Am I the only person in the world not using LR & PS?

[Mr F Stop.]

I should start with, if I could I probably would. But due to my Panasonic toughbook and windows 7 I can't use Light room. I am using a free editor call Photoscape and to be honest it does the job. Well at least at my level. My problem is this, all the pro's (including Steve) and every YT video refer to LR for everything. I have asked on many occasions for pro's to explain their edit in general terms but no one has ever come back to me. I also think maybe LR & PS are too powerful, I am completely blown away when I watch some guy take an average shot and then turn it into a masterpiece. Some pro's even admit when they are out and about they are simply gathering digital information to make the image later. This obviously does n't happen so much with wild life photography. I have found that my best shots don't really need or get that much editing and the average to poor are irrecoverable with my editor. So do I sell a kidney and get a new laptop and a years subscription to LR?

 

[Roaring 40s]

There's now a bunch of mid-range editors to consider that may do all you need.

I've been using DXO Photolab over versions 2 to 4 and it's reasonably capable. Local adjustments are quick and flexible and content management is straightforward if a little basic. But as you've found, there's the question of learning resources and it doesn't do well on that.

 

[soundbyte]

I hear your pain, so many others using LR and PS, what am I doing?

I use XnViewMP and XnConvert (xnview.com), with Topaz Denoise (topazlabs.com) and the old NIK collection (https://nik-collection.en.uptodown.com/windows) which are both setup as plugins to do all of my "editing".
XnViewMP can use most Photoshop plug-ins as well, but I do not use any.

There are a number of other "Editors" I have tried and discarded, but you may like to try them as well, Faststone Image Veiwer (www.faststone.org) is one that has been recommended by others on this forum.

I think I do OK, but am not interested in spending more time in front of my computer than necessary when I can be out and about getting more "in the field" time.

Getting the shot in RAW as close as I can in the field serves me quite well.

 

[Roaring 40s]

Bear in mind too that the raw file is converted before it's edited, and there's a deal of variation in conversion quality among editors.

Then there's distortion and aberration corrections that may be applied according to the body/lens combo. PhotoLab is good in this respect.

 

[Ado Wolf]

Not everyone can afford LR and PS, especially since the License became a monthly fee rather than a Program license (once and you are good to go).
I personally work mostly with GIMP (open code (free) equivalent of PS) and iPhoto or Snapseed on Mac / iPad.
I am also a fan of minimal photo-editing, and try my best to get it right from the start (in Camera), simply because I don't have the time to edit and it's an old school thought that I still carry with me (from Film days).

 

[Hermann]

I don't use LR and PS. I do all RAW conversions in Nikon NX-D. I much prefer the results I get in NX-D over any other software I tried. I also tend to keep my editing to a minimum, so on the rare occasions I need another program I use Gimp (for really complex tasks), the old Nik.Collection (for BW work) or some other lightweight program.

BTW, I generally don't use Adobe products anymore. Don't like their policies.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

I don't use LR and PS. I do all RAW conversions in Nikon NX-D. I much prefer the results I get in NX-D over any other software I tried. I also tend to keep my editing to a minimum, so on the rare occasions I need another program I use Gimp (for really complex tasks), the old Nik.Collection (for BW work) or some other lightweight program.

BTW, I generally don't use Adobe products anymore. Don't like their policies.

Yes I have NX2 from Nikon and it is brilliant. It's almost too easy really. But as a fast way to edit it works better than the rest. NX 2 though does not do RAW. Not that matters to me because I shoot both and only use the Raw image if I can't get the results I am after with the J peg.

 

[abc123brian]

Not that its any cheaper, but I use Capture One. I didn’t want to do the subscription thing at the time Adobe switched and have been happy with C1. they have been adding features continuously and I don’t really miss LR. Though more people make presets and plugins for LR.

