Which Digital Darkroom?

[Bill Pierce]

As Photoshop grows to CS5, as Lightroom becomes Lightroom 3.4, as Capture One is in its sixes and almost all the “digital darkrooms” have been around awhile, almost all the digital darkroom programs have added features to the point where the days of using a variety of programs because of their unique features has disappeared. It’s hard to say which is best. A digital photographer can now use a single program for much of his work.

I use Lightroom for most of my work because I can do almost everything I want without converting relatively small raw files into quite large tiff files. Since Lightroom will export directly into Photoshop and place the “photoshopped” tiff next to the raw file in Lightroom, when I need to do extensive retouching or manipulation I bounce the image from Lightroom to Photoshop and back. I have a lot of other, rather expensive software now sitting idle on my computer.

I have some add-ons that speed up converting to black-and-white, dealing with HDR and sharpening images. But they don’t do anything I couldn’t do with Lightroom/Photoshop; they just do it quicker. I even use one other raw converter, “Raw Developer” from Iridient Digital. It’s a small, relatively inexpensive program that actually is still quite different from other programs and allows me to do a few things to raw files that most other programs don’t do, like R-L deconvolution sharpening. How’s that for obscure.

So what’s in your digital darkroom? And, most important, why did you choose it over other, now similar, programs? Was it the program's basic color interpretation of your raw files? Was it the default sharpening? Or, is it just the one that has always been on your computer?

[peterm1]

A few years ago I downloaded a trial copy of Corel Paintshop Pro X2 (current version is X3) as my laptop crashed and I lost my other software so needed to try something as a short term alternative while travelling. I tried it and liked it and so bought it.

I had used an early(ish) version of PS Elements (Version 3) before so could compare. In general I would say that PSPP is well superior to Photoshop Elements, at about the same or less price as some of the deliberate limits built into Elements by Adobe to protect their main product are not present in PSPP.

It is not up to the standard of the current full versions of Photoshop but probably about equivalent to PS 6 or something like that. Considering the price difference it is a bargain. Usually around a hundred bucks retail in Oz although it may be listed for more. It does pretty well everything that PS does in terms of core functions for a high end graphic program - selections, layers, channels, levels, curves, blend modes etc as well as supporting most PS plugins. You can for example use it with Nik plug ins and that suite would give you everything a photographer needs for post processing. (In fact even without plug ins it would do that.) I find it easier to get the hang of (and quicker to use) than the full PS as it has some Elements type wizards etc but as I said in general its functions are better than PSE in my view. For example it has excellent built in color to mono conversion tools, plus built in tools for digital noise reduction, JPG artifact removal, skin smoothing, perspective correction etc - all of which work very well. (Usually with full PS you need to either buy plugins for these or learn to deal with them using some pretty complex and difficult manouvres using the products basic (if powerful) core functions.

I have also used Lightroom and quite like it for basic processing and conversion but it is not capable of making complex transformations that require layers.

The only real disadvantage I find with PSPP is that most resources and tutorials on the Web are for PS not PaintShop Pro so that can be limiting. But there are some tutorials and scripts etc and as I said most PS plug ins work fine. Also some terminology is slightly different so when studying PS tutoriasl it can be a bit of an effort to work out how to apply the same techniques in PSPP. But once you get the hang of it that is not an issue.

These later versions of the product (X2 and X3) are very good. Unfortunately earlier versions we less capable and a bit a bit too clunky, soPSPP does not have the same reputation as PS, being widely regarded as being only for scrap bookers and hobbyists but not for "real" serious high end users. But believe me when I say that for a photographer it is a good way to go as a cheaper but very powerful alternative to PS.

Perhaps being absolutely fair too I should add another disadvantage for those who shoot RAW exclusively. PSPP is not upgraded as often as Adobe products so there may be less in built support for RAW files from later cameras. But in this even I usually just batch convert my RAW files in another program and use PSPP for all the complex final detailed processing where that is needed.

If you look at my Flikr page (see below) you will see that every photo has been post processed quite extensively and I can assure you I used PSPP for almost all of them and am very happy with it. I have tried using other software on a trial basis but always find myself drifting back to PSPP as it does what I want without fuss.

[sepiareverb]

I prefer PS. I'm used to it for starters, but I prefer the interface for the tools and using them. I tried very hard to like LR, but I just never managed to settle into it like I did with PS. I only opened Aperture once or twice. I shoot RAW only, and the Raw Converter for PS does everything I need. I also like just going to the file I want via Bridge rather than the LR interface.

