post processing

On 13 Mar 2014 13:50:35 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:

Le 13/03/14 10:49, Sandman a écrit :

Nige Danton:
So, where do I start? Presumably I'll need some software - whats
the recommendation?

Sandman:
I always recommend Photoshop.

Photoshop CS is very expensive ; plus, the learning curve is step.
Photoshop elements lacks some essential features (layers, what can
you do in PS without layers and scripts ? ).

Very much! On the topic of post-processing, Photoshop Elements is very
able. Few post processing techniques require the use of layers. Granted,
many layer functions of Photoshop CC are very handy in post-processing, but
not necessary.

So if you want to give your money to Adobe, get Lighroom instead.

LR is a full image database and file management application and it's a bit
over the top for mere post processing. Plus (as far as I'm aware) LR
doesn't support Photoshop plugins (correct me if I'm wrong) but Elements
does, so there's a plethora of cheap or free plugins out there you can use
for your post processing needs.

As powerfull as PS CS is the Gimp ; the learning curve is step or worse.
But at last, it is free.

I wouldn't recomment the Gimp even to Tony

(And there is no such thing as free software : ridden with evangelists,
or full of holes, or digging into your information...See below) You can
do some ajustements with Picasa (no local ajustements) that is free,
newbie oriented and belongs to Google and scan your HD when installing. I
just hate that so I never went past this step of installation...

iPhoto is free and has some really neat post processing tools, but compared
to Photoshop, it's sort of meager.

Nige Danton:
If it matters I'm shooting with a Nikon D7000 and an 18-105
lens. I shoot in RAW and jpg.

Raw developpement for Nikon is at its best with Capture NX 2
(because Nikon raws are non-standard) ; beware that they are about
to remove essentials features in it, downgrading it so to speak.

There really is no standard RAW format, at least not used by the major
manufacturers. They all have proprietary formats that has to be
reverse-engineered by people that want to read them. That's why NX2 is
the only application that can *write* to the RAW format.

As I understand it, an edited Nikon NEF file contains the original
unedited RAW file plus a list of the camera's settings plus what is in
effect a script of the edits that have been made since. The edits made
by NX2 do not alter the RAW data but give instructions as to how it
should be interpreted by NX2. The list of edits can be removed at a
later date leaving only the RAW file. Alternatively multiple sets of
edits can be stored in the saved NEF file. As far as I know all the
non-Nikon applications other than NX2 which read an already edited NEF
file ignore the embedded edits.

Adobe really wants people to use the open DNG format, but few manufacturers
do, and Nikon and Canon probably never will.

I do 90% of my postprocessing in CaptureNX, the rest is between
AdobeCS3 (I dont want to buy or rent a new version for the little
use I have) and I use Aperture -that has also postprocessing
capabilities- just as host to the Nik collection plug-ins.

Aperture has great post processing tools. I use it a lot.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 2014-03-13 18:45:22 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/13/2014 11:04 AM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 13/03/14 14:50, Sandman a écrit :

I wouldn't recomment the Gimp even to Tony
I dont recomment the Gimp either, merely signaling that for
post-processing photos, it can do as much as PS CS, a lot cheaper but
not simpler !

(And there is no such thing as free software : ridden with evangelists,
or full of holes, or digging into your information...See below) You can
do some ajustements with Picasa (no local ajustements) that is free,
newbie oriented and belongs to Google and scan your HD when
installing. I
just hate that so I never went past this step of installation...

There really is no standard RAW format, at least not used by the major
manufacturers. They all have proprietary formats that has to be
reverse-engineered by people that want to read them. That's why NX2 is
the only application that can *write* to the RAW format.

It is the only one that give access (including reverse) to some niceties
you set on camera, like the level of d-lighning or preset style of
photos...

Adobe really wants people to use the open DNG format, but few
manufacturers
do, and Nikon and Canon probably never will.
And Fuji use some crazy proprietary format that is not easy to use from
an non-proprietary raw software. Something to consider when buying a
camera.

I do 90% of my postprocessing in CaptureNX, the rest is between
AdobeCS3 (I dont want to buy or rent a new version for the little
use I have) and I use Aperture -that has also postprocessing
capabilities- just as host to the Nik collection plug-ins.

Aperture has great post processing tools. I use it a lot.

Yes, but for me it is a bit redondant with what I have in NX2.
I dont do that much post-processing on CS, but when I do it is for
specific things that I find only there : and with scripts. I use it
also for graphics and preparing files with text or graphics bits.

Yet I dont know about free plug-ins that could be useful for me :
I tried some plug-ins but they where not free or not useful. Some both.
I had the Genuine Fractals plug-in (not free) but after I tried and
uninstalled the whole suite i was never able to get it back working .
What do you use as PS plug-ins ?