 

[Robin]

I bought LR 5 as a one off and managed to get the updates . Downside is that it doesn’t recognise files from recent cameras.
I don’t like the idea of monthly payments but do want something that will recognise new files.
I was thinking about a recent edition of Elements as a one off. If it can deal with Raw files I’m not sure.
I use a free download from adobe, adobe converter which changes my Nikon files to DNG then I can load them into my version of LR. It is slightly long winded though.
There is an editor called Affinity? I believe, and that has some good reviews and also a one off if I remember correctly .

 

[Viathelens]

"So do I sell a kidney and get a new laptop and a years subscription to LR?"

There are many programs available today that can match what LrC and PS can do, some people have already named a few. If the software you are using meets your goals and you are happy with the quality of work that you produce then why change? Having said that, I have been an Adobe software user for many years and do use LrC and PS, but I also use on occasion other software. I do believe that many shots, if not all, can be improved with the use of excellent software and good technique. One of the advantages of LrC is that the software actually contains seven software modules in one: Library, Develop, Map, Book, Slideshow, Print, and Web. In the Library Module, which is the central "office" of the software you use the database built into the software to use keywords and metadata to sort and find images within seconds. In the Develop Module you have all of the development power-house tools to improve your image in a variety of ways. You can create slideshows for family, friends, and groups or to post online. You can create a variety of books using Blurb in the Book Module to share with others or to page through on a rainy day, and it's nice to see your work in print. Additionally, with the subscription, you get access to a "cloud-based" version of Lightroom and some data storage, and you get access to hundreds of fonts as well as video and web-based graphic art software. All of this works well for me but may not be want you want.

 

[Oldnintheway]

I use View NX-i. I bought a laptop a year or so ago with the intention of getting started with lightroom, but decided I really didn't want to spend all that time & effort in PP. Minor sharpening/contrast and expesure adjustments are good enough for me.

 

[DRwyoming]

So do I sell a kidney and get a new laptop and a years subscription to LR?

There's many approaches to photo editing that do not involve LR or PS so go with what works.

I'd also add that the main reason to use LR isn't really for photo editing as much as photo library management. The LR editing features are available in other tools though the presentation and controls layout in LR is very nice. But where LR really shines is in its library management features including extensive keywording, ability to set up arbitrary collections (logical grouping of images) and things like metadata filters (quickly find all images shot with a particular focal length lens, camera or maybe at a particular ISO or shutter speed). These features are very nice but there are other ways to get those jobs done so they're not strictly necessary.

Seems to me you probably have several options:
- Pick up some inexpensive or even free ware photo processing software and run it on your existing laptop.
- Pick up either an older or thinned down version of Photoshop such as Elements to run on your laptop which really does just about everything a photographer needs (as opposed to a general graphics artist)
- Invest in a photo editing computer such as a desktop that doesn't have to be the latest and greatest just with sufficient RAM, a decent processor and enough hard drive space to run newer versions of PS or LR. Dedicating a desktop computer for photo processing can get you a lot more processing power at a much lower price than trying to match that with a laptop. The question of course if whether you need the portability of a laptop for your photo work.

Anyway, there's lot's of valid approaches and though a lot of us use a LR, PS combo for image processing it's not strictly necessary and there are many other approaches.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

There's many approaches to photo editing that do not involve LR or PS so go with what works.

I'd also add that the main reason to use LR isn't really for photo editing as much as photo library management. The LR editing features are available in other tools though the presentation and controls layout in LR is very nice. But where LR really shines is in its library management features including extensive keywording, ability to set up arbitrary collections (logical grouping of images) and things like metadata filters (quickly find all images shot with a particular focal length lens, camera or maybe at a particular ISO or shutter speed). These features are very nice but there are other ways to get those jobs done so they're not strictly necessary.

Seems to me you probably have several options:
- Pick up some inexpensive or even free ware photo processing software and run it on your existing laptop.
- Pick up either an older or thinned down version of Photoshop such as Elements to run on your laptop which really does just about everything a photographer needs (as opposed to a general graphics artist)
- Invest in a photo editing computer such as a desktop that doesn't have to be the latest and greatest just with sufficient RAM, a decent processor and enough hard drive space to run newer versions of PS or LR. Dedicating a desktop computer for photo processing can get you a lot more processing power at a much lower price than trying to match that with a laptop. The question of course if whether you need the portability of a laptop for your photo work.