[Mcary]

Bill,
I started out with PSE-2, upgraded to PS7, followed by CS1 and CS2 then the first beta for Lightroom was released and I was pretty much hooked from day one and now use it for 99% of the my digital darkroom work as I'm very happy with the way it handles both RAW capture files and scanned TIFF and Jpegs. Also like how LR and PS are designed to work together.
The way I look at it LR is a simple program for simple people so its perfect for me

[Morca007]

I use Photoshop, as I've quite literally grown up alongside and with it, playing around in Photoshop was one of my favorite games when we first got a PC at home.

[imokruok]

Originally Posted by Morca007

I use Photoshop, as I've quite literally grown up alongside and with it, playing around in Photoshop was one of my favorite games when we first got a PC at home.

Same here, always been very attached to Adobe products. I remember doing basic sketching in Illustrator back in 1989 when my parents bought a Mac IIci.

As for right now, I use PS for everything. I played around with the Lightroom demo and maybe I'll try it again sometime, but PS does everything I seem to need to do. And I'm very comfortable with the controls. I've been a student for a long time and up until very recently, so I'd always get the major student discounts...

[willie_901]

Bill,

I process and edit 200 to 1,000 photographs per week.

My digital darkroom is quite similar to yours. I use LR 3 to store, organize process and edit my work. About 98% of my digital photos originate from RAW files. I recently upgraded from Photoshop Elements 6 to PSE 9. PSE 9 is the first version of Elements that supports layer masks. This feature gives PSE 9 practically all the tools most photographers will ever need. I purchased a commercial version of PSE9 for less than $60 at Costco.

Like you I use PSE for tasks that are difficult or impossible to achieve with LR.

For my commercial work (residential photography) I occasional use Photomatix to blend multiple exposures. Interior scenes (and some home exteriors as well) often exceed the dynamic range of my D700. Even though I use up to for small, off-camera strobes it is necessary to blend exposures. I use a Photomatix plug-in for these tasks. By the way, although Photomatix is most often used for tone-mapping to produce-attention getting surrealistic images, I only use it for non-tone-mapped dynamic range extension.

I used to use PTLens edit to repair barrel/pincushion distortion as well as converging verticals. The lens profiles in LR 3 have all but eliminated my PTLens usage.

I do not use Photoshop CS5 as a primary tool because it is just too complicated and frustrating to learn. I've been working with computers as an end user on a daily basis since 1973. I find Photoshop's user interface to be the most frustrating I've used. I consider Photoshop CS5's price to be an insult for a product with the most painful learning-curve I have ever experienced (and I have had to use some pretty awful software over the past 37years). I doubt I would be a photographer if Photoshop was the only digital darkroom option. I know there are millions of happy Photoshop users, so I understand my views are in the minority. But I just can't accept paying $600 for a program and then having to pay hundreds of dollars more (not to mention my time) to but instructional DVDs and books to learn how Photoshop's designers want me to think about image processing.

I seriously evaluated The DxO Optics Pro as a way to replace Adobe's offerings. In my experience The DxO Optics Pro produces results that can be superior to anything I ever saw from LR. At the same time DxO Optics Pro is quite expensive, lags in support for new cameras and lenses, and requires more screen time per image. I decided the extra 5-10% DxO Optics Pro delivers is not worth the cost, time and effort.

I do not own a printer. I do all my printing with great on-line vendors. MPIX has never let me down. There are a large number of specialty on-line printers too. I plan to try a couple of the small on-line vendors that provide careful, but expensive, work.

I scan film using either VueScan or Silverfast. When I want the best results I use VueScan, when I'm in a hurry I use Silverfast.

[JeffGreene]

I do most of my work in PS as well. As an educator I was able to get favorable pricing years ago, and upgrade about every other version. I am currently on CS4. It meets my needs as a current enthusiast and former pro.

[gavinlg]

I use lightroom 3, and photoshop cs3 as an advanced editor. Will get cs5 soon.

Ultimately, I rate the current RAW software as follows:
Best High ISO IQ: Lightroom 3 by far
Best low ISO IQ: Capture one 6 Pro
Best file organization and backup: Aperture 3

Best overall: Lightroom 3

I really wish capture one was cheaper and better with high ISO files as it's a very powerful editor.

[benlees]

I just use Elements. I don't make enough photos to justify a program like Lightroom or Aperture. I recently moved to an imac and I can't find a plugin for curves, which I really miss! Anyone know of such a plugin for Elements 8 for Mac?

