What to edit with????
Well this can get very complicated. I also know that no matter what I put on here someone is going to wander down to the comments and suggestions section and tell me how I missed program XX which is the best program since the beginning of time. Over the years I have tried a number of them. Many I liked for different reasons. Ultimately I settled on a few of them because they seemed to be more popular (which means more support on the Internet) and because the feature set seemed to be the most well rounded. Keep in mind though that there are things I don't like about each one of these, even though I like most things about them.
I will also state up front that I use a Mac. I have used Linux and Windows in the past... a lot. But I ended up settling on Mac as my personal choice. I think it is the best. But I will always give Windows options too, and still use Windows computers a significant amount. Most of the suggestions I make will work on both Mac and Windows. I will also mention some free products, although I think there are good reasons to invest in the commercial products that I will list.
I will also state up front that I use a Mac. I have used Linux and Windows in the past... a lot. But I ended up settling on Mac as my personal choice. I think it is the best. But I will always give Windows options too, and still use Windows computers a significant amount. Most of the suggestions I make will work on both Mac and Windows. I will also mention some free products, although I think there are good reasons to invest in the commercial products that I will list.
Free programs
Currently there are two good free programs out there that I like for Windows. On the low end is Google Picasa. On the higher end is the GIMP. There have been others over time on Windows, but I have never really kept up with the other options for the free ones.
Picasa has a good organizer. This is where the program shines. It does not have as good of an import dialog box as other options, but it is not aweful. At least it has something. Windows does have an import wizard that will bring the files over to the computer, but the last time I tried it the program was quite weak. Picasa is better. The program will also monitor folders on the hard drive you list looking for new images to automatically add to the gallery. The program is constantly going through improvements. The actual editing tools used to be lame at best. The last time I actually used Picasa they had a link where you could move an image to the Picnik image editing website and back seamlessly. It worked very nice. They then bought Picnik. It looks like from the website that some of the editing technology from Picnik has now been incorporated into the program.
The place that Picasa really shines is in facial recognition. As you start to tag faces the program does an uncanny awesome job of identifying the same person in other photos, even at drastically different ages. I just wish there was a way to take this facial tagging and move it into other programs too. Picasa also interfaces with Google+ very well (as one would expect). So they are working hard to grow the program into an excellent social experience with photos.
GIMP is a full on image editor. You need to put the photos on the computer using the Windows Wizard or some other way. And GIMP does not have any sort of photo organizer with it. It is simply a straight on full fledged image editor that strives (and pretty much accomplishes it) becoming a free version of Photoshop. The menus are different. Some of the tools don't work quite as graceful. There are separate windows all over the screen. But the program works really well. RAW photos are supported through a separate open source program, so you have to work a bit to get your RAW images to work in GIMP. I have used the program over the years and it is really quite good. If money is an issue, or you philosophically want to support open source software then it is an excellent choice. Don't expect it to be just like Photoshop though. It is not. There is a version called GIMPShop that tries to emulate the Photoshop menus, but it is plagued by bugs, and is often delayed from updates because they have to take the regular GIMP and recode it each time. GIMP and Picasa are both available for both Windows and Mac (and GIMP is available for Linux too).
One other program that is probably worth mentioning is Windows Live Photo Gallery. It is mainly worth mentioning because I am sure I will get someone contacting me about why I don't since I am going to mention a great Apple program. I have downloaded Photo Gallery a couple times and tried it out. I was less than impressed. It is better than nothing. I will say though if Microsoft EVER wants Windows to start looking as cool as Mac they need to have the full Windows Live suite out there to start with so you can edit photos and make movies and DVDs right out of the box. Then they need to get it to actually work decently. But it is at least free from Microsoft's site.
The Mac comes with iPhoto (along with the rest of the iLife suite). It is very good. I love the editing tools. They are not fancy, but do a great job at the basic editing you would ever need to do. My one HUGE complaint about iPhoto, and it is HUGE, is that if you use iPhoto to import your photos to the computer then iPhoto will force you to store the photos in an iPhoto library and not on the local hard drive in a regular easily accessible space. This is a huge fault or problem with the program. It makes using the photos from other places much more difficult, makes managing the photos much more difficult, and really complicates backups and restores of photos. You also don't get a chance to rename the photos on import. You can do all of this in the Aperture import tool, and Apple would do really well to bring that feature to iPhoto too. If you put the photos on your hard drive some other way then you can leave them in place and reference them into iPhoto. But that gets a bit more difficult.
