I'm curious myself since the only thing I can think of when it comes to post processing is destructive or non-destructive editing. I don't know if PS can permanently alter RAW since I only use TiFFs.
best photo processing software for newbie
- Thread starter gary135r
- Start date
I'm curious myself since the only thing I can think of when it comes to post processing is destructive or non-destructive editing. I don't know if PS can permanently alter RAW since I only use TiFFs.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I'm guessing that it's merely hair splitting over the difference between minor adjustments in things like brightness, contrast, WB, etc. that would be akin to what you'd do when simply printing a photo in a film darkroom (i.e. "Photo Processing"), and making changes to the image that go beyond that that would be akin to airburshing, compositing, etc. in a film darkroom (i.e. "Photo Editing").
Personally, I think even making a distinction between the two puts confusion somewhere it doesn't need to belong. Yes, a distinction exists between the simple manipulation of light and the manipulation of the physical image, and it's simply the back end between what many consider the differences between Photography and Graphic Arts. But with that said, Photoshop does not exist merely to serve the latter and can be used to "process photos" without ever "editing" them, as can countless other programs. The distinction is not made at the software level, it is made based on the actions of the artist. Any "photo processing" software can be made to "edit" a photo, and vice versa.
Braineack
Senior Member
it's not hair splitting, but correct.
LR is actually designed for photographers as a workflow and processing application, and PS is designed for graphic artists for myriad of different applications.
You need Adobe Camera RAW to processing raw files in any sort of easy manner within PS--which is pretty much a LR plugin for PS.
I strongly suggest using LR for processing photos. Beyond just being able to quickly adjust the image, you can organize, categorize, metatag, batch process, reject, flag, rate, before really even touching a single image. It's a great tool for photographers that don't need to manipluate pixels. And if you need to bring things into PS, you can export directly to PS, alter the image, but keep the file within the LR workflow so the changes are reflected back in your LR gallery.
Like I said, I've been using PS since PS2 or PS3, roughly 1995. As far as my photography is concerned I use pure LR about 95% of time. At work, doing UI/Graphic design I'm in PS/Ill about 95% of the time.
LR is actually designed for photographers as a workflow and processing application, and PS is designed for graphic artists for myriad of different applications.
You need Adobe Camera RAW to processing raw files in any sort of easy manner within PS--which is pretty much a LR plugin for PS.
I strongly suggest using LR for processing photos. Beyond just being able to quickly adjust the image, you can organize, categorize, metatag, batch process, reject, flag, rate, before really even touching a single image. It's a great tool for photographers that don't need to manipluate pixels. And if you need to bring things into PS, you can export directly to PS, alter the image, but keep the file within the LR workflow so the changes are reflected back in your LR gallery.
Like I said, I've been using PS since PS2 or PS3, roughly 1995. As far as my photography is concerned I use pure LR about 95% of time. At work, doing UI/Graphic design I'm in PS/Ill about 95% of the time.
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
I don't disagree with your assessment of Lightroom, I disagree with your assessment of Photoshop not being "photo processing" software. You have it backwards, which is sort of amazing for someone whose been working with PS as long as you, but ACR is not a "LR plugin for PS", Lightroom is ACR configured as a standalone piece of software divested of Photoshop (of which it's been a part for ages). Camera RAW existed long before Lightroom, and yes, you need ACR to process RAW files in Photoshop, which is why it's come with the product since the day it was first made available.
I've long said that Lightroom is designed for photographers and likely the best piece of software out there for the serious photographer, so on that we're agreed. But your categorization of Photoshop is both inaccurate and very misleading. Photoshop has many uses beyond photo processing (and "editing"), but thousands of photographers have been processing their images with it for years and will continue to do so despite Lightroom.
I've long said that Lightroom is designed for photographers and likely the best piece of software out there for the serious photographer, so on that we're agreed. But your categorization of Photoshop is both inaccurate and very misleading. Photoshop has many uses beyond photo processing (and "editing"), but thousands of photographers have been processing their images with it for years and will continue to do so despite Lightroom.
Braineack
Senior Member
Correct LR is ACR, not the other way around, I was just trying to characterize it.
(I speak in a lot of hyperbole)
The way I see it is: if LR is a photo processing software package, then PS is not one.
