Best editing software...easy to use

[Colin Southern]

We are really talking about two different backup requirements. Although I have over 30,000 photographs in my data base there are only about 500 I would be devastated if I no longer had a copy of the original file. I have no commercial responsibility to any clients. Any loss would purely be personal and re-editing them as required would not be a great hardship and nearly all of my most precious images have already been exported and saved in final form (for now) totally independent from my lightroom data base.

... and that's fine for you, as - understanding the pros and cons - that's a considered amount of risk that you're prepared to accept. What scares me though is the tens of thousands of photographers blindly loading their images into LR thinking that they're totally safe because they backup once in a while, not realising that - by default - their level of protection is far far far far lower than they thought.

[Macmahon]

I'm talking about undetected corruption of the LR Database, .....

As a professional computer engineer who has seen tears in the eyes of grown men when they realised the cost of data that they've lost, I do however feel an obligation to point out the risks to people who don't have the benefit of the lessons a lifetime in the information technology industry has taught. And one of those lessons is "don't put all your eggs in one basket" ... which is EXACTLY what most folks are doing when they put all of their edits in a single LR database. .....

Most people using LR probably aren't backing up regularly at all - and those who do probably aren't retaining historical copies of the database (and thus not realising the consequence of over-writing all current backup sets with undetected corruptions in the database). And even if by chance they do discover an issue - and have historical backups available - they still have to jump through flaming hoops to export the relevant images from the relevant backup sets (being mindful not to lose work later than the backup). All for the sake of using DNG format and changing the default to store the edits with the files, not the database. No brainer in my opinion, but hey, I've only been looking after clients data for around 30 years.

There are clearly two separate issue here.
One is the issue of how clever/comprehensive your backup strategy is, and the other is whether the LR catalog is any more prone to corruption/loss than any other data such as a director full of DNG files. Frankly, I've never understood the argument that implies a LR catalog is more at risk than any other.
FWIW, properly set up, LR routinely, and at a regularity you can choose, creates historical copies of its database.
How and where you back those up to guard against disk failure relies on precisely the same strategies as you would use for your DNG collection, I'd have thought.

Tim

[Macmahon]

I have now spent quite a lot of time reading about editing and PP. As I only have the software that came with my Canon camera i.e. ZoomBrowser and Digital Photo Professional I am beginning to wonder if these are not adequate. Should I purchase Photoshop or do you have any other recommendations. Should I try to master what I have or is this a waste of time?
Thanks
Michelle

Michelle
You've been given a whole lot of advice here (and witnessed a useful side discussion ).
My tuppence worth would be to suggest getting a hold of a book called "The Digital Negative" by Jeff Schewe, alongside trial versions of the software. The book shows you with the kind and range of edits you can do and how to do them in Photoshop (ACR) and Lightroom. See if that's what you want to do, and read Jeff's comments on the pluses and minuses of the approaches.

Cheers and good luck

Tim

[Colin Southern]

There are clearly two separate issue here.
One is the issue of how clever/comprehensive your backup strategy is, and the other is whether the LR catalog is any more prone to corruption/loss than any other data such as a director full of DNG files. Frankly, I've never understood the argument that implies a LR catalog is more at risk than any other.
FWIW, properly set up, LR routinely, and at a regularity you can choose, creates historical copies of its database.
How and where you back those up to guard against disk failure relies on precisely the same strategies as you would use for your DNG collection, I'd have thought.

Tim

The difference is that if changes are all written to one place (the database) then all eggs are in one basket and you're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in the event of a restore with regards to losing current or historical data. The term "choose between your children" comes to mind.

With edits written to the image files (a) the effects of any corruption are limited to individual files (which can be restored without consequence), (b) are less likely to occur on a small and simple file that's written to once -v- a massive database that's written to constantly, and (c) the edits are available to programs outside of LR.

IMO the only advantage a LR database offers is indexing.

[keith201]

I made a comment which seems to have got lost somewhere!'

I have come across Zoner Photo Studio 15 which seems an excellent alternative to the Photoshop family. It is easy to pick up, there are tutorials in Youtube although some are in Czech! Has anyone else used this, if so what do you guys think of it?

[Colin Southern]

I made a comment which seems to have got lost somewhere!'

I have come across Zoner Photo Studio 15 which seems an excellent alternative to the Photoshop family. It is easy to pick up, there are tutorials in Youtube although some are in Czech! Has anyone else used this, if so what do you guys think of it?

Keith,

There are lots of alternatives to Photoshop, but right or wrong, Photoshop (family) has the momentum. And what that means is that when you have a problem - and you post a "how to" question - 9 times out of 10 folks will tell you how to do it in Photoshop. At that point - in my opinion - it becomes a trade off between $$$ saved not having to buy Photoshop -v- hours wasted & frustration trying to get something done.