Picasa has a good organizer. This is where the program shines. It does not have as good of an import dialog box as other options, but it is not aweful. At least it has something. Windows does have an import wizard that will bring the files over to the computer, but the last time I tried it the program was quite weak. Picasa is better. The program will also monitor folders on the hard drive you list looking for new images to automatically add to the gallery. The program is constantly going through improvements. The actual editing tools used to be lame at best. The last time I actually used Picasa they had a link where you could move an image to the Picnik image editing website and back seamlessly. It worked very nice. They then bought Picnik. It looks like from the website that some of the editing technology from Picnik has now been incorporated into the program.
The place that Picasa really shines is in facial recognition. As you start to tag faces the program does an uncanny awesome job of identifying the same person in other photos, even at drastically different ages. I just wish there was a way to take this facial tagging and move it into other programs too. Picasa also interfaces with Google+ very well (as one would expect). So they are working hard to grow the program into an excellent social experience with photos.
GIMP is a full on image editor. You need to put the photos on the computer using the Windows Wizard or some other way. And GIMP does not have any sort of photo organizer with it. It is simply a straight on full fledged image editor that strives (and pretty much accomplishes it) becoming a free version of Photoshop. The menus are different. Some of the tools don't work quite as graceful. There are separate windows all over the screen. But the program works really well. RAW photos are supported through a separate open source program, so you have to work a bit to get your RAW images to work in GIMP. I have used the program over the years and it is really quite good. If money is an issue, or you philosophically want to support open source software then it is an excellent choice. Don't expect it to be just like Photoshop though. It is not. There is a version called GIMPShop that tries to emulate the Photoshop menus, but it is plagued by bugs, and is often delayed from updates because they have to take the regular GIMP and recode it each time. GIMP and Picasa are both available for both Windows and Mac (and GIMP is available for Linux too).
One other program that is probably worth mentioning is Windows Live Photo Gallery. It is mainly worth mentioning because I am sure I will get someone contacting me about why I don't since I am going to mention a great Apple program. I have downloaded Photo Gallery a couple times and tried it out. I was less than impressed. It is better than nothing. I will say though if Microsoft EVER wants Windows to start looking as cool as Mac they need to have the full Windows Live suite out there to start with so you can edit photos and make movies and DVDs right out of the box. Then they need to get it to actually work decently. But it is at least free from Microsoft's site.
The Mac comes with iPhoto (along with the rest of the iLife suite). It is very good. I love the editing tools. They are not fancy, but do a great job at the basic editing you would ever need to do. My one HUGE complaint about iPhoto, and it is HUGE, is that if you use iPhoto to import your photos to the computer then iPhoto will force you to store the photos in an iPhoto library and not on the local hard drive in a regular easily accessible space. This is a huge fault or problem with the program. It makes using the photos from other places much more difficult, makes managing the photos much more difficult, and really complicates backups and restores of photos. You also don't get a chance to rename the photos on import. You can do all of this in the Aperture import tool, and Apple would do really well to bring that feature to iPhoto too. If you put the photos on your hard drive some other way then you can leave them in place and reference them into iPhoto. But that gets a bit more difficult.
Commercial (paid) software
Just like with the free software, I am only going to mention a few programs. I know there are many more out there. But these are the ones I know and have used. For the paid programs all but one are both Mac and Windows. The final program is a Mac only program (and you thought it would be Windows only). All of the programs mentioned have 30 day trial versions you can download to test drive them. I highly recommend that.
The first is one that I absolutely love and regularly recommend, that is Photoshop Elements (PSE). It is the smaller "consumer" version of their big famous Photoshop (PS) program. It is also WAY cheaper than full PS. PSE is under $100. You can often find it for around $49 on sale, especially during Christmas time. PSE also in the past has always put out a new version ever fall. As of this writing PSE 10 is the current version, and everyone that uses PSE is expecting PSE 11 to be out in the next month or so.
