Life Never Gives me a Straight Answer

My photography journey gets weirder and weirder.

A couple of years back, I got better photo gear and bought Photoshop Elements 2024 for editing raw photos. I did quite a bit of research and still ended up making some bad decisions.

On the gear end, I failed to realize that I really needed wide-aperture lenses if I wanted indoor photos and other low-light shots that truly looked good. I think middle-of-the-road optical quality is less harmful than a small aperture. Nearly all lenses shoot photos that are sharper than most people can appreciate, so it’s not a big deal if your lens isn’t optically excellent, but if your lens is too slow, you have to use high ISO settings that create a lot of noise, and software that cleans up noise is not as good a solution as not having noise in the first place.

I think this is right today, but I could be wrong.

On the software end, I bought Elements, a program that is good for editing JPG images but unbearable for raw files. I didn’t know the difference. I thought that if I bought a photo editing program, it would naturally be good for everything from snap to print. It looks like that is not true. I have spent many hours trying to edit raw files in Elements, and often, I spent so much time trying to make the program work, I ended up editing nothing or nearly nothing.

When you edit raw in Elements, you can’t go straight to the bit where you get to create a finished photo. You go to an incredibly nonintuitive middleman program where you do certain things to the raw file and then export it as a JPG. Then you use what everyone thinks of as Photoshop to edit the JPG.

Unbelievably (to me, at least), every edit you do to a raw file in Elements is instantly saved, permanently, so you’re stuck with it forever unless you can figure out how to undo it, and there is no simple “undo” function as far as I know. Maybe there is, and I have forgotten it. To me, this seems like common sense: don’t save a file until you’re satisfied with it. Is that crazy? That’s how most programs work. If you have a Word file open, and someone sits on your keyboard and ruins it, it’s not instantly saved, overwriting the original.

I have seen all sorts of photographers praise Photoshop, and I haven’t been able to understand why they like it. Today I learned a few things. As is so often the case these days, a chat with AI answered questions multiple human beings failed to answer in the past. Ominous.

1. Editing raw is generally a completely separate process from editing JPG’s and other images. Raw edits are generally (not always) global, like changing brightness or reducing noise. JPG editing can do things like that, but you can’t make adjustments as large as the ones you can make in raw, and JPG editors are better at things like removing and inserting objects.

2. Most pros are not all that concerned about creating beautiful, detailed images. They are pumping out prom pictures and family photos in JPG form at low resolution. They are largely interested in erasing zits and removing boogers from noses.

3. A lot of pros use Adobe Lightroom to get their raw files in shape, and then they take them to Photoshop to cut out the warts and pimples. Supposedly, Photoshop does things like that very well, without a painful learning curve.

I wish I had known all this two years ago.

As far as I can tell at this stage, it looks like it works this way: subscribe to Lightroom and Photoshop. Use Photoshop on JPG’s. Maybe Elements can do the JPG work. I don’t know yet, because I NEVER GOT PAST THE HORRIBLE RAW INTERFACE.

When my son was born, a nice photographer who presumably had a contract with the hospital showed up in my wife’s room and offered to take photos, and we hired her. The photos are not good. They’re sort of okay, and they serve the purpose of documenting the existence of a new person. We were given JPG files she had already edited. We have never received raw files. She probably photographed 10 babies that day. She was not in the art business. She was in the documentation business. She was putting food on her table.

I think this is the sort of person you usually end up talking to on the web when you ask for help with photography. Lightroom is good at improving raw files, and it helps organize the thousands of mediocre photos a typical photographer will take in a year, so when someone wants reprints, they are easy to find. Photoshop makes people and things look a little better. The people you ask for advice will generally have these things in mind, and they won’t mind paying for expensive Adobe subscriptions because they get paid for their work, and Adobe makes for an efficient business.

I think that if I really wanted to make life simple, right now, I would get Lightroom and use it. Then I would try to edit everything in Elements 2024, which is a non-subscription product. Then if that didn’t work, I would subscribe to Photoshop and use it to finalize JPG’s. Then I would delete Elements, because it would serve no purpose.

Instead, I bought Photolab9, which is a competitor to Photoshop. It is not a wannabe clone, as far as I know. It is better than Adobe’s stuff for a lot of things. It has fantastic denoising. It keeps up with new lenses as they are released. It makes working with raw files easy. It produces glorious JPG’s.

Does it remove boogers well? I don’t know. I am not in the booger-free-portrait business. I haven’t tried it. I have Elements, though, and one would hope it would suffice for the retouching stuff.

Photolab lacks some important Photoshop features. It won’t put cat ears and noses on people, and it won’t surround you with stars and butterflies after you get dressed for the prom. I’m not sure Photoshop actually does those things, so perhaps I’m being unfair, but it has some icons that look like they are intended to create equally pleasing and classy effects. I think I can do without all that.

Ansel Adams managed.

Photolab has opened my eyes. I have used things like Befunky.com and free Canva Affinity to edit things. I generally made small changes. I changed exposures and cropped and so on. With Photolab, I have been able to do more. It has a ton of useful presets that will move my images into the general ballpark where they need to be before I work on them. It lets me change one part of a photo without changing the rest of it. It will bring out things that were barely visible before. I was actually able to change the composition of a photo by increasing the color saturation of the clouds and sky. It turned an acceptable photo into one I really love.

Now I’m looking more closely at raw files to see if I can turn dumpers into keepers.

I don’t like overworked pictures. They’re tasteless. A lot of people jack up colors and make other changes that make photos look the way you would expect them to look on picture placemats for tourists in Thailand or the Philippines. I’m not interested in that stuff. I believe Photoshop excels at it, partially explaining its popularity.

No one ever went broke investing in bad taste.

I have a feeling I will start seeing the above sentence on the web in people’s online profiles, not attributed to me. Story of my life.

I don’t like Adobe. I don’t like the forced-subscription model. I don’t like the way they turned “free” Acrobat into an annoying ad platform for things I don’t want. I am hoping Photolab will turn out to be a better choice. These days, Adobe is offering Lightroom plus real Photoshop for $10 per month, so if I change my mind, all is not lost.

Oops. I just found out Elements uses a very limited color palette for certain useful tools. Forget Elements, I guess. Funny how they didn’t mention that when they sold it to me. “Pay once and create inferior images for life.” I guess it’s just for people using Pinterest and Instagram.

I would post some shots to show people what I’m talking about, but my best pictures include the wife and son, and I am not going to make them Internet curiosities at this point.