Opinions on post processing software ( Photoshop, Lightroom )

darlenec59

Senior Member
Short and sweet, I currently have Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0 (paid @$100). I am looking to upgrade (do I need to?) but can't afford a $400-$600 (or more) professional program. $200 is about my limit. Is there something out there that would be more user friendly than Elements 8.0. Or is Elements good for a hobbyist and I just need to learn to use it better? Okay, forget the "short" part of this post (LOL!)....I must add that I stopped shooting in Raw because I found I could get the same results shooting JPEG and Raw was adding so much time to my post processing that I wasn't getting my photos processed in a decent amount of time. I take a LOT of pics every weekend and it was overwhelming to sit down with hundreds of pictures and starting in RAW! I saw Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 on Amazon for $149.00. Any opinions on this? Is this any better than Elements 8? As for my interests, I take a lot of landscape stuff, like to photograph pets, people (posed and candid), so pretty general. Thanks for all your opinions and info!
 

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
This is a good question. I purchased Lightroom 4 a few months ago. I wondered about the same things. I knew that I did not want to invest a ton of money into one of the Photo Shop programs, so I decided on Lightroom, but I really don't fully understand how Lightroom compares to some of the more expensive and cheaper Photo Shop programs. And, what's a plug-in? :confused: I tried to compare various items via adobe.com, but got no solid answers. I look forward to responses, also.
 
Last edited:

darlenec59

Senior Member
Thank you for expanding on my question. I have the same questions. One more which I mentioned in my initial post - do I need to shoot in RAW? I know there are other posts on shooting raw but just wondering if that is what I need to do no matter how much time it adds to post processing, before I even consider buying more software? I just don't feel I know enough about post processing raw images to make it worthwhile? Where can I learn more about PP Raw images? Sorry, I know, so many questions!
 
Last edited:

westmill

Banned
Firstly I highly recommend Capture NX. You may even find one second hand.
Its fantastic and comes with a good instruction manual. Its great for RAW or JPG and cost far less than my CS4.
There is totally nothing wrong with shooting JPGs, despite what anyone tells you. You can set up jpgs just as you
like them in camera. You can increase sharpness etc in camera. If you find they are often low in contrast, then
simply turn it up in camera etc. You taylor it to your needs. Today's modern sensors produce great JPGs.
There are benefits to shooting raw of course, but its not necessary for a lot of people.
There are a number of benefits to shooting in JPG. Higher frame rate, Smaller files, Less work,Auto lens corrections in
camera for lateral CAs and curvature, any in camera filters etc etc etc. You can get a higher dynamic range in Raw and slightly finer detailed prints. Raw is better if you are after perfection. Even when you shoot RAW, in the end you need to convert to JPG. Its just that you then have a perfect JPG.
amongst other things.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
Thanks Westmill. I shoot RAW. I am aware of the Nikon's Capture NX. But I think that Lightroom and Photo Shop are more flexible. On this very forum as well as a few others, I posed the question of which programs were better for post production work, I got endorsements for Lightroom and Photo Shop. I got none for Nikon's Capture NX. I really think that Nikon makes great cameras, but they don't make the best post production programs. The lack of endorsements tells me something.
 

westmill

Banned
Well I have both CS4 and Capture NX2. Most prefer whatever they are used too.
How many had both or all. I cant say about lightroom since Ive not tried it. Ive heard good things too though.
I can say however, that Capture NX2 is very very good. Far faster and produces better RAW files than my CS4.
 

Mike150

Senior Member
Just my 2 cents worth. I started with Lightroom 2 and still use it. I plan to get the upgrade to 4 but money is tight right now (wife says I can't have any more). I also have Photoshop CS5 that my wife got me through her University priveleges. Students and Staff get a huge discount.
I start everything in lightroom because of it's Database capabilities (tags and keywords). The libraries are awesome. I end up doing most of my edits within lightroom (crop, brightness, exposure and color). The nicest part about Lightroom is that your edits are not performed on the original. It's hard to describe but a photo in the library is the original. Any changes you make are kept separately so any time you display a photo, you see the altered version. Click reset and back to the original. You can also easily export a photo to Photoshop and make further edits. Actually, it does too much to effectively cover in this forum.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
Lightroom, of course, is very cool....and affordable. There is also Paintshop Photo Pro X3 and X4. However, I'd like to add that the newest Capture NX2 is really quite remarkable in what it can do. It shouldn't be underestimated.