While you can process photos in PS, it's was not designed in regards to processing photos, it was designed to manipulate pixels. So yeah, while you can use Bridge/ACR/PS to pretty much do the same as LR, it's just not the same thing.
I can make 3D objects in PS, but im not going to call it a 3D rendering software.
I can make animated gifs on my 3 cats in PS, but I'm not going to call it animation software.
I can process images in PS, but im not going to call it image processing software.
(I speak in a lot of hyperbole)
The way I see it is: if LR is a photo processing software package, then PS is not one.
While you can process photos in PS, it's was not designed in regards to processing photos, it was designed to manipulate pixels. So yeah, while you can use Bridge/ACR/PS to pretty much do the same as LR, it's just not the same thing.
I can make 3D objects in PS, but im not going to call it a 3D rendering software.
I can make animated gifs on my 3 cats in PS, but I'm not going to call it animation software.
I can process images in PS, but im not going to call it image processing software.
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
Is a toaster oven not a toaster?
Is a Swiss Army Knife not a bottle opener?
Is an iPhone not a camera?
Just because there are more optimized solutions to perform a task it doesn't mean that a multi-functional solution isn't also a solution, regardless of whether or not you want to name it that.
Is a Swiss Army Knife not a bottle opener?
Is an iPhone not a camera?
Just because there are more optimized solutions to perform a task it doesn't mean that a multi-functional solution isn't also a solution, regardless of whether or not you want to name it that.
For me right now, I am nowhere near a pro. PSE13 is MORE than enough for me to handle and satisfy what I want to do. I haven't even touched the "Organizing" side yet. One guy that gives really good tutorials for PSE on Youtube is Rick Peterson. You should check him out. He also has a website and answers specific questions
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Photoshop is a raster-graphics editor. Where those raster-graphics come from doesn't really matter. And yes, I know PS can *save* some vector-graphic information, but it still can not generate vector graphics.
....
Last edited:
BackdoorArts
Senior Member
The fallacy in this analogy is that in the first two examples you are comparing a subset of the full functionality of the product named to what you can accomplish in Photoshop, whereas in the third example you can do everything you can in your chosen "image processing software" in Photoshop. So yes, Photoshop is neither 3D Rendering Software nor is it Animation Software, but it is image processing software when you define that by what you can accomplish in Lightroom.
I downloaded the trial of Perfect Layers and it was slow, clumsy and limited. It got old very fast.
I fear my only option when fully switching to the Mac is buying PS. Pretty expensive for what I need. If anyone knows a cheap and tolerable alternative on the Mac for blending and merging in specific, I'm all ears.
I fear my only option when fully switching to the Mac is buying PS. Pretty expensive for what I need. If anyone knows a cheap and tolerable alternative on the Mac for blending and merging in specific, I'm all ears.
#PSE!!!!!! Check out Rick Peterson's site and YouTube videos. It cost me 100 bucks for the software
The photographers bundle LR +PS from Adobe is less than $10 per mth equivalent in your country.
just go for it. It's cheaper than a magazine. No down side and PS is the gold standard.
i resisted PS for years but at this price it's a no brainier.
I have LR but need something that allows me to work "off the grid" when I hit the road and that's not really possible with PPM. Standalones I buy and update when I have the opportunity but even if not, they keep functioning. It's just that the standalone of PS is a bit costly for the little I need. I hoped Perfect Layers would do the trick but when I decided to give it another try, it even crashed on me.
I don't know any other LR plugin having layer and blending options. That would be a perfect solution.
A month isn't going to do it I fear. Maybe at first but if all goes as planned, I'll be out longer than that. The only logical solution is being as non-dependent as possible.
Have you checked out Photoshop Elements? It can do quite a bit of the same things that Photoshop CC does but for a fraction of the cost. One thing I prefer about Photoshop CC is the ability to select printer profiles...something my PSE 10 didn't have. Not sure if the more recent versions have it or not though.
PSE can do layers and merge. I made my first 20"x30" collage in PSE 10 without any problems.
I just checked the functions of PSE and it seems to have the same blending options as PS so that would be ideal. Do you know if the latest version can handle 16 bit TiFF files?