Changing computers?

Always good to have good tools of course. But for the photos i make the digital pp i do did not require upgrading and the old tool was a very good. I did not feel limited by it.... until my computer and software would no longer communicate seamlessly. My m1 made my very old ps, lr & c1 obsolete unfortunately. And if that were not the case i would not upgrade.

Sure there was a speed increase (especially for going to the m1) and some new ps/lr features are very nice with some easier but nothing i needed. I don't care or need that it is faster, just not an issue for me. I like using the small silent spaces in time to consider options (no clients no deadlines for me) and no new features have lead me to new ways of seeing or opened new doors or allowed me to accomplish something i could not before. And my photos do and would look the same as they do from the new software.

Great! That's absolutely your choice based on how you perceive your needs.

Actually, before we give any advice on the OP's software needs, perhaps we should ask him what he thinks he needs to do with his program.

David did discuss some of his needs here

If you don't know about cameras and cars then don't give advice about them.

I don't and I haven't. We've been talking about need, not advice. My point is that the fact that there's something better out there doesn't mean anyone needs it, and you don't have to be an expert to know that. Each of our needs is based on our own methods and goals. It's not always based on what's better. You were the one who brought up making comparisons between what's better and what's worse relative to what someone thinks someone else needs. As I've said several times, this has nothing to do with expertise or experience and everything to do with communication and language. Some in this thread are conflating what's better with what's needed. All I've done is point that out. I have given no camera or software advice and I have related that I often don't want to upgrade but can appreciate improvements when I do. I can perfectly well appreciate those improvements without ever feeling I needed them.

The main advice I've seen create backlash in this thread is that if you don't need improved software you may not have to get it. As far as I'm concerned, that was good advice and the backlash has been ridiculous.

David did discuss some of his needs here [Friday at 10:12 AM] I am not much of a computer system guy so I leave that to others.

He talked about what software he had, mostly was asking more technical questions about computer stuff. He didn't describe how he uses his editing software.

@samstevens you aren't understanding or are misconstruing the conversation. No one told anyone they have to get something. Just go with that. Otherwise read the whole discussion and figure it out. You're missing what the actual "backlash" (your term) was about. I've said it about 3 times now, if you don't get it then you don't get it. I'm sorry about that.

He didn't describe how he uses his editing software.

No he didn't, but I am sure you read when he said "3. My needs for image editing software are not hugely complicated & the current stuff [CS6&NIK] does what I need."

Sure he may need to upgrade software to run on his new system as I did. As others suggested in the beginning of this thread ... if his new system operates the old software that David is satisfied with then great. Then it is a win.

"Whatever. Inoneye. I've said what I mean a bunch of times. I'm not telling anyone what they need. So I wish people would stop saying I am."

I know you're not Barry. I didn't even think of that.

No one’s telling anyone else what they need.

And no one’s claiming that their old software is better than new software.

Some are simply saying they don’t need new software, and they’re saying that even if they don’t know what that new software offers. They are simply content as is, as long as they can get their old software to work.

“I think the point is you can't really form a meaningful opinion about a tool being better than an older tool if you've never seen or used the older and the newer tool.” —Barry

Barry, no one did that. That’s my only quarrel with you.

Just to try and resolve what some might need to know about how I use photographic software.

I currently have Photoshop CS5 64 bit and Lightroom 5. I had used earlier editions of both these tools before upgrading to these. I also make a little use of the NIK suite.

I bring new photographs ( all stills btw) onto my computer via Lightroom. The import process creates a DNG in a trip folder on an internal drive, and a CR2 on a back-up folder on an external HDD

I review all new images in Lightroom and decide whether I'm going to keep it. I dump probably 40% of what I take at this stage. I may well make some adjustment to the image to decide. The vast majority of those adjustments are made in Lightroom. Occasionally I'll use the "edit in" process to transfer an image into Photoshop or NIK to adjust & return the result to LR. My LR folders are organised by trip and date and by which of two internal HDD the originals sit-2007-2014 on one drive, 2015 onwards an another. Those I consider the best images are colour coded in LR

