photo editing programs

[Ed Richards]

One benefit of PWP - 16 bit in all modes.

[paulr]

"There is nothing intuitive about it, and it takes a long time to become even slightly proficient. "

How intuitive you find it depends on how your particular brain works. Personally, I found photoshop fairly straightforwardd to learn. While some other kinds of software, like audio editors, make me bang my head against the wall. Try it with an open mind before giving up on it! Also it helps to think of Photoshop as a huge workshop full of tools--you're under no obligation to use all of them. If you figure out in advance what you need to do, then then it will be pretty straighforward to select which of the tools you need to play with.

While there are products that work by using traditional darkroom metaphors, I think that ultimately this is a crutch that will get in the way. Photshop is not a darkroom; it's a pixel editor. Anything superfluous that simulates another kind of workflow will ultimately just put more layers between you and what you're working on. I've seen some unbelievable examples of this in other kinds of software. In one of the audio editors I've seen, you add and remove filters by actually inserting virtual patch cables into jacks in the back of virtual compressors and equalizers, that are bolted to a virtual rack--completely nuts! In an effort to woo people who had traditional audio backgrounds, they convincingly simulated some of the most confusing and inneficient features of a recording studio.

[Ed Richards]

I have to admit that looking back on starting PS now that I have some clue who it works, we really need a stripped down photoshop guide for black and white fine art photographers. Something like the Digital Black and White Printing book with a PS primer to explain how do the stuff that is described. There is a whole lot of PS that you do not need if you work in B&W, and lots of tricks with masking and the like that depend on color selections do not work very well in B&W. I would trade 20 clear pages on the 10 or so things you need to know to get started for all of the how to do everything books. Unfortunately the "idiot" books are for making prints from your 1 MP digital camera and editing out that ex-husband from the birthday photos.:-)

[Glenn Kroeger]

The Photoshop interface may have originally been designed by humans... but the aliens have been arriving since about version 2.0. Attaching a layer mask to a layer is an example of strange use of the layers palette. And the integration of vector graphics is awkward.

Adobe needs to pay attention to usability by non-pros... NIK software has some very progressive ideas built into their new Color Efex software that would eliminate the need for many of the layers and masks that I end up doing in PS. Lightroom and Capture are also introducing new paradigms that are more appropriate to photography than some of PS features that originated for creating original digital art.

[Jonathan_6488]

Well - let me first qualify my comments to say that I use photoshop professionally (use CS2 at work- and 3/4 in my studio for personal stuff) - and that I've been using Photoshop, in it's various incarnations for about eighteen years now. So - I'd LIKE to think that I know the ins and outs of the program more than most people.

What I will say is this;
Don't waste your money on newer CS type products. The program REALLY hasn't changed in any fundamental, meaningful way since version 3 or 4 except for 'forced layering' (forcing you to continually flatten your layers, which is a huge pain, in my opinion). What I mean by this outrageous statement - is that the functionality is no different. There's almost nothing you can do in CS2 that you can't do in 3, for example. Earlier versions are simply less automated. It's like the difference between a Nikon F3 and an F5. Getting something earlier would also allow you to benefit from greatly increased speed and larger file handling capabilities - since the earlier versions use less RAM. And I'm sure that you'd be able to pick up anything around 5 for less than $100. Though I'd recommend 3 or 4 over 5. 4 has scripting better implemented and should give you full CS type functionality (automation) if that's what you need. But I'd recommend something more manual and useful for learning on everytime - whether it's a camera or software.

BTW - the photoshop learning curve really just depends on your interest level. I found it generally REALLY easy. YMMV. I'd recommend any book on the subject penned by David Blatner. He's the best.

[John Brownlow]

Photoshop. For the following reason:

If you buy any other image editing app, will you at some point hit a point where you wonder/realize you should probably have bought Photoshop instead?

Possibly.

If you buy Photoshop will you at some point hit a point where you wonder/realize you should have bought PSP, Corel Photopaint, whatever instead?

Probably not.

If it can be done, Photoshop can do it. I've been using it for sixteen years and have yet to find anything I can't do with it when it comes to bitmap images. OK, maybe some kind of procedural filtering scripting language would be cool, but really.

Also, CS2 on OS X simply never crashes. Ever.

Is it hard to learn? I don't know. I never met anyone capable of exposing 4x5 film who gave up because it was too difficult.

[robc]

Jonathan,

I hate to differ but don't current versions of PS allow a much gretaer range of operations to be carried out in 16bit colour which seems to be the recommended way of working to retain the full colour gamut before final output?

[Frank Petronio]

Color management is greatly simplified as well, and it even sort of exists for PCs in the later versions.

I can't imagine seriously considering running older versions of Photoshop unless you are using older equipment.

I've been using Photoshop since 1.0 too yet I still find plenty of new things and better ways of doing things from books, forums, and students. It really is a brilliant program and the team that develops it is very responsive to photographer's needs and requests. I think you should just dive in.

[Ed Richards]

Forgot the one thing that I find most valuable with photoshop, and the one that might be most valuable to a black and white fine art photographer: HEALING BRUSH!

Healing brush, used with the clone tool, makes spotting painless, if still tedious. With my Katrina pictures I was working in some dirty place with a lot of dust - nothing like a windy day on the desert, but still nasty. I have some negatives that I would probably have not bothered with in the darkroom because I would have spent days spotting each print. Thirty minutes in PS and it was mostly done, then some tune up on the sharpening layer. I have to redo the work on the sharpening layer if want to resharpen, but it is still relatively fast.

Your view of editing packages depends a lot on how you do your work. I try to spend more time on the film end and less on the post processing. I do things I could do in the darkroom, and a few I cannot, but I mostly do not rebuild the image in the editing program. I also work in B+W, which, while it has its own challanges, does not require me to mess with color balance and the like. (When I need color I grab the DSLR.) Not using color means a lot less editing time and a lot less value to all of the great PS stuff aimed at color.

[Melchi M. Michel]

I agree with all the previous posters that the newer versions of photoshop (7.0-CS2) are best for three major reasons: 16-bit image manipulation capabilities, great color management, and the healing brush, which is a must for anyone working with film (and dust). However, if you don't do much work with 16-bit images and you haven't yet been spoiled by the healing brush, I would advise you to check out the GIMP before buying any other software. It's free, it's at least as good as photoshop 6.0, and has some advantages over photoshop, including allowing you to view histograms and curves concurrently. And finally, it's open source, which means that you can edit the code and add your own features (if you're into that sort of thing). Before spending hundreds on a photo editing program, you should really check it out.