One big difference that PSE has that PS does NOT have is the organizer. PSE is actually two separate programs, an editor and an organizer. The organizer works really well to help you get your photos onto the computer, flag them, tag them, sort them, and find them. One caveat here. The organizer seems to be pretty buggy on the Mac. The organizer is a fairly new feature for PSE on the Mac, so maybe in another release or two that will change. But I have a better solution coming up for the organizer down below.
The editor in PSE is very similar to PS. It is missing some of the high end professional features, but is amazingly, incredibly, surprisingly full featured for a product that is like an eighth the cost of the full product. You have layers, and filters, and umpteen tools, and can use most PS plug ins, and can run actions. You cannot create actions, but if you have a friend with PS you can get them to make the actions. You have adjustment layers and all sorts of other goodies. My guess is that somewhere between 60 and 80% of the people that use PS probably could do everything with PSE just fine. Try the trial of PSE before thinking automatically that you need to jump into full PS. You might just be surprised and be able to save yourself enough money to get a new lens or tripod (or take the spouse to a couple dinners and movies).
Of course the big brother to PSE is Photoshop. It is usually sold as part of one of the Creative Suite bundles. Currently Adobe is on CS6 for the version designation. PS can do so much on your images. And there are so many plug ins you can get to help you edit those photos too. If you are a commercial photographer then PS is probably a must have with you. But if you are not doing color separations, or full on commercial work, or you don't need puppet warp, or the curves tool, then you probably can just get PSE. Don't make your decision until you read below though either.
The first is one that I absolutely love and regularly recommend, that is Photoshop Elements (PSE). It is the smaller "consumer" version of their big famous Photoshop (PS) program. It is also WAY cheaper than full PS. PSE is under $100. You can often find it for around $49 on sale, especially during Christmas time. PSE also in the past has always put out a new version ever fall. As of this writing PSE 10 is the current version, and everyone that uses PSE is expecting PSE 11 to be out in the next month or so.
One big difference that PSE has that PS does NOT have is the organizer. PSE is actually two separate programs, an editor and an organizer. The organizer works really well to help you get your photos onto the computer, flag them, tag them, sort them, and find them. One caveat here. The organizer seems to be pretty buggy on the Mac. The organizer is a fairly new feature for PSE on the Mac, so maybe in another release or two that will change. But I have a better solution coming up for the organizer down below.
The editor in PSE is very similar to PS. It is missing some of the high end professional features, but is amazingly, incredibly, surprisingly full featured for a product that is like an eighth the cost of the full product. You have layers, and filters, and umpteen tools, and can use most PS plug ins, and can run actions. You cannot create actions, but if you have a friend with PS you can get them to make the actions. You have adjustment layers and all sorts of other goodies. My guess is that somewhere between 60 and 80% of the people that use PS probably could do everything with PSE just fine. Try the trial of PSE before thinking automatically that you need to jump into full PS. You might just be surprised and be able to save yourself enough money to get a new lens or tripod (or take the spouse to a couple dinners and movies).
Of course the big brother to PSE is Photoshop. It is usually sold as part of one of the Creative Suite bundles. Currently Adobe is on CS6 for the version designation. PS can do so much on your images. And there are so many plug ins you can get to help you edit those photos too. If you are a commercial photographer then PS is probably a must have with you. But if you are not doing color separations, or full on commercial work, or you don't need puppet warp, or the curves tool, then you probably can just get PSE. Don't make your decision until you read below though either.
Two programs made specifically for photographers
There are two programs that are very unique. They were designed specifically for photographers. They are unlike pretty much anything else out there. They are awesome on their own, and also work very well hand in hand with GIMP, PSE, or PS. One program works on both Windows and Mac and the other is a Mac only program. They are Adobe Lightroom, and Apple Aperture.
Both these programs are a little hard to explain to people that are unfamiliar with them. They can be a little daunting to learn at first too. They take a significantly different approach to managing and editing photos than other programs. Where most programs are basically designed to deal with one photo at a time, these two were designed to deal with large numbers of photos from a shoot or event. People that have taken the leap have found that they can process images in a fraction of the time that they used to do. They can also adjust large groups of files all at the same time. So if you find that you shot say 50 photos all a full stop too dark then you can lighten up every single one of them at the same time with just a couple mouse clicks.
