Photo Editing Software

[4x4bob]

I have just been giving instructions by She Who Is In Charge to find a good photo editing software.

 

So, I will start here by asking you all as to what you consider a good user friendly photo editing software.

 

Thanks

 

Bob

[R. Wethereyet]

Hi Bob,

Well she has given you a very important and challenging assignment! Best of Luck! :-)

 

There are a few things to consider in making your choice:

1. What is your budget?

2. How many photos do you take in a year?

3. How computer saavy are you? - "User friendly" is not the same for everyone.

4. How much post-processing are you wanting to do? Just straightening a few horizons and cropping or full out Photoshop magic?

 

Here are a few suggestions that cover a variety of options:

 

A. Adobe Elements (the intro version of Lightroom/Photoshop)

B. Adobe Lightroom can be purchased on a monthly subscription basis for about $10USD/mth

C. On1 - a stand alone editor that can also be "plugged into" Lightroom or Photoshop (as your skills/needs increase down the road)

D. Google Picassa - Free basic editor

E. Paint.Net - another free editor that is a bit more complicated than Picassa

 

Not knowing the answers the the questions above, I can only share what I would choose. I started out using Picassa for many years and was happy with that. As I started shooting more, I moved over to Lightroom. After a bit of a learning curve and lots of Youtube training, I really like what LR can do. I have an earlier version of On1, and like how it integrates with LR. They have just rebuilt On1 and implemented a lot of improvements. I would say that it is a good middle ground between Free editors and the LR/Photoshop solutions.

 

All the best in your research and decision - Happy Shooting!

Dave S

[bUU]

I just picked up the Adobe products for both photo editing and video editing for a bundled price.

[pierces]

For a first foray into editing, the combination of price, guided editing tools to speed the learning curve and a ton of online tutorials, Photoshop Elements or the Elements/Premier bundle is hard to beat. It includes organizational software and the tools have been reworked (several versions ago) to more closely match the full Photoshop version to make stepping up easier, if you ever need to.

 

As a long-time user that has moved up to Lightroom/Photoshop, I highly recommend Elements as a first step to "serious" editing.

 

Dave

[jayarrG7]

I use Adobe lightroom and highly recommend it. Version six is available as a stand alone product for about $145, check Amazon.

You can also get both Lightroom cc and photoshop cc, a more complete package, for $10 a month, maybe more than you need at this point.

Many free videos are available on you tube to learn how to use lightroom.

As a professional real estate photographer, I get by with my existing copy of lightroom 5. Hope this helps.

[havoc315]

Notice how everyone mentions Lightroom...

 

First off, virtually every editing software offers free trials. So make sure you try before you buy.

Secondly, for some features I absolutely love google Nik. Used to cost a lot of money. Now google stopped upgrading it, but they are giving it away for free. I don't use it for everything, but I love it for black and white conversions, noise reduction, filters, and HDR.

 

But my workhorse is Lightroom. You can buy Lightroom standalone, or for $10 per month you can get Lightroom plus full Photoshop (Elements is a limited version of Photoshop).

In theory, photoshop is for editing and Lightroom is for cataloging. But over time, Lightroom has gained tons of basic editing functions, in rather intuitive format. (But I feel you need to be a rocket scientist to master Photoshop).

The editing that can be done easily in Lightroom:

- cropping and straightening

- Raw development

-batch editing

- exposure adjustments, including saturation, contrast, etc

- de-hazing photos

- red eye removal

- removal of spots, blemishes, small objects

-color corrections and selective color adjustments

- filters by plugins

-brushes for selective adjustments to parts of image

-vignetting

-skin, eye enhancements for portraits

-stitching images to panorama

-combining images into HDR (though I prefer Nik for this)

-noise reduction

-sharpening and detail enhancement

And more.

 

I do then go into Photoshop for a few things Lightroom can't do. For me, that's mostly removing larger objects through cloning, etc. if you need to swap faces between photos. Or using a liquify tool to thin someone's face or trim a few inches from the waist.

 

So really, I use Lightroom and Google nik for 95% of my editing. And I do use photoshop for some extra stuff, but I could live without it.

[jc3443]

Too add my 0.02$ to the mix...The question really is, How much and what type of editing are you going to be doing? Adobe Elements, or one of many basic editing programs are excellent for adjusting white balance, adjusting brightness and contrast, some dodging and burning, even removing some distracting things from your photos. Since you are asking this question, it leads me to think that something like this would work well for you.