Anyway, there's lot's of valid approaches and though a lot of us use a LR, PS combo for image processing it's not strictly necessary and there are many other approaches.

Well thank you for your detailed reply. All noted. I think I will as you say go down the desk top route. I make video's as well, but have more or less stopped that because it was taking so long. So it is time to move my editing up to the next level. But there is one point you did n't really touch on and that is the fact that every one and his dog teaches editing using LR. Surely a pro could make an editing video or course which explains how and what to do with referring to LR?

 

[DRwyoming]

Surely a pro could make an editing video or course which explains how and what to do with referring to LR?

I take it that was a typo and you meant that someone could produce instructional materials for editing photos 'without' referring to LR.

Sure, that could be done but folks tend to build instructional materials that address the biggest markets and the two most popular photo editing software packages are LR and PS so that's what most of the after market instructional material addresses. For third party packages there's usually some instructional material created by the specific vendors and with some searching you might find some info from others but the Adobe products really do command a big market share so most of the after market instructional material addresses those products.

The good news is that the basics of photo editing and things like raw file conversion are really the same regardless of what specific software you use. Sure the naming of the controls and how those controls are presented may vary but the basic ideas of adjusting: exposure, contrast, white balance, black point, white point and common tasks like dodging, burning, cropping, dust spotting and image resizing are typically very similar across most photo editing tools.

Get you head around those basic topics and it's generally pretty easy to move from one tool to another. Yeah, PS adds additional concepts like layers, selections, layer masks and layer blending modes so if you go down the path of PS or a similar advanced tool there's more concepts to grasp but basic photo editing is the same whether you use tools like: Picaso, Windows Photos, iPhoto, Capture or something like LR or PS. The more advanced photo editing tools tend to offer specialized tools like Smart Sharpen in PS or automated pano stitching with image alignment or a host of other things and those really do vary from tool to tool so if you go with a tool that supports advanced filters or other specialized features you generally have to read the instructions or after market instructional materials for that specific tool.

 

[AlexY]

I hear your pain, so many others using LR and PS, what am I doing?

I use XnViewMP and XnConvert (xnview.com), with Topaz Denoise (topazlabs.com) and the old NIK collection (https://nik-collection.en.uptodown.com/windows) which are both setup as plugins to do all of my "editing".
XnViewMP can use most Photoshop plug-ins as well, but I do not use any.

There are a number of other "Editors" I have tried and discarded, but you may like to try them as well, Faststone Image Veiwer (www.faststone.org) is one that has been recommended by others on this forum.

I think I do OK, but am not interested in spending more time in front of my computer than necessary when I can be out and about getting more "in the field" time.

Getting the shot in RAW as close as I can in the field serves me quite well.

Thanks for the link to the older version of the NIK collection. I've been looking for this for the Silver efx module for a while, and until now, in vain.
Cheers,
Alex

 

[Mr F Stop.]

I take it that was a typo and you meant that someone could produce instructional materials for editing photos 'without' referring to LR.

Sure, that could be done but folks tend to build instructional materials that address the biggest markets and the two most popular photo editing software packages are LR and PS so that's what most of the after market instructional material addresses. For third party packages there's usually some instructional material created by the specific vendors and with some searching you might find some info from others but the Adobe products really do command a big market share so most of the after market instructional material addresses those products.

The good news is that the basics of photo editing and things like raw file conversion are really the same regardless of what specific software you use. Sure the naming of the controls and how those controls are presented may vary but the basic ideas of adjusting: exposure, contrast, white balance, black point, white point and common tasks like dodging, burning, cropping, dust spotting and image resizing are typically very similar across most photo editing tools.