[bwcolor]

I always use Aperture 3 after downsizing my scans in CS3. I have been using Photoshop less and less as Aperture improves functionality.

[jody36]

Im using Lightroom

[Teuthida]

Lightroom, then most everything processed in Silver Efex.Mostly I end up using the presets (high structure) and then the film emulation (Plus X). Simple, easy, effective.

[menthel]

Lightroom 3 here with PSE 8 (may well upgrade) and Silver Efex 2. 99% of the time I am in Lightroom and very rarely use PSE. SFX is a new addition and for photos that will take a B&W conversion I love what it does and how easily it integrates with LR. Not tried any of the others as I am really happy with LR!

[whitecat]

Lightroom is a must have. Silver Efex Pro is a close second. I also find that Photoshop Elements 8 is all that is needed. The added features in 9 and 10 do not help much.

[cosmonaut]

Right now Lightroom 4 beta and CS4.

[craygc]

Lightroom 3 + CS5

LR is primarily for the database capabilities and web publishing capabilities. I just find the editing in LR far to restrictive when compared to CS5. I do a lot of localised adjustments across an image.

[nightfly]

Most of my work comes from scans and I used to use the Epson Twain driver from within Photoshop CS3. When I finally got a digital camera I liked (GRD 3), I bought a copy of Lightroom along with a CS5 upgrade (I use Photoshop a lot for work as a web developer). Shot a few hundred vacation shots on the GRD and processed with Lightroom from RAW and got a feel for using it. I got results I liked without too much fuss (color primarily).

I was still scanning in CS3 but then started bringing the scans into Lightroom and converted them from TIF to DNGs. This workflow seems to work. Finally got around to installing CS5 which no longer works with TWAIN so in my last batch of scans I effectively cut Photoshop out of the loop and just use Epson Scan to tif and then bring the tifs into Lightroom for processing as DNGs with no pit stop in Photoshop. Like the results I got with last batch and prefer Lightroom to iView Media Pro which is how I was organizing before.

I do like the healing brush in Photoshop better than the tool in Lightroom and I'm still getting used to the Lightroom interface and trying to get rid of it for editing full screen which is a bit clunky. Prefer the floating palettes of Photoshop but this might be a preference I haven't found.

I got a copy of Silver EFX but find that I still like my scanned Tri-X better so don't use it much since most of my work is still primarily film.

[dasuess]

I use Aperture 3 simply because I'm a Mac guy and I could not pass on the $79 price as purchased the the App Store. I have nothing else to compare it to, but it does pretty much everything I need it to do. The only add-on I have is a recent purchse of Neat Image for noise reduction, which works well on the scans of my 40 years of 35mm Tri-X and other negatives.

[kbg32]

I've been using Photoshop since 1993. I learned it when I was an editor at The Image Bank.

[celluloidprop]

LR3, Color Efex Pro & Silver Efex Pro when desired. I have the CS5 design suite but I haven't found a use for Photoshop CS5 itself aside from resizing scanned files - it's been so long since I used it regularly (CS) that I now find the LR controls far more intuitive.

[peterm1]

I almost exclusively use a program that most photographers know little about - Corel PaintShop Pro x4.

It is basically the same in essential respects as Photoshop - somewhere between Elements and CS but without their complexity.

I like it as it has the following advantages:

- It is cheap - much cheaper even than PS Elements but with more powerful functions (Elements has some of CS's functions disabled to encourage you to buy the much more expensive CS.)

- It is powerful. It basically has all of Photoshop's more esoteric and powerful functions like selections and layers if you wish (and know how) to use them.

- It is simple. It has a lot of wizards and tools not found in many (perhaps any) other software. Too many to describe here and most designed especially for photographers.

- It is compatible. Most Photoshop compatible plugins (like the powerful and excellent Nik ones) work fine.

One small disadvantage is that most tutorials and so forth found on the web are for Photoshop not Corel's offering and Corel sometimes uses different terminology to Adobe so if you are still learning and need to use tutorials you have to work out which are the Corel equivalents and translate them in your mind before trying them.

I really cannot speak too highly of this product and definitely prefer it to PS.

Also whilst I have tried Lightroom and think its fine so long as you do not want to use layers and so forth I do find it a little limiting.

And as for Photoshop, its too expensive and in some respects more complex to use as its primarily a tool for experts and graphic designers.

