Ok, ok, you were right... Hehehe
- Thread starter Flugelbinder
- Start date
Flugelbinder
Senior Member
Uff... 
I believe I should thank you for all the info. This is exactly what I expected (except for the more harsh words...) from people who have worked with one or both programs. I agree that PS might be a more complete program, but I don't expect to do huge alterations to the images, just some color correction (as RAW files tend to be a bit blend), some resizing, probably some contrast and sharpening and a very important part for me will be the Bl&W conversion.
I believe I should thank you for all the info. This is exactly what I expected (except for the more harsh words...) from people who have worked with one or both programs. I agree that PS might be a more complete program, but I don't expect to do huge alterations to the images, just some color correction (as RAW files tend to be a bit blend), some resizing, probably some contrast and sharpening and a very important part for me will be the Bl&W conversion.Flugelbinder
Senior Member
Does your head hurt yet with all these options to consider?
Yeah!!! And I still don't know which one to chose... Hehehe
Whiskeyman
Senior Member
Both LR and PS have trial versions available for download from the Adobe website. I recommend you try both, and any other program that you may sample or utilize on the computer. That said, these programs have really grown on me as I learn more about them when a new need arises.
WM
WM
Don Kuykendall_RIP
RIP :(
Not really. Photoshop is much more powerful and harder to use. Photographers really don't need or use a lot of Photoshop but once they do learn to use it they really won't go back. I learned it and have tried Lightroom and find it won't do what I want it to. But I think if I had never used PhotoShop to begin with I would be very happy with Lightroom. PhotoShop takes months to sort of learn and years to master.
mikeh32217
Senior Member
I'll use GIMP before I'll subscribe to CC!
GIMP doesn't work with raw files.
Flugelbinder
Senior Member
I didn't think so either...
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Lots of advice here, mostly all over the place. Some I agree with, and some makes me crazy. So rather than comment on that here's my take, sotto voce.
If you are a photographer and understand the idea of a darkroom, Lightroom is the digital equivalent and will give you just about everything you would want to turn your digital negatives into photographs. The biggest bonus with Lightroom is that it's not just a great tool for post processing, it is also a complete catalog and workflow management system, allowing you to organize all your work, maintain and update metadata, and also publish your work directly to many online sites (Flickr, Facebook, 500px, etc.). The Develop module, as of LR5, is an enhanced version of Adobe Camera RAW, giving you tools that you do not get in the ACR that comes with Photoshop, like automated perspective correction. Even if you think you may one day want to get into Photoshop, knowing and having Lightroom on your computer will both ease that transition and allow you to better manage your workflow.
As for recommendations, I'm on the side that says, "Own your software". That said, given that you have no software now and LR will run you $105, going with Creative Cloud is almost a no brainer at $10/month. If you hate it you can get out in under 10 months and be ahead of the game (you won't). Plus you will immediately get access to full blown CS6, which you can ease into in any way you want. LR will always be available to buy down the road, and the promise is that they will be maintaining it as a standalone, so if you find after a year that you're not using the full complement of the CC suite then buy the next version of LR and drop the subscription.
But to start, download and use, use, use the 15-day trial of Lightroom. Find a getting started with LR5 tutorial and watch it. At the end of 15 days with it you'll see what it can do and make a personally informed decision. For me, there are more powerful image processing tools available, free and otherwise, but nothing as essential to my photography as Lightroom. I use so many things, but if I had to I could live without Photoshop, the Nik Collection and all the others, but not Lightroom.
If you are a photographer and understand the idea of a darkroom, Lightroom is the digital equivalent and will give you just about everything you would want to turn your digital negatives into photographs. The biggest bonus with Lightroom is that it's not just a great tool for post processing, it is also a complete catalog and workflow management system, allowing you to organize all your work, maintain and update metadata, and also publish your work directly to many online sites (Flickr, Facebook, 500px, etc.). The Develop module, as of LR5, is an enhanced version of Adobe Camera RAW, giving you tools that you do not get in the ACR that comes with Photoshop, like automated perspective correction. Even if you think you may one day want to get into Photoshop, knowing and having Lightroom on your computer will both ease that transition and allow you to better manage your workflow.
As for recommendations, I'm on the side that says, "Own your software". That said, given that you have no software now and LR will run you $105, going with Creative Cloud is almost a no brainer at $10/month. If you hate it you can get out in under 10 months and be ahead of the game (you won't). Plus you will immediately get access to full blown CS6, which you can ease into in any way you want. LR will always be available to buy down the road, and the promise is that they will be maintaining it as a standalone, so if you find after a year that you're not using the full complement of the CC suite then buy the next version of LR and drop the subscription.
But to start, download and use, use, use the 15-day trial of Lightroom. Find a getting started with LR5 tutorial and watch it. At the end of 15 days with it you'll see what it can do and make a personally informed decision. For me, there are more powerful image processing tools available, free and otherwise, but nothing as essential to my photography as Lightroom. I use so many things, but if I had to I could live without Photoshop, the Nik Collection and all the others, but not Lightroom.
Watoh
Senior Member
Well $10 per month would be a no brainer if that was all that was needed. But unfortunately it's not. These are the requirements.
It is effectively an upgrade price.
It costs over $20 per month for one application and you have to sign up for a year. Not so cheap, and certainly not a no brainer.
It is effectively an upgrade price.
It costs over $20 per month for one application and you have to sign up for a year. Not so cheap, and certainly not a no brainer.
Last edited:
Unfortunately, the offer for Photoshop CC at $9.99 for anyone regardless of the Adobe products they own ended on Dec 31st. So while it was a no-brainer back when we all started posting several months ago about this offer, now that it has expired, it's not such a no-brainer.
Scott Murray
Senior Member
Yes it does
Also, I'm not sure why LR is being touted at a RAW file editor when it works equally well with a variety of file types. In fact, LR itself does not edit RAW files nor does it convert them into TIFF or JPEG files, rather ACR is the engine performing this conversion. LR merely edits the TIFF file that ACR provides to it.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
That's not what I'm seeing here...
Membership plans: Pricing and subscriptions | Adobe Creative Cloud
It's still $9.99 for PS, LR and Bridge.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
OK, as I click through it states it requires previous ownership of CS3 or above. I suspect one could find a copy of that for cheap if need be.
That said, LR is still worth the price of admission for the standalone version.
That said, LR is still worth the price of admission for the standalone version.
Flugelbinder
Senior Member
Thank you.
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
GIMP will work with Nikon .NEF/RAW files if you install the UFRaw plugin.