Photoshop, Lightroom, or GIMP?

[TallGrass]

Which do you use, for what, and why?

[seano]

I've used both Lightroom and Apple Photos for post-processing RAW images with high contrast (e.g. rock vs. snow). Lightroom is probably more sophisticated, but Photos does all that I need and, not being written by Adobe, is far less clunky.

[rmattas]

Photoshop only. Why? because that's what I was trained on when it first came out. Having supporting Adobe stock over the decades by keeping current versions updated, and sending them thousands of dollars, I won't be using Lightroom. My current version is CS6. Problem is, I should have bought the CS6 "extended" version, because now that I'm into astrophotography, I can't stack my photo's. To buy Photoshop CC will cost you 2k. No thanks. There's some software called "Nebulosity" where I can stack images inexpensively. I haven't gotten to deep into it yet, but it seems to work.

F/6, ISO 3200, 15sec., 450mm lens. D800 camera. Taken last night, not a lot of post processing. Orion nebula.

[BillMiddlebrook]

To buy Photoshop CC will cost you 2k. No thanks.

$2k ?
Isn’t it like $20/month for just Photoshop CC? Or is that a version that’s missing the tools you need?

[rmattas]

Yes Bill, you are absolutely correct. If I had to do it over again, I'd rent it. But it's too late for me, I bought CS6 years ago, at a hefty price, and I've drawn the line. Nebulosity gives me what I need, the ability to stack, for under $100. It's also something I can get deeper into, darks, flats, bias,etc. The guy who wrote the program is Craig Stark. Brain imaging analyst by day, software engineer and astro photographer by night. Sound familiar?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EO4QFb3ydNM

Hope to have a better shot to post up in a few weeks…

Thanks again for the site. As my ability to hike mountains declines, I'm feeding my need for exploration to the sky.

[DanW]

Not entirely sure why there's a poll for this - can't we use all of them?

I use Lightroom for all the images that come out of my Sony A6000 for post-processing RAW images. It works great for the way I manage my photos and it's ability to process images, while it takes some time to understand all it does (I still don't get about half of it...), it's great for quickly moving through images, selecting the ones I want, and processing them. It's great as well for uploading images and keeping things synced with various online services.

Images that come from my phone automatically sync to my Apple Photos, and I rarely do processing from there. If I do modify an image on my phone, I do it from my phone, and usually with the SnapSeed app.

Photoshop can be used as a secondary to remove features from images and marking them up (e.g. get rid of crowds who photobombed your glorious middle-of-nowhere shot, add labels to 14ers in hopes that Bill will add it to the "Pictures" section of a given summit, etc.). I used GIMP once because it was free, found it to do much of what I wanted to use Photoshop for, but I'm used to using Adobe so stuck with that. I wasn't a huge fan of the interface for it. I think GIMP is for macOS systems anyway? It's been a year since I last used it.

A friend of mine uses ON1 for his processing and loves how quick it is to get a hang of it and make desirable changes to multiple images at once. I haven't used it myself, but almost got a trial based on his raving for it.

[ezabielski]

For editing pictures? Lightroom hands down. Also the Lightroom CC subscription comes with Photoshop anyway, for the rare times you need to use a Photoshop only tool.

[timstich]

I used to use Photoshop professionally on a Mac, and I still have Creative Suite from 2003. But to use it I would have to dig out my G4 from my storage room and dust it off to plug it into my monitor and keyboard. So needless to say, that doesn't happen much.

I downloaded Gimp recently, which is free, and have been teaching myself how to use it. It's a colossal pain in the ass, coming from Photoshop. Many functions are confusing and counter-intuitive. But it is stable and has all of the features you need in an image editor, including layers and masks. If you are starting from scratch you may find it easier to learn. I haven't read any documentation yet, but I'm sure it works better than I have figured out so far. Ha ha.

[BratwurstGoblin]

For editing pictures? Lightroom hands down. Also the Lightroom CC subscription comes with Photoshop anyway, for the rare times you need to use a Photoshop only tool.

Same. 95% of post-processing I do is in Lightroom, with Photoshop only if I need something outside of LR's capability.

[TallGrass]

Lightroom ... not being written by Adobe, is far less clunky.

Lightroom's not by Adobe? Or do you just prefer its "deliberate departure from many of Adobe's established conventions", ala the white sheep of the family if you will?

I downloaded Gimp recently ... It's a colossal pain in the ass, coming from Photoshop.

Have you tried GIMPshop?

I think GIMP is for macOS systems anyway?

PS and LR are for macOS and Windows but not Linux, whereas GIMP works on all three apparently.

[seano]

Lightroom ... not being written by Adobe, is far less clunky.

Lightroom's not by Adobe?

That was just a confusing sentence by me. Adobe makes a lot of terrible software (Acrobat Reader, Flash), and has for 20+ years. Some of it is powerful and even necessary for certain professionals, but it is all clunky and weird.

[Jon Frohlich]

Lightroom with the Google Nik collection plugins takes care of about 90% of what I need. GIMP if I actually need something that the others can't do. I refuse to pay for Photoshop.

If I need advanced panorama stitching then Hugin takes care of that.