Adobe Photoshop vs Elements vs Lightroom?

[Hoag]

The downside of DNG is that it isn't raw, so some of what you can do with raw files is negated. There are of course native raw converters from the camera manufacturers.

True, and DNG may not be the perfect answer for everybody. However, while there may be some things that RAW can do that DNG can not, I do't think that casual user would notice and/or miss these features. I think that those differences would be noticeable only to high end users such as professional photographers or photo editors who would already have the most up to date version of their editing software whether that is a stand alone such as Capture One or subscription based such as Lightroom and would not have a need to convert to DNG for their editing software to use the files coming out of their camera.

For the person who has an outdated version of their editing software that they use and are comfortable with, the ease of converting to DNG and then using their existing software may be easier and more economically sound than purchasing an upgrade to their editing software (and possibly their computer) to support their new camera.

Nothing is perfect, and sometimes the "90% solution" is the best one at the time.

 

[bvanant]

I agree, but for most people I know $10/month is one less Coffee per week. I don't understand the apparent grumpiness many people have for a subscription model. We get our internet/television/phone/magazines/almost everything else on such a model and at much higher prices. Apparently lots and lots of folk hate Adobe.

Bill

 

[Hoag]

I agree, but for most people I know $10/month is one less Coffee per week. I don't understand the apparent grumpiness many people have for a subscription model. We get our internet/television/phone/magazines/almost everything else on such a model and at much higher prices. Apparently lots and lots of folk hate Adobe.

Bill

First of all, I apologize to the OP. It seems we have (kind of) hijacked their thread.

I have no problem at all with Adobe. I actually really like Lightroom's capabilities and its workflow but here is my personal problem with a subscription. I may go for close to a year with minimal use of my photo editor. Then I will go on vacation and whether it is a dive trip, or the deserts of the US South West, I might come home with 1000 or more images. (I recently did a Birds of Prey in Flight afternoon at the Canadian Raptor Conservancy and in just over 3 hours, I took over 700 shots of Hawks, Eagles, Owls & a Falcon.)

I may not use my photo editor often, but when I do, I use it a lot. For me, I would prefer to not pay a subscription for something that I might go for months without using. I would prefer to spend the money one time and then I own it. (Having said that, the next time I upgrade my photo editing software, it will also mean a new computer since my computer does not meet or just barely meets the minimum System Requirements for most modern editing software.)

Edited to add: One other issue with the subscription model (for me at least) is that it does not make sense financially. Even though $10 per month is negligible (especially compared to the costs associated with other aspects of either diving or photography) the fact is that after a year your subscription would have cost you $120. That is more than the cost of an app such as Luminar and is about same as the cost of apps such as DXO or Capture One. With a subscription, however, you will need to keep paying that $10 every month.

So, right now, I am looking at a new iMac, and comparing the Pros & Cons of Luminar, DXO and Capture One. I am also toying with the idea of switching from a Canon 6D to a Sony A7RIII for my main camera. (I switched to a Sony A6000 for underwater about a year ago.)

 

[bvanant]

Capture 1 pro is $300 or so, but you could get a sony only version for $80. DXO is $200 (if you want most of the tools that Photoshop has) but your point is still correct. It is not clear from either website (i didn't look real hard) what upgrades will cost. In any case it is a lot like picking a camera system, changing software can be painful. I have spent so much time with LR and have a library of 10s of thousands of images. Porting that to some other system scares me ( I did the Aperture to LR move years ago). Maybe that is what Adobe is counting on. Then again there is always GIMP if you are feeling adventurous.

Cheers
Bill

 

[Stoo]

I have worked in the graphic arts industry most of adult life so I am pretty familiar with all of the apps you mention. What I can tell you is that about 97% of Photoshop's capabilities will be useless to you. Elements will do everything you need to do for a little retouching. I used it for years. It's cheap and easy to use.

Lightroom is also excellent, but is more complex to learn. It however, has the added benefit of being a workflow management tool as well. This really isn't a huge issue unless you are doing a pretty serious amount of shooting.

The one thing that PS will do that the others will not (and LR might now) is allow you to convert images to the CMYK colour space. Since a certain amount of my work ends up in print (calendars, brochures, magazines) I prefer to control the colour separations and use PS to do that.

Honestly though, if my business couldn't "claim" the cost of PS as a legit expense, I would make do with Elements and/or Lightroom as they are a fraction of the cost of Photoshop. I'd let the printer worry about the separations. Even if the price is not an issue, Photoshop is simply overkill what most photographers need or will ever use. (And I include myself in that.)

Just an afterthought regarding updates and all that... Honestly, I use a version of PS that must be six years old. It still does everything I ever needed to. I deleted Elements since it was redundant and I needed the disk space. IMHO opinion, the only serious improvement in these apps that is actually meaningful in recent years was the "Clarity" slider in LR. I'm pretty sure it was designed for UW photographers specifically. I wish they would come out with a mask with that feature.

Feel free to message me if you want to chat more.

 

[James R]

If you have a lot of culling to do, PhotoMechanic (PM) is something I would highly recommend. It's significantly faster than LR for this, and is really good for keywording, tagging, and other custom metadata (like job, shoot, location, etc etc etc - tons of stuff). Once you've culled in PM you can select your keepers and drag/drop on to the LR icon to import and start your editing workflow from there.

I don't think PM is really needed for 20-30 shots, but for 300, 1200, or 5500 from an event or dive trip, it's a massive time saver.

 

[bvanant]

One thing no one mentioned (and I apologize for even further straying off of the original topic) is printing. I do 99% of all my photo editing in LR. But I always print out of photoshop. I have heard from the Adobe guys repeatedly that PS and LR print exactly the same but they do not. I am playing with Luminar (it is hard for me to learn) but I haven't tried to print yet. None of this is important for someone just starting out, if the software can indeed be integrated into a robust color management working space.

Cheers
Bill

 

[Stoo]

One thing no one mentioned (and I apologize for even further straying off of the original topic) is printing.

I completely agree Bill. I suspect it may be in part because literally all labs use Photoshop. I have saved my lab's colour profiles so we are matched perfectly. I've never had a print made that I wasn't happy... hell, thrilled... with, and I am a fussy booger.

In my experience, many labs have trouble with the blue/green water gradient. When I started making prints seriously (to sell especially) I tried four labs before I found one that did it right. I was getting tired of fluorescent blue and mauve oceans.