Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by SomaPusher, Aug 5, 2007.
Does one need photoshop? Or would lightroom do? Or a combo elements/lightroom work?
I will just say that if you want to become the very best digital photographer that you can be, Photoshop is sort of the standard. Yes, Lightroom will do many of the things that PS will do as will others. The problem from my perspective is that many of the excellent tutorials, plug ins, and actions are written for Photoshop. To me it is invaluable.
I'm not able to afford photoshop for a bit. I was just trying to save $$
Even an older version of PS would be a great benefit to you and would be pennies on the dollar compared to what CS3 is going for these days.
I have PS 6....just kinda an old interface.
Elements will probably do 80-90% of what you might want from full photoshop for ~$100. Then, every now and then, Adobe will offer a discounted upgrade to full CS. They're doing that now and the upgrade is about half the full price.
Much of what you learn in Elements can be later applied to CS if you decide to upgrade.
You don't have to buy a whole new version of PS, just purchase the upgrade, if they're still doing that with CS3. I went from 5.5 to CS2 for under $200. It just requires that you have that older version installed on your computer, which isn't bad since you can remove it once you have the new one installed.
Where can you purchase an older version of photoshop?
agreed, Elements 5 can be bought for $80. version 5 now offers curves adjustments.
I think you'll find that Lightroom is adequate unless you want to make major adjustments / edits (removing power lines from landscapes, blemishes from portraits, etc).
Photoshop has a pretty steep learning curve; I've heard it stated that it is the 'deepest' piece of consumer software on the market. Sign up for a class at your local Community College and go for an academic license (for either/both). They'll make their $$$ on the annual updates <g>.
I'm doing 90% of my PP in Lightroom these days. It has curves and is, in my opinion, a great tool. It also assists in organizing / managing your photos. They are both available for a 30 day trial from the Adobe web site; this lets you make an informed decision. (I didn't learn enough Pshop in the first 30 days to make a decision, personally.)
PS is pretty pricey to me, even lightroom is around $300.
Greetings. Good post-processing tools cost some not inconsiderable amount of change, but on the other hand there's sharpening, denoising, distortion correction, color balancing, raw conversion, white balance, contrast adjustment... and that's all before you get to the fancy stuff. How much would you spend on a lens or body that does all that?
Lightroom - think global changes, raw conversion
Photoshop - think localized changes, layers
For me I think I enjoy the post-processing more than the capture (although the're not completely separate)...
What/how do you shoot?
A lot of files? A lot of minor corrections to a number of photos? Straight photography without a lot of fancy stuff? Go with Lightroom.
Prefer to create the image after the fact? Enjoy spending hours on your computer? Enjoy a steep learning curve? Go with CS3.
LR is great program and has replaced CS2 for me in about 90 percent of my work. When do you need CS2? Cloning, fixing perspective, running filters, etc., calls for a side trip through CS2. I'd guess as time goes on, Adobe will incorporate plug-in access directly in LR.
Start with LR; there's always Paint Shop as an alternative to CS.
I think I'll be getting Light Room. I don't do much heavy post production work (cloning, fixing perspective and collage) and my old copy of PS 6.1 will still work for that if I need it. Hell there is Gimp and paint shop......
Please consider disabling your ad blocker for our website.
We rely on ad revenue to pay for image hosting and to keep the site speedy.
Or subscribe for $5 per year to remove all ads and support our efforts.