If I'm going to use photographs for a presentation, to submit to a stock agency( much rarer these days); for my website; for a self-published book, or to have a print made I will copy the candidate/selected photographs from LR to Photoshop as Tiff or jpeg. and make further adjustments there, normally to fine tune. They are finished according to the purpose Occasionally depending on destination I'll soft proof in Photoshop. These "adjusted for purpose" images are kept in sub-folders of the trip folders on the internal HDD where the dng sit. These sub folders are my first port of call if I need to make further use of these images. If I want more images, different images, or to treat photographs differently I'll go back to the LR folder and re-export before fine -tuning in Photoshop/NIK

Editing for me primarily means changes to colour, contrast, size, cropping ( many of my final images are square) selection ( normally the clunky quick selection tool in CS5) using potentially a range of tools. In Nik the majority of use is the Tonal Control tool within Efex. I don't ( probably to my detriment ), get into masking or combining images at all. Maybe that'll be simpler with updated software ?

A final couple of points. First this is a short, paraphrased description of what I do. It works for me, by & large, but I'm not trying to promote it to others and I'm totally prepared to accept that what I do is suboptimal, and that if I used updated software I might well do more in LR and less in Photoshop. The reality is sometimes a little more complicated but I don't want to write a book here , just provide a bit of a clue to those who want to know in order to advise me.

And I do understand that today's LR and Photoshop will be improved vs what I've got. Maybe that will provide an incentive to try new things- I'm a bit stuck in the mud and frankly just grateful that I can do what I now do without things going wrong- produce decent books on Blurb, make the odd print that has a passing resemblance to what I get on screen, run a website that gets some viewings, and have a few thousand images with agencies albeit that I don't take pictures of young people using cellphones and get paid peanuts now.

Thanks again for your inputs

Thanks to all who have so far responded. I just thought I'd chime in on a few of the issues repeatedly raised.

 

"somewhat frustrating to be unable to open the CR2 files taken on my Canon 5Diii that sit in my external hard drives. And not being able load the version of ACR appropriate to my camera. And I have to think whats most likely to get me through the next 10 years without grief."

 

Have you tried converting those files to .DNG using Adobe's free DNG converter?

I currently have Photoshop CS5 64 bit and Lightroom 5.

 

Editing for me primarily means changes to colour, contrast, size, cropping ( many of my final images are square) selection ( normally the clunky quick selection tool in CS5) using potentially a range of tools.

 

And I do understand that today's LR and Photoshop will be improved vs what I've got.

CS5 was released in 2010. The selection tools and that functionality alone has massively changed for the better. (Yes I've said that Sam; I've used both versions of the tools. Have actual experience.)

LR5 was released in 2013: ditto.

9-12 years in software development is also a massively long time. Time to review what's changed if you find just selection of image content tools clunky.

In both LR and ACR, Process Versions has been updated three times since 2010:

https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/using/process-versions.html

Consider that on the rendering of all your raw data.

CS5 was released in 2010. The selection tools and that functionality alone has massively changed for the better. (Yes I've said that Sam; I've used both versions of the tools. Have actual experience.)

LR5 was released in 2013: ditto.

Indeed. It's easy to find lists of the features added by version on the web. Wikipedia has them. While a lot of added features are things I don't use, quite a number of them are things I use all the time. It's worth looking.

I've only quickly browsed through this thread, so please forgive me If I repeat things that other people have already stated.

My personal position is that:

• everyone who does anything online (including Photo.net) needs to be protected with both a real-time firewall and a virus/trojan scanner that are both updated regularly. My personal preference is for Norton; Perhaps the main risk of not having this kind of protection is 'ransomware': your device and files are encrypted and locked unless you pay a fee to 'unlock' them. The main thing I like about Norton is that it operates 'under water' (=non-intrusive) and updates are automatic in the background. My years ago, I used McCaffee but at that time, I got fed up with the pop-up ads for 'additional services''. I have no idea whether the McAfee services have such marketing these days. And there are of course many other online 'security providers'
  
• everyone should - within their means - upgrade to recent versions of their software. Probably not always to the most recent version, especially if they don't benefit from the latest upgrade, But everyone should be aware of whether their software version is a) still supported and b) still upgradable.. It's often much cheaper to upgrade to a fairly recent version than from a really old version. This is especially true when upgrading from an old OS (W7) to a new OS (W10).
  

Back to the OP's question.:

- the fact that you've backed up all your photo's to an external drive is IMHO Godsend!

