they may be about to overwrite an original JPEG.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> If you are lazy and simply hit the save button you will loose the original,</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

This isn't the case in any way with Lightroom, and it's because of the great way that Lightroom deals with photos. There is no "save," there's no need for "save," it's just part of a much better way to deal with image management.</p>

<p>Photo .net is my favorite, I use pixlr, <a href="http://www.onlinephotoshopfree.net">Online Photoshop</a> a new kind of photo editor, including picmonkey, and sumo paints.</p>