I have been using Photoshop since version 3.5 , now using CS6. just bought a new camera only to find Photoshop does not recognise it's RAW pictures. Adobe told me tough CS6 is no longer supporting new cameras! I could sign up for CC for £10a month. After paying £600 three years ago I though this was a bit much. I have found a program by Serif called Affinity Photo. It is as good if not better than CS6 in many ways AND it recognises my camera. The cost? An amazing £48. A no brainer for anybody interested in serious photography. There is a 30 day free trial. Its worth a look.
I have been using serif photo and seraf draw for many years it is a really good piece of kit and I have found no problems with it. I have got photoshop CS6 on my computer and I can't get on with it so I stick with serif
If you're really tight (I am!), you could always try GIMP - it's free:
You'll probably need to run the tutorials before you feel confident.
I have used Serif software since it first came out in 1989 at a computer show at the NEC Birmingham. I use PagePlus, WebPlus and did use PhotoPlus but now upgraded to their Affinity Photo. It is brilliant. I am a pro photographer and have never used photoshop because of its rediculous price. Serif webplus is superb too. I've made about 80 websites for clients with it, all from scratch without templates, it is so quick and easy to use.
After nearly 20 years of using Photoshop we've finally dumped it in favour of Affinity Photo. And many pro photographers are doing the same. Highly recommended (especially at £49.95).
As a 100% Linux and Open Source Software user :angel: I use a variety of packages. Gimp 2.9 (which can now handle colour bit depths up to 32bit!) for image editing, and Darktable / RawTherapee for raw photo editing / non destructive editing.
I have great sympathy with anyone who forked out £600 for CS6 only to find that it is now replaced by the new subscription based Photoshop. There are many alternatives to Photoshop, some are even free. However, the market leader is still Photoshop. I imagine it is the choice of most pros. If we, as photographers pay for quality cameras plus lenses, one has to ask if we then should try to save on software. Many manage without any editing, or just Raw converters. I don't think I have the skill to do that and get it totally right in the camera.
Photoshop Elements is very good value and bought, with no subscription.
I take the view that you only get what you pay for. Sad, but I believe true.
R.B.
I do agree with a lot of what Rod says and a lot of my wanting to 'get out' of Adobe's grip after so many years was in large due to the way they really don't put customers (especially long-standing customers) first.
Having now spent a lot of time with Affinity Photo I can honestly say that it's at least as good as 'full-fat' Photoshop for probably 99% of things the average photographer will do, handles PSD files like a native and a lot lot more features than Photoshop Elements - the latest version of which actually costs more than Affinity Photo!
Affinity Photo also has a very reasonable built-in RAW processor which is at least up to replacing Lightroom (not a difficult thing to do IMHO) ;D
Affinity sounds really good. Adobe do have pretty much a strangle-hold in the photo editing market. It certainly could do with some realistic competition. I did a thirty week course on Photoshop and I suppose I am used to it, although it's so huge, and there is never just one way of doing anything with it. I do like the automatic updates.
R.B.
Fully agree with the comments about Affinity Photo. I would also recommend Affinity Designer to anyone wanting an Adobe Illustrator replacement (for the same reasons).
We're far from being professional photographers but find that using our Canon SLRs in RAW mode gives sufficient room for manipulation?
…and Affinity Publisher is on the way! Goodbye Adobe 🙂
…and Affinity Publisher is on the way! Goodbye Adobe 🙂
Yes I saw that and it should give In-Design a run for its money as well.
@RodB Your weeks of Photoshop training won't go to waste as the principles and methods are really pretty much the same, it's just the buttons and stuff that are in different places. ;D
At the risk of complete off-topic drift (well as Admin, maybe just this once LOL) ....only today I found out that whilst we've been paying Calor Gas for our LPG for years and years, and currently at 58.5p +VAT per litre there are other big companies that will supply us just as well, who have been going for 30 years and only charge 36p+VAT a litre. We just never actually knew.
Bit like Affinity Photo vs Photoshop I guess, swiftly moving back on topic.
I have great sympathy with anyone who forked out £600 for CS6 only to find that it is now replaced by the new subscription based Photoshop. There are many alternatives to Photoshop, some are even free. However, the market leader is still Photoshop. I imagine it is the choice of most pros. If we, as photographers pay for quality cameras plus lenses, one has to ask if we then should try to save on software. Many manage without any editing, or just Raw converters. I don't think I have the skill to do that and get it totally right in the camera.
Photoshop Elements is very good value and bought, with no subscription.
I take the view that you only get what you pay for. Sad, but I believe true.
In the good old days of 35mm film I thought I had a fairly good eye for a photo, and had a few successes. However I also had a lot of disasters, and threw away a lot of prints.
I was a late comer to digital, mainly because I couldn't afford to replace my SLR and lenses with a digital equivalent . I am now on my second digital, not a SLR but a CSC. I find it a good compromise for the type of photos I like to take. Not so cumbersome and pretentious.
Where I am still struggling though is editing. I still try to get it right in the camera. My children gave me Photoshop Elements for my sixtieth birthday, and for my level of interest I wouldn't want to spend any more for editing software or have it spent for me.
The one thing I can't get my head around though is shooting in Raw. I fully understand the difference, but to be honest I can't improve an image taken in RAW any more then one taken in jpeg, and then tweeked with Elements.
"Try to live a good life. Don't be afraid to be what you are'. some bloke in the pub.
Photoshop Elements is superb. I don't think it has layer masks, but that can be got round with a bit of extra work.
If Raw gives you no more flexibility than the compressed jpegs then go for jpegs rather than process from Raw. I like the ability to alter the white balance in Raw and amend the lens aberrations. There are some easy tweaks available in RAW.
At the end of the day, it's all subjective.
R.B.