 

Adobe Lightroom is really an organizational tool that has morphed into a fairly powerful standalone editing program. When combined with Photoshop you can do anything you want. The question becomes, "What do you want to do?" There is a fairly steep learning curve with Lightroom and Photoshop, at least for the more advanced things and it also comes at a price. I have an Adobe subscription that gives me Lightroom and Photoshop for $9.99 per month. This is actually cheaper than buying the programs, assuming you would upgrade as Adobe comes out with new versions. To my knowledge they don't even offer the option to purchase this software as a standalone any longer, it is all via subscription. Edit: Actually they do not offer Photoshop as a standalone, they do offer LIghtroom that way.

 

As someone else mentioned Adobe does offer trial versions of their software. If you search for Adobe Creative Cloud on Google the page will pop up.

 

Good luck!

 

Jim

Edited December 14, 2016 by jc3443

[Dan_K]

Another vote for Lightroom. I subscribe to Adobe's Creative Cloud which gives access to LR and full Photoshop for $10 a month. I rarely use PS. Lightroom does most everything I need on a day-to-day basis. I use it to open raw files, organize photos into folders, tag photos with keywords to find them at a later day and photo editing. Most of the editing I do is cropping and color correction. You can remove small objects, although PS probably makes object removal easier.

 

The best thing about LR is that all corrections are non-destructive. Nothing you do actually changes the image - everything is easily undone.

 

Also, unlike Photoshop, Lightroom is intuitive and easy to use. There are multitudes of videos out there to teach you.

 

Lightroom is really a very powerful program.

[Victress2007]

Just for a different point of view. I use Corel PaintShop programs. You can download a free 30 day trial. I don't do a huge amount of editing but it does everything you need. The cost difference is substantial.

 

Vic

[peety3]

I've been a Lightroom user for a rather long time, dating back to v2 of the software, so perhaps seven years now. It has a unique learning curve, as it uses the concept of a "catalog" to index your images, and separates the Library management function from the editing ("Develop") function, amongst others. However, once you get familiar with it, I'd call it more of a "workflow" program with excellent editing capabilities, as you can manage the whole project from importing your images off the memory cards to exporting your images for print, web use, etc.

 

That said, I'm moving most of my activities to Capture One. It doesn't do as much as Lightroom, or at least I haven't found out how (it won't whiten teeth, smooth skin, etc.), but it presents the images to me far quicker than Lightroom, particularly when shooting "tethered" (via USB cable, the images go directly to my computer). It also renders skin tones so much better than Lightroom.

[4x4bob]

Thanks to everyone that took the time to respond.

I read each post several times soaking up the information contained.

 

After I posted my Daughter, who constantly pushes me forward into the computer age, advised that I start with Picassa and as I develop some experience with that program then move up to either Adobe or Lightroom.

 

So, I will now have a new hobby to keep me entertained on Rain Days following the deluge of photos I will bring home with me from our next Cruise.

 

Anyway thanks again.

 

Bob

[peety3]

After I posted my Daughter, who constantly pushes me forward into the computer age, advised that I start with Picassa and as I develop some experience with that program then move up to either Adobe or Lightroom.

Just for the sake of clarity, "Adobe" is a company. They make a lot of products, and that list includes Photoshop, Lightroom, Photoshop Elements, Bridge, and a slew of others. They also created the PDF standard, and the original PDF "maker" tools (though they're now rather ubiquitous). So saying that you might move up to Adobe is perhaps vague, but I'm sure you'll figure out the specifics by the time you're ready to move up.

[TheOldBear]

Another product to consider is Corel's Aftershot - it is photo organizer in the same category as Lightroom, Capture One or Apple's old Aperture

 

These programs all offer a 'non destructive workflow' - the original file is never altered by any editing action, instead the system keeps track of the original file plus a recipe recording all the editing actions [cropping, rotating, changes to white balance, sharpening or smoothing.....] and allows the user to view, display or export any desired version of the image [e.g. export for printing, export to Facebook, export to Google Photos.....]

 

The catalog program can also send the image to an external editor [PaintShop, Photoshop, Pixelmator] that can make pixel by pixel edits of the file. This sort of editing changes the file. Some photo catalog tools [e.g. Aperture] link or 'stack' the original and externally edited versions of the image.

[Bimmer09]

Another vote for the Adobe Creative Cloud combo of Lightroom and Photoshop for $9.99 a month.

 

Really easy to improve photos on LR, especially if you shoot a lot in Auto mode.

Shooting in RAW opens up a lot of flexibility if you are prepared to spend time on the editing process to get things just so. Uploading to a host like Flickr is very easy and the results are gratifying.

 

Photoshop I have only used for titles so far but it's an amazing tool for manipulating files and opens up many possibilities for creativity. I am more interested in just getting good looking natural photos at the moment but the tools are there if you want to explore.

