|
|
Post by dorsetmike on Mar 18, 2024 14:51:01 GMT
I've been using Micrografx Picture publisher for 33 years, from V2 through V10, Corel bought it in 2002 or 2003 but it's still available as a free download; it does all I need, it ain't broke why change? I did have a look at a friends photoshop, could not see what all the fuss is about I still think PP does some things better/more intuitively, add to that the exorbitant cost.
Another reason for me is I don't fancy climbing a new learning curve at my age (90 next week)
|
|
|
|
Post by zou on Mar 18, 2024 15:25:26 GMT
I do not give a crap either way. Neither do I, but you need to remember that the denizens of this forum are atypical. A great many people love seeing pictures of the Royals and thirst for their family photos. The 'meeja' go crazy for such snaps. Which somehow reminded me of this, published about 3 years ago in the Irish Times.  |
|
|
|
Post by aitch on Mar 18, 2024 15:43:26 GMT
Photoshop Elements does all I need. Using the 2020 version, which occasionally acts up with W11, but generally OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by spinno on Mar 18, 2024 15:53:34 GMT
Now grandson has his own laptop and sub to Photoshop, I will be cancelling. I have Elements 23 and also GIMP.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 18, 2024 16:17:37 GMT
That's true for the average amateur, but I believe that the target user is actually the pro graphic artist. Maybe it's not OTT for them - I wouldn't know.
Mick
Problem for me is Adobe uses the average amateur user to subsidise the development of functions he/she will never use making it IMO commercially non viable. Complete and utter rip off for most people. Most of the complexity is historic. It is a program that has evolved from a [old] toolbox for graphic artists developed at a time when people could be employed for their specialised knowledge of it and when there were few alternatives for business. I struggle to use it on the occasions I've played. Almost everything I need to do can be done in Lightroom. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 18, 2024 16:32:32 GMT
Problem for me is Adobe uses the average amateur user to subsidise the development of functions he/she will never use making it IMO commercially non viable. Complete and utter rip off for most people. Most of the complexity is historic. It is a program that has evolved from a [old] toolbox for graphic artists developed at a time when people could be employed for their specialised knowledge of it and when there were few alternatives for business. I struggle to use it on the occasions I've played. Almost everything I need to do can be done in Lightroom. Are you able to update lightroom from years ago without renting photoshop as well? |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 18, 2024 16:52:17 GMT
Most of the complexity is historic. It is a program that has evolved from a [old] toolbox for graphic artists developed at a time when people could be employed for their specialised knowledge of it and when there were few alternatives for business. I struggle to use it on the occasions I've played. Almost everything I need to do can be done in Lightroom. Are you able to update lightroom from years ago without renting photoshop as well? You get a licence for Photoshop when you take out the photography plan which for me is the price of Lightroom Classic. You don't have to install it. Lightroom Classic now is vastly superior to 6.14 which was the last standalone version and has not been supported for a long time. The bigger cost is updating the hardware to run the more modern versions. Apple changed their chipset so if I was sticking with the mac I was on borrowed time anyway. Windows users face the same thing in 2025 when support for Win 10 ends. Win 11 has some chipset requirements and I doubt I could run Lightroom on my PC without a significant upgrade to the GPU. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 18, 2024 16:53:23 GMT
Are you able to update lightroom from years ago without renting photoshop as well? You get a licence for Photoshop when you take out the photography plan which for me is the price of Lightroom Classic. You don't have to install it. Lightroom Classic now is vastly superior to 6.14 which was the last standalone version and has not been supported for a long time. The bigger cost is updating the hardware to run the more modern versions. Apple changed their chipset so if I was sticking with the mac I was on borrowed time anyway. Windows users face the same thing in 2025 when support for Win 10 ends. Win 11 has some chipset requirements and I doubt I could run Lightroom on my PC without a significant upgrade to the GPU. A simple "no" would have sufficed. |
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 18, 2024 17:08:21 GMT
You get a licence for Photoshop when you take out the photography plan which for me is the price of Lightroom Classic. You don't have to install it. Lightroom Classic now is vastly superior to 6.14 which was the last standalone version and has not been supported for a long time. The bigger cost is updating the hardware to run the more modern versions. Apple changed their chipset so if I was sticking with the mac I was on borrowed time anyway. Windows users face the same thing in 2025 when support for Win 10 ends. Win 11 has some chipset requirements and I doubt I could run Lightroom on my PC without a significant upgrade to the GPU. A simple "no" would have sufficed. All the edits made to my photos using LR [3], 4, 5 and 6 still work as they were imported in the latest LR so "yes" it is possible to go from LR classic 6.14 to the current version but that is an annual licence. And although Photoshop comes free alongside Lightroom you don't need to install or to use it. So a simple "yes" would have sufficed excepting that it is useful to know that the platform that runs 6.14 is unlikely to run the latest version of classic. I put [3] because I can't remember the version I first used. I started with Canon DPP and used Capture One for a bit. |
|
|
|
Post by willien on Mar 18, 2024 17:21:21 GMT
A simple "no" would have sufficed. All the edits made to my photos using LR [3], 4, 5 and 6 still work as they were imported in the latest LR so "yes" it is possible to go from LR classic 6.14 to the current version but that is an annual licence. And although Photoshop comes free alongside Lightroom you don't need to install or to use it. So a simple "yes" would have sufficed excepting that it is useful to know that the platform that runs 6.14 is unlikely to run the latest version of classic. I put [3] because I can't remember the version I first used. I started with Canon DPP and used Capture One for a bit. You do not get photoshop free. When they forced the combo of lightroom and PS they jacked up the annual price to what was the old buy new price for lightroom i.e. pay for PS whether you actually want it or not or make do with old less performant lightroom which will at some point become practically unuseable.. I cannot believe that anyone still kids themself as to the availability of a free mid day meal.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 18, 2024 18:33:28 GMT
All the edits made to my photos using LR [3], 4, 5 and 6 still work as they were imported in the latest LR so "yes" it is possible to go from LR classic 6.14 to the current version but that is an annual licence. And although Photoshop comes free alongside Lightroom you don't need to install or to use it. So a simple "yes" would have sufficed excepting that it is useful to know that the platform that runs 6.14 is unlikely to run the latest version of classic. I put [3] because I can't remember the version I first used. I started with Canon DPP and used Capture One for a bit. You do not get photoshop free. When they forced the combo of lightroom and PS they jacked up the annual price to what was the old buy new price for lightroom i.e. pay for PS whether you actually want it or not or make do with old less performant lightroom which will at some point become practically unuseable.. I cannot believe that anyone still kids themself as to the availability of a free mid day meal.
