Best most user-friendly photo editing program?

[SergeTheBlerge]

Looking for a good photo editor that isn't focused too much on digital scrapbooking like Memory Mixer or even Photoscape X. Most editors now have RAW conversion so until I can master that I'll worry about it but for now I may just stick with JPEGS or shooting in both.

What I'm mainly concerned in my shots is creating sharper images, and being able to emphasize certain colors within a shot. For example, a shot of a Christmas tree decorated outside a house, and saturating the colored lights on the tree specifically, and things of that nature. I'm also concerned with being able to REMOVE objects in the shot I don't want, like for example if I shoot an image containing something reflective, like glass, and a person or object is reflected in that glass that I don't want there. At least being able to darken them out so it doesn't get in the way, and things of that nature.
I've used basic Windows editors as well as Memory Mixer and right now am playing with Photoscape, so since I'm a beginner I'd like a good photo editor that is actually user-friendly. I've tried Adobe a few times recently and honestly couldn't for the life of me figure out much of anything that wasn't more or less basic. At the same time though, I don't want something so watered down to where my options are completely limited.

Any advice is appreciated, thanks again!

[Shadowman]

Free or at a cost? FastStone is free and will get you where you want to be, only downside is the noise filter acts as a blur tool, I only tried it a few times though; perhaps someone else has had success with it.

[Mike Buckley]

Which Adobe product(s) were problematic for you? I ask because perhaps you tried using some that have a steeper learning curve, though you might feel that way about all of them.

One way to go is to decide upon a software application that does more than you need right now. Once you get the basics down, you could then move on to more advanced post-processing without having to go through the entire process of evaluating replacement applications and learning how to use them.

I don't understand the benefit of shooting only JPEGs in your situation. For me, the concept of post-processing raw files has always been the same as post-processing JPEGs except that issues pertaining to white balance are quicker and easier to adjust when working with a raw file. My point is that I don't see any reason for you in your situation to delay the use of raw files.

[chauncey]

Best/User friendly is an oxymoron...ya can't have both.

[Mike Buckley]

Best/User friendly is an oxymoron...ya can't have both.

If that's literally what he meant, you've got a good point.

[Manfred M]

Sergio - every single piece of software has a learning curve. You have to sit down and work with it to learn it. It doesn't matter if it is a word processor, spreadsheet or image editor.

Editing an image requires some knowledge and some practice. This is true for any editor out there. Image editing is hard to start and once you get the hang of it you will wonder why it took you so long in the first place.

The reason I suggest Adobe, whether it is Photoshop Elements, Lightroom or Photoshop itself is that these products are extremely well supported by Adobe, third party learning sites (Lynda.com - which I get free access to through my library on my home computer) or tons and tons of free advice (YouTube videos that range from excellent to absolute garbage). If you prefer books to online stuff, again, there are lots of books out there for Adobe products, and far fewer for the other editing packages.

If you tried either Photoshop Elements or Lightroom, then I think I can guarantee you will also have issues with the other editors out there. The underlying premises of image editing are the same, the only differences between the programs are the user interfaces and the learning curves.

[Mike Buckley]

the only differences between the programs are the user interfaces and the learning curves.

There are also differences between the capabilities.

[Manfred M]

There are also differences between the capabilities.

Correct - I was typing faster than I was thinking (again). The additional capabilities are one of the key reasons for the longer learning curve.

[SergeTheBlerge]

Best/User friendly is an oxymoron...ya can't have both.

Makes sense. Granted, I am familiar with color and light balancing. So I guess the best way to go is to just get an Adobe style editor and build upon what I already know? I know most of these programs are run by monthly subscription, which i find a bit inconvenient as I'd prefer to pay a lump sum to just have a program I can access whenever I want.

In regards to an earlier question, I don't mind paying for an editor and would probably cap off my price range at about $150 max. I simply want to be able to bring out the potential in my shots. I would go for Photoscape but feel it only goes so far and seems more scrapbook oriented. I am not interested in decorative frames and added graphics in the least.

So given where it seems I mostly am, im sensing Adobe may work best given its reputation....which version of Adobe do you all think may work best?

[DanK]

Very good advice so far. I'll just add a few things.

As Manfred said, all software requires some work to learn, and the more the software can do, the more time it takes to learn it. One reason that most editors seem so complicated is that they have a huge range of features. One way to simplify learning is to restrict your attention to a few things to start out. For example, you DO need to learn right off the bat how to manipulate tonality (brightness, contrast, tonal range). You DON'T need to learn to start to how to use luminance masks, the LAB color space, or countless other things that powerful editors allow you to do. Pick a few of the basics and work on one at a time, and you will pick it up more quickly.

I agree with Mike--I don't think you gain anything by starting your edits with jpegs. All good raw editors will convert the raw image to a reasonable starting point, and many will emulate quite precisely the picture styles in major-brand cameras.

[NorthernFocus]

I recommend you try Photoshop Elements. You can use as many or as few functions as you want. It does have a "scrap book" function but you don't have to use it. It also comes with a raw converter (ACR) built in but you don't have to use that either. It has layers, cloning tools, individual color adjustment, white balance, etc, as well as many artistic features like painting conversions, borders, etc. You can use as many or as few as desired. You can start with jpeg if so desired then use ACR for RAW conversion in the future when you feel ready.