- I have absolutely no experience of this, but to me, the process would seem to me to be:

• copy (some of your) images from your back-up drive to your hard drive; you may not need all you images directkly accessible via your hard drive
  
  
• install Lightroom an PS on your new computer
  
  
• import the 'completed' images into Lightroom
  
  
• import the 'still needs work' images (one for one) into Photosho
  
  
• Get used tour new (diigital) working environment
  
  

To respond to Puntacolarado's question

No, because I already have dng's of these images on a HDD in the computer- or at least those I haven't deleted. The CR2 files are in my external HDD as back-up and I guess I knew that one of two things would happen

Either I'd migrate to the current versions of LR/Photoshop that would open them

or if I had a crash that affected that drive before I migrated, I could convert them as you describe.

the point is you can't really form a meaningful opinion about a tool being better than an older tool if you've never seen or used the older and the newer tool.

But, you certainly can tell if does what you need done. It's not "better", it's just adequacy for purpose. I have tried PS 6, and found most of the "new" features were for things I wasn't doing anyway.

I have tried PS 6, and found most of the "new" features were for things I wasn't doing anyway.

I agree that you can be kind of lazily content with what you have without trying new stuff. But for me I'd value more highly the views of someone who's tried a new toolkit than the opinions of someone who thinks they don't need to try because they're content. This latter is pretty much where I've been this last decade and maybe I should try to be more open to different/improved techniques . Couple of years back a good friend introduced me to some of the possibilities from Nik Efex ( which I'd bought but wasn't using) I guess I now use that on 25% of my work- not always as dramatically as it can go, but to an extent.

Google YouTube videos on the new masking functionality (or any other new functionality) and see if it is for you.

And perhaps move to a forum with a bit more activity, for example:

Kudos to LR/ACR on the "select sky" masking option

No, I'm saying you can't give anyone meaningful advice as to whether to upgrade or not if you don't know what the new software can do.

Read the first page of the thread, there are comments like, why upgrade if your current version is doing everything you need. The point is, you won't even know if you need something if you haven't bothered to look at it.

 

I didn't think I needed constant upgrades either, but when Adobe made area, subject and sky selections so easy, saving loads of time, I realized I really did need it. Sure, I could do without it, but the half hour it saves on every image I need to mask, is something I do need.

 

Others might not, and they can choose. But you can't tell if you need something if you don't even know what that something is.

That theory got camera enthusiasts to buy a new camera every year or two because of some new dangled feature they don't have. Or need. These people are never satisfied and are just wasting their money. Their current camera does perfectly well for what they need it for There are also people here who have connections to companies and push their products to buyers who are unaware of the relationships.

I have tried PS 6, and found most of the "new" features were for things I wasn't doing anyway.

 

I agree that you can be kind of lazily content with what you have without trying new stuff. But for me I'd value more highly the views of someone who's tried a new toolkit than the opinions of someone who thinks they don't need to try because they're content. This latter is pretty much where I've been this last decade and maybe I should try to be more open to different/improved techniques . Couple of years back a good friend introduced me to some of the possibilities from Nik Efex ( which I'd bought but wasn't using) I guess I now use that on 25% of my work- not always as dramatically as it can go, but to an extent.

What parts of Nik Efex do you find more helpful than LR?

But, you certainly can tell if does what you need done. It's not "better", it's just adequacy for purpose. I have tried PS 6, and found most of the "new" features were for things I wasn't doing anyway.

Well, all I'll say is if you use masks and select portions of images and use layers, it may behoove one to at least look at the new ways of doing it compared to 2010 and decide if they need it or not.

What parts of Nik Efex do you find more helpful than LR? Alan Klein

The only bits I actually use - pretty much Tonal control in Colour Efex and the b&w presets. Don't know whether I could get to the same points in my LR5 or not- but I know I can get there fast and in an easy to adjust format by skipping briefly into Nik. But bear in mind your LR might be more capable than my old software; or you might be better with it.

A fair question might be whether at the point of buying my Nik Suite ( which at the time was far from free) had I known what use I'd actually make of it , would I have gone ahead with it? Would I first have explored whether I could replicate the effects I use in Photoshop or Lightroom ? Not really a fair question in some senses because I bought the NIK suite because I was getting a firm impression that photographer friends were making good use of it, and without a firm aim in view.