Peter, I see this point, relatively speaking, but is it not a bit misleading to describe LR as just one operation? Surely it really is a group of image processing, organising and output modules given a common interface with one-click transitioning?.

This may not be a bad thing, this greater integration of distinct functions, but it may be helpful for those trying to make choices between various products and workflow aproaches to appreciate the distinctions between the individual aspects in our post processing & photo management.

Actually, somewhere in my post above I think the point I was making was that really there is often not more than one way, at least for achieving a very specific effect or quality of result. I gave an example to try and help the OP visualise why he might need to use more than one program.

This 'do I need Photoshop or Lightroom' (or both) question has a somewhat historical significance I believe. For those photographers who are old enough that they were early adopters of digital (those who used to debate if digital files would ever match the resolution of 35mm negatives) had far fewer choices for editing their digital output.

Photoshop was the only serious contender, and so it was that key professional skills required included a mastery of lassos, feathers, clipping masks, colour pickers, sponge tools, blend modes, adjustment layers and opacity sliders. There is often a multitude of combinations of these tools by which we can produce any specific result.

But more recently we are offered a range of software that aims to reduce the complexities and multi-step approaches of Photoshop by carrying out a lot of the methodology in the process in the background - I spoke earlier about the 'hidden layers' in Sagelight. No doubt Lightroom was developed for the purpose of reducing these complexities and making work on photos more intuitive.

But I think there are still some specific results that require the precision of application that PS layers offer. We can't quite disregard it yet.

Its just that technically there are different individual processes going on - the ACR RAW converter acts as a 'plug-in', at least in PS & Elements, in a similar way to other plugins - its executable file is placed in the appropriate internal folder for the parent program to run when the file is opened. The ACR plug-in is updated regularly, and on its own individually from the main program, when new camera profiles and updates to RAW formats are released.

My main point previously was my feeling that we do not yet have an absolute ideal program that fully integrates all of the key image management & processing needs into a totally singular structure - ie that is not essentially 'modular'.

I can promise you Alan, that it has taken superhuman quantities of self-control to keep resisting this - that and the fear that as soon as I do try it that my entire collection of 15,000 or so shots will be sucked into a terrible dark impenetrable vortex deep inside Lightroom's database, and my only hope of them ever seeing the light of day will be if I go and read a guidebook to LR that is at least 470 pages long.

And anyway, why on earth would anyone who is using Lightroom ever need to launch a photo into any other program?

Oh, one thing I should have mentioned about workflow - in imatch you can place shortcuts to any editing program in an internal folder, then rightclicking any photo thumbnail in any browser view gives you all your programs to launch the image into.

I don't think we're quite in the place yet where there is one perfect single software solution that seamlessly takes us through the whole process. Traditionally there has been an approach using essentially separate programs for different functions (eg Bridge, ACR, Photoshop - or Elements Organiser, ACR, Elements Editor) - there being single click links between the different processes to smooth the way.

More recent options such as Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom make efforts to further integrate these individual processes in a more modular structure. Or you take a pick and mix technique and find your own personal ideal single program for each key aspect of Photo organizing and processing (as I do).

I use imatch (photools.com) for powerful cataloging & high quality previewing of RAW and all image types - it doesn't take over your collection, you keep full control and your files remain where you put them in Windows Explorer. If you make changes in Explorer a one click rescan will update the imatch database. It handles 'offline' external drives well also.

No! Do it all in one programme - Pentax Digital Camera Utility.

Couldn't resist that - but actually, SlightlySoiled, there is an Adobe program that is probably worth your while learning about, and that is Photoshop Elements (version 10 now). This is in fact most of the traditional photoshop tools and features that are most useful for photographs, in a much tighter package, including an Image Organiser element, all for about £80.

You mentioned layers, and yes, more recent software alternatives have technologies that can operate with 'hidden' layers, so that you get the functionality without the additional pre-steps of setting up the layer, brushing masks onto it and choosing blend modes etc etc. But there's a lot to be said for the benefits that actually working with layers can bring, in terms of extra flexibility and selective application of your adjustments.

PS Elements goes some way towards presenting an easier route into these methods with somewhat less choices available - there are plenty of good tutorials and books to help - I would say go for it and learn, it will be worth it in the long run for certain photo edits.

An example? Well, I love the definition and clarity functions in my favourite editor, Sagelight, which doesn't offer traditional layers but instead 'hidden' automatic layering with single click options (really easy to use and effective), but there are some textures and surfaces where I find nothing better then a 'High Pass Filter Sharpening' technique - now to apply this to just the right parts you need layers and masking, so PS Elements it has to be.

Do you need full Photoshop - I don't think so now. But try Elements, even as a learning tool, I'm sure it will be very rewarding.

Yes Tony, I was going to correct myself - I found in my K7 Magic Lantern Guide references to the 'in-camera filters', accessed through the playback mode on the LCD. Some that were mentioned included Toy Camera, Retro, Soft Focus, Water Colour etc. I guess these could be more accurately describes as 'effects'.

But the fact remains that, no, they are not implemented in PDCU, despite the Monochrome filters being covered in the Cutom Image Tab as I described above. I can only speculate on the reason for this - could it be that these in camera filters are designed for a more casual user - someone who would not use RAW editing software but use the camera to get an effect and then use the JPEG directly from the camera? I know that sounds a bit 'nose in the air' - I would not want to be accussed of suggesting that people who apply in camera filters are less serious!!

AVS Video editor is a comprehensive but well priced option. Search for AVS4you.

I am obviously hoping that the X5 does well for Pentax, as the more money they make the more we'll all benefit from other things in future I'm guessing.

I read the AP review, which was predictable and sounded like a fair appraisal. They ranked it highly for its lens, in terms of zoom range which is 'class leading', and quality generally. Overall image quality from the camera came out very well for the price point, and handling and 'feel' were also rated well. In terms of more modern 'bells & whistles' it was rated down compared to competition. They referred to some newer technologies like GPS positioning, wi-fi etc that have made it onto some other bridge cameras.

Personally this sort of thing has no interest to me, but I can see that they are eye catching in the press and proabably help to sell more cameras.