[Mike Buckley]

I know most of these programs are run by monthly subscription, which i find a bit inconvenient as I'd prefer to pay a lump sum to just have a program I can access whenever I want.

The subscription programs seem to me to make the most sense especially for someone who is having a difficult time deciding which software application to settle on. That's because if you use it for six months or so and decide that it's not a good fit for you, you simply cancel the subscription and save about half the cost of purchasing a perpetual license of another program. If it takes you only three months to come to that determination, you save about three-fourths the cost of a perpetual license.

If I were starting from the beginning today, I would probably subscribe to the Photoshop/Lightroom subscription plan. I would primarily use Lightroom if I wanted to take advantage of its Digital Asset Management (DAM) capabilities. I would use Photoshop in combination with its Camera Raw if I didn't need the DAM capabilities, especially considering that Camera Raw has the reputation of having Lightroom's image-editing capabilities just using a different interface.

[rpcrowe]

Sergio...

B&H in NYC has Photoshop Elements 15 for $59.95. Unfortunately, living in New York, you have to pay tax.

I found PSE (I used an earlier version) to be a quite good program however, I did not like the way that PSE tried to arrange my images. Apparently, there is a way to stop PSE from arbitrarily (IMO) arranging images but, when I tried that, the program froze and crashed.

I also don't like the way Lightroom handles my images. I have subscribed to Adobe Photoshop CC but, I did not download Lightroom.

OnOne RAW is now a fully equipped photo editor. I have used earlier versions of OnOne as a plug-in for Photoshop and quite liked it. I have purchased OnOne RAW but have not downloaded that program yet.

[Dave Humphries]

Sergio,

The other downside to a one-off purchase is that sooner or later you'll likely replace or upgrade your camera - and then you may well need to make that 'one-off' purchase again to update (to a later version of) the software to decode RAW files from the new camera. Granted it may be 2-3 years until that happens though.

Elements is within your budget for one-off.

Cheers, Dave

[davidedric]

Mike, I'm pretty sure you have to sign up to CC for a year. You have the choice of paying a lump sum or 12 monthly payments - though what happens if you cancel the direct debit after a few months I don't know.

Dave

[DanK]

If I were starting from the beginning today, I would probably subscribe to the Photoshop/Lightroom subscription plan. I would primarily use Lightroom if I wanted to take advantage of its Digital Asset Management (DAM) capabilities. I would use Photoshop in combination with its Camera Raw if I didn't need the DAM capabilities, especially considering that Camera Raw has the reputation of having Lightroom's image-editing capabilities just using a different interface.

The Lightroom and ACR engines are the same and produce the same images. Only the interface is different.

I subscribe to CC and use both LR and Photoshop. I don't make a great deal of use of Lightroom's data management capabilities, but I still find it the best place to start. Its editing tools have become progressively better, and at this point, I can edit many of my images only in LR. There are many plugins that both extend its capabilities and make it a very good 'home base' for images that need more than one software package. The interface for exporting images is very slick. It has an excellent print module, with good soft proofing. It makes it trivially easy to create multiple virtual copies of an image and edit them separately--for example, one color and one B&W. Because it is a parametric editor (as is ACR, of course), it's edits are entirely nondestructive, and they also require only trivial amounts of storage. Unless I have a particular need for another file format (for example, TIFFs if I am going in and out of other software), I store only the original raw file and the tiny XML sidecar file that contains the edits. Storage is cheap, but it is helpful in many ways to have an an image taking up 25 MB of space rather than 20 times as much.

The reason I say all of this is that in my opinion, if you are going to end up using the Adobe products, one reasonable way to start out is to learn to edit with Lightroom alone. You can use it to learn about tonality, sharpening, saturation, noise reduction, and spot cloning/healing, and up to a point, you can learn to make local adjustments. Once one is comfortable with all of that, one can add the additional functions that Photoshop offers, in particular, selections and masks. Of course, there are many other good ways to start, but I think this one is a reasonable option for some people.

[Mike Buckley]

though what happens if you cancel the direct debit after a few months I don't know.

Directly from Adobe: "If you cancel the subscription after 14 days, you will be charged Early Termination Fee (50% of remaining months)."

So if you sign up for the annual plan paid monthly at $10 per month and if you cancel after six months, your total cost including the termination fee is $90. Not bad for a combination of software applications (Lightroom, ACR, Photoshop and all the mobile apps that synch) and the most support including third-party support in the industry.

[JenSCDC]

Picture Window Pro is easy to learn and it's now free. Get it at www.dl-c.com

[xpatUSA]

I found PSE (I used an earlier version) to be a quite good program however, I did not like the way that PSE tried to arrange my images. Apparently, there is a way to stop PSE from arbitrarily (IMO) arranging images but, when I tried that, the program froze and crashed.

I found that, too. My solution was to completely remove and re-load the program (had it on a CD) and never, ever touch the Organizer button.

[Stagecoach]

Go for PSE.

Because it's cheap AND if after a year or two of use your photography has advanced enough for you to require an editor that can do slightly more the transition to full blown Photoshop is far easier than starting a different package.