RAW editor.

Punk

Moderator
Staff member
Hey guys, I'm looking for a good RAW editor, what do you guys use? UFRaw doesn't support my new D5100...;)
 

Punk

Moderator
Staff member
Why not? Photoshop is a must have for any photographer if you ask me.

Nah I don't need it. What is so important in it that other softwares don't have? I don't want to over-edit my photos, I want them to stay natural. Photoshop is useless to me. Not every photographer (even pros) use that software.
 

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
All you really need is Lightroom or another RAW editor and you're done. You might also want some software for HDR and panoramas though if you're into that.

I used to edit all my photos in Photoshop but since going to Lightroom, I only really use Photoshop for panoramas now.
 

G80FTW

Active Member
Nah I don't need it. What is so important in it that other softwares don't have? I don't want to over-edit my photos, I want them to stay natural. Photoshop is useless to me. Not every photographer (even pros) use that software.

Personal preferrence i suppose. Iv been using it so long that id be lost without it. I find it to be very useful for photo editing, and even graphic design which is mainly what i used to use it for before i got another camera. You dont have to over-edit in photoshop, but i like all the options i have in it when editing. I havent used any other photo editing software though.
 

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
Personal preferrence i suppose. Iv been using it so long that id be lost without it. I find it to be very useful for photo editing, and even graphic design which is mainly what i used to use it for before i got another camera. You dont have to over-edit in photoshop, but i like all the options i have in it when editing. I havent used any other photo editing software though.

Lightroom is way easier to use for just photo editing and RAW image editing/ processing (can process and edit JPEGs too). I can't edit photos in Photoshop now, feels way too big and clunky after having used Lightroom for about 9 months now which is quicker and easier. Before I got my D-SLR and started shooting in RAW, I was editing all my JPEGs from my bridge camera in Photoshop and it felt fine at the time but once you've started to edit images in Lightroom or another RAW editor, you ain't gonna go back to Photoshop.

Though for graphic design, yeah Photoshop is a great tool.
 

G80FTW

Active Member
Though for graphic design, yeah Photoshop is a great tool.

Yea, thats what I learned to use it for in high school and thats what I used it for for about 8 years. I never actually did much photo editing with it until recently. So Im already so comfortable with using it that its second nature to me.

And I dont know what all you can do in other programs, but what I like to do is blend multiple photos together in a way that they look like 1. To where you cant tell its multiple photos. I havent quite perfected it, but photoshop is really good in that respect to me.
 

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
And I dont know what all you can do in other programs, but what I like to do is blend multiple photos together in a way that they look like 1. To where you cant tell its multiple photos.
Kind of like HDR? Though that's blending multiple exposures of the same photo together to bring out details in areas which are under- or overexposed usually.

I find for HDR Photoshop is pretty bad. Photomatix is much better for HDR but that's all Photomatix does.

Though I don't think you are doing HDR are you? You're blending two or more completely different photos together?
 

Punk

Moderator
Staff member
Kind of like HDR? Though that's blending multiple exposures of the same photo together to bring out details in areas which are under- or overexposed usually.

I find for HDR Photoshop is pretty bad. Photomatix is much better for HDR but that's all Photomatix does.

Though I don't think you are doing HDR are you? You're blending two or more completely different photos together?

Yeah it's either HDR or overimpression (new DSLRs have that option but I'm not sure that's the correct as mine is in French :) ).

I think Photoshop is perfect for graphic designs (of course) but for photography it's just a popular choice, not the best. To each his own though, I use UFRaw and then add my email through Fireworks that I got because I used to make Flash websites... Needless to say I don't edit that much, my HDRs are made through Photomatix pro though.
 

spirit

Moderator
Staff member
RAW files processed in Lightroom.

Panoramas or other post-processing done in Photoshop.

HDR in Photomatix Pro (though I don't do as much HDR as I used to).
 

G80FTW

Active Member
Kind of like HDR? Though that's blending multiple exposures of the same photo together to bring out details in areas which are under- or overexposed usually.

I find for HDR Photoshop is pretty bad. Photomatix is much better for HDR but that's all Photomatix does.

Though I don't think you are doing HDR are you? You're blending two or more completely different photos together?

No, I havent done much with real HDR photos yet as I havent quite got my camera figured out on how to do it. My camera has an HDR mode, but its not the same. This is what Im talking about:



And this is just a rough draft, it still needs alot of work I think but this is the general idea of the kind of photo editing I use photoshop for. Making that for a friend.
 

Ramodkk

VIP Member
Photoshop is an extremely powerful tool if used right. Editing photos is only a grain of sand of the heap of things it can do. So you can't really bash it as being too extreme or saying that you don't want it because you don't like to over exaggerate your photos. You can over-edit in Lightroom too. All you gotta say is, "it's too much editing power for my uses" or "it's expensive" (which it really is).

I guess I'm trying to say you can't really compare Photoshop with Lightroom, they're different types of software.
 

Punk

Moderator
Staff member
Photoshop is an extremely powerful tool if used right. Editing photos is only a grain of sand of the heap of things it can do. So you can't really bash it as being too extreme or saying that you don't want it because you don't like to over exaggerate your photos. You can over-edit in Lightroom too. All you gotta say is, "it's too much editing power for my uses" or "it's expensive" (which it really is).

I guess I'm trying to say you can't really compare Photoshop with Lightroom, they're different types of software.

I said I don't need it, and it's not a necessary tool for every photographer ;)
 
Top