On the shooting in RAW. In my humble opinion, Westmill is quite correct in his explanation of what's best to shoot in. If you're a pro and making money, and your clients are super fussy about the work you put out, then yes, RAW and lots of PP are the way to go. But for the hobbyist who's sharing pics over the internet and with family....absolutely nothing wrong with shooting jpeg. Besides, what's "best" is quite subjective, isn't it. I've shot whole weddings in jpeg, and the clients were ecstatic with the results. How many people do you know that are blowing up their prints bigger than 20 x 30? Yeah...didn't think so! I know a pro portrait photographer that shoots portraits with a D40! And that's 6 MP! And while I'm at it...how many of you are actually MAKING prints from their photos? Not that many I'm betting!
So don't get caught up in some of the hype about jpeg or RAW. Shoot in whatever mode makes more sense to you. After all...it's YOUR work!
 

Eye-level

Banned
I use the GIMP and Windows Photo Gallery and Photomatix which I manipulate in order to get rid of the watermarks...I'm like a pirate or something! lol
 

Geoffc

Senior Member
A few points. With regards to having loads of pics to process I have recently tried limiting myself to two virtual rolls of film per day (72 pics) on my D300s. It takes too long to review 400 pics and snapping like that produces lots of poor quality rubbish, at least for me.

I got convinced about Raw when it gave my old D70 an extra couple of years life because of the better quality however I do shoot jpg when I intend to post without processing. Why not shoot both at the same time and just use the raw versions where you want to process. At least you always have the option of either and the quality is better. If you say jpg "will do" you may as well say cheap lenses will do. I'm not trying to be contentious but it is surely best to have the highest quality without extra cost.

I use a mix of DXO and PSE, plus view nx to quickly view and delete my raw files. I think dxo is in a similar place (function) to Lightroom but I can't compare them. I revert to PSE if I want to edit beyond cropping and tweaking light/colour.
 

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
A few points. With regards to having loads of pics to process I have recently tried limiting myself to two virtual rolls of film per day (72 pics) on my D300s. It takes too long to review 400 pics and snapping like that produces lots of poor quality rubbish, at least for me.

I got convinced about Raw when it gave my old D70 an extra couple of years life because of the better quality however I do shoot jpg when I intend to post without processing. Why not shoot both at the same time and just use the raw versions where you want to process. At least you always have the option of either and the quality is better. If you say jpg "will do" you may as well say cheap lenses will do. I'm not trying to be contentious but it is surely best to have the highest quality without extra cost.

I use a mix of DXO and PSE, plus view nx to quickly view and delete my raw files. I think dxo is in a similar place (function) to Lightroom but I can't compare them. I revert to PSE if I want to edit beyond cropping and tweaking light/colour.

I actually do shoot RAW and jpg. I use one of my D7000's card slots for recording RAW and the other for recording jpg. But, I seem to be using the RAW files more than the jpg. Prior to visiting this forum, I used to shoot everything in jpg.
 

VTJäger

New member
Lightroom 4 is what I use and love it. I struggled with its capabilities at first because I saw all these actions you can buy for photoshop CS6 (they have a free extended beta right now available) and honestly, I can do everything I want to do in photoshop in Lightroom. I've been using PS since I was like 11 doing graphic design and Lightroom does all the photo processing stuff quickly and easily. I think you can try Lightroom 4 for 30 days before you buy.

My favorite part of Lightroom: you can exit the program and go back in without having to save your photo to retain the changes you've made plus the history saves so it's all still there. Which is great cause I stop and start and hated forgetting what I'd already done to the photo in photoshop.

Just my 2 cents
 

westmill

Banned
A few points. With regards to having loads of pics to process I have recently tried limiting myself to two virtual rolls of film per day (72 pics) on my D300s. It takes too long to review 400 pics and snapping like that produces lots of poor quality rubbish, at least for me.