Depends on how you look at it. I use Lightroom - photoshop is there to use if I want to. The price is what it is and for me it is a quite reasonable price for Lightroom. An evergreen product on an annual licence vs annual releases on perpetual licences is easier to manage. I was a bit iffy about the annual licence too at first and bought On1 (2018) but I didn't buy the 2019,2020,2021,2022 or 2023 versions for their updates. |
|
|
|
Post by JohnY on Mar 19, 2024 0:20:52 GMT
I miss LR for its database.
Presently I process raw to 16bit tiff with Nikon NX studio and edit with Affinity Photo 2. I also do DTP with Affinity Publisher 2 and have dabbled with Affinity Designer 2.
The Nikon software interprets Nikon raw files very well and takes into account camera settings. Affinity Photo, Publisher and Designer behave like different entry points into one very powerful program. They were designed to work as one entity. They share a file format and the file suffix just indicates the default application for opening. The equivalent Adobe products may well be more powerful (in ways not of relevance to me) yet seemed to be three different unrelated programs cobbled together. Affinity is not as powerful as Adobe and does not have the LR like database. However its facilities are far more than adequate for me. It would be nice if they had an LR like data asset management functionality.
|
|
|
|
Post by peterob on Mar 19, 2024 8:47:29 GMT
I miss LR for its database. Presently I process raw to 16bit tiff with Nikon NX studio and edit with Affinity Photo 2. I also do DTP with Affinity Publisher 2 and have dabbled with Affinity Designer 2. The Nikon software interprets Nikon raw files very well and takes into account camera settings. Affinity Photo, Publisher and Designer behave like different entry points into one very powerful program. They were designed to work as one entity. They share a file format and the file suffix just indicates the default application for opening. The equivalent Adobe products may well be more powerful (in ways not of relevance to me) yet seemed to be three different unrelated programs cobbled together. Affinity is not as powerful as Adobe and does not have the LR like database. However its facilities are far more than adequate for me. It would be nice if they had an LR like data asset management functionality. The database is the main attraction of LR for me, plus I have both Canon and Fuji cameras so having everything in one place is a bonus. I have LR library open at 2007 (first digital photos) in a (5x3) thumbnail view most of the time. With the "themes" on here I often (several times a day) go through the lot, either searching by keyword, or browsing by date. Great fun. The metadata field says that I have pictures from 20 cameras in all. That includes the very slowly growing scanned negative collection from my film days as well as pictures from other family members that I may have printed for them at one time or another. I have photographs or scans from 1174 different dates. Pictures are stored on disk in a folder named by date and across a small number of root folders (my own photos, other peoples' photos (several), my scanned photos etc. Having this all in one place is where the value-for-money is. For the kind of editing I do one editor or raw processor is much like another. It happens that I do like LR editing. The new AI auto-masking and so-called "denoise" are pure magic but have only been available to me since I updated the computer, they need a lot of computing power. |
|
|
|
Post by don on Mar 20, 2024 14:42:04 GMT
That's true for the average amateur, but I believe that the target user is actually the pro graphic artist. Maybe it's not OTT for them - I wouldn't know.
Mick
Problem for me is Adobe uses the average amateur user to subsidise the development of functions he/she will never use making it IMO commercially non viable. Complete and utter rip off for most people. I will never buy it again. For the small amount of useage I’ll just use the free stuff out there. I am a very amateur amateur photographer and have no need for its complexity. I’m pleased that there’s people out there who can and will use it but far too complicated for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Chester PB on Mar 24, 2024 22:40:22 GMT
Photoshop Elements does all I need. Using the 2020 version, which occasionally acts up with W11, but generally OK. I purchased Elements 7 new in 2009, and it is still the only editing software I use. It now works happily on Window 10, despite advice to the contrary on Adobe's website last time I looked. It has everything I need, and lots of things I don't. It lacks automated removal of colour fringes, but I easily worked out how to remove them 'manually' them using the 'replace colour' facility on images I intend to have printed, often only on a selected part of the image. If somebody wanted decent but cheap editing software, looking for a used copy of this on a disc (like mine) would be worth trying. When I have to move to W11 because MS no longer support the version of W10 I have, I hope it will work with that too. |
|