I use Aperture as host for Nik.
Dfine noise filter is incredibly good, and selective sharpening is easy,
and Color Efex pro allow for very fast corrections.
And I use also Aperture a little bit for sony files. But the
multiplication of files bothers me.

Noëlle Adam

If you want cheap, you can get Photoshop CS2 from Adobe, for free.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=cs2_downloads

CS2 will not run on an Intel Mac, PPC only. He is running OSX 10.7 so
free CS2 will do the OP no good at all.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , PeterN
wrote:

If you want cheap, you can get Photoshop CS2 from Adobe, for free.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=cs2_downloads

only for existing cs2 owneers and it won't run on any recent system
anyway.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

For most photography oriented folks LR is all that is needed.

Depends. If "most" is all photographers, then LR is probably
sufficient. But, when we talk about "photography oriented" people,
the thought is of people who take the photograph from capture to best
representation. Then, at least Elements should be part of the
post-processing package.

Not to downgrade LR's "Develop" module, but I think the photographer
who wants to finish the process is handcuffed without PS in some form.

finish what process? lightroom can do a *lot*, without any handcuffs.

most people aren't going to composite multiple images, but those that
do can get photoshop elements or cs/cc and use it with lightroom.

On 2014-03-13 21:07:57 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:49:02 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:

On 2014-03-13 17:29:14 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Thu, 13 Mar 2014 10:54:07 -0400, nospam
wrote:

photoshop is an extremely capable image editing app but it lacks some
of the stuff lightroom has.

Other than the cataloging/library features they are very similar
animals even down to using the same RAW processing engine.
Once you consider PS comes with Bridge, you just have a slightly
different workflow to learn to gain similar benefits from either LR or
PS.

And vice-versa. LR lacks some things PS has. The better system is
having both LR and either CS or Elements.

For most photography oriented folks LR is all that is needed.

Depends. If "most" is all photographers, then LR is probably
sufficient. But, when we talk about "photography oriented" people,
the thought is of people who take the photograph from capture to best
representation. Then, at least Elements should be part of the
post-processing package.

Not to downgrade LR's "Develop" module, but I think the photographer
who wants to finish the process is handcuffed without PS in some form.

Certainly LR5 + PS/CC is part of my full workflow, but I find myself
using LR5 from start to finish more and more these days, only going to
PS if some serious cloning, masking, content aware patching, content
aware move, or serious compositing needs to be done. LR can handle all
else and more, including access to the NIK Collection, and OnOne (Which
gives you Perfect Layers to use with LR).

This is just a suggestion, but you really should delve a little deeper
into the editing and adjustment capabilities of LR.
I know I have posted the Julieanne Kost and Matt Kloskowski video
tutorials before, so take a look at those before making statements
regarding LR adjustment & editing capabilities.
http://www.jkost.com/lightroom.html
http://lightroomkillertips.com


It takes some care, but not effort. "It's possible" suggests that
it's very difficult, and it's not at all very difficult.

photoshop elements is a terrific way to get started and it's about
$50-60. it's more than enough to keep you busy learning for a while. in
the event you outgrow it, then you can get photoshop cs/cc.

I haven't seen Elements 12 that low, but it is available for less than
Adobe's price. I just purchased Elements Premier 12 (video only) for
$68.50 from B&H. Adobe lists it at $99.99. B&H was not the lowest
price, but they were only about $5.00 higher than most. B&H supplies
it on a disk, and I like having the disk.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

The learning curve for Gimp is no different than the learning curve
for CS, Elements, or Lightroom for basic editing. It is a bit more
difficult to learn only because there are fewer tutorials, and some of
the tutorials are not as well done as the ones for the Adobe products.

it's more difficult because it was designed by geeks who don't know
much about ui/ux design. photoshop was desgined by photographers and
graphic artists *for* photographers and graphic artists, and it's been
refined over the years.

The "learning curve" is about how long it takes a person to become
proficient, and "proficient" is based on the person's needs. The
people who use Gimp don't - as a rule - have high-end needs.

that's a flawed comparison, as usual.

for a valid comparison, you need to use the same tasks for both apps.

someone with lesser needs won't need to learn as much, so obviously it
will take less time for those with lesser needs, unless the app is
totally braindead (which does happen).

Starting
at Day One, two people of equal ability to work with a new program
will be proficient enough in the same number of days in either
program.

wrong.

Adobe's programs are fantastic; I'm now at CC CS6, have and use LR,
own (but don't use very much) Elements 9, and will have Premiere as
soon as it arrives. But, there's no need to badmouth Gimp when it
does the job for those who use it.

i'm not badmouthing anything. i'm stating the facts.

adobe put an enormous amount of engineering resources in designing and
refining the interface of photoshop and other adobe products, with much
of that based on input from actual photographers and designers. the
code is *extremely* optimized, with tweaks for specific processor
revisions in some cases (not the entire family, such as core 2 duo).

the gimp does not do that, and it shows. it was designed by geeks for
other geeks, with very little optimizations and nowhere close to what
adobe does.

ui/ux design is *not* simple, nor are code optimizations.

the gimp might 'do the job', but it does so in a less than ideal way,
requiring more steps and processing it slower on the same hardware
which makes the user less productive.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

depending on what you want to do, that
might matter or it might not. also, a non-destructive workflow is quite
a bit harder with photoshop because it's not designed for it. it's
possible but it takes a lot of effort.

