I’m wondering why the photo industry is so obsessed about Photoshop and Lightroom. Is Adobe Photoshop the way to go? No matter where you look, magazines, websites, blogs, when it comes to image editing everybody talks almost exclusively about Photoshop and Lightroom. For example in photo magazines you only find instructions about doing image editing with Photoshop/ Lightroom as if there was no alternative. Is there really no alternative to Adobe products? Or has the photography industry just become so addicted to Adobe that they cannot see alternatives, even if they are just as powerful or even better?
To be clear: I’m well aware of the arguments in favor of Photoshop. It has been the industry standard for years and I don’t doubt the quality of Photoshop or even it’s superiority over other programs. But what I really question is whether photo amateurs need to pay monthly fees for a program of which they only use a fraction of it’s potential. Nowadays with Raw files it feels like 90 % of the editing is done with a Raw converter. This means that often the only task left to classical photo editors like Photoshop is retouching a disturbing element here and there or adapting the exposure of a particular element in the image. And some Raw converters are even capable of doing that, e.g. Corel Aftershot 3 Pro which also offers layers.
At least that’s what my workflow looks like. And that’s also one reason why I don’t feel like I need Photoshop. Those details can just as easily be fixed with alternatives like GIMP or Corel Paintshop X9 which are far cheaper than Photoshop (or even free). But for me it’s not the price itself, it’s the subscription model of Adobe that actually makes me ignore their products. I don’t mind paying for a good program. But I do mind paying huge sums over several years and get only a temporary right to use the software in return. After a few years you will have spent several hundreds of Dollars, Euros or Francs for a program but if something happens to you that leaves you without a steady income (say you lose your job) and you fail to pay the monthly fee Adobe just caps your access to their programs. On the other hand if you go for a product that is licensed in a more traditional way you pay once and you will always have the right to use that program, no matter what happens. You might not get the latest version after your maintenance period has expired but the program itself keeps working like it has always done. Maybe that’s a little old-fashioned but I just don’t like subscription models, it makes me uncomfortable because it makes me feel dependent.
What’s more there are really tasks where the alternatives shine just as bright as the corresponding Adobe products, if not brighter. For example the most important step of my workflow, converting the Raw files. I’ve really tried almost every Raw converter out there: Lightroom, DxO Optics 11, Capture One, UFRAW, Darktable, Rawtherapee, Corel Aftershot 3 etc. and I’ve come to the conclusion that DxO Optics 11 is by far the best solution (for me). It comes with camera and lens profiles for almost any combination out there whereas Adobe’s profiles are really lacking a lot of lenses, especially if you’re not gifted with enough money to buy only expensive Canon L lenses. But it’s not the profiles alone, I also prefer the results I get with DxO Optics 11 compared to those with Lightroom. The colors just look more… right to me. My second choice would have been Capture One but unfortunately it also lacks a lot of lens profiles, especially for the so called “budget” lenses. The second Raw converter I bought is Corel Aftershot 3 Pro because of it’s ability to perform some basic editing tasks like retouching flaws etc. This means that the whole workflow including classical image editing tasks can be done with the Raw converter. Plus it’s always nice to have a backup in case I don’t like the results I get with DxO (very rare but it happens).
So concerning Raw converters the situation is even more bizarre than with classical image editors. With Photoshop Adobe has at least the technological lead and can rightfully claim that their product is “the best” (if such thing as “the best” exists). But the same thing can definitely not be said for Raw converters. In my opinion products like Capture One, DxO Optics 11 etc. are just as powerful and easy to use as Lightroom if not better. And they also work nicely with Photoshop, some of them even offer Photoshop and/ or Lightroom plugins. But again all the magazines, websites etc. only talk about Lightroom, as if no alternative existed.
Conclusion
First, let my make something clear: I don’t want to say “Don’t get Photoshop”. There are definitely situations for which Photoshop is the tool of choice, period. If I were a pro yet, I’d probably get a Adobe CC subscription. Not necessarily because Photoshop can do more than it’s competitors but mainly because working with Photoshop is simply much smoother than with other programs, e.g. GIMP. And if you run a successful business the subscription model is actually kind of more convenient because recurring small fees are much easier to handle in bookkeeping, budgeting and cash management than huge one time payments. But what annoys me are Photoshop/ Lightroom users that go around telling other people, especially beginners, that only with the Adobe products it would be possible to achieve professional results. What’s more those people, like typical fanboys, often cannot provide reasonable arguments why everybody needs Photoshop. More than often their knowledge bases on someone who told them that GIMP or whatever alternative was no good. They have never tried alternatives themselves.
So to all beginners I’d like to say this: Don’t blindly subscribe to Adobe CC only because you’ve heard that every pro photographer uses Photoshop/ Lightroom. That’s simply not true. There are a lot of pro or semi-pro photographers who deliberately avoid Adobe CC. The competing products have also come a long way and in some areas they are even superior to the Adobe programs.
And to all longtime Adobe CC users: Just try alternatives, especially for Raw conversion. You will most likely be surprised how well other programs, even free ones, work. Maybe you’ll come to the conclusion that you actually don’t need Photoshop/ Lightroom at all because there are cheaper or even better products out there that get the job done just as well or even better as Photoshop/ Lightroom. And if not you cannot lose anything, there are trial versions of all the programs which you can test for free. And If you come to the conclusion that no alternative suits you as good as the Adobe CC programs you will at least have confirmation that you are indeed working with “the best” solution available.
Now you can let us know what you think. Is Adobe Photoshop the way to go? Leave a comment or head over to the forum to tell us whether you are also a Photoshop/ Lightroom enthusiast or if you prefer alternatives. Do you like subscription models (Adobe is not the only company that offers such licensing terms)? Or do you favor a more classical way of purchsing software?