Another thing about both these programs is that they handle RAW image files effortlessly. They were designed for a RAW workflow. With RAW you cannot really apply an edit or change directly to the file. With these programs you don't apply any changes to an image, either JPG or RAW, until you are all set and ready to actually use the image in the final product. As you make changes the programs record what you want to do to the image. Then when you are ready to actually use the image you do an export of the edited version and the changes are applied. It might sound more awkward at first, but it actually makes complete sense. It also maintains the original image as a sort of digital negative that you can keep going back to for new images, new versions of edits, etc. You can take the same image and have a black and white version, a sepia version, a full on color version, a grunge edit version, and an Instagram treatment version and still only have a single image file on your hard drive until you are to the point of exporting and using the image. You can also easily export full size images for prints and smaller images for web use.
One place Lightroom shines is in noise reduction. With the latest version of Lightroom the noise reduction filter is pretty much everything most all of the add on programs are. So if you shoot high ISO a lot you can easily clean it up right in Lightroom. In Aperture you really need to get a noise reduction add on to do the same thing. Aperture has noise reduction, but they could just as easily take it out IMHO. I think it is just about that useless. Other than that the tools are pretty much the same between Lightroom and Aperture. They work very well and are quite comparable. They both also have the feature that you can right click on an image and send it to PSE, GIMP, or PS for more intense editing.
So far most of the photographers I have talked to say they are in Lightroom or Aperture about 80% of the time now. They rarely go to PSE or PS to do any work on a photo. The tools are that good in these two programs. But there might be times you need layers, or some of the very specialized filters or other tools in full PS(E). You don't have layers. You don't have liquify to thin out a models waist or thighs. You have some clone and repair capabilities in both Lightroom and Aperture, but not as capable as in PSE. I use both Aperture and PSE. I do most of my work in Aperture. But there are times I still bring a photo into PSE. And remember how I said earlier that the organizer in PSE is a bit on the buggy side on a Mac. Well Aperture makes a great organizer replacement for all you Mac users. It means you spend a bit more money, but I think you will like Aperture better than the PSE organizer most of the time anyway. Lightroom can also be your organizer replacement if you want to stay all Adobe products.
This brings me to why I prefer Aperture over Lightroom. I have used both quite a bit. On Windows Lightroom is the only choice. And on Windows Lightroom has no competition at all. But on a Mac.... well Aperture has a much cleaner interface IMHO. Those that use a Mac know what I mean when I talk about clean program interfaces that just make sense. This is one of the things that drive people to owning a Mac. Well Aperture definitely does not disappoint there. Lightroom on the Mac just looks clutzy and awkward. In Aperture when I want to take my photos to full screen I just hit the f key and all I get is the photo, just the photo. There are no menus or bars or borders in the way, just the photo. I can pull up the heads up display to make an adjustment to a photo by hitting h and then another tap on h and the HUD is gone again. I can use the arrow key to move through the photos. I can shoot tethered (the way I always shoot in studio) using Aperture and I set the photo view to full screen and all I see is the tethered HUD and the full photo as I shoot them. I can scroll between photos I have shot and then just go back to shooting. With Lightroom I need more key strokes to do the same thing. And some things, like full screen, just are not as well implemented in Lightroom. It is a very capable program
Both these programs are a little hard to explain to people that are unfamiliar with them. They can be a little daunting to learn at first too. They take a significantly different approach to managing and editing photos than other programs. Where most programs are basically designed to deal with one photo at a time, these two were designed to deal with large numbers of photos from a shoot or event. People that have taken the leap have found that they can process images in a fraction of the time that they used to do. They can also adjust large groups of files all at the same time. So if you find that you shot say 50 photos all a full stop too dark then you can lighten up every single one of them at the same time with just a couple mouse clicks.
Another thing about both these programs is that they handle RAW image files effortlessly. They were designed for a RAW workflow. With RAW you cannot really apply an edit or change directly to the file. With these programs you don't apply any changes to an image, either JPG or RAW, until you are all set and ready to actually use the image in the final product. As you make changes the programs record what you want to do to the image. Then when you are ready to actually use the image you do an export of the edited version and the changes are applied. It might sound more awkward at first, but it actually makes complete sense. It also maintains the original image as a sort of digital negative that you can keep going back to for new images, new versions of edits, etc. You can take the same image and have a black and white version, a sepia version, a full on color version, a grunge edit version, and an Instagram treatment version and still only have a single image file on your hard drive until you are to the point of exporting and using the image. You can also easily export full size images for prints and smaller images for web use.