Get you head around those basic topics and it's generally pretty easy to move from one tool to another. Yeah, PS adds additional concepts like layers, selections, layer masks and layer blending modes so if you go down the path of PS or a similar advanced tool there's more concepts to grasp but basic photo editing is the same whether you use tools like: Picaso, Windows Photos, iPhoto, Capture or something like LR or PS. The more advanced photo editing tools tend to offer specialized tools like Smart Sharpen in PS or automated pano stitching with image alignment or a host of other things and those really do vary from tool to tool so if you go with a tool that supports advanced filters or other specialized features you generally have to read the instructions or after market instructional materials for that specific tool.

Yes you are correct it was a typo. Once again I hear you loud and clear. I also know my way around the editor I am using. But I think it's a bit of a cop out when pro's sit in front of the latest laptop using LR which lets face it it brilliant and then take the credit for the end result. I also understand all the terms you used above and know what they do .......more or less but I am never sure in which order to do them. If I do them in the wrong order am I making things worse? I would just like someone or a book to tell me when and what to do. I guess what I need is a pro looking over my shoulder. Thanks again for your wise words.

 

[Roaring 40s]

LR's catalog is a turn-off for me. Too much of an overhead and it departs from Windows file handling conventions in enough minor ways to be irritating.

 

[Mr F Stop.]

Bear in mind too that the raw file is converted before it's edited, and there's a deal of variation in conversion quality among editors.

Then there's distortion and aberration corrections that may be applied according to the body/lens combo. PhotoLab is good in this respect.

Yes, I am new to all of this having taken up the DSLR for barely two years. Every thing I read and watched said shoot RAW or you will die. But I was so disappointed with the results that I reverted back to and editing the J peg. I shoot both now and when I have a one off shot which needs recovering I dig the raw out. But with my editor Photopad (photoscape won't edit Raw) I have found the difference between my edited RAW file (which takes for ever) and the J peg are so similar it's a waste of my time. I am guessing that with LR Raw would win..........or would it?

 

[Roaring 40s]

I get better conversion with PhotoLab than LR. Edit: with Nikon files.

 

[AlexY]

I’m not very good with post processing. I have only got Affinity Pro (it came highly recommended) but it’s so unintuitive, it’s rather put me of using it.

Patrick,
Thanks for your comment about Affinity. I read some good reviews as well, bought it and struggled with its - to me - counter-intuitive workflow as well. Until now, I thought that I was the only one!
I still use a standalone version of Lightroom as my main processing software. I was intending to use Affinity as an alternative to Photoshop.......and perhaps I still will, but it has a steeper learning curve (cliff?) than other processing software that I've tried.
cheers,
Alex

 

[Viathelens]

Yes you are correct it was a typo. Once again I hear you loud and clear. I also know my way around the editor I am using. But I think it's a bit of a cop out when pro's sit in front of the latest laptop using LR which lets face it it brilliant and then take the credit for the end result. I also understand all the terms you used above and know what they do .......more or less but I am never sure in which order to do them. If I do them in the wrong order am I making things worse? I would just like someone or a book to tell me when and what to do. I guess what I need is a pro looking over my shoulder. Thanks again for your wise words.

You said, "But I think it's a bit of a cop out when pro's sit in front of the latest laptop using LR which lets face it [is] brilliant and then take the credit for the end result." Even a pro with a poorly taken image cannot create a "brilliant" image. To get that "brilliant" image a photographer must first learn the basics and beyond and know how to take a decent image and then know how to improve it. It is a world of digital photography that we live in today and all images, JPEG or RAW, must be processed in some type of software, in-camera or out-of-camera. If I'm going to process an image I'm going to give it 100% and hope it does turn out "brilliant," or at least decently. I have no idea why you would make this type of statement.