I got convinced about Raw when it gave my old D70 an extra couple of years life because of the better quality however I do shoot jpg when I intend to post without processing. Why not shoot both at the same time and just use the raw versions where you want to process. At least you always have the option of either and the quality is better. If you say jpg "will do" you may as well say cheap lenses will do. I'm not trying to be contentious but it is surely best to have the highest quality without extra cost.

I use a mix of DXO and PSE, plus view nx to quickly view and delete my raw files. I think dxo is in a similar place (function) to Lightroom but I can't compare them. I revert to PSE if I want to edit beyond cropping and tweaking light/colour.

How do you come to the conclusion if you say JPGs will do you may as well say cheap lenses will do ?
Thats just totaly 100% wrong !
Its wrong on so many levels I wouldnt know where to start.
 

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
I use Serif Photo Plus X4. It does it all for me. HDR merge, cut out, Etc. Their panoramic program came with it. I used the trial version for a few weeks, when they offered the the full program for $40. The program has changed to X5 since then.
I only use the program when i want to fix a picture for selling or for HDR work. Otherwise, I just use windows photo gallery to fix things to show on line.
 

Mike150

Senior Member
My favorite part of Lightroom: you can exit the program and go back in without having to save your photo to retain the changes you've made plus the history saves so it's all still there. Which is great cause I stop and start and hated forgetting what I'd already done to the photo in photoshop.


Another comment on this. In the "Develop" module, it gives you a history of each step made. When you're working and decide you have gone way too far, you can easily backup a few steps instead of back to the beginning.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
Short and sweet, I currently have Adobe Photoshop Elements 8.0 (paid @$100). I am looking to upgrade (do I need to?) but can't afford a $400-$600 (or more) professional program. $200 is about my limit. Is there something out there that would be more user friendly than Elements 8.0. Or is Elements good for a hobbyist and I just need to learn to use it better? Okay, forget the "short" part of this post (LOL!)....I must add that I stopped shooting in Raw because I found I could get the same results shooting JPEG and Raw was adding so much time to my post processing that I wasn't getting my photos processed in a decent amount of time. I take a LOT of pics every weekend and it was overwhelming to sit down with hundreds of pictures and starting in RAW! I saw Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 on Amazon for $149.00. Any opinions on this? Is this any better than Elements 8? As for my interests, I take a lot of landscape stuff, like to photograph pets, people (posed and candid), so pretty general. Thanks for all your opinions and info!

You have a lot of questions in that small paragraph so let me see if I can add to what others have already replied. First off, the questions you're asking are totally appropriate for someone wanting to improve their photography! All of us, amateur and professional, have had to face them and then revisit them as technology and our needs change. Bottom line, find what works for you.

Your next question seems to be whether you get enough value out of shooting RAW versus JPEG. I'm a consultant by trade, so of course my response is, "it depends." What do you do with your images? Do you post them on a social media site, email them to others, print them or something else? If you are using them for social media or to share with friends, then JPEG is probably okay. If you're printing them or are trying to maximize the potential in each image, then you should consider using RAW.

The next item I noticed is that you take "a LOT of pics every weekend". Is that because you are capturing a lot of different subjects or topics? Or is it because you are taking a lot hoping that some will turn out? It is a hard question to answer because it means looking at how you capture images. If you fall into the latter category, you may need to focus (unintentional pun) more on the technical aspects of photography. I'm speaking from personal experience because when I slowed down a bit my results improved.

So now we get down to software. Your comment of "it was overwhelming to sit down with hundreds of pictures" seems to be the heart of the matter. The hardest thing to learn is what is a "keeper" and to be critical of yourself. Certain tools are designed to help you quickly sort through a lot of images and decide which are keepers. The two most popular are Lightroom and Aperture. Both are excellent cataloging, sorting and selection tools. Once you've selected the best images, then you only need to process a smaller amount of images. Best of all, both of the tools I mentioned allow you to copy how you processed one image to multiple others further speeding up the effort. ANY software requires an investment of time and effort to learn how to use them effectively, but I venture to say that you won't be happy with your photographic results until you do.