 

As has been said Youtube has many free tutorials on both programs. I could never go back to Picasa now that I have access to these.

 

Lastly you have come to the right place to ask as there are some stellar photographers and gear-heads living here and they are generous in sharing their vast knowledge and expertise. I'm a newbie but learning a lot here.

 

Have fun regardless of which you choose, Bob!

 

Norris

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

I own outright both LR and PS. I do 95% of my editing on LR. When there is big need for repairs I'll send over to PS.

 

I've edited well over 20,000 pictures on LR, still learning a few things but I know it well and can do some major stuff quickly.

 

Remember the old say, "get it in the camera right". Editing software is fast for enhancements to pictures that are already good and though you can do some great fixes on LR or PS they are never has good as when you already have it close in-camera ;)

[dmc6469]

Just like the majority of what everyone has said, I do the Adobe Elements package for $10/mo that has Lightroom and Photoshop. Photoshop is still a bit confusing but I'm learning.

 

I actually did a photo session last week and did the about 95% of my editing in Lightroom. I really only used Photoshop to remove some things in the background of photos. The client was more than happy. I think Lightroom is great.

[pierces]

Addendum:

 

One of the reasons I suggested starting with Elements, is that like telling a beginning photographer that they need to only shoot RAW "like the pros do" because its the only way you get the most out of your camera, pushing them into tackling the learning curve on Lightroom and Photoshop can be daunting. Early frustration with either can sour one on the experience if all you want to do is brighten an image or occasionally straighten a horizon. Most photographers don't need a complex workflow from the camera to the lab to produce salable prints. They need a way to remove a zit from a prom picture or crop that picture for printing an 8x10 uploaded to Costco.

 

If you are tech-savvy, patient and want to tweak photos and play with plug-ins and filters, the $9.99/month Photographer's subscription to Lightroom and Photoshop is an incredible deal and may be ok to start with. If you just want to organize your photos and make occasional adjustments, Photoshop Elements and Bridge (included in Elements) is a great starting point with a fairly direct path to Lightroom/Photoshop if you feel the need to do more.

 

Dave

[4x4bob]

As I said before I do appreciate the input I have been receiving.

 

And, I can see that this new project is going to be fun while I figure out what I want and how to get it.

 

First I signed into Picasa to take a look at it and found this message:

Moving on from Picasa

We've decided to retire Picasa in order to focus on a single photo service

in Google Photo's - A new, smarter Photo App that works seamlessly across mobile and the web

 

Then I click on Google Photo's:

Free storage and automatic organization for all your memories.

 

Moving on I locate Photo Elements: Which has Elements 12-13-14-15.

After looking at the comparison chart I saw something that fits me on 15.

Get help you need-even if you don't know exactly how to describe it.

 

And, I have lots of photo's to practice on. Because over the years we have taken rides on tour buses that normally have dirty windows to take photo's through. Plus, some times the sun is behind me and sometimes in my face, the subject may be in shadow, and a tree or pole pops into the picture.

 

 

Bob

[pierces]

.

Get help you need-even if you don't know exactly how to describe it....

 

Not to mention you that you've already found this friendly, (sometimes over-)helpful community here on CC. :)

 

This place has been helping people with their photo questions and concerns for more than the decade I've been here. Lots of folks here to help you flatten out the learning curve.

 

Happy editing!

 

Dave

[havoc315]

And, I have lots of photo's to practice on. Because over the years we have taken rides on tour buses that normally have dirty windows to take photo's through. Plus, some times the sun is behind me and sometimes in my face, the subject may be in shadow, and a tree or pole pops into the picture.

 

 

Bob

 

Ok then, lol. A lot of that is beyond basic editing programs. Fixing exposure, such as when the subject is in shadows, if you shot in RAW, those things are pretty easy to adjust in lightroom. If you shot in jpeg, you can still fix it a bit in lightroom and other software, but you'll have far less latitude.

Removing trees and poles... that's where Photoshop comes in. And it isn't very easy. Full Photoshop has far more ability to do that type of editing than Photoshop Elements.

Full Photoshop has various "content aware" tools.. where you can delete something in the photo, and photoshop tries to smartly fill in the space. It can work fairly well at times, horribly at other times. Photoshop Elements has more limited content aware features.

 

In terms of fixing exposure, here are a couple before/after images from Lightroom:

 

DSC_3729.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

DSC_3729-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

DSC_4693-2.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Slippin' falls by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

In terms of using Photoshop to remove unwanted objects.. I used it to straighten this image, which included extending the corners, and removing the strollers:

 

DSC05368.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

DSC05368-Edit.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

You get away with this for social media but when your client wants to blow up the picture to 20X30 you really got to get it right in the camera. When you pull out the shadows your introducing grain, the more shadow recovery the more grain. This is why a professional chimps when he snaps. He looks at his screen and verifies the results are good. Get it right in the camera and all you use editing software is for a bit of polish and/or punch.