My personal suggestion is to just "suck it up" the once and get Photoshop ... it has a tremendous selection of tools, but you don't need to use each and every one on each and every image ... and as such it's nowhere near as bad to learn as many people would make out.

[keith201]

Thanks Colin, I already have CS6 and Lightroom 4.5 and have been having a devil of a job getting into them, everything seems so confusing! A friend gave me ZPS which seems at first sight quite simple and straightforward compared with Adobe.

I'll go back and have another go at Lightroom first,

[Colin Southern]

Thanks Colin, I already have CS6 and Lightroom 4.5 and have been having a devil of a job getting into them, everything seems so confusing! A friend gave me ZPS which seems at first sight quite simple and straightforward compared with Adobe.

I'll go back and have another go at Lightroom first,

How much have you invested in CS6 training?

It's a complicated beast - but doing things doesn't need to be complicated.

Some examples ...

1. You want to change the levels around a bit ... do a Ctrl + L - move the sliders and click OK - job done.

2. You want to change the saturation - do a Ctrl + U - move the sliders and click OK - job done.

3. You want to apply some sharpening - click on FILTER -> SHARPEN -> UNSHARP MASK - move the sliders around and click OK - job done.

Was that really so confusing?

[pnodrog]

The difference is that if changes are all written to one place (the database) then all eggs are in one basket and you're in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation in the event of a restore with regards to losing current or historical data. The term "choose between your children" comes to mind.

With edits written to the image files (a) the effects of any corruption are limited to individual files (which can be restored without consequence), (b) are less likely to occur on a small and simple file that's written to once -v- a massive database that's written to constantly, and (c) the edits are available to programs outside of LR.

IMO the only advantage a LR database offers is indexing.

I look at my entire computer as a basket and yes all the eggs are in it. So provided you back up your basket properly you have a full copy of all your eggs. It makes no difference to me whether an egg is a document, music, photograph, lightroom catalogue or whatever you need to back them all up at suitable intervals so when a hardware, software or a file corruption occurs you are in a position to restore everything fully to the point of backup. Your work load, activity and value of the files will determine the frequency of back acceptable to your circumstances.

Personally I do not delete photographs from my CF cards for about a month after I have loaded them onto my computer and by then I will have at least one on site and one off site backup. I often use Google drive or a USB memory stick for backing up smaller important files and for transferring a copy to the computer I have at work.

[Colin Southern]

I look at my entire computer as a basket and yes all the eggs are in it. So provided you back up your basket properly you have a full copy of all your eggs. It makes no difference to me whether an egg is a document, music, photograph, lightroom catalogue or whatever you need to back them all up at suitable intervals so when a hardware, software or a file corruption occurs you are in a position to restore everything fully to the point of backup. Your work load, activity and value of the files will determine the frequency of back acceptable to your circumstances.

Personally I do not delete photographs from my CF cards for about a month after I have loaded them onto my computer and by then I will have at least one on site and one off site backup. I often use Google drive or a USB memory stick for backing up smaller important files and for transferring a copy to the computer I have at work.

One last time ... from the top, sigh ...

Lets assume that in 2010 someone starts using Lightroom - and during the year they add 3000 carefully adjusted, and backup daily using a son / father / grandfather regime. In 2011 they add another 3000 carefully adjusted images - and in 2012 they do the same.

Part way through 2013 they discover a database corruption that has wiped out all of their carefully adjusted edits from March 2010 through to July 2010, but because they didn't notice this until January 2013, the corrupted database has been backed up over their daily backup - their end of week backup - their end of month backup - and all 12 monthly archival backups.

They backed up religiously, but they're still sunk. Those who wrote their edit info to the actual image files simply have to restore ANY backup that contains the edited images to be 100% in the clear.

Over and out.

[jcuknz]

Coming back to this thread after a few days the thought comes to mind that the 'best Editor' becomes 'easy to use' with practice in its use. Why I stick with the editor, different versions of course, I started with, it is a good editor and has become easy to use with use of it, but I remember for the first month I was ready to throw it out the window.

[Macmahon]

One last time ... from the top, sigh ...

Lets assume that in 2010 someone starts using Lightroom - and during the year they add 3000 carefully adjusted, and backup daily using a son / father / grandfather regime. In 2011 they add another 3000 carefully adjusted images - and in 2012 they do the same.

Part way through 2013 they discover a database corruption that has wiped out all of their carefully adjusted edits from March 2010 through to July 2010, but because they didn't notice this until January 2013, the corrupted database has been backed up over their daily backup - their end of week backup - their end of month backup - and all 12 monthly archival backups.

They backed up religiously, but they're still sunk. Those who wrote their edit info to the actual image files simply have to restore ANY backup that contains the edited images to be 100% in the clear.