Finally, regarding Photoshop Elements - it is a great tool. My brother uses it and has great results. The key is to learn whichever product you choose well.
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
This is a good question. I purchased Lightroom 4 a few months ago. I wondered about the same things. I knew that I did not want to invest a ton of money into one of the Photo Shop programs, so I decided on Lightroom, but I really don't fully understand how Lightroom compares to some of the more expensive and cheaper Photo Shop programs. And, what's a plug-in? :confused: I tried to compare various items via adobe.com, but got no solid answers. I look forward to responses, also.

Maybe I can help explain the differences between Elements, Lightroom and Photoshop. I listed them in that order because that is how they are priced and presented.

Elements was originally intended to be an easier to use subset of the Photoshop capabilities that photographers use to manipulate images. It was released before Lightroom was created. It has evolved into it's own beast - and I use that word because the interface has become IMHO very non-standard and cumbersome. But it is still easier to use than Photoshop and produces great results at a very reasonable price.

Lightroom was created as a response to Apple's Aperture and photographers not being happy with other image management tools. It is based on the old slide light tables that were used to sort images. Lightroom is intended to help you quickly sort, select and process images - primarily RAW - without the effort of Photoshop. With the price reduction introduced with version 4, the ability to acquire training, cross platform (PC and Mac) capability and industry support, it is a solid choice. Lightroom is based on the same RAW engine as Photoshop. Lightroom can not manipulate images at the same level as detail as Photoshop. One thing to remember is that Lightroom is non-destructive - it never changes your original image.

Photoshop is a complex and expensive application used to manipulate images - not just for photography. It has the majority of market share used by "creatives" - graphic designers, editors, etc. Personally, my use and even need for Photoshop has decreased as the capabilities of Lightroom has increased. It can permanently alter your original image.

Plugins were originally designed as a way of extending the capabilities of Photoshop. They were usually very specifically used in special circumstances. It has now become a rather generic term intended to mean an extension of an application's capabilities. Lightroom also supports plugins but because of the non-destructive manner it processes images, often different versions of the plugins are required for Lightroom versus Photoshop.
 
Last edited:

Phillydog1958

Senior Member
Maybe I can help explain the differences between Elements, Lightroom and Photoshop. I listed them in that order because that is how they are priced and presented.

Elements was originally intended to be an easier to use subset of the Photoshop capabilities that photographers use to manipulate images. It was released before Lightroom was created. It has evolved into it's own beast - and I use that word because the interface has become IMHO very non-standard and cumbersome. But it is still easier to use than Photoshop and produces great results at a very reasonable price.

Lightroom was created as a response to Apple's Aperture and photographers not being happy with other image management tools. It is based on the old slide light tables that were used to sort images. Lightroom is intended to help you quickly sort, select and process images - primarily RAW - without the effort of Photoshop. With the price reduction introduced with version 4, the ability to acquire training, cross platform (PC and Mac) capability and industry support, it is a solid choice. Lightroom is based on the same RAW engine as Photoshop. Lightroom can not manipulate images at the same level as detail as Photoshop. One thing to remember is that Lightroom is non-destructive - it never changes your original image.

Photoshop is a complex and expensive application used to manipulate images - not just for photography. It has the majority of market share used by "creatives" - graphic designers, editors, etc. Personally, my use and even need for Photoshop has decreased as the capabilities of Lightroom has increased. It can permanently alter your original image.

Plugins were originally designed as a way of extending the capabilities of Photoshop. They were usually very specifically used in special circumstances. It has now become a rather generic term intended to mean an extension of an applications capabilities. Lightroom also supports plugins but because of the non-destructive manner it processes images, often different versions of the plugins are required for Lightroom versus Photoshop.

Thanks Ed. This was exactly what I was trying to find out. You hit the nail, dead on the head. Yesterday, I downloaded the Photo Shop, 30-day free trial from Adobe's site. Photo Shop is very complex and very expensive. I think that I may just stick with Lightroom. Lightroom is so much easier to work through. With Photo Shop, I'm going to download some of the instructional videos and play with it. Thanks again.
 
Top