It takes some care, but not effort. "It's possible" suggests that
it's very difficult, and it's not at all very difficult.

it's effort.

You like to say that, but it really doesn't. It just requires some
care and thought. While thinking may be an effort for you, most of us
consider effort to be required for physical activity.

in other words, effort. it doesn't have to be physical effort to be
effort. more of your usual twisting.

I can't remember ever losing an original or the ability to go back to
do it differently working in Photoshop in any of the versions I've
owned.

again, non-destructive is not being able to go back to the original.

it's being able to go back and adjust just about anything along the
way, such as uncrop what you cropped out or change the colour balance
or some other parameter of the raw processing or changing the amount of
blur or sharpening or masking or many other things, without affecting
anything else.

if all you did was saved the original, then you would have to start
over from the original. that's not a non-destructive workflow.

I know you don't think I'm particularly brilliant, so it must
be effortless.

you make dumb people look brilliant.

On 3/13/2014 1:47 PM, David Taylor wrote:
I use mostly Paint Shop Pro, which is a low-cost program, not requiring
a recurring subscription payment, and the excellent Kolor Autopano Pro
for combining multiple images. Image management is with PIE (Picture
Information Extractor). Free software I use includes JPEGcrop (lossless
cropping) and GeoSetter for geo-tagging.

I very rarely take RAW, preferring to get the exposure right in the
camera. I run on Windows, so some of these packages may not be available
for your OS.


I almost shoot RAW, for those times when I can't get it right in the camera.

--
PeterN

On 3/13/2014 5:14 PM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-03-13 18:45:22 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/13/2014 11:04 AM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 13/03/14 14:50, Sandman a écrit :

I wouldn't recomment the Gimp even to Tony
I dont recomment the Gimp either, merely signaling that for
post-processing photos, it can do as much as PS CS, a lot cheaper but
not simpler !

(And there is no such thing as free software : ridden with
evangelists,
or full of holes, or digging into your information...See below) You
can
do some ajustements with Picasa (no local ajustements) that is free,
newbie oriented and belongs to Google and scan your HD when
installing. I
just hate that so I never went past this step of installation...

There really is no standard RAW format, at least not used by the major
manufacturers. They all have proprietary formats that has to be
reverse-engineered by people that want to read them. That's why NX2 is
the only application that can *write* to the RAW format.

It is the only one that give access (including reverse) to some niceties
you set on camera, like the level of d-lighning or preset style of
photos...

Adobe really wants people to use the open DNG format, but few
manufacturers
do, and Nikon and Canon probably never will.
And Fuji use some crazy proprietary format that is not easy to use from
an non-proprietary raw software. Something to consider when buying a
camera.

I do 90% of my postprocessing in CaptureNX, the rest is between
AdobeCS3 (I dont want to buy or rent a new version for the little
use I have) and I use Aperture -that has also postprocessing
capabilities- just as host to the Nik collection plug-ins.

Aperture has great post processing tools. I use it a lot.

Yes, but for me it is a bit redondant with what I have in NX2.
I dont do that much post-processing on CS, but when I do it is for
specific things that I find only there : and with scripts. I use it
also for graphics and preparing files with text or graphics bits.

Yet I dont know about free plug-ins that could be useful for me :
I tried some plug-ins but they where not free or not useful. Some both.
I had the Genuine Fractals plug-in (not free) but after I tried and
uninstalled the whole suite i was never able to get it back working .
What do you use as PS plug-ins ?

I use Aperture as host for Nik.
Dfine noise filter is incredibly good, and selective sharpening is easy,
and Color Efex pro allow for very fast corrections.
And I use also Aperture a little bit for sony files. But the
multiplication of files bothers me.

Noëlle Adam

If you want cheap, you can get Photoshop CS2 from Adobe, for free.
https://www.adobe.com/cfusion/entitlement/index.cfm?e=cs2_downloads

CS2 will not run on an Intel Mac, PPC only. He is running OSX 10.7 so
free CS2 will do the OP no good at all.


Being a Windows user, I was not aware of that.

--
PeterN

On 3/13/2014 5:15 PM, nospam wrote:

snip


most people aren't going to composite multiple images, but those that
do can get photoshop elements or cs/cc and use it with lightroom.


Most people shoot in JPEG, and do their post at the kiosk in the drug
store. We were not discussion "most people."

--
PeterN