Photo Editing Software Angst...

I probably would have been perfectly happy with DPP or PS Elements.

However, I wanted to grow and learn more about PP. Reading through this forums led me to invest in LR and PS (time, money, effort - steep learning curve for me).

I'm trying to get used to LR workflow and "wean" myself from DPP a bit. I've played with PS before but just "dabbled" in it more than anything. So, I'm reading and playing (I use UNDO a lot. Heh.) with these software.

Certainly each individual can decide how much they put into their "hobby".

Don't limit yourself because of the import/export thing. You will HATE cs5 if you aren't into a huge learning curve and aren't technical. photoshop elements will do all you need for now, and will do it very well, AND enough people use it on this forum that you can easily get help here if you need it. You probably won't need help as long as you are just doing the basics of editing, cropping, adjusting brightness contrast, cloning, blemish removal etc. easy peasy.

benesotor wrote in post #12288363
I wouldn't necessarily agree... I'd say I do use Photoshop in depth for photo editing and It's only a hobby. Also I use LR2 for 60% of my photo editing and the rest is LR in addition to CS4.
I do use CS4 for graphic design work as well though, and I'd say the designs I create on there are no more complex than in photo editing, if anything photo editing requires more complex processing IMO.

Yes, some hobbyist photographers are happy to just tweak the levels a little bit... but depending on your style, more complex photoshop processing can be the only way to get the look you're after. It depends on the photographer.

I was referring to someone such as the OP of this thread.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #12280556
A couple of things about my shooting:

• I shoot in large jpeg. In all honesty, I have never shot a single frame in RAW. I'm fine spending the rest of my life in jpeg.
  
• I don't like a program where I have to "import" or "export" photos.
  
• I don't need all the bells and whistles that a lot of software packages come with. My editing consists of, primarily, cropping, some minor color adjustments (lighten, darken, saturation, contrast), cloning, some artistic filters from time to time, and rotating (to fix level of horizon on landscapes). That's about it.
  
• I'm not a big fan of learning curves. I'm not a guy who spends a lot of time reading manuals. I like software which has a degree of intuitiveness to it.

Yet people still recommend Photoshop CS5.
Probably just because that's what they have and they love it. I also use CS5 and love it, but I also use it for a lot more than just photography.
I have LR2 Also which for a while was sufficient. But I don't really need that as well as CS5. I can do what I need with my photography using Adobe Bridge, ACR and CS5 all of which came in the same package.

Most photographers, much like the OP of this thread, who only need to touch up a photo, E.g. Color Correction, White Balance, Sharpen, Noise reduction, Brightness and Contrast, Crop, re-size etc. will use less than 5% of the tools and potential of CS5. Some don't even use half the tools and potential of PS Elements.
Most of those people can do all they need with DPP.

For JPG, DPP has the RGB tab but shines for RAW. I think Canon gears Zoombrowser software more for the Jpeg shooters.

I've heard a lot of great things about CS5. My concern is that, while trying to learn to use it, my head would explode.

I've got the 30 trial of Elements, but already it's proving itself to be the way I should go. The vast majority of what I process, if it actually ends up anywhere, ends up on the internet. I do somoe printing every now and again, but have not had a zingle issue, ever, with printing from a jpeg.

I think Elements is going to win me over.

I appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions!

BreitlingFan wrote in post #12289311
I've heard a lot of great things about CS5. My concern is that, while trying to learn to use it, my head would explode.

I've got the 30 trial of Elements, but already it's proving itself to be the way I should go. The vast majority of what I process, if it actually ends up anywhere, ends up on the internet. I do somoe printing every now and again, but have not had a zingle issue, ever, with printing from a jpeg.

I think Elements is going to win me over.

I appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions!

I think Elements is the right decision, it's great value. However just remember, people don't necessarily shoot raw because of the image quality, it's the control you get in processing.

benesotor wrote in post #12289428
I think Elements is the right decision, it's great value. However just remember, people don't necessarily shoot raw because of the image quality, it's the control you get in processing.