[nightfly]

The thing with programs like Lightroom, at least when working on RAW files is that all the editing is non destructive and reversible so the idea of layers isn't really relevant anymore. The reason to use layers was to create something on top of the image that you could turn on and off and adjust at any time without altering the underlying image.

With Lightroom and it's equivalents, all the things you do the image are in effect layers (really an XML file telling the machine what to do to the image) that never touches the original, at least that's my understanding.

Originally Posted by peterm1

Also whilst I have tried Lightroom and think its fine so long as you do not want to use layers and so forth I do find it a little limiting.

[peterm1]

Originally Posted by nightfly

The thing with programs like Lightroom, at least when working on RAW files is that all the editing is non destructive and reversible so the idea of layers isn't really relevant anymore. The reason to use layers was to create something on top of the image that you could turn on and off and adjust at any time without altering the underlying image.

Originally Posted by nightfly

With Lightroom and it's equivalents, all the things you do the image are in effect layers (really an XML file telling the machine what to do to the image) that never touches the original, at least that's my understanding.

I do not fully agree. While layers are a non destructive form of editing I have never used them for that purpose - I find that with photographic post processing unlike in graphic design the need is not so great and its easy to use the history tool to step backwards thru edits in the unlikely event that changes are needed.

But I find layers very useful in other situations. Powerful even!

Firstly layers allow you to use different blending modes. For example creating a duplicate layer and changing its blending mode to "multiply" immediately makes an over exposed image much darker and more contrasty. The opposite applies if you use the "screen" mode on a too dark image. What could be easier than a 2 step fix to an under or over exposed image.

There are also many more complex recipies you can apply to photos to fix various problems using combinations of blending modes. And believe me they are not too hard complex or difficult. But they do work very well indeed.

Secondly I like to use layers as a very effective way of applying selective edits.

By applying edits on a duplicate layer you can then erase part of the top layer to let the unedited layer below show thru in those erased areas. A good example is when you want to darken up part of the image but not other parts. This is about the simplest and most effective way of selectively applying filters and edits I know.

Thirdly you can use layers to infinitely adust the strength of filters and plugins. By applying a filter to a layer instead of to the original you can then use the "opacity" slider to back off the intensity of the filter. This works great for example with sharpening, where its easy to over do it. But the same can be said for any filter as sometimes the effects strength slider in the filter does not give enough control.

And if you wish to be fancy you can do all of the above.

Before I learned to use layers I used to be skeptical, thinking much the same - that they were only good for non destructive editing.

Now I know better!

[nightfly]

Your use and needs are far more sophisticated than mine in regards to photo manipulation.

For me, I used to just create adjustment layers for levels and curves in black and white and levels and curves and color balance in color in Photoshop and that was it so Lightroom is a good substitute.

Also the batch tools are much better than recording actions.

For me I love taking pictures and I like developing film but post processing, whether printing in the darkroom or using the digital tools is my least favorite part so I try to apply as little manipulation as possible to get the photo where I want it.

For more complex use of layers like you cite, something like Lightroom would not be an adequate substitute.

Originally Posted by peterm1

I do not fully agree. While layers are a non destructive form of editing I have never used them for that purpose - I find that with photographic post processing unlike in graphic design the need is not so great and its easy to use the history tool to step backwards thru edits in the unlikely event that changes are needed.

But I find layers very useful in other situations. Powerful even!

Firstly layers allow you to use different blending modes. For example creating a duplicate layer and changing its blending mode to "multiply" immediately makes an over exposed image much darker and more contrasty. The opposite applies if you use the "screen" mode on a too dark image. What could be easier than a 2 step fix to an under or over exposed image.

There are also many more complex recipies you can apply to photos to fix various problems using combinations of blending modes. And believe me they are not too hard complex or difficult. But they do work very well indeed.

Secondly I like to use layers as a very effective way of applying selective edits.

By applying edits on a duplicate layer you can then erase part of the top layer to let the unedited layer below show thru in those erased areas. A good example is when you want to darken up part of the image but not other parts. This is about the simplest and most effective way of selectively applying filters and edits I know.

Thirdly you can use layers to infinitely adust the strength of filters and plugins. By applying a filter to a layer instead of to the original you can then use the "opacity" slider to back off the intensity of the filter. This works great for example with sharpening, where its easy to over do it. But the same can be said for any filter as sometimes the effects strength slider in the filter does not give enough control.

And if you wish to be fancy you can do all of the above.

Before I learned to use layers I used to be skeptical, thinking much the same - that they were only good for non destructive editing.

Now I know better!