[deejjjaaaa]

and a waste of your time to learn.

the amount of tutorials (and their availability) for PS makes it second to none

[deejjjaaaa]

Photoshop is the most powefull, but Lightroom is good. Both can edit RAW.

PS can't by itself - it works together with a free software called ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) and there is a catch - once Adobe will put a new version of PS on the market, the new versions of ACR (while still free) will not be able (Adobe blocks that intentionally) to work with your old version of PS... you will have to use the old version(s) - the last one still compatible w/ your PS or upgrade your PS.

[Ken T]

Photoshop CS4 is the one if you can justify the price, I was able to get one through an employee discount other wise I'd still be drooling. I find it has great tools for photographers and the plug ins are endless. I have Corel paint shop pro X2, Elements 7, Bibble 4.10/5 all good programs at reasonable prices but CS4 is the top of the heap in terms of functionality and editing power.
Regards

Jlamorie,

I know nothing about those plug-ins, so which are the ones that I should look for ? BTW, which is the best noise handling software ?

Thanks

[janosh]

Lightroom's excellent, intuitive for someone darkroom-experienced. Better than Photoshop or Paintshop in that respect. If you're not darkroom-experienced you may not appreciate that aspect of Lightroom as much.

Lightroom isn't just a post-processing application, it's a powerful organizing tool.

The main beauty of Lightroom is that your modifications don't touch the original file, they're a parallel set of instructions whose effects you see and control. The original file remains a virgin digital negative :-)

Photoshop has all sorts of capabilities you'll never use, but I still use PS-CS2 with Lightroom because its dodge/burn capabilities are more darkroom-like (I don't like the way LR dodges/burns, but its got a great tool for darkening skys smoothly). I don't plan to update from CS2 to CS4, though the latest version is good for panoramas.

---

Last edited by janosh; 11-03-2009 at 07:37 AM.

[arbib]

Well, I am always on a budget (Poor)...
I have used PSP 7,8 and now X2 for all my post. BUT, I resently was involved with the ACDsee Pro 3 beta testing....Now, I use the Final Release of ACDSee Pro 3 for everything that does not "NEED" layers. For that, I use PSP X2.

I am pretty sure that it much like Lightroom, but I never did like the cataloging system Adobe uses, or the developing interface. I find ACDSee Pro 3 a very good Post program that is near real time as you adjust the sliders in any task. And it too is non-destructive in RAW and JPG when using the Developing side of tasks. It a little less than Lightroom in cost too. you may want to get a trail of Lightroom and ACDSee Pro 3 to compare them for RAW and JPGs. I don't see spending $500.00 on software like PS unless you have the $$$ and it doesn't matter. Or you work with labs that require PSD files only. I know it won't be for ego to have PS. Yes, it is the "INDUSTRY" standard...but, get what works for you...not, just because everyone else says you should use it. It may be Right, or it may be the biggest nightmare to you.

[jon.partsch]

Well, I am a total novice compared to some of the folks on here to be sure, but here is my take:

I recently upgraded to Photoshop CS3. Photoshop is total overkill to be sure, but it's universal, and there are tutorials and blogs on it all over the place. I buy my upgrades one generation behind on ebay or craigslist. I got CS3 - full retail sealed packaging and everything for $125. You can find great deals on superceeded versions of the software if you look around. When CS5 is firmly entrenched in the community, I will upgrade to Photoshop CS4. You lose little by being one generation behind.

I use Picasa for the web and for snapshots. It's great, and totally intuitive, but not for *real* image PP.

I can't wait to get Lightroom 2.X. I hear great things about it, but I doubt I'll lose out much by waiting to get it cheap when version 3 comes out.

I hear great things about aperture, but it's for Mac and Mac is a rip-off and for image rather than substance. I don't feel the need to fit in to Mac culture and I probably never will.

~J