Photoshop replacement for the future?

<p>With Photoshop going online with subscription only I won't be updating or upgrading any longer. Once CS6 gets where it won't or can't handle what I need - what are the alternatives?<br>

Any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work?<br>

It is not an immediate need but will most likely come up in the next few years.</p>

<p>There are no alternatives that will <strong>fully edit everything</strong> you've done assuming you've used proprietary Adobe technology like layers, blend modes, smart objects etc. Save a flattened TIFF, you have a world of options. So when you say <em>a</em><em>ny</em> programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work, you have to exactly define what work you're talking about. You have piles of raw files with metadata instructions from Adobe Camera Raw? They are toast. You'll have to render the data into a TIFF or JPEG or similar rendered image and bring them into this new Photoshop replacement. </p>

<p>I agree, plus Adobe has now permanently dropped the subscription price to $9.95 per month. Roughly $120 / year. This is about what they were charging for the version upgrades?</p>

<p>That $9.95 includes Lightroom also.</p>

<p>The contenders are Photoline and PaintShop Pro. And PhotoShop Elements.<br /> For LR kind of work there's Zoner Photo Studio.<br /> All have trial versions. I haven't tested them enough to have an opinion. Other than my opinion that they all leave a lot to be desired in terms of UI. Now, if they would focus on proper ergonomics instead of metal-kiddie-theming….<br>

Edit: PhotoShop's UI is included in the 'all' ranted abut above.</p>

<p>I use both Adobe Lightroom (it may technically be called Photoshop Lightroom, but I don’t think it is subscription only yet) and the GNU Image Manipulation Program (GIMP). The name of the latter is a travesty; somebody really ought to fork it <em>just</em> to change the name.</p>

<p>GIMP cannot match Photoshop’s feature set, and two particularly glaring omissions are 16-bit channel support, and adjustment layers, both still under development. There is almost no CMYK support, either; I think soft proofing to a CMYK profile is about it. All that said, with a price of free, compared to the cost of a Photoshop subscription, GIMP competes quite well on value for some use cases, or even some business cases. It would probably be worth trying it out for an hour or so.</p>

<p>Similarly if you are editing digital photographs, especially in quantity, I recommend trying the 30 day free trial of Lightroom. I dislike the hidden nonlinear tone curve in recent versions of Lightroom, but there is a built-in preset inverse tone curve to get back to either roughly linear or exactly linear (I did not test which of the two was the case).</p>

<p>@Tudor but the non-subscription versions didn't stop working after a year. Compare a car: if you rent one for a year, you don't spend the same as if you bought a new one each year!</p>

<p>Adobe did lower the price per month but there is no guarantee they are going to keep it there. The monthly price also reduces the necessity for them to continuously improve the program to justify upgrades. There is a good reason for them to be concerned about this. </p>

<p>When it comes to software most photographers are WAY over gunned. Very few photographers truly understand Photoshop in depth or use the majority of its features. Corel PaintShopPro is an excellent program, with a short learning curve and an unbeatable price. It will do the overwhelming majority of tasks that most professionals and amateurs demand. There are other programs as well. </p>

<p>Then there is the observable trend away from the over-processed, almost cartoon like photos that were a fad for a few years. It may be that we have come to realize that we do not live in a CGI world. </p>

<p>If your boss requires you to use PS then you are stuck with it. If you have been wise and stored your clean raw images in the past and want to try something else, there are some very good options for much less than a year's worth of Photoshop. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Very few photographers truly understand Photoshop in depth or use the majority of its features.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Is there a survey somewhere that shows this? Also, it's common for comprehensive applications to have features that won't be used by every, or even most, users. Word is a good example. Small special-purpose apps for each feature set would create chaos.</p>

<p>GIMP, or some descendent of it in Open Source, may be the only alternative to buying into the money-every-month to Adobe scheme.</p>

<p>You won't figure GIMP out with "an hour or two" of use, however. Photoshop is just as Topsy ("Jes' growed") as GIMP, but many of us have been using PS for years and have learned what we need to know in it, according to our own use.</p>

<p>For now I have PS 6 for a sort of 'backup' alternative to subscription, but am still using CS5.5 for various reasons. When they stop working, it's very unlikely that I will go further down the road to Adobe peonage.</p>

<p>If we mention the Gimp, then there's Paint.net as well. PDN is missing a lot of stuff, but it can do simple edits! Yes, you can't do serious stuff with it, but neither can you with the Gimp.</p>

<p>Regarding the 'nobody uses all the features'. well, the problem is that you need them to be there when you need to use them. It's like saying that Joe Sixpack doesn't need his photos enlarged to 100x50, or an f/1 lens, or the possibility to shoot a lot of frames per second. Yes, he doesn't need it for 99% of his photos, but the remaining 1% are the ones he will remember. When what is captured in a photo is great, then I want it to be as technically good as possible.</p>

<p>The problem with image editors is that they are incredibly poor tools, given their age. Yes, they can do some things very well, but they don't make the basics simple. The basics are 16-bit, adjustment layers, smart selections and a normal sane UI that fits in with the rest of the operating system. Once they get this, then they can start adding things on top. Paint.net has the UI but none of the rest; the others have the rest but not the UI. The Gimp has none of these, despite having bits of all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Is there a survey somewhere that shows this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not that I know of. There are however dozens of Photoshop schools, courses, and workshops that relatively few users attend. It might be interesting to know what percentage of Photoshop users have never attended any formal training.</p>

<p>As you know Jeff, we have a number of "I want to be a professional, what camera should I buy" threads here. How many of them include in their "kit" training to go along with their purchase of Photoshop. When they mention it at all I might add.</p>

<p>I have mentored quite a few photographers along the way and am amazed at how many of them have never considered formal training in Photoshop. A great many have a Costco copy of Elements. I know professionals who use Elements exclusively and who have no plan to do anything else.</p>

<p>There are still film shooters out there. Few and far between but out there. They have no option to use all of the features of PS but yet they press on. I am all for the right tool for the right project. I use PS myself. I also have and am becoming quite fond of the Corel product. It is really quite capable. It can do virtually everything I wish to do quite nicely. I have it on two of my laptops.</p>

<p>Certainly one can't have too many features available should one need or choose to use them. But if those features cost $10.00 or more per month in perpetuity, it is reasonable to question the expense.</p>

To Zeph: what Photoshop features do you use? Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, Or Capture onePro can all do most of

the I,age processing chores that Photoshop CS 6 can do.