Over and out.

Aha! I think understand your issue. The assumption is that any (or all) database backups overwrite the last backup?
LR doesn't do that. When setup to backup it simply saves out a new copy of the complete database at the time. You can set it up to do this as frequently as you have space for, or as infrequently as you dare! Because (compared to the directory of RAW image files) the catalog database is so small, it's no great hassle to backup each time you shut down the application. If the catalog should have become corrupted at some point, all those copies of the catalog saved prior to the corruption are there.
My fear is drive failure rather than database error (if only because I have had drive failures and I've never had catalog database errors with LR (touch wood))
Consequently I still back up both catalog backups and Raw file directories to different disks.
Tim

[jcuknz]

LR doesn't do that. When setup to backup it simply saves out a new copy of the complete database at the time. Tim

This was precisely the reason I got rid of an early Adobe editor I started with ... it seemed to have an automatic backup of files and I only had a very small storage in those days.

Re messge 61 ... I think photographers have a vastely inflated opinion of the worth of what they do ... it would be rather sad if I lost all my photos but of great importance in the scale of things? I think not. And I will remember both the photos I took and the photos I didn't until my brain fails and I won't be bothered then will I

[pnodrog]

One last time ... from the top, sigh ...

Lets assume that in 2010 someone starts using Lightroom - and during the year they add 3000 carefully adjusted, and backup daily using a son / father / grandfather regime. In 2011 they add another 3000 carefully adjusted images - and in 2012 they do the same.

Part way through 2013 they discover a database corruption that has wiped out all of their carefully adjusted edits from March 2010 through to July 2010, but because they didn't notice this until January 2013, the corrupted database has been backed up over their daily backup - their end of week backup - their end of month backup - and all 12 monthly archival backups.

They backed up religiously, but they're still sunk. Those who wrote their edit info to the actual image files simply have to restore ANY backup that contains the edited images to be 100% in the clear.

Over and out.

You seem to be overlooking the fact that at any time all the photographs can be exported either as PSD, Tiff, DNG or Jpeg with all the edits applied to the export so if the worst came to the worst I could export all the edited files as they existed when archived. Just like the files you use the edits will be in the files and not lost. I am reasonably sure there are other options but at the worst case I will generate a copy of fully LR developed(edited) images.

[Colin Southern]

Aha! I think understand your issue. The assumption is that any (or all) database backups overwrite the last backup?
LR doesn't do that. When setup to backup it simply saves out a new copy of the complete database at the time. You can set it up to do this as frequently as you have space for, or as infrequently as you dare! Because (compared to the directory of RAW image files) the catalog database is so small, it's no great hassle to backup each time you shut down the application. If the catalog should have become corrupted at some point, all those copies of the catalog saved prior to the corruption are there.
My fear is drive failure rather than database error (if only because I have had drive failures and I've never had catalog database errors with LR (touch wood))
Consequently I still back up both catalog backups and Raw file directories to different disks.
Tim

Um, no -- the issue is that any backup of the catalog is only a snapshot of the database AT THAT TIME. So in the event of a corruption you can choose an old backup (either still on disk or on some other media) and lose your current work or keep your current work and lost the corrupted historical work ... or ... in the stress of the moment ... jump through some flaming hoops of exporting and importing to merge two over-lapping portions into a single new / good database.

I'm not saying it can't be done, but I AM saying that although many people may be comfortable doing that, but the majority probably wouldn't; and I've seen many situations where users who are used to doing backups but not restores actually end up with an unrecoverable situation because in the stress of the moment they screwed things up past the point of recovery.

If the edits are stored as part of the image then it's simply a moot point - AND you don't need to worry about LR losing track of the files if they're moved outside of LR - AND you don't need to worry about other programs having access to the edits.

[Colin Southern]

You seem to be overlooking the fact that at any time all the photographs can be exported either as PSD, Tiff, DNG or Jpeg with all the edits applied to the export so if the worst came to the worst I could export all the edited files as they existed when archived.

And at any time all humans on the planet could start taking regular exercise and eating 5+ fruit and vegs a day ... but in reality neither are going to happen. Additionally, exporting with with edits applied is very much a compromise situation; you'll have no idea what settings were applied -- you'll have lost all parametric information.

Need to get on with the rest of my life now ...

[pnodrog]

And at any time all humans on the planet could start taking regular exercise and eating 5+ fruit and vegs a day ... but in reality neither are going to happen. Additionally, exporting with with edits applied is very much a compromise situation; you'll have no idea what settings were applied -- you'll have lost all parametric information.

Need to get on with the rest of my life now ...

This tends to indicate you missed the point.

Yes, I all so have better things to do.

[Colin Southern]

This tends to indicate you missed the point.

In your opinion perhaps. I understand it just fine.