To learn LrC, Lightroom Classic, there are many books available as well as many free tutorials by Adobe, including their Adobe forums if you get stumped, and/or Facebook forums that can help out. I sat down with a Scott Kelby book 8 years ago and learned it step-by-step, one image at a time. I'm not a Scott Kelby so I can't recommend his books, but the next book I got and studied was by Martin Evening and his book is really good and very easy to follow: he was part of the group of folks who developed LR, maybe PS, too, but I can't recall as I write this. After using LrC to develop for about 5 years I studied every other thing I could find and I got certified as an Adobe Expert in Lightroom. Then I taught the software to other photographers for about two years at a junior college. Once you get the hang of the software, and reading about it first is a good idea, it will become easier and easier to use.

Developing images is similar across the board for many programs, although the tools may be called different things. Upon starting to process an image you first check to ensure that the image is sharp, use a 100% view in most software. In LrC you would start in the Basic Panel, setting the White Balance to suit what you want, warmer or cooler or leaving it as is, then a good place to go after that would be to look at the histogram and see if you have used all tones available in the image (if the histogram does not touch the edges you can expand it to use additional tones - without getting into detail on histograms!). Use the Whites and Blacks sliders to do this (I'm on the most recent subscription version), holding down option or alt will allow you to see the tones change across the histogram. You might try viewing a video by Steve or someone else to figure this all out. It won't be learned in a day or a week or in a month most likely, just keep at it and keep learning and you will improve over time. To date, I've processed 13,239 images and I am still learning as I go, but I love the craft of processing as much as I love the craft of taking photographs.

 

[DRwyoming]

But I think it's a bit of a cop out when pro's sit in front of the latest laptop using LR which lets face it it brilliant and then take the credit for the end result.

I am guessing that with LR Raw would win..........or would it?

I think you're giving too much credit to LR as a tool. It doesn't work any magic nor do some kind of special processing that other tools do not. You make basic adjustments to exposure, white balance, contrast and the like but you can do all of those adjustments in other tools including all commercial raw converters.

Photoshop actually does introduce some very powerful selective editing tools via layers, selections and masks but Lightroom is really just a pretty straight forward image editing tool though it's well organized for photographers and certainly a good way to edit photos.

Don't think that a photographer's final image quality is a result of using Lightroom or using a particularly powerful computer. It might take longer with a different software package or a less powerful computer but neither really make the image.

Really as stated previously the real benefit of LR has more to do with library management than actual image editing. In fact the raw conversion software engine in LR is the same raw conversion engine used in the full blown Photoshop or the consumer oriented Photoshop elements. The control layouts and user interface to that raw conversion engine looks a bit different between those tools but Adobe reuses the same raw conversion software behind the scenes.

 

[Palouse]

I’m not very good with post processing. I have only got Affinity Pro (it came highly recommended) but it’s so unintuitive, it’s rather put me of using it.

Patrick,
Thanks for your comment about Affinity. I read some good reviews as well, bought it and struggled with its - to me - counter-intuitive workflow as well. Until now, I thought that I was the only one!
I still use a standalone version of Lightroom as my main processing software. I was intending to use Affinity as an alternative to Photoshop.......and perhaps I still will, but it has a steeper learning curve (cliff?) than other processing software that I've tried.
cheers,
Alex

I found this very helpful: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLllFqBuTM0WI8Pt47wBcg25gcYRufEnY8

I use DXO as my primary software, and Affinity for panos, focus stacks, etc. Love 'em both. I transfer files to my MBP with Nikon Transfer 2.

 

[AlexY]

Thanks Nick - much appreciated. I'll start watching the videos. My frustration with Affinity is mostly due to the fact that I use it so seldom that I can never remember how to save the changes I've made therein and exit back to Lightroom. I need to practice until the program becomes part of my muscle memory and watching (and using) more videos should help.
cheers,
Alex

 

[Palouse]

Thanks Nick - much appreciated. I'll start watching the videos. My frustration with Affinity is mostly due to the fact that I use it so seldom that I can never remember how to save the changes I've made therein and exit back to Lightroom. I need to practice until the program becomes part of my muscle memory and watching (and using) more videos should help.
cheers,
Alex

I agree. DXO is so much simpler . . .!