One place Lightroom shines is in noise reduction. With the latest version of Lightroom the noise reduction filter is pretty much everything most all of the add on programs are. So if you shoot high ISO a lot you can easily clean it up right in Lightroom. In Aperture you really need to get a noise reduction add on to do the same thing. Aperture has noise reduction, but they could just as easily take it out IMHO. I think it is just about that useless. Other than that the tools are pretty much the same between Lightroom and Aperture. They work very well and are quite comparable. They both also have the feature that you can right click on an image and send it to PSE, GIMP, or PS for more intense editing.
So far most of the photographers I have talked to say they are in Lightroom or Aperture about 80% of the time now. They rarely go to PSE or PS to do any work on a photo. The tools are that good in these two programs. But there might be times you need layers, or some of the very specialized filters or other tools in full PS(E). You don't have layers. You don't have liquify to thin out a models waist or thighs. You have some clone and repair capabilities in both Lightroom and Aperture, but not as capable as in PSE. I use both Aperture and PSE. I do most of my work in Aperture. But there are times I still bring a photo into PSE. And remember how I said earlier that the organizer in PSE is a bit on the buggy side on a Mac. Well Aperture makes a great organizer replacement for all you Mac users. It means you spend a bit more money, but I think you will like Aperture better than the PSE organizer most of the time anyway. Lightroom can also be your organizer replacement if you want to stay all Adobe products.
This brings me to why I prefer Aperture over Lightroom. I have used both quite a bit. On Windows Lightroom is the only choice. And on Windows Lightroom has no competition at all. But on a Mac.... well Aperture has a much cleaner interface IMHO. Those that use a Mac know what I mean when I talk about clean program interfaces that just make sense. This is one of the things that drive people to owning a Mac. Well Aperture definitely does not disappoint there. Lightroom on the Mac just looks clutzy and awkward. In Aperture when I want to take my photos to full screen I just hit the f key and all I get is the photo, just the photo. There are no menus or bars or borders in the way, just the photo. I can pull up the heads up display to make an adjustment to a photo by hitting h and then another tap on h and the HUD is gone again. I can use the arrow key to move through the photos. I can shoot tethered (the way I always shoot in studio) using Aperture and I set the photo view to full screen and all I see is the tethered HUD and the full photo as I shoot them. I can scroll between photos I have shot and then just go back to shooting. With Lightroom I need more key strokes to do the same thing. And some things, like full screen, just are not as well implemented in Lightroom. It is a very capable program
Final thoughts
So that is the long drawn out description. Here is my short 30,000 foot view answer for you. If you are on Windows then start with PSE and Lightroom. Give the trials a run. Find some good tutorials on YouTube (I have started to put some on here with more coming). You will definitely want the tutorials for Lightroom for sure. At least a good introduction video. If you can only get one then I would recommend Lightroom to start. If you need layers and such then go for GIMP.
If you are on a Mac and can live with having the photos in the iPhoto library then give iPhoto a try. It's not half bad. But if you want more then look right away at Aperture and PSE. Well again, start with Aperture and then if you need layers and all that get PSE to go with it. I think that these programs are definitely worth the money. PSE is like $79 normally, Aperture is $99 I think, and Lightroom is now like $149. Full PS is still around like $800. And don't get a pirated copy of PS from your brother in law. As photographers we should understand the need to honor copyright laws because we don't want people to steal our work. If you want free then get GIMP or Picasa.
If you are on a Mac and can live with having the photos in the iPhoto library then give iPhoto a try. It's not half bad. But if you want more then look right away at Aperture and PSE. Well again, start with Aperture and then if you need layers and all that get PSE to go with it. I think that these programs are definitely worth the money. PSE is like $79 normally, Aperture is $99 I think, and Lightroom is now like $149. Full PS is still around like $800. And don't get a pirated copy of PS from your brother in law. As photographers we should understand the need to honor copyright laws because we don't want people to steal our work. If you want free then get GIMP or Picasa.
