I use pirated Photoshop and Lightroom. Why ? Because I am not even making a dime off the photos I take and I in fact barely using those softwares (PS CS4 may be once a month for less than an hour). But of course I wouldn't mind paying for it once I can justify the high cost of those software.

does a copy work just as much as a legit one? I'm torn.

Open Source all the way... Ufraw and The Gimp, does everything I need... Can't understand people paying out so much when there's such good Open Source programs out there...

All legit. I'm a strong opposer of piracy, but it makes it kind of difficult, since I can't afford any proper photo editing software. I'll have to do with Paint.Net and Picturenaut for now. And as soon as I get money, I'll always rather spend it on lenses than on software. Since digitally manipulating pictures just isn't what photography is all about, if you're going to manipulate, do it optically!

One thing I find really handy about FOSS editors like gimp is the ability to use a modified portable version that I can use on any computer I want to. Example (windows and linux): http://portableapps.com/apps/graphics_pictures/...

It is true that no up-to-date portable mac version is available, but I rarely find a mac without competent free or non-free image software installed.

Another thing rarely mentioned about free software is the free availability of updates. Adobe tries to charge paid users 200$ more to upgrade to the next version.

I switched from Photoshop to Pixelmator. It has everything I need for 99% of my photo editing needs, and is faster than Photoshop with a better interface. Most of the stuff on my site has had at least a quick pass through Pixelmator.

I use linux. All my software is legitimate. It is not without its disadvantages for some things, but I sure have a lot more money to put toward software projects that I want to support.

I use some free software, but I also pirate photoshop and lightroom. I'm not sure if my photographic aspirations are to be a profesional, but I'm at least interested in becoming a serious amateur and thus would like to learn how to use the software that the photographic world really runs on. My logic follows that when or if I make any significant money off my photos, that's when I have the responsibility to start paying for software, before that I'm just learning. If I never end up using my photoshop skills for any type of job and I give up photography, then I never would have bought photoshop then and adobe's not out any money. If i do continue, I'll buy it someday and also further entrench their market lead by adding another person with PS skills

True. Photoshop is a useful skill to have.

The question is incorrectly asked. I clicked 'all legitimate' so it adds up in the final tally, which implies am using 'legitimate proprietary' software. I use only Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) for all my photography, design, and digital-creativity work. In the warped corners of my mind, proprietary software should not be legitimate. So, to crop out the controversy, your poll should have added the option: "No proprietary software' or 'free and opensource software (FOSS)'.

The price of photoshop et al is way beyond my ability to pay, but I wouldn't dream of using pirated software. Instead, I make do with freebies like The Gimp, Picasa & Photoshop.com.

On Windows I used only ViewNX and Windows Gallery for sorting, tagging and cataloging and a paid version CaptureNX 1.x as a raw converter and for most editing. Now I switched to Linux using DigiKam and RawTherapee (with a donation) and sometimes additionally gimp. I usually don't edit my photos that much.

@Ally @garysimmons

Comparing an image to an Adobe app does seem a bit unequal. Sometimes the most dedicated of photographers will take days to set up a shot. Adobe's Creative Suite takes thousands of people working year round, and has for the last couple of decades.

That said, it's not that unusual for photographers to be paid $700-$2000 for a photograph.

No one, whether software developer or photographer, can pay rent or buy food with attribution.

@garysimmons

That's a very good point. The only argument that could perhaps be made is that when most photographers lose their minds over their photos being used without permission, it's mostly (in my experience) because the photographers aren't being credited. In the case of photographers who lose their minds because the blogger didn't purchase the photo, well, the photographers aren't charging $700-$2000 per photo.

If I were charging as much per photo as Adobe charges per app, I'd expect people to steal my images. I wouldn't like it, but I'd definitely expect it. What's more, if the issue is simply crediting the creator, most, if not all, pirated copies first and foremost state who created the product, where to purchase it, how to support the company, and more.

Again, I think you make a very valid point, but comparing an image to an Adobe app seems a bit unequal. That's just my take on it though.

I am 99% open source and the remainder is legit paid or closed source. I do not have Adobe but am not missing it yet.

I did not start missing Adobe until I used a demo of it. Shortly afterwards I bought it (legit).

My advice, if you're using the Gimp, it's great, until you see how much it is missing.

I'm lucky to have access to multipacks of most software through work, including Adobe Master Collections etc.

I always find it surprising the number of photographers who use pirated software, and then lose their ever-loving-minds if someone uses their photos on a blog without permission.

Exactly! If you are going to disrespect copyright, don't use it! (Disclaimer: I voted "Mostly legit". GIMP is good for /just about/ everything.) I use Creative Commons BY-SA since it is compatible with Wikimedia, but I would NC-BY-SA if it worked.

Haha. That's a funny point. :-)

I bought a relatively expensive scanner years ago, that included a full, registerable copy of Photoshop 4. Since then I've taken the upgrade path about every other version and discounts offered on other software along the way. Adobe has made a *lot* of money off of me on software that I wound up never really using... Illustrator, GoLive, PageMaker, some others that no longer exist.

If I had to try and break into Adobe software now? Not sure if I could do it. Pirated software is a pain, but it's less pain than not being able to do what you want to be able to do just because the software is priced so far out of your reach.

When I first started out in photography I did use pirated versions, as I got more serious I started to buy and now own a totally legal version of CS3

Gimp is really not that bad, you know! Main problem is no good CMYK. Other problem is moving between Photoshop and Gimp - now that's painful.

Fortunately I neither had to purchase nor pirate the software I use. I love open source!

What do you use? Gimp?

Yes, as Mark says. I use Picasa for minor adjustments and Gimp for everything else. If I feel inclined to do something in HDR I use Qtpfsgui.

I felt weird saying that I used all legitimate software! Ubuntu has completely changed the way I think about computing. GIMP is awesome and Phatch is incredible for web processing.

Yup. It can do anything I would use Photoshop for.

With Adobe charging such astronomical prices, it's hard to want to pay them, especially for a starving post-college photographer. I, uh, I mean, "someone similar to me" could be more willing to pay for smaller plugins, eg Fred Miranda, Noise Ninja, etc. But $1500 for a legit copy of CS4? Keep dreaming. "Someone similar to me" will be using Bittorrent.

It's only $699 for standalone CS4.

"only" :)

I try to use free software (mostly open-source) as much as possible, but it's hard. I'd love to use RawTherapee instead of Lightroom for example, but the workflow is way too different.