Editing 16bit

CS6 photoshop but as you know its rather expensive around £330 for the download digital version or Adobe wants everyone to rent there software from Creative Cloud on a monthly basis which I think is about £29. but check Adobe website for a more accurate price for this software.

Don't know about other software.
 
You can get PS + lightroom cloud for £8.78 pm until 31st Dec and don't need anymore to have had a previous version of PS.

Link
 
You can work with 16-bit files in OnOne Software's Perfect Photo Suite, which includes cropping, layers, and brush tools. It also includes content-aware deletion and many other tools aimed at the photographer, whereas you pay a huge premium for a large number of unused features in Photoshop, that are aimed at artists and illustrators.
 
Depends how much other post-processing you choose to do...

GIMP 2.9 includes 16 bit editing. It's a little slow, but it's free, and this is the development version. I've found it quite stable over the last few months but use it mostly for cloning etc as it's better than LR at that. PhotoShop I don't know about sorry...
 
Lightroom does all the editing in 16bit space, so unless you need the power of photoshop this is really neat software. Gimp is not bad either for the remaining work but it is no photoshop.
 
It all depends what you want to do. Lots of people think of this is Lightroom vs. Photoshop situation. They are two VERY different pieces of software, for very different things.

Most amateurs think of "editing" as merely RAW adjustment (levels, colour adjustments, plug in presets, highlight recovery that kind of thing), and for that, Lightroom is ideal.. in fact PREFERABLE to Photoshop, as you're working at RAW level at 16bit. (although you can use ACR in Photoshop to do all that). You can even do rudimentary cloning and retouching in Lightroom.

Photoshop is for sophisticated photo retouching, layered work, masking, detailed cloning, healing, airbruishing.

One compliments the other. If you never have the need to use layers, or mask things off, or do any proper retouching, then Photoshop is actually of limited use. That type of user is much better off with just lightroom.
 
Pookeyhead said:
It all depends what you want to do. Lots of people think of this is Lightroom vs. Photoshop situation. They are two VERY different pieces of software, for very different things.

Most amateurs think of "editing" as merely RAW adjustment (levels, colour adjustments, plug in presets, highlight recovery that kind of thing), and for that, Lightroom is ideal.. in fact PREFERABLE to Photoshop, as you're working at RAW level at 16bit. (although you can use ACR in Photoshop to do all that). You can even do rudimentary cloning and retouching in Lightroom.

Photoshop is for sophisticated photo retouching, layered work, masking, detailed cloning, healing, airbruishing.

One compliments the other. If you never have the need to use layers, or mask things off, or do any proper retouching, then Photoshop is actually of limited use. That type of user is much better off with just lightroom.
Click to expand...

Completely agree, as a full CC subscriber I have both and rarely use PS unless I want to merge to a panorama. All my developing, cloning, dodge and burning and even grad filtering and spot removal is done in Lightroom, along of course with noise removal and cropping and straightening etc as in my opinion it's just so much easier to do it there.
 
PS allows many useful operations using layers, masking, and cmyk for pre-press. Though I use it far less since LR appeared, it remains an unparallelled industry standard.
 
droj said:
PS allows many useful operations using layers, masking, and cmyk for pre-press. Though I use it far less since LR appeared, it remains an unparallelled industry standard.
Click to expand...


True. It doesn't mean you need it though. It depends on what you do. I'd suggest that most people should use Lightroom. If you end up needing more... you'll soon realise.. and THEN you can get PS. Don't just go and buy it thinking you have a superior product though... because you haven't.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
True. It doesn't mean you need it though. It depends on what you do. I'd suggest that most people should use Lightroom. If you end up needing more... you'll soon realise..
Click to expand...
Quite. And it's something of a luxury these days. Lord knows what poor people are supposed to do.
 
Not much else offers the same level of high bit depth features though... but yes... other products are available :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top