Oh, I understand that.

But I've been shooting the better part of seven years, and have never had an instance arise where I wish I'd shot something in RAW...

With all due respect, if you've never shot in RAW, how would you know the difference?

You may indeed not need RAW.

But it's a matter of having ALL the digital information captured by your camera in your images to work with, versus SOME of it, in an already lossy format.

BreitlingFan wrote in post #12290818
Oh, I understand that.

But I've been shooting the better part of seven years, and have never had an instance arise where I wish I'd shot something in RAW...

Robertogee wrote in post #12291474
With all due respect, if you've never shot in RAW, how would you know the difference?

You may indeed not need RAW.

But it's a matter of having ALL the digital information captured by your camera in your images to work with, versus SOME of it, in an already lossy format.

Agreed, In fact just shooting jpeg is allowing the camera to do the processing for you already, so there really is no necessity for anything other than DPP or Zoombrowser which came with the camera.

When editing a Jpeg you're already starting with less image data than the camera actually captured.
Editing a Raw isn't really that much different than editing a Jpeg, except that you can do much more and your results will be a higher quality picture that truly represents what you saw.

I remember how thrilled I was when I got my first digital SLR camera (because I'd waited so long till the quality matched my affordability) and could manipulate the settings and "Profiles" in camera. WOW! Sharpness! Saturation! ISO! WB! Etc.

Then I learned that pros set everything to ZERO (as a rule, unless deliberately going for a special effect in a shot), and did everything in post. And I learned WHY. (Some sharpening in digital is virtually ALWAYS necessary, for instance. And from there, SELECTIVE sharpening. And so on.)

Then I learned to use the "Creative Zones" -- AV and TV and so on -- but to go to Manual for precise control. Back-button focusing. Etc.

I'd gone from Photoshop 5 to Photoshop 7, and hung out there for years. Then to CS5 last year.

I LOVE the "learning curve." I doubt anybody ever learns ALL that Photoshop can do. But the tutorials from experts like Russell Brown, et al., are wonderful and help me produce consistently better work.

Still, everybody's different, with different needs and goals that seem to constantly evolve. For each new technique I learn, I see new things I missed before, that I can learn to improve.

Depending on the shoot, JPEG is fine, I guess. I just don't personally need to use it anymore. Even for big shoots like parties, I prefer RAW and manual (after consulting test shots in AV, for example, to get certain "default" readings and make adjustments).

Since post-processing is such an important part of my workflow -- even if it's just subtle and minor and quick -- I want ALL the image information my camera can deliver.

That's RAW.

The obvious advice would be: try raw and see if it brings you any benefit.

But that's not a quick trial. Like myself, several other members have reported that their first attempts with raw were disappointing. You need a bit of practice to surpass the camera, and this was especially true with some older raw converters.

In that regard DPP helps a lot. It lets you start from what the camera would produce keeping you from straying from the right path and getting lost.
(Not to mention the high image quality that DPP delivers, compared to some other converters.)

agedbriar wrote in post #12294191
The obvious advice would be: try raw and see if it brings you any benefit.

But that's not a quick trial. Like myself, several other members have reported that their first attempts with raw were disappointing. You need a bit of practice to surpass the camera, and this was especially true with some older raw converters.

In that regard DPP helps a lot. It lets you start from what the camera would produce keeping you from straying from the right path and getting lost.
(Not to mention the high image quality that DPP delivers, compared to some other converters.)

Exactly. At first I shot all jpg. Then hanging around here... everyone preaches RAW. I tried the Raw+Jpg for a bit and was disappointed to see how "better" the jpg were compared to (straight up non-PP) Raw. Discovered a bit of PP via DPP and have shot Raw almost exclusively since (I still shoot jpg if I need to do a quick email or copy a pic for someone ).