It's taken me a while to get round to using it in earnest, but I've been busy cataloguing my images in Lightroom and to say I'm impressed is an understatement.

I can now find my images quickly, make quick adjustments (which to be honest is all 90% of my images should ever need) and if I need more control send them to Photoshop. Brilliant management software, I just need to learn how to use it to it's best ability.

Your doing well Derek, I have had Lightroom for over 3 months now but have still not got around to the daunting task of cataloging my images. Once the backlog is cleared it should be plain sailing (only about 20,000 to go :) ) . I agree with you that it is a good piece of software and of course you have got the same RAW converter as the latest ACR version.

I didn't even bother to mention the previous combination of Pana FZ7 and PSE4. I think its called p***ing into the wind. Fortunately the PS monopoly is now being systematically broken and, at least with versions upto CS2/PSE4 it was what gave postprocessing a bad name. As I say there are now many choices and I dare say even people for whom PS is the first choice, but no longer any need to be put off if you find yourself putting a fist through the screen when trying to use it.

What are you trying to say Chris, that you find PS to difficult to use, if so that does not make it a bad piece of software. As said before "If you have been using DPP as your main editor I can understand why you were disappointed"

Perfect!!
Spot on again. BUT, my understanding is this: Photoshop is a pretty tricky tool to play around with. As there's no fixed process to follow. To each his own.

I don't mind software being difficult to use if the results justify the effort. While using DPP, I re-edited some of my old favourites taken at places I may never get to again and never felt I had done justice to when using PSE4 - the results were far better and achieved in a quarter of the time and using virtually no extra disc space to keep open for further editing. Using Capture NX, I can get better results still. In both cases working on images already reduced to .jpg by (a) Nikon E4500 (b) Pana FZ7. Working on RAW better still.

For Matt's benefit we should make it clear that we have different boundaries of what we regard as 'editing' and beyond which lies 'manipulation'. IMO PS also encourages manipulation beyond a sensible threshold; obviously people who want to play with images so as to achieve effects (such as simulating oils on canvas) beyond the strictly photographic are free to do so.

LOL - I am sure if you say so Chris then it must be right :D

I was given Andy Rouse's "Understanding Raw Photography" for Christmas and in it Andy basically tells all serious amateur photographers to buy Photoshop. He considers there to be nothing to touch it. He likens it to any other piece of camera equipment. Why spend hundreds if not thousands of pounds on a digital camera then not spend on the one piece of equipment that will enhance your shots like no other.

I also got this book (it is excellent btw) and it persuaded me to get my act together and sort out my workflow. I don't believe Photoshop is difficult to use, as you can choose how deep you want to go. Afterall there is more than enough information out there to help you and if I can learn it, then anyone can. :eek:

I also agree with Mr Rouse, Photoshop is much more than just another bit of software and if you're serious about your photography it is a must have bit of kit. I started learning it a couple of months ago from magazine CD's and internet tutorials and already I've signed up to run tutorials for our camera club - it really is not difficult to pick it up. OK there is a lot it can do that maybe I'll never learn - but do I need to as I'm also someone who likes to get it as right as I can in the camera? However it's good to know the features are there if and when I need them. :)

Photoshop - when paid for in full [!]- may be the best photo editor there is but can be overkill for most amateurs. It may be the best and the 'industry standard' but there sometimes seems to be a bit of 'must have' about it rather than really needing it. Great if your hobby is centred round pc work and you enjoy all that editing and manipulation but certainly not essential for everyone. I sometimes feel the way we're all supposed to spend hours converting RAW files and improving our results is a bit of a let off for the camera makers - digital cameras should be capable of giving you what you want direct from camera if you spend a bit of time on setting up your shots. All DSLRs should be able to give you good JPEGs - if you'd rather shoot RAW fine, but you should'nt have to if you don't want to.