 

If you are an advanced or professional user and use layers a lot, there isn't an alternative. I am in that category but use

Lightroom to do most of the simple heavy lifting of image processing and Photoshop for some layered work and

retouching .

Don't plan too far ahead. The software of your choice may be ended, just like Aperture, other programs may emerge.

Keep an eye on developments. Just Google 'photoshop alternatives' every now and then and you will be up to date.

<p>While I don't consider myself an advanced post-processor, there really isn't much Lightroom can't handle for me and as of now it is still sold as a stand alone program. If you actually need all the features Photoshop has to offer there isn't anything else quite like it. With that being said, you may consider Capture One. It seems to be very advanced and allows editing in layers as well. It may not have the same myriad of features and tools as the full blown version of Photoshop, but it seems to be quite capable and powerful. It also seems to be the go-to program for many professionals who shoot tethered in a studio (often with Phase one cameras no less). If you aren't a fan of cloud based "pay as you go" software (I'm not either) Capture One could be a good alternative and probably as close as you can get to Photoshop.</p>

<p>There are some programs that do things faster and better than Photo Shop, example: Light Room. However, I don't think PS will totally go away anytime soon. </p>

<p>I tried GIMP for a while until I though I might pull out all my hair. It works almost as well as PS except it is a lot slower. <br>

I also use Helicon Filter which has some really good fine-tune, non-destructive features that you can't get anywhere else. Of course there is Photoshop Elements that does about 80% of what PS does for 1/4 of the price. <br>

These days the Editing Software that comes with your camera have gotten better especially when it comes to RAW. If you just need to tweak a little bit no need going any further.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To Zeph: what Photoshop features do you use?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the key question! Without a proper answer, it's impossible to plan an effective migration. Or even answer the key question, should you migrate. IF you need existing proprietary editing support, you're kind of stuck with Photoshop. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Any programs out there that can replace Photoshop for image work?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The main question is: what image work? For numerous people, Lightroom (or one of its rivals) can replace Photoshop for the vast majority of work already. Yes, there is no other powerhouse as Photoshop, none as complete. But it depends a lot on how much of all that power you actually use to be able to say whether or not there is a replacement.<br>

So, what Ellis asked: what features do <em>you</em> use? And what features can you absolutely do without, and/or accept possible workarounds?</p>

<p>For me personally, CaptureOne (=LR rival) with Photoshop Elements (older version) does the trick - yes, sometimes I miss some things from full-blown photoshop but nothing I cannot work around. The limitation of PS Elements are largely covered by the fact that I do 95% in CaptureOne, before moving to PS Elements. Maybe not ideal, but the European pricing for LR and PS isn't half as attractive - this is the compromise that works for me. Really depends on needs/wants.</p>

<p>Antonio<br>

Whenever Adobe ever did a new version of Photoshop the upgrade would cost between $140-$160.</p>

<p>Those upgrades happened every year.</p>

<p>So for me the $9.95 per month charge is still cheaper than the former yearly upgrade charge</p>

 

<p>But Tudor, you weren't forced to upgrade. You could keep using the old version forever. Yes, someone who did upgrade every year will not see costs climb much (if the current pricing stays as it is). But few people did upgrade every year. And for a rental, which is what it is currently, the price is obscene. Again, with my car example: the cost of renting a car for a year is *much* less than the cost of 'upgrading' to a new one each year. Here, you're saying the renting is cheeper than the former upgrade, but even then it's only marginally cheaper. And that's after the discount, because before that it was actually higher.</p>

<p>Adobe can do this because a large part of their costumer base are enterprises or people who for professional reasons have to always use the latest version. All the others won't put up with it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All the others won't put up with it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

"All?" Plenty of people have subscribed to the $9.95 deal. Can you cite a source for your data?</p>

<p>I said 'won't', not 'didn't'. That automatically makes it a prediction. What kind of data are you thinking of?<br>

But who do you know, aside from the categories I mentioned, that is content with the 'deal'? What proportion of the purchasers of the non-subscription versions do they form?</p>

<p>On staying with the same version of PS forever....</p>

<p>It all depends on where you are going to do your raw processing. If you want Adobe PS or Lightroom to do the raw processing, then you need to stay currrent. The latest Camera RAW update (8.5) will work with CS6+</p>

<p>I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.</p>

<p>In terms of rent vs. buy... I think you're better off in a car environment of comparing lease vs. buy. I purchased a car, kept it for 10 years, net net was that it cost me about $500 per month for the entire 10 years (including interest on a 5 year loan, repairs, tires, etc) If I leased the same car, it would have been $350 per month for 24 months </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I suppose if you never plan on upgrading your camera body or buying a newer lens, then your premise is true.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you keep old computer hardware up and running. I've got two such MacBook's, one for OS9 support, one for Rosetta with Intel support. As long as they don't die....</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I said 'won't', not 'didn't'. That automatically makes it a prediction. What kind of data are you thinking of?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

"Might" is a prediction. "Won't" is not a prediction. Data that shows that "all the others" are in this one group. If you don't have it, "all" is mighty presumptuous.</p>