[havoc315]

You get away with this for social media but when your client wants to blow up the picture to 20X30 you really got to get it right in the camera. When you pull out the shadows your introducing grain, the more shadow recovery the more grain. This is why a professional chimps when he snaps. He looks at his screen and verifies the results are good. Get it right in the camera and all you use editing software is for a bit of polish and/or punch.

 

Actually, that's not quite true. Post processing is part of having an intelligent plan when shooting. For example, intentionally underexposing in order to preserve the highlights, knowing you can lift the shadows later.

As to whether it lifts the noise levels (grain), it depends on the sensor. For the newer sensors with huge dynamic range, it's a non factor.

In other words, you can shoot a scene at ISO 100, f8, 1/60-- and underexposed it thereby. Or shoot the same scene at ISO 400, f8, 1/60 for "proper"exposure.

The second shot may be properly exposed but with blown highlights. You can take the first image, selectively lift the exposure and shadows by 2 stops to get the same exposure level. And the noise/grain will actually be the same in both images. Raising ISO 100 image by 2 stops won't produce noise any worse than just shooting it ISO 400 in the first place. It's called ISO invariance.

 

Additionally... even if you hit the exposure level perfectly, post processing raw still lets you recover highlights and shadows in a way that you can't so easily do in-camera. In the examples I posted, the exposure was not adjusted-- the exposure was right in the camera. But utilized post processing to save the shadows and highlights. Post processing RAW allows the maximum benefit of the dynamic range in today's best sensors.

 

And yes, I've sold 20x30 prints that had extensive shadow lifting. Done intentionally, to preserve the highlights. I was chimping my shots -- to insure I didn't blow highlights, though that left images underexposed.

Edited December 17, 2016 by havoc315

[Tahitianbigkahuna]

I can now see that in your pictures .... intentional underexposing

 

But your knowledge is probably way above most on here. My response was the average joe who plays around with his camera and just happens to like to dabble a bit with post processing software.

 

I shoot with a Canon 5DIV and a 6D typically in manual/raw with L glass, professionally. Both have great sensors ......... I still approach your situation (pictures uploaded) differently. However, I've learned that there are many ways to arrive at acceptable results. Yours is one way, mine would be different.

 

Again I'm talking about the average joe with a $500 bridge camera, point and shot, getting it as close to being right in-camera is a good idea, then simply use PP for a tiny crop and basic exposure/white balance/color fixes.

 

Have a good day sir

Edited December 17, 2016 by Tahitianbigkahuna

[bUU]

But your knowledge is probably way above most on here.

I can attest to that. I once knew a lot more, but let that knowledge get stale because I just don't want to work that hard. :o I'm now on a search for insights to get the most out of my (point and shoot) photography, with results far exceeding the amount of work and attention to technical sophistication involved.

 

Again I'm talking about the average joe with a $500 bridge camera, point and shot, getting it as close to being right in-camera is a good idea, then simply use PP for a tiny crop and basic exposure/white balance/color fixes.

Pretty much the extent of the post-processing I'm willing to do. That's actually the main reason why I so quickly changed my mind about how sophisticated my video capabilities needed to be; there's practically no way to do substantial video without it exceeding my willingness to do post-processing work. I'll be doing 6 second videos here and there, probably with some panning to capture a sense of the breadth of the view, and that's about it. Edited December 17, 2016 by bUU

[havoc315]

I can now see that in your pictures .... intentional underexposing

 

But your knowledge is probably way above most on here. My response was the average joe who plays around with his camera and just happens to like to dabble a bit with post processing software.

 

I shoot with a Canon 5DIV and a 6D typically in manual/raw with L glass, professionally. Both have great sensors ......... I still approach your situation (pictures uploaded) differently. However, I've learned that there are many ways to arrive at acceptable results. Yours is one way, mine would be different.

 

Again I'm talking about the average joe with a $500 bridge camera, point and shot, getting it as close to being right in-camera is a good idea, then simply use PP for a tiny crop and basic exposure/white balance/color fixes.

 

Have a good day sir

 

All true. A jpeg shooter will benefit greatly from getting it right in the camera. It's raw shooters who get more flexibility. So I wasn't disagreeing with you, so much as finding your statement a bit overly broad.

How is the 5d4 sensor?

I know the 6d is a great low light sensor, but very poor in terms of ISO invariance-- thus a good example of where you benefit by getting it right in the camera. But I think the newest Canons are catching up.