Is it really "must have" Adobe Photoshop for excellent redaction of digital photographs? (1 Viewer)

[forest_77]

Is it really I have to use PS for redaction some WildLife pictures? At the moment, I use Lightroom and it seems enough for me. I mean, how often WildLife photographers use PS instead of LR?

 

[KC Foggin]

I'm a PS fan in a big way!

 

[forest_77]

I'm a PS fan in a big way!

May be I will be fan of PS too if I learn some good reasons to spend more time with so complicated program as Photoshop.

 

[Mono]

Adobe Photoshop has become a behemoth, it is an extremely capable programme but it is capable in many different image creation fields: making art, correcting defects, pre-press corrections, forensic examination, microscopy, astronomy... Most users of Photoshop will use it only in their particular field and will be unaware of the 75%+ of the programmes capability they don't use.

If you are applying global changes to wildlife, or indeed any, photographs then Photoshop is unnecessary overkill.

Adobe Photoshop is only available on a subscription at £240 a year. Do you really, need that extra functionality. That said Adobe do make it easy to, illegally, get their software for free. The same bypass has worked for over ten years.

 

[forest_77]

Adobe Photoshop has become a behemoth, it is an extremely capable programme but it is capable in many different image creation fields: making art, correcting defects, pre-press corrections, forensic examination, microscopy, astronomy... Most users of Photoshop will use it only in their particular field and will be unaware of the 75%+ of the programmes capability they don't use.

If you are applying global changes to wildlife, or indeed any, photographs then Photoshop is unnecessary overkill.

Adobe Photoshop is only available on a subscription at £240 a year. Do you really, need that extra functionality. That said Adobe do make it easy to, illegally, get their software for free. The same bypass has worked for over ten years.

So, as I have understood you, many photographers who photograph Nature don't use PS or use it rare for special tasks?

 

[stevo]

Photoshop & Lightroom both use the same ACR ,lightroom I believe allows you catalogue your images.Many photographers don't use all the sophisticated tools available in photoshop.If you wanted a still capable photo editing program then why not use photoshop elements?Which is cheaper to buy.

 

[Stonefaction]

I use Nikon NX Studio - which is great for Nikon NEF files. Does the things I need it to (crop, change exposure, sharpen, straighten etc), though if you need to 'clone' something out, it has a very imprecise method that is a bit hit or miss (though it is more intended for removing dust-spots I think, rather than branches etc). On rare occasions I need to clone some detail out, I have an old version of Photoshop Elements I can use instead.

 

[njlarsen]

It’s been years since I have used any of the Adobe products. I use ACDSee instead to replace both Lightroom and PS.
Niels

 

[Ignatius]

GIMP/digikam and darktable for me. I turned away from all Adobe products years ago.

 

[MiddleRiver]

I spent decades using Adobe products professionally. The subscription process shut that down.
That said: I find that LR is a much better digital darkroom tool. I.e. adjusting tonality, contrast, etc. (I still think in Zone System terms...). PS and similar products are for pixel peeping/adjustment. So if I needed to use masking tools to change a background or remove an object from the image, then yes, a pixel level editor that allows for masks and paths is required. These days I seldom use a PS style product but I run all my 'keepers' through LR (still use last non subscription version).

 

[forest_77]

Thank you guys for your answers. I use LR and I like this program very much. Especially I love presets in LR. After downloading VSCO presets my perception about colours has changed. Before using these presets I liked my bright colourful picturs but after I saw what the presets can do with my photographs, I didn't like my colourful pictures anymore. They looked too bright and unnatural to me. Now I like photos with more muted, natural hue. I just wanted to say that sometimes it's hard to know how beautiful our photographs can be after reduction. I thought that in Photoshop my photos might be even better than after reduction in LR.

 

[Mono]

If you are processing RAW images then the engine used Lightroom and Photoshop is the same.

 

[forest_77]

If you are processing RAW images then the engine used Lightroom and Photoshop is the same.

Yes, I am processing NEF files. Thank you Mono.

 

[MikeInPA]

Yes, I am processing NEF files. Thank you Mono.

Capture One Express is a free program that is a cut down version of Capture One Pro which is used by many professionals as a RAW (NEF) converter and is a very powerful photo editor. The Express version works great for many post processing needs.

An inexpensive ($50) Photoshop alternative is Affinity Photo. This is very, very good and has a lifetime upgrade policy, $50 or quid for ever.

Affinity Photo

 

[MJN]

Adobe Photoshop has become a behemoth, it is an extremely capable programme but it is capable in many different image creation fields: making art, correcting defects, pre-press corrections, forensic examination, microscopy, astronomy... Most users of Photoshop will use it only in their particular field and will be unaware of the 75%+ of the programmes capability they don't use.

If you are applying global changes to wildlife, or indeed any, photographs then Photoshop is unnecessary overkill.

Adobe Photoshop is only available on a subscription at £240 a year. Do you really, need that extra functionality. That said Adobe do make it easy to, illegally, get their software for free. The same bypass has worked for over ten years.

I pay £120 per year subscription for Photoshop. It plays an ever decreasing role in processing since I bought DXO and I ask myself do I need it? It's only the price of half a pint of beer a week so I hang on to it.